Elements the Game Forum - Free Online Fantasy Card Game
Other Topics => Off-Topic Discussions => Religion => Topic started by: Kuu on January 11, 2011, 06:56:58 am
-
I've been reading the religion section of the forum and I see allot of atheist sharing their experiences of how they came to not believe in God because they see no evidence for him and such. Howerver, just because you don't see God, it does not mean he's there. It is a logical fallacy (faulty appeal to ignorance) to say that just because we don't know that something exists, it means that it does not. So, I would be interested to hear a clear and concise (summarize it in a syllogism if you can) argument why God does not exist. Also, as you've probably guessed, I am a theist and I've included a poll just to get a feel for whether the majority of the active community is atheist or theist.
-
Not I.
But some will.
On the note of having a good feeling of whose who, I've been on a lot of forums, and I'd say the dial definitely leans towards more atheists. Don't really know why, but it seems common on forums.
-
Quantum theory: Nothing is real until observed. I have not observed God.
Don't ask me what "observe" means. I don't know the exact requirements for something to be a "conscious observer". I've only read a little bit into quantum theory, but nothing I've read told me the exact qualifications for observant consciousness. And when you think about it, consciousness doesn't really exist, since the brain is just an arrangement of subatomic particles. There might be some kind of "soul particle" that allows consciousness, but it's up to the physicists to find it.
How about this. God is a probability wave function. He is nether existent nor nonexistent. You Christians believe in (observed) God, so you collapsed the quantum waveform of God and made Him exist. We atheists don't believe in God and cannot observe Him, so for us God is not real. We can't prove God doesn't exist, but we can't prove He exists either.
-
please, we need to settle something else first:
does anyone have strong argouments against the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
or else i'll assume that it exists...
(http://knowyourmeme.com/system/icons/206/original/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster.jpg?1241373617)
-
Us atheists have nothing to prove. If you want to tell us there is a god, it's up to YOU to prove it. As our pastafari pointed out, it is rediculous to assume things true unless they are proven wrong.
Richard Dawkins refered to this idea called "Teapot Theism" in one of his lectures. He claimed there is a teapot in orbit around mars. Prove him wrong. You can't! Still we assume this is false, because it's Dawkins making a ridiculous claim, so it's up to him to prove it true, not up to us to prove it false.
Also I would like to add that all of you religious folks are also atheists. You don't believe in Thor and Odin do you? Or Zeus and Athene? You also don't believe in the tooth fairy and santaclause.. The only difference here is that we just go one further.
-
*snip*
Don't forget the Invisible Pink Unicorn! He gets very angry when you do that... >:D
Also I would like to add that all of you religious folks are also atheists. You don't believe in Thor and Odin do you? Or Zeus and Athene? You also don't believe in the tooth fairy and santaclause.. The only difference here is that we just go one further.
I've liked this quote ever since I hear it.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
-Stephen Roberts
-
Here we go AGAIN :D
Having read through some of the threads in this section, i thought this had been discussed to full extend?
Concerning your question:
Though I dont see myself as atheist ,i dont believe in god. (rather agnostic)
I dont have solid arguments or proof that god doesnt exist.
But I also dont feel there is any need at all to prove this. I cant prove, he doesnt exist. You cant deliver solid proof that he does.
Somebody believes in God. Fine with me. Somebody doesnt. Fine with me. Let anybody belive in what they want to and let them live their lives.
Concerning your poll: I dont really get the reason for this. Why is it important? It shouldnt matter...
Last, let me ask you a question: Why do you want atheists to even try? To add to Tarias statement:
I see this from a scientific point of view:
Thesis: God exists
Method: Need a reproduceable testing method.
- Agree to thesis, if results of methods always and repeatedly fit thesis.
- Drop thesis or modify thesis, if results of methods contradict thesis on a significant amount.
And of course, it also works the other way round:
Antithesis: God doesnt exist.
Method: Need a reproduceable testing method.
- Agree to thesis, if results of methods always and repeatedly fit thesis.
- Drop thesis or modify thesis, if results of methods contradict thesis on a significant amount.
Due to complete lack of reproduceable testing methods for both thesis and antithesis, afaik, your question is futile.
-
Antithesis: God doesnt exist.
Method: Need a reproduceable testing method.
- Agree to thesis, if results of methods always and repeatedly fit thesis.
- Drop thesis or modify thesis, if results of methods contradict thesis on a significant amount.
Due to complete lack of reproduceable testing methods for both thesis and antithesis, afaik, your question is futile.
The atheist position on god is the default position, and requires no proof. Just like how you have nothing to disprove fairies, leprechauns and unicorns, but you don't believe in them.
-
It has been said already, but indeed you do not need a strong argument against God. If no compelling evidence was brought forth, you can simply not believe it, regardless of the existence. That is not an absolute claim, it is simply a sceptical position.
Disproving a God that has been defined in such a way that it cannot be disproven is very hard. Bloodshadow claims he did it, but frankly I don't understand what he said. We can however, easily disprove Gods with specific abilities.
For example, it is often claimed God is the creator, transcendent and omnipresent. God is transcendent, because otherwise God is a part of reality which He created. That does not work, because theists argue God is the eternal uncaused cause, existing outside of space and time. If that was not the case God is subject to the same first cause argument. In other words, then God needed a cause to exist. So God is placed outside of reality so that he could create reality. Then, if God is outside of creation, how does He interact with creation? He can't. God cannot be transcendent and omnipresent at the same time. But if God is not omnipresent, there is no way to intefere in human life and the universe, which is exactly what people claim. That makes someting like that:
1) Everything beginning to exist needs a cause. (Which is probably false.)
2) Something eternal did not begin to exist.
3) Therefore only God the creator could be the beginning of the universe.
4) This creator is transcendent or He would be subject to space and time and He'd be a part of reality.
5) Therefore this God cannot be omnipresent.
6) God can't interact with his creation.
So the classic God image is very problematic.
-
I think the standpoint of George Carlin is very solid and somewhat resembles my own thinking, even though he sais it in a funny way since he's a commedian :P
The christian religion just fails at logic in too many ways for me to believe in it.
But I don't mind folks believing in whatever they want to, as long as they don't feel the need to convert anyone they see/like/talk to. Religion is in my opinion a personal thing and shouldn't be bound to a believe others have.
The reson for religion to exist in the first place is that some folks just can't live with the idea that after we die there is nothing. When we are dead it's game over, simple as that. No respawn, no continue no nothing.
So if you have trouble with that, bo pray to god and believe in reincarnation or whatever, feeling comforted so you can manage your life.
Or if you don't like the theory of evolution: we are the product of purely random chance, maybe a failure that goes extinct and there is no "reason" to life (except maybe reproduction), go praying for the same reason as above.
So in my opinion it doesn't matter wheater a god exists or not, but wheater you believe in it or not. If you do, you can take comfort from that believe, if you don't... well then you don't.
-
I love these topics. the original question is avoided, and the only argument made is the burden of proof.
Burden of proof arguments
I've seen both theists and atheists use variations on this, and *gasp* I even used it myself before I knew better.
Essentially the person making the argument makes the claim that the other side must prove their case, and that their own side should be considered true by default unless it is conclusively proven otherwise.
In most cases this argument comes down to pure semantics, and there's nothing solid behind it. Usually it takes the form of something kludged together from "innocent until proven guilty" and academic debates over historical events. Occasionally people mix in elements of scientific proof into this.
Scientific proof in this case is unreasonable-unless someone designs an experiment that can conclusively prove things one way or the other all science can give us is that there are conflicting theories and no way to test between them.
Innocent until proven guilty is a convention used by many court systems, and it's used for a reason: namely, that it's generally better to let a few people get away with breaking the law then it is to allow the government to simply arrest anyone they like on whatever charges they like.
Historical proof is the closest to what we're trying to establish in a religious debate, and generally precedence is given to the older theory since it was closer to the events. But the problem here is that both theism and atheism are ancient. In fact, I'm fairly confident that they both predate recorded history.
Basically, to my knowledge "burden of proof" with regards to the existence of God has never been established, and there is no logical reason for it to go one way or another. There are many who would have you think otherwise though.
This argument does apply in the following cases:
a. If you are debating how/if a relevant historical event took place, the older record generally takes precedence.
b. If someone is accusing a person or group of a wrong doing burden of proof is generally placed on the accuser
Be careful of "gray areas" between these two: If you're arguing the crusades never happened the burden is on you for historical reasons, but if you're arguing the crusades were the fault of the church in Europe then you must also face the burden of proof, since you're making an accusation.
@OP, when it comes down to it, no, not a single person here has solid (even liquid or gas) evidence against it, and through discussions, you will see that many of them just dont want to due to misconceptions, and false anger. I have stopped being very active in this part of the forum for Christians are warned about casting pearls to swine. Until God prepares people, it is pointless for religious people to do much other than pray.
-
Let me put it this way:
Religion = There is a God.
Default = we can't know if there is a god or not, because the nature of god makes is so that we can't know.
Lots of Atheists = There can be no god.
If you want to prove that instead of default, either Religion or Atheism is true, the burden is on you. If you are smart you accept the fact that you cannot, and will never be able to prove OR disprove god. If you are ignorant enough to think you can prove it anyways, the burden is on you.
The reason I don't believe in a god, is not because i believe there CAN BE no god. It's because I don't think it's relevant. Also I'm in no way angry about anything related to god existing or not. The only thing that pisses me off is religious people trying to get me to believe their crap, even though I don't give a shit. This is however no different then my stephmom pissing me off by talking bullshit to me when I'm trying to study for example.
Also praying seems pretty pointless. If the god in your imaginations is as omnipotent as you believe, he probably knows what is good for people and what not. Don't you think it's rude to ask this figure to change his masterplan for the world just because you want it? When Christians in my family pray, they thank god for everything around us. I've never been able to understand this American trend of asking all kinds of shit from god when you pray..
edit: @ Blue Priest: So you believe in The Flying Spaghetti monster too? You can't prove he isn't real!!!
-
@Flying Speghetti monster
Im stealing from ratcharmer again.
The Invisible Pink Unicorn
I borrowed the title for this one from Scaredgirl, and I hope that's okay.
The basic argument goes something like this: I can't see/hear/feel God, and God can't be verified independently . . . so I can make up any wacky thing I like, call it God, and there's nothing anyone can say do against that.
This is most often used when pointing out that a lot of religious beliefs are structured such that they can't be easily disproven, and that similar arguments could support some very strange things. It's also used to try to make theological discussions seem silly by arguing that people are spending time debating characteristics of an entity they cannot perceive, and haven't even established if it exists.
My initial response goes something like this: I'm sorry you can't see the unicorn, but the rest of us can.
That's sort of a silly way to phrase it, but in all seriousness a great many believers from a great many different faiths will tell you stories of the multitude of ways they have directly experienced God or gods. It's always sort of hard to talk about this with someone who hasn't experienced it. Almost like trying to describe your favorite painting to a bind person, it's difficult to find a basis to start from. If anyone really wants to hear my own accounts let me know and I'll PM you some of the stories.
As to the unicorn analogy, it's somewhat misleading. If someone approached me on the street and told me an invisible pink unicorn was following me, my reaction would probably be to step back out of their reach, in case they decided I was made of delicious candy and tried to eat me.
But one person approaching you on the street is not accurate to the situation. Consider this:
You take a random sample of 100 people from around the globe. They aren't given a chance to speak to each other before speaking to you, and each of them is given a lie detector test, so your 90% certain that they, at least, believe what they're telling you.
Out of that 100 people:
60 tell you there's an invisible pink unicorn following you
10 say it's an invisible purple unicorn
10 say it's an invisible pink pegasus
1 says it's an invisible blue rhinocerous
10 say they aren't sure if there's an invisible quadruped following you or not
9 say there is no invisible quadruped
Maybe this wouldn't convince me to go buy the unicorn a saddle, but it certainly isn't a strong argument against invisible unicorns.
Those figures roughly follow statistics taken from the pew test and a few other sources about worldwide belief in God. It's admittedly very difficult to find trustworthy data on this subject, and most sources disagree at least a little.
And as Artois points out here http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,6523.0.html there are some rather remarkable similarities between many religions (hence unicorn vs. pegasus and not unicorn vs. salamander or goldfish). The resurrection motif is just one of many examples.
Prayer is a test of faith. God will do something because you pray, not because he doesn't know whats best, but because he is answering your faith. He knows what is best, but will intervene at times he wouldnt normally because of your prayer/faith. Btw,
"Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done."
, There is nothing unbiblical about praying for something, as long as you remember that God has the master plan.
Saying that the existence of God isnt relevant, is not true either. If it wasnt relevant, there would be no such thing as evangelistic Christians.
-
Quantum theory: Nothing is real until observed. I have not observed God.
Quantum theory: Observing something changes the result.
I'm atheist, but I thought I'd point that out =P
-
I am seeing this is pretty pointless, but indeed it won't do to turn the argumentation around. If you want to go with ''You cannot disprove God, therefore God could very well be there and you are at best agnostic,'' I can likewise say: ''You cannot prove God and therefore you must at most be agnostic.''
A claim simply asks for backup. Without that anything goes. The other replies make that clear. If God is not the same as the FSM because many people apparently see/hear God, that is a form of backup. It isn't very good backup. Many people have also seen UFO's. The shape of the UFO's even changes with the advancement in technology. Reported interactions with the Christian God or Christ are time dependent also. There are no historical accounts of it that are several thousands of years old. Real evidence is independent. You may not like it but personal revelations are only good enough for the people involved. That and I don't know a single Christian that can talk to God myself. These sightings may be strange, but religious experiences can arguably all be attained by stimulating certain parts of the brain, such as with drugs or electrical charges.
Every study that says prayer works is statistically not significant. An exception would be the prayers that were done in hindsight or ''to the past,'' that is for people who had already been cured. That is not a very fair way of research.
The only statistically significant study performed by believers who were scientists, showed no difference after praying. An exception would be the people that knew people were praying for them. They were doing worse, possibly because of anxiety associated with the severity of their situation.
If you want to prove your claim, you must do your best to support it and to falsify it. That means you must foresee possible objections and explain why your hypothesis is the only possible one, or the best at least. Researchers are ruthless in this regard. If an idea can't hold under scrutiny, it is not a serious theory. I want to add to that that many hypothetical Gods have been logically disproven. As such, the OP is lacking. This is like saying '''there cannot be any BLEEP.'' You can't disprove something undefined! You should present your case, then people can check it. There is no way you can simply not present your case and then ask others to disprove it. That is exactly what some Christians ask atheists to do. ''Disprove God to me.'' Do you have anything else to explain your case? ''Well no, this time simply disprove it or there is a quite possibly if not certainly a God.''
-
I just think things like this are funny. "Many Studies on prayer have been performed" Where are these studies? Were these people Christian? Were the prayers done as a direct test of Gods power? What were these prayers about?
One time in this forum I asked where the evidence of these studies were, and just got the remark "Well, there arent really any... But if there were then the result would be that they dont work." and that whether or not the studies were performed, doesnt matter.
-
I'm agnostic amd looking for the, "Don't care, doesn't matter" option in your poll.
-
I ought not speak to people who address me in this manner, but oh well. I believe this is the article that reports on the proper study I spoke of. I would simply have to check the actual book to be sure. I predict I am not inclined to do that. :)) I have magic powers. :P
Also 10 studies in 6 years it says at the writing of that article, but controversial research in most cases. If prayer worked I think you can offer something better than controversial results! But objectively, we should say there was no solid evidence found in favour of prayer working.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html
-
Quantum theory: Nothing is real until observed. I have not observed God.
Don't ask me what "observe" means. I don't know the exact requirements for something to be a "conscious observer". I've only read a little bit into quantum theory, but nothing I've read told me the exact qualifications for observant consciousness. And when you think about it, consciousness doesn't really exist, since the brain is just an arrangement of subatomic particles. There might be some kind of "soul particle" that allows consciousness, but it's up to the physicists to find it.
How about this. God is a probability wave function. He is nether existent nor nonexistent. You Christians believe in (observed) God, so you collapsed the quantum waveform of God and made Him exist. We atheists don't believe in God and cannot observe Him, so for us God is not real. We can't prove God doesn't exist, but we can't prove He exists either.
this is not entirely accurate. if God were real he would surely have observed himself and therefore inevitably would be classed as real. additionally the double slit theory added with the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment merely states that you cant know what is happening to something without it being observed. this argument is complex and can never truly be solved to one person or another unless God himself comes down and says something about ti.
-
I just think things like this are funny. "Many Studies on prayer have been performed" Where are these studies? Were these people Christian? Were the prayers done as a direct test of Gods power? What were these prayers about?
One time in this forum I asked where the evidence of these studies were, and just got the remark "Well, there arent really any... But if there were then the result would be that they dont work." and that whether or not the studies were performed, doesnt matter.
some people did get together actually. it was on the news about 5 or 6 years back. they got a group (large) of people suffering from the same heart disease. they split them into two groups at random and half of them were prayed for by a local church. the results showed that the group that had prayer had a much higher recovery rate. whether or not this is true i don't know but it is interesting.
-
You are referring to this study I think.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070314195638.htm
Conducting a meta-analysis takes into account the entire body of empirical research on intercessory prayer. Using this procedure, we find that prayer offered on behalf of another yields positive results."
In other words, the researcher compiled several non significant studies and extra polated a significant result from the total.
In other words, it is fraudulent statistics, because such a method does not exist.
On second thought, I don't think this was the one you meant. Can't know which one you mean without details. But these are some of the more recent articles no doubt.
-
I believe that the power of prayer (or lack of such) doesn't really answer the OP's question regarding strong evidence against God, one way or another. Plus any study on subject will probably not change any opinions anyway. Theists will state that (regardless of the outcome) God exists. If the praying group got better results, they'd say "Ha, told you!" and if they got worse/same results "God works in mysterious ways/Doesn't use his powers on command/etc". And at the same time, atheists will say (if prayer group got better results) "That's because of factor A (for example, people actively striving for something have shown to recover better than those who passively wait for recovery), not because of religion." or if the results are same/worse: "See, nothing happened!". Confirmation bias rules strongly in this case. The clearest answer to the OP in this topic would be (in my hastily put together opinion) the quote that QuantumT showed:
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
-Stephen Roberts
-
You are completely right. We don't even have to assume a God that answers prayer. Instead the OP should state what is acceptable as a falsification. If you can not offer a way to falsify your theory, it is a pretty unfair question. (Though no doubt this was not intentional.)
-
Wow, sorry you guys were under the impression that I expected you to prove God doesn’t exist when I myself didn’t have any evidence for his existence. I just expected to hear some kind of argument such as the classic “the world isn’t fair (usually stated “just” instead of “fair”) or something of the sort.
Of course unicorns existed! But they were all girls (and pink), so now they’re extinct ;)
HAHAHA! I loled at “the flying spaghetti monster”. Perhaps he does exist in some place fantasy lovers like myself call “Elfland” but I highly doubt he exists on earth, of course I doubt it, but I can’t prove that he doesn’t because I can’t be in all places at once to look for him. He is also (I think) a physical being and not a spiritual one, so that complicates things even more and takes it from a scientific observation level to a philosophical level.
So, now onto why I believe in God.
I. The Moral Law
I will now describe a phenomenon that is not a unique observation to myself, but rather one that others have observed and brought to my attention. There is a kind of unwritten code that all people have, and the disobeying of this code is the cause of quarreling. Here I will quote C.S. Lewis because he, having been an oxford professor and a studier of literature, is a much better writer and explainer than I:
“Every one has heard people quarreling. Sometimes it sounds funny and sometimes it sounds merely unpleasant; but however it sounds, I believe we can learn something very important from listening to the kinds of things they say. They say things like this: "How’d you like it if anyone did the same to you?"--‘That’s my seat, I was there first"--"Leave him alone, he isn’t doing you any harm"--"Why should you shove in first?"--"Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine"--"Come on, you promised." People say things like that every day, educated people as well as uneducated, and children as well as grown-ups.
Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man’s behavior does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behavior which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies: "To hell with your standard." Nearly always he tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if it does there is some special excuse. He pretends there is some special reason in this particular case why the person who took the seat first should not keep it, or that things were quite different when he was given the bit of orange, or that something has turned up which lets him off keeping his promise. It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play or decent behavior or morality or whatever you like to call it, about which they really agreed.” (Lewis, Mere Christianity)
There, that should describe it well enough (this is me again, not Lewis). We all have a conscience (though we sometimes ignore it) too that tells us when we are disobeying this moral law. This moral law is not an instinct; in fact, it often has to fight our instincts, especially those of self preservation and the instinct to reproduce. This moral law could not have come by evolution, and as I have said, it is not an instinct. The existence of this moral law suggests to me some sort of intelligent deity, not necessarily the Christian God, but a powerful being who cares about right conduct.
II. Intelligent design
We live in a very complex world, it is undeniable. Things that seem simple (like a table for example) are actually (apparently) filled with countless little things called atoms. Living organisms are extremely complex. I am not very good at science, but I took a Biology class in high school (last year) and the extraordinary complexity and engineering of things left me astounded.
III. Experience
I have experienced God, and you cannot deny me that. I have experienced change in myself of the kind one cannot simply will into existence, and I have experienced the blessing of God and the guidance of the Holy Ghost. I have seen miracles, the kind of things the word calls coincidence, and what extraordinary coincidences they are. I know of someone who had been unemployed for a while. One day they were sitting in church when an offering was being taken. They talked to God (prayed) and felt called to write a check for $27 dollars, which happened to be their entire bank account. Next day, they got a job. Boom. Magic. Coincidence. Anything but God you say?! I have heard of and known people who have had miraculous healings (disappearing cancers a couple times).
Now yesterday I had a conversation with my little sister. I experienced her. If you were to walk up to me and give me an argument for why my sister didn’t exist, I don’t think I’d quite trust it no matter how convincing it was or even if you said that you had not experienced her.
IV. The Bible
The Bible is a reliable source of truth. Prophecies such as the ones about Christ’s birth and the prophecies of Daniel predicting the rise and fall of civilizations (Persian empire, Rome, etc.) have all come to be historically true. I trust the Bible. The Bible is also a relevant book that continues to teach me truths and lessons today.
So, I asked for an argument against God that could (preferably) be summarized in a syllogism. I did not get that, only outraged cries of “it’s your job, you do it!”. However, I would not ask you to do something that I could not do myself, so here are my basic arguments in syllogistic form:
All things that are not natural are super natural.
The moral law is not natural.
Therefore, the moral law is supernatural.
All things that could not have come by natural means must have come by divine means.
The moral law could not have come by natural means.
Therefore, the moral law must have come by divine means.
All things of extreme complexity are things that suggest design (machines, technology, etc.)
The universe is a thing of extreme complexity.
Therefore, the universe is a thing that suggests design.
All something do not come from nothing. (do baby’s pop out of thin air?)
The universe is (obviously) a something.
Therefore, the universe did not come from nothing.
All things that are experienced are real.
God is experienced (by me and millions of others).
Therefore, God is real.
All things that are reliable can be trusted.
The Bible is reliable.
Therefore, the Bible can be trusted.
My term paper is now finished. I rest my case (for now *rubs sore wrists*)
-
tons of reasons to believe in God. no specific reason to believe in religions. somehow God always gets pulled into them...
-
Yes, I have tons of reasons to believe in God. Excuse me sir, but this is what we're talking about. I didn't ask "why are you this or that religion", I asked "why are you an atheist or theist".
I believe in Christianity because I believe it is the best explination of all that evidence I have for God.
-
HAHAHA! I loled at “the flying spaghetti monster”. Perhaps he does exist in some place fantasy lovers like myself call “Elfland” but I highly doubt he exists on earth, of course I doubt it, but I can’t prove that he doesn’t because I can’t be in all places at once to look for him. He is also (I think) a physical being and not a spiritual one, so that complicates things even more and takes it from a scientific observation level to a philosophical level.
So, now onto why I believe in God.
It seems rather condescending to dismiss someone else's beliefs just because they differ from yours.
I. The Moral Law
I will now describe a phenomenon that is not a unique observation to myself, but rather one that others have observed and brought to my attention. There is a kind of unwritten code that all people have, and the disobeying of this code is the cause of quarreling. Here I will quote C.S. Lewis because he, having been an oxford professor and a studier of literature, is a much better writer and explainer than I:
“Every one has heard people quarreling. Sometimes it sounds funny and sometimes it sounds merely unpleasant; but however it sounds, I believe we can learn something very important from listening to the kinds of things they say. They say things like this: "How’d you like it if anyone did the same to you?"--‘That’s my seat, I was there first"--"Leave him alone, he isn’t doing you any harm"--"Why should you shove in first?"--"Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine"--"Come on, you promised." People say things like that every day, educated people as well as uneducated, and children as well as grown-ups.
Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man’s behavior does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behavior which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies: "To hell with your standard." Nearly always he tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if it does there is some special excuse. He pretends there is some special reason in this particular case why the person who took the seat first should not keep it, or that things were quite different when he was given the bit of orange, or that something has turned up which lets him off keeping his promise. It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play or decent behavior or morality or whatever you like to call it, about which they really agreed.” (Lewis, Mere Christianity)
There, that should describe it well enough (this is me again, not Lewis). We all have a conscience (though we sometimes ignore it) too that tells us when we are disobeying this moral law. This moral law is not an instinct; in fact, it often has to fight our instincts, especially those of self preservation and the instinct to reproduce. This moral law could not have come by evolution, and as I have said, it is not an instinct. The existence of this moral law suggests to me some sort of intelligent deity, not necessarily the Christian God, but a powerful being who cares about right conduct.
I think that self preservation is a much more powerful force then you give it credit for. Most of the time, when people talk about self preservation, they only apply it on in individual level, i.e. if something is good for me, then I do it, regardless of how it affects others. This however is false. Preservation of the species is also important, because if the species dies out then so do I. I'll demonstrate this with an example.
Let's say that our species finds murder morally acceptable, and therefore we do it whenever it would be beneficial to us. We'd quickly kill ourselves off. Therefore we have a biological imperative for murder being unacceptable.
Let's do the same with lying. On of our species' biggest advantages over other's the complexity of communication we're capable of due to our use of spoken language. If lying were to become completely acceptable, that all goes straight out the window. Therefore we have a biological imperative for murder being unacceptable.
This kind of thing can be done to build up a large number of things in our conscience.
II. Intelligent design
We live in a very complex world, it is undeniable. Things that seem simple (like a table for example) are actually (apparently) filled with countless little things called atoms. Living organisms are extremely complex. I am not very good at science, but I took a Biology class in high school (last year) and the extraordinary complexity and engineering of things left me astounded.
Yep, the world is pretty cool. That isn't really an argument for god's existence though.
Natural selection allows for complex things to arise from simpler ones.
III. Experience
I have experienced God, and you cannot deny me that. I have experienced change in myself of the kind one cannot simply will into existence, and I have experienced the blessing of God and the guidance of the Holy Ghost. I have seen miracles, the kind of things the word calls coincidence, and what extraordinary coincidences they are. I know of someone who had been unemployed for a while. One day they were sitting in church when an offering was being taken. They talked to God (prayed) and felt called to write a check for $27 dollars, which happened to be their entire bank account. Next day, they got a job. Boom. Magic. Coincidence. Anything but God you say?! I have heard of and known people who have had miraculous healings (disappearing cancers a couple times).
Now yesterday I had a conversation with my little sister. I experienced her. If you were to walk up to me and give me an argument for why my sister didn’t exist, I don’t think I’d quite trust it no matter how convincing it was or even if you said that you had not experienced her.
One thing that's important here is that the amount of evidence required for a claim is proportional to the size of the claim.
For example, if you were to tell me that you bought a new shirt, that would probably be enough all by itself. If, however, you were to tell me that you bought a space station, then I would require more evidence.
As for faith healing, the biggest study performed on the subject (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060403133554.htm) showed no statistical benefit to prayer.
IV. The Bible
The Bible is a reliable source of truth. Prophecies such as the ones about Christ’s birth and the prophecies of Daniel predicting the rise and fall of civilizations (Persian empire, Rome, etc.) have all come to be historically true. I trust the Bible. The Bible is also a relevant book that continues to teach me truths and lessons today.
What about the fact that there was never a worldwide flood? Or the evidence that the earth is billions of years old?
Better yet, what about the parts of the bible that contradict the other parts of the bible?
Not that I think it's really something to put into a simple syllogism, but here goes anyway.
All things that are supposed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
God has been supposed without evidence.
Therefore God can be dismissed without evidence.
-
I don't get how do do quotes properly, so I'll just add quotation marks for th parts I am quoting from Quantum T.
"It seems rather condescending to dismiss someone else's beliefs just because they differ from yours."
What are you talking about?
"I think that self preservation is a much more powerful force then you give it credit for. Most of the time, when people talk about self preservation, they only apply it on in individual level, i.e. if something is good for me, then I do it, regardless of how it affects others. This however is false. Preservation of the species is also important, because if the species dies out then so do I. I'll demonstrate this with an example.
Let's say that our species finds murder morally acceptable, and therefore we do it whenever it would be beneficial to us. We'd quickly kill ourselves off. Therefore we have a biological imperative for murder being unacceptable.
Let's do the same with lying. On of our species' biggest advantages over other's the complexity of communication we're capable of due to our use of spoken language. If lying were to become completely acceptable, that all goes straight out the window. Therefore we have a biological imperative for murder being unacceptable.
This kind of thing can be done to build up a large number of things in our conscience."
I, personally, have never felt the instinct to preserve "the species", have you? That would be very strange I think. Also, what is the point of an instinct that tells us not to take someone's seat or an instinct that tells us we ought to share our toys with them?
"Yep, the world is pretty cool. That isn't really an argument for god's existence though.
Natural selection allows for complex things to arise from simpler ones."
If it's my job to explain why God exists and atheists shouldn't have to explain why he doesn't, then certainly it's your job to explain why natural selection exists and why it's not my job to explain why it doesn't (though I believe I could do it).
"One thing that's important here is that the amount of evidence required for a claim is proportional to the size of the claim.
For example, if you were to tell me that you bought a new shirt, that would probably be enough all by itself. If, however, you were to tell me that you bought a space station, then I would require more evidence.
As for faith healing, the biggest study performed on the subject showed no statistical benefit to prayer."
So in other words, you just refuse to believe me. Fine, that's your choice, there is nothing I can do about that.
About the healing, I'm not concerned with percentages and studies, I'm only saying I've witnessed amazing and impossible healings.
"What about the fact that there was never a worldwide flood? Or the evidence that the earth is billions of years old?
Better yet, what about the parts of the bible that contradict the other parts of the bible?
Not that I think it's really something to put into a simple syllogism, but here goes anyway.
All things that are supposed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
God has been supposed without evidence.
Therefore God can be dismissed without evidence."
Actually, every civilization has a flood story apart from the Bible.
What evidence that the earth is Billions of years old? I have seen none. The taske is once again upon you to prove it. Besides the earth being billions of years old does not disprove God in any way. The Bible does not say how old the earth is, it merely says that creation took six days. However, I am not even convinced these days were 24 hour periods because the Bible says "there was evening and there was morning the xth day" before God even created the sun and the moon ("the great lights"), so I think that these days are some sort of metaphorical, poetic, or some other type of day.
What parts of the Bible contradict eachother? Please give examples and explain why they contradict.
I eagerly await your reply.
-
To use quotes Click on the button that looks like this (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/Themes/default/images/bbc/quote.gif) and then put what they said inside it. So it would look like this.
[quote]Whatever you are quoting[/quote]
I almost want to join in the discussion, but I want to see what all you have to say.
-
Alright, thanks Priest. You're welcome to join in whenever you like of course.
-
I don't get how do do quotes properly, so I'll just add quotation marks for th parts I am quoting from Quantum T.
"It seems rather condescending to dismiss someone else's beliefs just because they differ from yours."
What are you talking about?
You dismiss the Invisible Pink Unicorn as a joke.
I, personally, have never felt the instinct to preserve "the species", have you? That would be very strange I think. Also, what is the point of an instinct that tells us not to take someone's seat or an instinct that tells us we ought to share our toys with them?
My point is that your conscience comes from this instinct to preserve the species. Preservation of the species ingrains these ideas into you, and we call the set of them our conscience.
Sharing can be motivated by the desire to potentially receive rewards later (self motivation) as well as the idea that it will help the species as a whole if we aren't all stingy bastards. For example, I'm starving today, so you share your food with me, and I survive. Later on, you're starving, and I share my food with you. Because we shared, we are now both alive instead of being dead.
If it's my job to explain why God exists and atheists shouldn't have to explain why he doesn't, then certainly it's your job to explain why natural selection exists and why it's not my job to explain why it doesn't (though I believe I could do it).
Here (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/02/060224090021.html) is something that talks about proof. Evolution is something that has been observed to occur.
However, the idea that bigger claims require more evidence can also be applied if you'd like something else to help you choose natural selection over intelligent design.
So in other words, you just refuse to believe me. Fine, that's your choice, there is nothing I can do about that.
Sorry, but people are unreliable.
Actually, every civilization has a flood story apart from the Bible.
I'm not sure that's true, but even if it is it doesn't constitute proof. There is no evidence that the flood ever occurred, and plenty against it. For example, where did all of the water come from and where did it all go? Why is there no evidence of the mass extinction that this flood would have caused?
What evidence that the earth is Billions of years old? I have seen none. The taske is once again upon you to prove it.
Radiometric dating can be used to determine the ages of meteorites that have struck the earth. From this, the age of the earth can be determined.
Besides the earth being billions of years old does not disprove God in any way. The Bible does not say how old the earth is, it merely says that creation took six days. However, I am not even convinced these days were 24 hour periods because the Bible says "there was evening and there was morning the xth day" before God even created the sun and the moon ("the great lights"), so I think that these days are some sort of metaphorical, poetic, or some other type of day.
Once you've decided to interpret some part of the bible as metaphor, you can no longer claim the bible to be literally true.
What parts of the Bible contradict eachother? Please give examples and explain why they contradict.
Here (http://www.islamway.com/english/images/library/contradictions.html) is a list. Some examples:
-Who is the father of Joseph?
MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.
-Jesus descended from which son of David?
Solomon (Matthew 1:6)
Nathan(Luke 3:31)
Why? What do you mean? I am not the one who decided why one God, it just is.
He's asking why you suppose that there is only one god, as opposed to many.
Do you question: "why is the grass green?" or "why the sky blue?"
Yes, and the answers are chlorophyll and refraction respectively.
I don't quite understand what you're saying... I think you're saying that we just learn the moral law by ourselves because it is demanded of us. It is more beneficial for an individual to steal and take for himself, so why would social pressure bother us?
Because I also don't want people to steal from me.
Why is it even more inconceivable that an intelligent creator made this complex world than it is that this world sprang out of nowhere and from nothing? Where did God come from? As you said, he is always there. He is beyond time because he created it. Sorry, but why in the world should we stop researching and studying God's creation (and therefore getting to know him better).
Claiming the universe requires a cause, claiming that cause is god, then saying that god doesn't require a cause is special pleading, pure and simple.
Sorry, but what is less flawed about assuming that because some animals are similar and some appear to have come from one another, that means they started as cells and turned into humans? What evidence have you of evolutions existance? Also, ID seems to use deductive reasoning while evolution seems to use inductive, and detuctive is certainly more certain.
Evolution is something that has been demonstrated to occur.
"Absolutely not. But I can't irrefutably deny this : "what if you felt something that unexplained was simply something explainable".
Coincidence does not mean God. It doesn't mean that "it wasn't a pleasurable, meaningful, or a non "provincial event" by no means. I want to point out:
You give yourself too few credit for the personal experiences you felt."
You write such extraordinary things off as coincidence, and I say it's a miracle. I don't think either one of us can prove one side or the other, but it seems more likely to me to be a miracle than something super extremely coincidential.
Most people don't really have a good understanding of statistics. The thing is, even though some things are unlikely, they are bound to occur to somebody. That one person thinks it's a miracle, and nobody else notices because nothing odd happened to them.
Let's say I give you a coin and tell you to flip 10 heads in a row. You pray to god, and you succeed. You think it's a miracle, but I asked the same question of 1023 other people who all failed and thought nothing of it.
First off, the Torah is part of the Bible. Also, the books you mention are similar, but they are not the same. Also, the Bible is not "truer", it is mearly true. Truth does not come in shades of gray. Either something is true or it is not. If the Koran says that we should be kind to other people, then that part of the Koran is true. If it says that "Allah" is God, then I believe it is not true.
If you are going to claim the bible is completely true, then that means that other holy documents are false everywhere they contradict the bible.
About updating the Bible: what do you mean "they"? The people who wrote it are dead, incase you didn't know, and God did not take out a pen and decide to write the Bible one day, it was written by his followers whom Christians believe where either told somehow what to write or were simply inspired by God to write what they did (there is devide on this in the church). The Bible is not updated because it's writers are dead and it is already published anyways.
Why can't new writers add new books to the bible?
Of course: I would love nothing better than to see all of you in paradise after death, but maybe it is not to be.
Just so you know, this is really a rather condescending remark. There's a smug sense of superiority in these words that I don't think you understand. Let me show you what I mean. Atheists' version of this statement would look something like this.
Of course: I would love nothing better than for you to be intelligent, but maybe it is not to be.
Just letting you know how that statement sounds to us.
-
If you could please clean up your post with the proper quotation code (as the quotation signs are not consistent either) I'd happily continue to discuss this. But you seem to make a lot of absolute claims, saying that "you can't deny this" or that we don't question... If you want an open dialog, I'd advice you not to try and build a wall around your arguments. If they are legit, they will stand on their own without you claiming them to be infallible.
-
Wow, quite some work to put this all down. Thanks for sharing.
Im not sure if my english is still good enough to precisely express what i want to say.
but ill try anyway
First: Its really important for me that i dont want to attack your belief. I think belief can be a very good thing for people and nobody should be told what to believe or attacked for his faith.
... So, now onto why I believe in God...
Afaik, this wasnt the original topic... :-\ But anyway:
Imo, the word "believe" already disqualifies for any kind of discussion on a scientific level about the existence of god...
1) Belief is always subjective (as BP pointed out really well in his first post here, imo). Faith does not need any proof, as you cant prove the spiritual.
2) Whereas science values objectiveness above all. Subjective perceptions are not accepted as objective enough.
II. Intelligent design
We live in a very complex world, it is undeniable. Things that seem simple (like a table for example) are actually (apparently) filled with countless little things called atoms. Living organisms are extremely complex. I am not very good at science, but I took a Biology class in high school (last year) and the extraordinary complexity and engineering of things left me astounded.
Oh, that hit a nerve. Sorry, if I might become a bit harsh, but the movement of "Intelligent design" is something i find...i cant even find words for it...:o
Yes, Life is complex...but this not mean at all, that there has been any kind of engeneering. Evolution is simply that complex, that it defies common sense sometimes and you need quite some backround to really understand the mechanisms of Evolution.
The most basic argument i encountered was sth. like "Evolution cant be proven completely. There are gaps. There is some data that doesnt fit. So Evolution is only a theory with faults. Or even: So Evolution is wrong. I must have been God."
Some of the "faults" are (at least sometimes) simply a lack of understanding.
For me, its all again about the scientific method.
It was mentioned before in this thread: a scientific theory (at thats what intelligent design claims to be) needs means to be proven wrong, there has to be the chance to falsify your theory...as God cant be proven to not exist, he cant be part of any scientific theory. Period.
To put this in a syllogism, as you requested:
A scientific theory needs methods to be proven wrong.
ID cant be proven wrong, as it is impossible to prove that God doesnt exist.
ID is not a scientific theory.
Your absolutely free to believe in Intelligent design...but thats a personal thing, a spiritual thing.
But all scientific data point towards Evolution. True,there are some quirks (i dont really happen to recall them)...but Evolution is the most well based theory about the Evolution of Life and there is no candidate to even come close to that.
Furthermore, i experienced, that some people tend to turn towards the spiritual when things are beyond their understandings...in this case:
"Life is just TOO complex. This just cant be the result of a random process."
Again, sure REALLY complex. But there was an almost unimaginable amount of time involved. Who can imagine millions of years? I cant. Beyond my imagination.
But this doesnt mean at all, that the theory is wrong, just because i cant imagine that.
Again trying to put this in a syllogism, thats wrong imo, cause statement A is wrong:
All things i cant imagine cant happen/ be true.
I cant imagine that the complexity of life was the result of a random process/Evolution.
Evolution is not true.
Concerning your syllogism, if dare to disagree to some aspects. But first: I havent studied using syllogism a lot, so this is just my common sense about them...
But imo the essential part about syllogism is, that the first two statements, A and B, must be be beyond any doubt for this method to actually create good results...
All things that are not natural are super natural.
The moral law is not natural.
Therefore, the moral law is supernatural.
I have serious doubt
A) The definition of "natural" is not clear to me. Could you please explain, what defines a "natural thing"?
B) Imo, Moral codes are created by society by common consensus and teached to their children. At least, thats where my sociology class led me to...Thats the reason, why:
a) moral codes/laws have changed in history. Take a look at the value of "freedom" or human rights...
b) moral codes are quite coherent in particular culture. So you would be right to claim, that most cultures influenced by christianity share a commom moral code
c) moral codes can be different in different cultures. It might be an example, thats not politically correct, but its the only one that comes to my mind immediately: You might know that there are regions in the world, where killing a person is not considered morally wrong by some inhabitants, as long as the killed person did sth. wrong.
Ill try again:
Moral laws are a result of society.
The results of society are natural.
Moral laws are natural.
All things that could not have come by natural means must have come by divine means.
The moral law could not have come by natural means.
Therefore, the moral law must have come by divine means.
Again:
A) Whats the meaning of "natural means"? For me not precise enough...
B) See explanation above. Imo, moral codes can develop on their own and they can be changed. If you teach your children early enough that stealing is right, they wont feel any guilt. Take a look at sociological studies...
All things of extreme complexity are things that suggest design (machines, technology, etc.)
The universe is a thing of extreme complexity.
Therefore, the universe is a thing that suggests design.
The word "suggest" disqualifies this one. A syllogism thats "suggests" sth. is completely useless to me.
Furthermore:
A) Implies that everything has to have a purpose...must be done with intention. Thats a common misunderstanding i encounter often with my students when teaching evolution. Ill try to translate the example i commonly use to clear that misunderstanding:
1) I have a car to drive to school.
2) I have a car, so i can drive to school.
3) A giraffe has a long neck to eat the upper leafs of a tree.
4) A giraffe has a long neck, so it can eat the upper leafs of a tree.
5) The giraffe adapts to fit its surroundings to survive.
6) The giraffe is adapted to fit its surroundings to survive.
I hope i did the grammar correctly, so these sentences actually have minor differences in them^^
The thing i want to point out is:
Sentence 1 implies that i actively use my car to achieve stn. (going to school) people most the time do things on purpose, actively. People tend to think in these categories, cause its just the way they are used to.
Sentence 2, on the other hand, simply describes. There is no purpose in there. I have the car. I can drive. No intention. People are not used to this careful logic. It doesnt try to put intention in the act of driving.
The common misconception is, that people often use the logic they are used to, on evolution. Therefore using sentences 3 and 5. Giraffes do something actively. They use their neck on purpose. They actively adapt. We automaticly transfer human behavior on animals.
But sentences 4 and 6 fit much better. These sentences simply describe the state they are in. They have their long necks, so they are just able to reach these upper leafs. But there is no way for them to actively do sth. about it.
These examples also fit to the examples use named: technology, machines...all man created stuff. Please keep in mind, that e.g. do not fit in this. If you want to read more about it, try searching for stuff selfassembly of proteins...cause complex things are proven to be able to selfassemble.
my syllogism again (though the word "can" also disqualifies this one too ,)):
Extreme complexity can be a result of random processes.
The universe is etremely complex.
The universe can be a result of random processes.
All things that are experienced are real.
God is experienced (by me and millions of others).
Therefore, God is real.
:o quite dangerous assumptions you make here...just to say this:
All things that are experienced are real.
Hallucinations are experienced (by quite some million people using drugs e.g.)
Hallucinations are real. :o
Its, again about, subjective and objective facts. Just because many people experience or claim or believe sth....thats doesnt prove anything...10 million can be wrong and the one can be right (happend quite some time is history, mostly when some major breakthroughs were made)...but of course, its also the other way round (even more often ;))
You might want reread the posts by BP...i think he had some really well placed arguments in there...
All things that are reliable can be trusted.
The Bible is reliable.
Therefore, the Bible can be trusted.
Im not sure, if I can agree on Statement A, but i definitely disagree on B. I am not really sure if its a good idea to discuss about the truth/the reliability of a holy book...but just to offer my last two syllogisms:
Man make mistakes.
The Bible was written by man.
The Bible contains mistakes.
Things with mistakes cant be trusted absolutely.
The Bible contains mistakes.
The Bible cant be trusted absolutely.
Once again: I didnt write this all down to turn your belief down. I really have respect for spiritual people, as they put their faith into sth., i just cant (and wont)
But I am convinced, that arguing with these syllogism doesnt prove anything at all. Its simply a statement of your beliefs. Which is fine, as long as you dont expect people to share your belief just because its yours.
Wow...this quite took some time^^ I am really curious how this will go on...though i am afraid the two of us wont come close to any kind of agreement. btw: i think BP had some REALLY well placed arguments there, which i can absolutely agree on. You might want to read his posts again, to better understand what i want to point out ;)
LOL...was just taking a look at the whole topic and the following picture came to my mind: Two swines casting sth. at each other, which both believe to be pearls for them...but being only glass beads for the other one ;D
WOW...i just wanted to post...7 new answers^^ after i have read through them i have to add some stuff^^
but that will be edited^^
-
Imo, the word "believe" already disqualifies for any kind of discussion on a scientific level about the existence of god...
1) Belief is always subjective (as BP pointed out really well in his first post here, imo). Faith does not need any proof, as you cant prove the spiritual.
2) Whereas science values objectiveness above all. Subjective perceptions are not accepted as objective enough.
Just an fyi....
Whenever I see theory from a scientific standpoint, I dont see it as any more than a belief. My beliefs are collections of things I have experienced first hand. Have also looked into, and looked at from many different angles. The Facts are one thing, but I dont buy the bullcrap of a theory being higher than a fact. It is a collection of facts, but an assumption is made from that collection. Assumptions may or may not be true. And they certainly arent higher than a fact.
If I say 1,2,3 what do you think comes next? 4 is what 99% of people will say. What if I told you 5 comes next though? You see 1,2,3 and assume I am counting based on the fact that I said 3 successive numbers, however, in reality, I am adding. 1,2,3,5,8,13 ect I know that is just using 1 fact, and not a collection of facts, but its just meant to illustrate my point.
-
Mmmm, having to respond to all these responses is starting to ger rather overwhelming, and the responses keep multiplying. I've really enjoyed discussing with you guys though and I gave a couple of you Karma for your time. At some point this is going to have to end and it is most likely that no one will have changed their minds, but for now I will continue.
Quantum T,
You dismiss the Invisible Pink Unicorn as a joke.
I'm sorry, I honestly thought it was a kind of joke.
My point is that your conscience comes from this instinct to preserve the species. Preservation of the species ingrains these ideas into you, and we call the set of them our conscience.
Sharing can be motivated by the desire to potentially receive rewards later (self motivation) as well as the idea that it will help the species as a whole if we aren't all stingy bastards. For example, I'm starving today, so you share your food with me, and I survive. Later on, you're starving, and I share my food with you. Because we shared, we are now both alive instead of being dead.
Maybe so, but this moral law instinct seems very complex and intelligent for an instinct.
Here is something that talks about proof. Evolution is something that has been observed to occur.
However, the idea that bigger claims require more evidence can also be applied if you'd like something else to help you choose natural selection over intelligent design.
Sorry, the linked page isn't avaliable.
I'm not sure that's true, but even if it is it doesn't constitute proof. There is no evidence that the flood ever occurred, and plenty against it. For example, where did all of the water come from and where did it all go? Why is there no evidence of the mass extinction that this flood would have caused?
According to the Bible, all the water came from rain and the animals survived because they were brought onto Noah's ark.
Radiometric dating can be used to determine the ages of meteorites that have struck the earth. From this, the age of the earth can be determined.
Yes, but from what I understand the process seems rather circular. How do we know this dating method is true?
Once you've decided to interpret some part of the bible as metaphor, you can no longer claim the bible to be literally true.
Sorry, I should have left out the word metaphorical. What I meant was that from the Biblical discription; the days described do not seem to be 24 hour type periods.
Here is a list. Some examples:
-Who is the father of Joseph?
MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.
-Jesus descended from which son of David?
Solomon (Matthew 1:6)
Nathan(Luke 3:31)
I don't quite see it saying that Jesus descended from Solomon in one passage and Nathan in another. They are just geneologies (excuse my spelling). Also, I don't see a contradiction in the first two verses, partly because I can't understand what they're saying. Could you find a different translation, the different ones I looked at had no contradicions. Also, the link doesn't work.
He's asking why you suppose that there is only one god, as opposed to many.
Oh. Well, as I said before, I find Christianity to have the best expalinations. About the multiple Gods, I can't think of many religions that do have multiple Gods, but my personal belief is such because just as you see no evidecne for any God, I see no evidence for many gods, while at the same time I do see evidence for one God.
Yes, and the answers are chlorophyll and refraction respectively.
I didn't ask if you wonder what made the grass green and the sky blue, I asked if you wonder why it was that way. Do you sit around and think: "why does chlorophyll make grass green instead of purple? I don't think that you do, but my point is that nothing would come of the activity.
Claiming the universe requires a cause, claiming that cause is god, then saying that god doesn't require a cause is special pleading, pure and simple.
Maybe so, but do you think it would make sense if there was just and endless chain of causes and no beginning? I believe God is the beginning.
Most people don't really have a good understanding of statistics. The thing is, even though some things are unlikely, they are bound to occur to somebody. That one person thinks it's a miracle, and nobody else notices because nothing odd happened to them.
Let's say I give you a coin and tell you to flip 10 heads in a row. You pray to god, and you succeed. You think it's a miracle, but I asked the same question of 1023 other people who all failed and thought nothing of it.
I see what you mean, but that still doesn't mean that it was indeed a coincidence and that it could not have been a miracle.
If you are going to claim the bible is completely true, then that means that other holy documents are false everywhere they contradict the bible.
Agreed.
Why can't new writers add new books to the bible?
I'm sure some have, they just haven't been addedd to the... official(?) Bible. Have you ever seen an author write a series of books, publish them, and then seen some other random guy come and write more books to the series that were accepted, published, and endorsed by fans?
Just so you know, this is really a rather condescending remark. There's a smug sense of superiority in these words that I don't think you understand. Let me show you what I mean. Atheists' version of this statement would look something like this.
Quote
Of course: I would love nothing better than for you to be intelligent, but maybe it is not to be.
Just letting you know how that statement sounds to us.
I'm really very sorry, I didn't mean to offend you. I definitely didn't mean to be smug, but I could understand how it might come out that way. But you have no idea how much it truly, deeply, honestly pains me to see people reject God. It's quite frankly depression inducing when I try and try again to reach people with God's love and they reject me. I am definitely not superior either because I did nothing to earn heaven or God's love. It is freely given. Only God is superior, and that's what Christianity is about (and probably a large part of the reason people don't like it).
I'll answer you later funplay because I'm really tired and I have a paper I need to write (probably should have done that before I got on here ;) ). I look forward to talking with you guys again!
-
Since Polka Tulk is getting fatigued, I suppose Ill jump in on the responses.
I'm not sure that's true, but even if it is it doesn't constitute proof. There is no evidence that the flood ever occurred, and plenty against it. For example, where did all of the water come from and where did it all go? Why is there no evidence of the mass extinction that this flood would have caused?
*cough* Grand Canyon (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i1/flood.asp) *Cough*
Radiometric Dating (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v5/n2/radiometric-dating)
Thats all I feel like referencing right now. Ill be keeping track though.
-
A great flood myth is not unique to Christianity, but is actually a part of many native religions (I believe Shintoism has a nice story on the subject). If you want to pull straws from the Biblical scenario, try having all the animals fitting into the ark, which has fairly specific measurements if I recall correctly. And compare to the Christian viewpoint of that God created all life (aka, no evolution so species we know exist and that exists today must have been on the Arc) the math doesn't add up. Then again, maybe God made it larger or stretched it's dimensions somehow...
But you have no idea how much it truly, deeply, honestly pains me to see people reject God. It's quite frankly depression inducing when I try and try again to reach people with God's love and they reject me. I am definitely not superior either because I did nothing to earn heaven or God's love. It is freely given. Only God is superior, and that's what Christianity is about (and probably a large part of the reason people don't like it).
I can actually kindof understand that. From your viewpoint, it is probably something of the metaphorical kind similar to seeing people intentionally hurting themselves or rejecting good things. It would be the spiritual simile to having a winning lottery ticket and tossing it into the fire. Now the fact that you'd actually care about people turning away from God, and not in a "You pray or you burn in the fiery depths of HELL!" kind of way, speaks for you embracing fairly good moral values from your standpoint.
Now from my perspective, I could see people turning away from sanity and wasting their lives trying to please a cosmic teddybear. That's not actually my view, but if you google cosmic teddybear you'll find a recognizable name. But I do see religion as something that has given many people comfort and something which I believe fills a void in many peoples lives. But I also see religion as something causing murder, child abuse (spare the cane, spoil the child anyone?), authoritarian rule (not just on a national level) and many other things this world could do well without in my opinion.
Edit: I didn't supply links related to the flood as I assumed that people knew that there are scientific claims for that there was one. Not that it happened like in the Bible though. BP also supplied backup so... Goodnight ^^
-
I decided to make a new one...the other one is already long enough^^
@Polka: And actually i have sth. to write too...quite urgently actually. :o i completely agree that i should have finished that before coming here... ;D
But i will start with BP first:
Imo, the word "believe" already disqualifies for any kind of discussion on a scientific level about the existence of god...
1) Belief is always subjective (as BP pointed out really well in his first post here, imo). Faith does not need any proof, as you cant prove the spiritual.
2) Whereas science values objectiveness above all. Subjective perceptions are not accepted as objective enough.
Just an fyi....
Whenever I see theory from a scientific standpoint, I dont see it as any more than a belief. My beliefs are collections of things I have experienced first hand. Have also looked into, and looked at from many different angles. The Facts are one thing, but I dont buy the bullcrap of a theory being higher than a fact. It is a collection of facts, but an assumption is made from that collection. Assumptions may or may not be true. And they certainly arent higher than a fact.
If I say 1,2,3 what do you think comes next? 4 is what 99% of people will say. What if I told you 5 comes next though? You see 1,2,3 and assume I am counting based on the fact that I said 3 successive numbers, however, in reality, I am adding. 1,2,3,5,8,13 ect I know that is just using 1 fact, and not a collection of facts, but its just meant to illustrate my point.
Just take a look at Poppers theories below. Though i reduced it to a very simple concept (not sure though if i translated them right^^), it might help to agree on the concept of scientific theories...i think we both agree that a theory without any kind of confirmation, can simply be dropped as useless.
The problem of personal experiences as a fact, is, that its personal...not to be validated by objective (meaning measurable) means.
In my sociology and psychology classes both put much emphasis on proving that they are actual sciences with reliable data...but they still have a much harder time proving their theories as nature science, imo.
And i might clear one possible misconception: I dont want to claim that scientific theories are superior to belief, but simply they are different!
Concerning your link to the disagreement on Radiometric dating: Its late here and i just read through the articles once...while i have absolutely no problem with admitting that suggesting a radiometric dating isnt foolproof, i do have a problem with the argumentation of that article in three ways:
1) I really wonder if this argumentation about different results of radiometric dating could be used consistently? From what i have in that article, there is the Grand Canyon where some samples cause different results with different methods...what about the other thousands of datings where the results where fitting?
2) The article attacks the assumptions of radiometric dating.
a) The concentration of potassium was different in the past, so reference charts might off. -> Sure, that could be. But as radioactive decays are exponential, even some major differences would change the results even close to the bible
b) you are aware that attacking assumption 2: the speed of radioactive decay has changed would mean that the laws of physics had changed during the last...whatsoever years? Afaik, giving the choice to to assume natures laws changed a lot and accepting the assumption that these rocks are actually that old...you know what i choose ;)
3) You might have seen this one coming: again, the article denies the scientific results and offering only one alternative: the bible. see above and below for my opnion about this method of offering evidence.
So now for Polka...take your time answering, i will off...need to hit the sack and will try to avoid looking here before i have finshed my thesis ;)
I just made a small collection:
The Bible does not say how old the earth is, it merely says that creation took six days.
Our interactions and social customs /demand/ our morality, and thus the creation of moral law.
I am not the one who decided why one God, it just is.
...when I myself didn’t have any evidence for his existence.
What evidence have you of evolutions existance?
I, personally, have never felt the instinct to preserve "the species", have you?
What evidence that the earth is Billions of years old? I have seen none.
It might be a good restart of this discussion, if we could agree on the meaning of “evidence” and “proof”. Cause right, were runinng in circles...you demand evidence by the others, they demand you giving evidence...and so on.
One of the main problems here is imho, that both parties here have apparently different conception of evidence, proof and truth...or rather the source of them.
@Polka: I just picked out some of words. Please correct me if im wrong, but i came to the conclusion that your own experiences, the logic you use and the bible are major sources of evidence?
Whereas I (and probably quite some people around here) wont accept the bible and personal experiences as reliable sources of evidence. I believe ;) in the “truth” of science. There is evidence/proof if something can be tested/evaluated on are repeatedly large scale.
But as you wont accept our “data” as you havent seen/experienced it...hard to agree on sth.??
Truth does not come in shades of gray. Either something is true or it is not.
I disagree and this conception of truth of yours might be another reason why were casting glass beads at each other (i really like that metaphor) ;D
Imho, History of science has plenty of examples, were man thought the knew the truth about something...e.g. the earth being the center of the universe with the sun circling the earth. Or early chemist being convinced that the elements contained “phlogiston” (the fire essence) leaves elements when burned...it took centuries of discussion and research, but in the end the former “truth” had been proven WRONG!
I think it was Popper at the beginning 20th century, who choose a good path for “truth” in science...he claimed that a scientific therory is true, as long not proven wrong (well, much more sophisticated...but thats the bottom line, iirc).
Furthermore, a thing could only be called a “theory” if:
a) there was some reference point to it
b) there was a reproducable method to explore and support the theory by experiments
c) if there was a way to disprove the theory
Unfortunately, most of your arguments dont follow these set of rules. Theres nothing wrong with that...but we simply argue on based on different...hmmm...late, cant find the word for it^^
E.g. you claim that sth. simply is like you said (like “God just is”) -> fails rule C...as belief will alway do...
If it's my job to explain why God exists and atheists shouldn't have to explain why he doesn't, then certainly it's your job to explain why natural selection exists and why it's not my job to explain why it doesn't (though I believe I could do it).
Or ask people stuff like: prove WHY there is evolution -> why doesnt matter, Evolution fits all three rules
Concerning ID vs. Evolution: I will happily read all your “evidence” concerning ID. Ill enjoy that, honestly.
Please keep in mind: Your evidence should
a) have a method to explore the validity of ID: so how do you actually prove that its right?
b) Have a way that it can be proven wrong.
I am really curious about b) though, as I am strongly convinced that ID is NOT a scientific theory, as it just cant be disaproved, which puts it into the realm of belief.
Again, some clarification: I dont have a problem with ID itself...as I mentioned at the beginning, i cant prove the there is no god. It just have MAJOR problems with ID claiming to be scientific. Cause it isnt.
I just searched my PC for a nice conciliative position of an preacher, i wanted to discuss in one of my classes...but i cant find it anymore :( I think he suggested that there is no problem with god vs. evolution, if one accepted the idea that god created evolution... maybe even without influencing it ;)
I didn't ask if you wonder what made the grass green and the sky blue, I asked if you wonder why it was that way. Do you sit around and think: "why does chlorophyll make grass green instead of purple? I don't think that you do, but my point is that nothing would come of the activity.
Sure, I do! And of course some knowledge comes from it. Sry, cant resist:
Fyi: As green is the color cause the ability of chlorophyll to absorb light on the edges of the visible spectrum (absorbtion peaks at about 400 and 650 nm). The absorb energy is used to to power the fotosynthesis...as light at the lower area of wavelengths (ultraviolett, 400nm and lower) contains more energy then higher wavelengths, absorbing low wavelengths results i quite a high energy gain for the plant.
If the grass was purple that would mean it could absorb light from the green and red area (around 500 nm and above)...but these wavelength contain fewer energy, so the plant would not be able to produce that much glucose as if it was green...to go one step further: there probably were some purple mutations during that millions of evolution. But as they were less well adapted as their green “cousins” they have been ousted...actually there are some strains of cyanobacteria that come close to your random choice of “purple”...but they fill different ecological niches, so then they are the “winners” as they are better adapted to the environment ;)
-
You pointed out the whole reason I dont count in your own post. Even though they are a collection of facts, they can be proven wrong. Especially if its something we want to be true. Earth being the center of the world is something that sounded good, so people took it. I relate this to evolution. It sounds good,
Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.
I believe this is the REAL driving force behind evolution, and is one of the reasons I take it with a grain of salt. Why do I believe this? Because every time I say that I dont believe in evolution, no matter the forum, I am told that I must be a creationist, or at the very least, religious. Perhaps, if when I point out things with evolution, this wasnt how I was responded to, then I would have less of a problem accepting it as a good theory. Right now, seems more like a joke though.
-
Since Polka Tulk is getting fatigued, I suppose Ill jump in on the responses.
I'm not sure that's true, but even if it is it doesn't constitute proof. There is no evidence that the flood ever occurred, and plenty against it. For example, where did all of the water come from and where did it all go? Why is there no evidence of the mass extinction that this flood would have caused?
*cough* Grand Canyon (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i1/flood.asp) *Cough*
By far the prevailing opinion is that the Coconino sandstone was formed under desert conditions, not by some flood.
But here's the bigger question. Where did all the water come from? And where did it go?
Radiometric Dating (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v5/n2/radiometric-dating)
I recommend you read an unbiased, intelligent view of radiometric dating, instead of one that admits that it's biased. I mean it says
Since the Bible is clear about the earth’s age of thousands of years, the popular assumptions are wrong.
i.e. I don't want it to be true, therefore it's wrong!
If you really want, there are scientific reasons why it's false, but if the above is the kind of argument that you're going to use, then all the proof in the world won't change anything.
I'm sorry, I honestly thought it was a kind of joke.
So you take offense to people calling your beliefs a joke, but you have no qualms about doing it do others?
Maybe so, but this moral law instinct seems very complex and intelligent for an instinct.
I'm not sure if the core, shared values are really all that complex. I think that most of the complexity comes from what we're taught and isn't really built in. The ideas like don't murder, don't steal, and don't lie are really pretty simple.
Sorry, the linked page isn't avaliable.
Fixed evolution link (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/02/060224090021.htm)
According to the Bible, all the water came from rain and the animals survived because they were brought onto Noah's ark.
But where did enough water come from to have enough rain to flood the planet?
Have you ever studied the water cycle? The idea is that water isn't created or destroyed, just moved around.
Radiometric dating can be used to determine the ages of meteorites that have struck the earth. From this, the age of the earth can be determined.
Yes, but from what I understand the process seems rather circular. How do we know this dating method is true?
Radioactive decay can be shown to progress in a decaying exponential (quantum mechanics also separately predicts this) fashion. Minerals can also be shown to form with distinct proportions of different elements in them. From this, you get radiometric dating.
Sorry, I should have left out the word metaphorical. What I meant was that from the Biblical discription; the days described do not seem to be 24 hour type periods.
The point remains. You've decided that the bible is using a word in a way that's different than it's literal meaning (ie metaphorically).
Here is a list. Some examples:
-Who is the father of Joseph?
MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.
-Jesus descended from which son of David?
Solomon (Matthew 1:6)
Nathan(Luke 3:31)
I don't quite see it saying that Jesus descended from Solomon in one passage and Nathan in another. They are just geneologies (excuse my spelling). Also, I don't see a contradiction in the first two verses, partly because I can't understand what they're saying. Could you find a different translation, the different ones I looked at had no contradicions.
Fixed contradictions link (http://www.islamway.com/english/images/library/contradictions.htm)
Matthew 1:16 clearly states that Jacob is Joseph's father. Luke 3:23 says equally clearly that Heli is Joseph's father. They can't both be right.
Oh. Well, as I said before, I find Christianity to have the best expalinations. About the multiple Gods, I can't think of many religions that do have multiple Gods, but my personal belief is such because just as you see no evidecne for any God, I see no evidence for many gods, while at the same time I do see evidence for one God.
Hinduism is the third most popular religion in the world.
Yes, and the answers are chlorophyll and refraction respectively.
I didn't ask if you wonder what made the grass green and the sky blue, I asked if you wonder why it was that way. Do you sit around and think: "why does chlorophyll make grass green instead of purple? I don't think that you do, but my point is that nothing would come of the activity.
Maybe I'm just odd like this, but I wonder about that kind of thing. Chlorophyll is green as opposed to purple because that choice allows it to absorb energy more efficiently.
This kind of thinking is also very useful in applications like engineering. Trying to figure out exactly how and why plants work is a big area of study for people interested in solar cells.
Claiming the universe requires a cause, claiming that cause is god, then saying that god doesn't require a cause is special pleading, pure and simple.
Maybe so, but do you think it would make sense if there was just and endless chain of causes and no beginning? I believe God is the beginning.
Why not just call the universe the beginning?
Most people don't really have a good understanding of statistics. The thing is, even though some things are unlikely, they are bound to occur to somebody. That one person thinks it's a miracle, and nobody else notices because nothing odd happened to them.
Let's say I give you a coin and tell you to flip 10 heads in a row. You pray to god, and you succeed. You think it's a miracle, but I asked the same question of 1023 other people who all failed and thought nothing of it.
I see what you mean, but that still doesn't mean that it was indeed a coincidence and that it could not have been a miracle.
If it occurs at the rate that statistics says it should, it is a coincidence.
Why can't new writers add new books to the bible?
I'm sure some have, they just haven't been addedd to the... official(?) Bible. Have you ever seen an author write a series of books, publish them, and then seen some other random guy come and write more books to the series that were accepted, published, and endorsed by fans?
You mean like the bible?
I'm really very sorry, I didn't mean to offend you. I definitely didn't mean to be smug, but I could understand how it might come out that way. But you have no idea how much it truly, deeply, honestly pains me to see people reject God. It's quite frankly depression inducing when I try and try again to reach people with God's love and they reject me. I am definitely not superior either because I did nothing to earn heaven or God's love. It is freely given. Only God is superior, and that's what Christianity is about (and probably a large part of the reason people don't like it).
To be honest, that really isn't any better. I'll show you what I mean.
But you have no idea how much it truly, deeply, honestly pains me to see people reject intelligence. It's quite frankly depression inducing when I try and try again to reach people with intelligence and they reject me.
I think I'm probably done with the point-counterpoint discussion for now. I'd really prefer to just talk about the ideas one at a time, instead of in a huge mess like this.
WOOT!! 1000th post!
-
I think its funny, that you are arguing books and science and you can't actually proove that time is constant or yesterday even existed.
God or no God, you, being human are limited by perception to such an extent that you can only assume. If I strike your head and you suffer amnesia and I give you a perception of what occured, do you know that that actually occured or not?
The point is there is no need to argue against God or for God because it doesn't matter.
If all the men of the world came together and tried to build a tower to heaven and God denied them all by giving them different languages then he must have a reason or powers of notion. If it became that so many people developed so many variations during misinterpretation of communication and thats why everyone speaks different languages then that is plausible to. It might even be that God created the second event or the second event was misattributed to god. But all that matters none so ever because currently at this moment of perception humans have a range of different languages.
Until any of you become omnicient. I'll consider all you notions to be both plausible and implausible.
btw, I'm agnostic.
-
You pointed out the whole reason I dont count in your own post.
I assume you meant my post?...Im sorry, but i understand "i dont count in your own post"...could please explain that in other words?
Even though they are a collection of facts, they can be proven wrong.
For me, thats the way of life. I might be wrong, but i have the feeling that you dont agree on the idea that most knowlegde might be proven wrong or faulty at some time?
Especially if its something we want to be true. Earth being the center of the world is something that sounded good, so people took it. I relate this to evolution. It sounds good.
I assume you are aware of the initial reactions on Darwin?
When Darwin first published his theories, i shook the foundation of society. There were A LOT of people quite qutraged, how Darwin could even dare to suggest that men derived from apes. It took centuries of careful studies and some refinement of Darwins initial theories.
Lets take a look at the alternatives:
My own knowlegde of Christianity is limited to some years of religiuos classes in school, some additional classes to prepare for confirmation and having read the bible once...but this is what i took out of it, if you take christian belief and the bible quite literal...:
A) Man was created by God. Man is meant to be most important spezies on earth and i will always stay this way. Everything in life has purpose (known to god).
This set up looks quite comforting and appealing to me. Life has a purpose. The natural order was meant to be the way as it is.
B) Mankind is the result of random process (that followed certain mechanics). The existence of mankind and its conscience doesnt mean that there HAS to be God. Life has no given deeper meaning then reprocucing and surviving, as man are nothing more then highly developed animals.
This raises much more troubles with personal identity then A does. You have to find your own purpose of Life. It somehow "degrades" man on the same level of animals.
So, imo, the Theory of Evolution is really something that you believe in cause it sounds good...
Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.
I believe this is the REAL driving force behind evolution, and is one of the reasons I take it with a grain of salt.
I really have to read Dawkins sometime...For me that implies, that science in general and the theory of evolution specificly has the intention of achieving sth.. I dont percieve it in this way.
Why do I believe this? Because every time I say that I dont believe in evolution, no matter the forum, I am told that I must be a creationist, or at the very least, religious.
Some more implications i sense here. You do feel offended by somebody telling you this? I, too, had the impression that you are at least leaning towards the ideas of creationism (looking at the links you provided e.g.) and that you are religious. If im right, it looks like you belong to a minority, which is always difficult...I think, belonging to a minority is always not easy, cause you can easily get the feeling that people are almost mobbing you, because most people will argue against you just because they are the majority (like Polka mentioned that this 15 vs. one is becoming tiring).
Dont know if this helps, but im really happy that you are here and sharing your beliefs with us.
Perhaps, if when I point out things with evolution, this wasnt how I was responded to, then I would have less of a problem accepting it as a good theory. Right now, seems more like a joke though.
Your right it the aspect that telling you thing you already know (your belief) is not a valid argument.
I hopes i wasnt doing that? If so, please explain which points you disliked... I am honestly interested if we can agree on a common base of argumentation. So, I would be very happy if you take another look at my post and reply to it. :)
Edit: Never mind...i just saw that other thread on Evolution and Creationism/ID...so i will have read thorugh these pages what already has been discussed...but probably on the weekend ;)
-
I can't resist a short reply. What funplay said was really good. The difference between evolution and faith is that evolution doesn't require anyone's belief in it. Also, evolution is based on observations and countless resarch papers. Scientific theories are constantly being refined. Naturally that means not every detail is the absolute cemented truth as such. If anyone claimed that, there would no longer be science. The main idea of evolution has held since Darwin, though. What about Newtonian physics? Has not exactly been refuted. It can't tackle quantum mechanics but it can solve conventional problems, which means there ought to be something in it.
Then people come in here, say evolution has been refuted or is at least controversial. Then they post some religious links and say creation and the flood have more support. What a skewed form of reasoning! ID and the flood have maybe a handful of ''serious'' publications. If you held ID to the same standards as evolutionary theory, it would absolutely have to break down. The flood requires so many divine interventions to make any sense it is not even funny. Please understand that when you take this step: ''And then God intervened because otherwise the whole thing would have fallen apart,'' it isn't a theory anyone can work with. If you believe it, it is your faith, and that is totally fine for you. Such argumentation would never hold in the scientific community. So I don't understand how you could seriously pit ID against evolution. It is the same as putting ID before the meat grinder. If you think the flood can stand on its own without any miraculous savings, I will happily take you on. The flood story must fail under the geological/fossil record. It must fail under engineering and logistics. It must fail for physics and logic contradictions. Any of those six reasons will do really, and there is more if you think hard.
I have to go, I'll happily discuss this in detail in another thread some day.
-
I'm really very sorry, I didn't mean to offend you. I definitely didn't mean to be smug, but I could understand how it might come out that way. But you have no idea how much it truly, deeply, honestly pains me to see people reject God. It's quite frankly depression inducing when I try and try again to reach people with God's love and they reject me. I am definitely not superior either because I did nothing to earn heaven or God's love. It is freely given. Only God is superior, and that's what Christianity is about (and probably a large part of the reason people don't like it).
THAT is exactly the reason alot of Atheists and Agnosts get pissed at Christian people. You have to understand that we don't give a shit, and we don't want to hear your stupid bullshit. I'm very sorry you are depressed because we don't believe the stuff your parents brainwashed into you when you were a kid, but PLEASE, PLEEAASSEE stop trying to "reach people with god's love".
-
God, or gods or goddesses, have never revealed themselves to me. Therefore, to me they do not exist. How can I possibly believe in something that has not been revealed to me?
-
God, or gods or goddesses, have never revealed themselves to me. Therefore, to me they do not exist. How can I possibly believe in something that has not been revealed to me?
If your parents, your family, the teachers in school and the rev in church all tell you he is real often enough, while you are between 1 and 4 years old, you will most likely believe it, and never stop believing it. Exceptions are very rare.
-
God, or gods or goddesses, have never revealed themselves to me. Therefore, to me they do not exist. How can I possibly believe in something that has not been revealed to me?
If your parents, your family, the teachers in school and the rev in church all tell you he is real often enough, while you are between 1 and 4 years old, you will most likely believe it, and never stop believing it. Exceptions are very rare.
I would expect you to have some sort of proof to back up this claim? Because you just described my childhood and low and behold, I do not believe. For awhile I didn't believe because I knew of nothing else. It was a default option. But as I grew, physically and mentally, my mind opened up to other ideas, other beliefs, and did not stay confined to what I was told. If you were told by everyone that the Earth was flat, and grew up believing it, that doesn't make you right.
But everyone telling me God is real isn't God revealing himself to me. It is others telling me about him. it's like your friend telling you that his friend has a PhD and is only 15 years old. You'd be skeptical until you actually saw this friend of your friend and saw his credentials.
-
God, or gods or goddesses, have never revealed themselves to me. Therefore, to me they do not exist. How can I possibly believe in something that has not been revealed to me?
If your parents, your family, the teachers in school and the rev in church all tell you he is real often enough, while you are between 1 and 4 years old, you will most likely believe it, and never stop believing it. Exceptions are very rare.
I would expect you to have some sort of proof to back up this claim? Because you just described my childhood and low and behold, I do not believe. For awhile I didn't believe because I knew of nothing else. It was a default option. But as I grew, physically and mentally, my mind opened up to other ideas, other beliefs, and did not stay confined to what I was told. If you were told by everyone that the Earth was flat, and grew up believing it, that doesn't make you right.
But everyone telling me God is real isn't God revealing himself to me. It is others telling me about him. it's like your friend telling you that his friend has a PhD and is only 15 years old. You'd be skeptical until you actually saw this friend of your friend and saw his credentials.
I don't know of any english books/papers, but I'm quite sure there are plenty Nature/Nuture debates are very popular. But this subject has been extensively covered in my filosofy classes, and a recently published and very popular dutch book by a popular neurscientist also supports this claim. It might have been translated, if it has I'd reccomend you read the book. It's very well written and very informative. (Wij zijn ons brein, by Dick Swaab. Translation would be We are our brain.)
And like I also stated, there are exceptions. However, I don't know more then a few people who were raised as a Christian that didn't turn into Christians themselves (coincidence or not; These are all inteligent people now studying some kind of science or engineering, this is however a different discussion.) I also don't know ANY people that weren't raised as a Christian and then turned into one later. Offcourse there are also exceptions here, but those are quite rare as well.
-
Im going to try to focus in on things. So other people, Im not ignoring you. I want the discussion (as I think many others do) to get more focused. We can always go back to things if we want to.
For me, thats the way of life. I might be wrong, but i have the feeling that you dont agree on the idea that most knowlegde might be proven wrong or faulty at some time?
I do agree that most knowledge will be proven wrong or faulty. Thats why I stick to facts, not theories. Facts have a lot better chance of not being proven wrong, meanwhile, with new facts introduced, there is a better chance of theories being proven wrong. 1+1 will always be 2. No amount of evidence will prove otherwise. JFK was assassinated. That is a historical fact. Not something people will ever prove false. 9/11 had the twin towers attacked by terrorists. That is a fact. There are a whole bunch of conspiracy theories surrounding it, and honestly we cant ever know for sure if the US goverment had something to do with it or not. I Believe that it didnt, however, that could be proven wrong.
This is how I look at life.
@Tarius: Im not sure where you are getting your information... I know a lot of people that have grown up as christians, and arent anymore. The highest education any of them are persuing is a game designer. That isnt rocket science.
Meanwhile, I know quite a few people as well that grew up in homes that where devoid of God, and are now Devote Christians.
Final point for this post since Im trying to keep it to a minimum.
To be honest, that really isn't any better. I'll show you what I mean.
But you have no idea how much it truly, deeply, honestly pains me to see people reject intelligence. It's quite frankly depression inducing when I try and try again to reach people with intelligence and they reject me.
And what happens if we dont accept what you consider intelligent? All this information that we gather, what good will it bring us? Will we cure a disease? So what. We are just going to die anyways.
Meanwhile, Christians, there isnt just death. There is something very real afterwards. Theres a youtube video, Letter from Hell (http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1114150/a_letter_from_hell/), that I showed my sunday school class. Mind you it isnt to scare people into becoming Christians, it isnt for someone who doesnt believe in God. It is for people who already are Christians, to show them the importance of evangelism.
I want to comment on more thing s you said QuantumT But we can get to it eventually.
-
havent you heard, there is no such thing as proof or fact :P
(being somewhat serious)
-
Meanwhile, Christians, there isnt just death. There is something very real afterwards. Theres a youtube video, Letter from Hell (http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1114150/a_letter_from_hell/), that I showed my sunday school class. Mind you it isnt to scare people into becoming Christians, it isnt for someone who doesnt believe in God. It is for people who already are Christians, to show them the importance of evangelism.
HAHA, that video made me rofl so hard. But let me ask you, what if you die, and you find yourself in the realm of hades, without a coin to pay for your passing across the Styx? What makes your hell so much more real then the realm of Hades? Also, if that is what you actually believe, daaaaammmnnn that god is even more screwed up then I thought.. Why the fuck would you believe in something as evil as that?
To quote the great Greek filosofer Epicurus:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Also this isn't going to scare any atheist, it will make them laugh. The whole goal of this video is to make young christians try to spread christianity to their friends. And Christians trying to spread their religion so much is EXACTLY what makes them SO annoying.
I have no problem at all with people being religious. I DO have a problem with people projecting that religion onto the people around them. I understand that even if you are given solid proof that there is no god, you will still believe in god. I'm fine with that, it is probably to late to change that. But please stop trying to spread your religion..
-
havent you heard, there is no such thing as proof or fact :P
(being somewhat serious)
That is true to a certain extent lol
-
I have no problem at all with people being religious. I DO have a problem with people projecting that religion onto the people around them. I understand that even if you are given solid proof that there is no god, you will still believe in god. I'm fine with that, it is probably to late to change that. But please stop trying to spread your religion..
What do you mean by projecting? I could understand why you'd be bothered if someone was stalking your house and trying to get you to become a Christian every morning, even after you asked them to stop, but you chose to come to this thread. Also, did think Christians try and "spread their religion" because it's fun? Does it sound like something fun to do? Does it sound like something anyone with their head on straight would do if they didn't really care about you?
To quote the great Greek filosofer Epicurus:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
God is both able and willing, but people cling to evil and the destruction of evil would be the destruction of free will. Also, I think it's worth mentioning that though God created all things, the one thing he didn't create was evil. This seems impossible at first glance, but I will explain how:
As soon as you create something (let's say for example Shakespeare creates Hamlet), everything else but that thing is not it. SO, Shaksepeare creates Hamlet, everything else is then not Hamlet. Of course you could say that everything even before that was not Hamlet, and that would be true, but then Hamlet would be an abstract non-existant subject and the term not-Hamlet would be of no value. Also when Shaksepeare creates Hamlet, the possibility for anti-Hamlet comes. Anti-Hamlet is a rather silly example because there are few people who would decide to go against everything that Hamlet says, but this is like the relationship of GOd, good, and evil (God replacing Shakespeare and Good replacing Hamlet, evil is anti-good).
I think it'd be nice to take a break from science and even philosophy for a bit. Probably none of our minds will be changed, but if we can focus on something else then perhaps we may still come to better understand eachother? Besides, if the universe is here by accident (it must be if it wasn't created) then the earth is here by accident. If the earth is here by accident then people are here by accident. If people are here by accident then people's thoughts are an accident. If people's thoughts are an accident then scientist's thoughts are an accident, and I'm not particularly fond of trusting an accident.
Also, I was wondering (as part of the getting o understand eachother better): Many atheists claim they have no problem with religion, so long as religious people don't bother them. But then why do so many atheists (Richard Dawkins for an example) write books about why religions are false and have debates all the time?
-
To quote the great Greek filosofer Epicurus:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
God is both able and willing, but people cling to evil and the destruction of evil would be the destruction of free will. Also, I think it's worth mentioning that though God created all things, the one thing he didn't create was evil. This seems impossible at first glance, but I will explain how:
What you suggest is: He doesn't want to destroy evil, because it would destroy freedom. Which means he isn't willing. Therefore he is malevolent.
[qoute] Also, I was wondering (as part of the getting o understand eachother better): Many atheists claim they have no problem with religion, so long as religious people don't bother them. But then why do so many atheists (Richard Dawkins for an example) write books about why religions are false and have debates all the time?
[/quote]
This isn't that hard to understand I think. Religion has alot of power. In the Netherlands this isn't nearly as big of a deal, because the seperation between church and government is very clear. In the US however, religion has alot of power. And since alot people are religious, there are virtually no Atheists in politics. According to Dawkins (and I fully agree on this subject) this is very bad. There is a strong negative correlation between religion and intelligence. And it's the intelligent people you want running your country! What Dawkins is mainly fighting for, is for atheists to "get out of their closet" in the US. Again, I have no idea what it's like, because I don't live in the US. In my class for example, there was 1 devout christian out of 30 people. And I was on a "christian school" But from what I can tell here, Christianity in the US doesn't differ alot from the Islam in Irak/Iran etc. When your own prestident claims that atheists aren't really people, something is wrong in your country.
-
I think it'd be nice to take a break from science and even philosophy for a bit. Probably none of our minds will be changed, but if we can focus on something else then perhaps we may still come to better understand eachother?
Well, i was going in that direction...at least thats what i thought :)) But take your break, i will be waiting ;)
Also, I was wondering (as part of the getting o understand eachother better): Many atheists claim they have no problem with religion, so long as religious people don't bother them. But then why do so many atheists (Richard Dawkins for an example) write books about why religions are false and have debates all the time?
Concerning books and debates: There are always people, regardless of their belief, that love to share their opion and write them down. As i am not much into literature, but i am sure, that for every book talking about why religions are false you will find another one defending or forwarding religion...i dont think mixing private life with publicity does any good here ;)
-
And since alot people are religious, there are virtually no Atheists in politics.
Really? Do you think that everyone in politics who claims to be a Christian really is? They all do it because at the moment Christianity is the accepted religion in the US and it sounds good to most people that the president is "Christian".
There is a strong negative correlation between religion and intelligence.
Unfortunately, I must agree here. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of brilliant Christians who go to university and study science or philosophy or whatever, but the church is generally rather hostile towards the mind (probably because of all the "educated" people that are constantly bombarding and slamming the church for it's beliefs). I and a great number of Christians I know would like very much for this to change.
"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all of your mind and with all of your strength. (Mark 12:30)
When your own prestident claims that atheists aren't really people, something is wrong in your country.
When did he say that?! Please supply a video.
-
What you suggest is: He doesn't want to destroy evil, because it would destroy freedom. Which means he isn't willing. Therefore he is malevolent.
There is a difference between being willing to do something, and actually doing it. A direct example, would be this. and I have been in this situation before.
I have a friend, who has problems going on. I am willing to speak to that person. That person isnt ready for me to speak to her and hear me out though. So I dont. I have the will to, and I want to, but I am not going to force the person to listen to me. Same with God. He is not going to force us to turn away from sin, even though he is very willing to help us.
" Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. ." Rev 3:19-21.
God is able to open the door, however, he wont come unless invited.
-
What you suggest is: He doesn't want to destroy evil, because it would destroy freedom. Which means he isn't willing. Therefore he is malevolent.
There is a difference between being willing to do something, and actually doing it. A direct example, would be this. and I have been in this situation before.
I have a friend, who has problems going on. I am willing to speak to that person. That person isnt ready for me to speak to her and hear me out though. So I dont. I have the will to, and I want to, but I am not going to force the person to listen to me. Same with God. He is not going to force us to turn away from sin, even though he is very willing to help us.
" Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. ." Rev 3:19-21.
God is able to open the door, however, he wont come unless invited.
Again, he is able, but he doesn't want to. Does his reason really matter? Or are you trying to say he can't because we don't want it? in that case he isn't able. There is no midway here. Either he isn't willing, or he can't. (or he doesn't exsist, just sayin)
Also on the video; not sure if there is one, but i'm sure if you google something like "bush atheist citizen" you will find what i'm talking about.
-
Again, he is able, but he doesn't want to. Does his reason really matter? Or are you trying to say he can't because we don't want it? in that case he isn't able. There is no midway here. Either he isn't willing, or he can't. (or he doesn't exsist, just sayin)
Yes Tarias, he could storm earth and destroy all evil, and that would mean destroying the people that cling to evil to evil or at the very least turning people who cling to evil into robots without freewill. As I said before, as long as there is the possibility for good, there is also the possiblity for not good and anti-good. So for God to destroy evil I would imagine he would either have to destroy everything besides himself (because he is all that is always good) or he would have to completely destroy freewill so that we could not choose good or evil but only unconciously do things that are technically good in a robot like manner. God does not want you to destroy you or make you a robot and I would think you should be glad about that.
-
Again, he is able, but he doesn't want to. Does his reason really matter? Or are you trying to say he can't because we don't want it? in that case he isn't able. There is no midway here. Either he isn't willing, or he can't. (or he doesn't exsist, just sayin)
Also on the video; not sure if there is one, but i'm sure if you google something like "bush atheist citizen" you will find what i'm talking about.
You misquoted me. He is willing, able AND he wants to. But he chooses not to revoke free will. Polka Put it great.
-
I got to this thread late, so I'll just continue the discussion where we are rather than cover ground that's already been trodden by twenty others.
Again, he is able, but he doesn't want to. Does his reason really matter? Or are you trying to say he can't because we don't want it? in that case he isn't able. There is no midway here. Either he isn't willing, or he can't. (or he doesn't exsist, just sayin)
Yes Tarias, he could storm earth and destroy all evil, and that would mean destroying the people that cling to evil to evil or at the very least turning people who cling to evil into robots without freewill. As I said before, as long as there is the possibility for good, there is also the possiblity for not good and anti-good. So for God to destroy evil I would imagine he would either have to destroy everything besides himself (because he is all that is always good) or he would have to completely destroy freewill so that we could not choose good or evil but only unconciously do things that are technically good in a robot like manner.
Choosing not to end suffering could be considered an evil act. More importantly, the wilful creation of suffering in the first place could be considered even more evil. Hence, it is not unreasonable to consider your conception of God to be a malevolent or at least uncaring entity, and hence not the omnibenevolent creature normally assumed.
Further, in specific reference to the Christian God, there are a number of instances in the bible of God committing or ordering acts which could be considered evil. It is not much of a stretch to consider the biblical God to be a murderous, genocidal bully who appears to delight in torturing those who have wronged him (and many who have not).
God does not want you to destroy you or make you a robot and I would think you should be glad about that.
Oh hello, it's everyone's good friend Mr. Free Will.
Can you please substantiate your claim that free will exists before this discussion continues any further (I'm not even going to touch your claim about the motives of God yet, ridiculous though it is).
-
To quote the great Greek filosofer Epicurus:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
So you admit then that there is objective good and evil (or do you quote this and not even agree with it)? I said I wanted to take a break from actual arguments for/against God and ge to understand eachother better, but now I can't resist.
If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
Objective moral values and duties do exist.
Therefore, God exists.
Now to address possible objections:
Premise 1: You might object and say that even if God does not exist we still have objective moral values and duties, but then who is my duty to? Society? Why is society in charge of me and what do I owe them?
Premise 2: You already basically agreed that objective moral values and duties exist by quoting and building an argument off of a philosopher who says that objective good and evil exist. Besides, I think all of us at some time (unless you are indeed very evil) feel the duty to help a friend (or just another fellow human) in need at to fight for our countrey and our freedom. Why is this duty there? As I said before, the duty is not felt to society, and thus (to me, and I think it should to you as well) it implies an intelligent mind of some sort that expects me to do good and placed a conscience in me.
Here are some other objections one might give.
1. This felt obligation is an obligation to an abstact thing like an idea
This means that there is a law without a law giver. This also means that we are subject to an ideal, a pattern of behavior. Where does this pattern exist? If it does not exist anywhere, then why are we, real things, subject to lesser unreal things.
2. The felt obligation is an instinct
Here I will quote Dr. Peter Kreeft:
"The problem with that explanation is that it, like the first, does not account for the absoluteness of conscience's authority. We believe we ought to disobey an instinct—any instinct—on some occasions. But we do not believe we ought ever to disobey our conscience. You should usually obey instincts like mother love, but not if it means keeping your son back from risking his life to save his country in a just and necessary defensive war, or if it means injustice and lack of charity to other mothers' sons. There is no instinct that should always be obeyed. The instincts are like the keys on a piano (the illustration comes from C. S. Lewis); the moral law is like sheet music. Different notes are right at different times.
Furthermore, instinct fails to account not only for what we ought to do but also for what we do do. We don't always follow instinct. Sometimes we follow the weaker instinct, as when we go to the aid of a victim even though we fear for our own safety. The herd instinct here is weaker than the instinct for self-preservation, but our conscience, like sheet music, tells us to play the weak note here rather than the strong one.
Honest introspection will reveal to anyone that conscience is not an instinct. When the alarm wakes you up early and you realize that you promised to help your friend this morning, your instincts pull you back to bed, but something quite different from your instincts tells you you should get out. Even if you feel two instincts pulling you (e.g., you are both hungry and tired), the conflict between those two instincts is quite different, and can be felt and known to be quite different, from the conflict between conscience and either or both of the instincts. Quite simply, conscience tells you that you ought to do or not do something, while instincts simply drive you to do or not do something. Instincts make something attractive or repulsive to your appetites, but conscience makes something obligatory to your choice, no matter how your appetites feel about it. Most people will admit this piece of obvious introspective data if they are honest. If they try to wriggle out of the argument at this point, leave them alone with the question, and if they are honest, they will confront the data when they are alone." (Sorry for the long quote, but he explains it well)
3. Another objection might be that this obligation is felt on the human level, ot divine
I already explained this one a bit when talking about society, but I will do it again. This is basically the weakest objection because society is not some entitity that reigns over us, it is simply other people like you and me, and what do we owe them? Is society always right? Should you ever disobey them? Should a German have obeyd society in the Nazi era? Should we be reigned by a mere quantity of people? It is illogical to say that the more people agree with something the more correct it is (bandwagon thinking).
4. The last objection you might have is that it is something above you and me, but not God
Another rather simple one to answer. What else is there? If it is not an ideal, an instinct, or society: then what else could it possibly be?
This leaves us with God, and if you deny it without some very strong evidence against the argument then you are billigerent and I am done trying to convince you. It is not so bad being subject to a God who is intelligent and loves you very much. I will still be happy to discuss beliefs with you all even if I am done trying to convince you of God's existance, but if this doesn't convince you (or at least make it seem possible) then I believe you are still at the point where nothing will convince you (though hopefully that will someday change).
-
Objective moral values and duties do exist.
Can you substantiate this also? I'd love to see you try.
-
Can you please substantiate your claim that free will exists before this discussion continues any further (I'm not even going to touch your claim about the motives of God yet, ridiculous though it is).
Do you choose what kind of cheese you want when you make your sandwhich? Case closed.
And again, I'm done trying to convince anyone after if last argument is rejected.
Also, all the things some of you have been saying about how unintelligent I and other religious people are have been rather offensive and I think it would be clearly demonstrated by my hours spent discussing with you guys that I am at least somewhat intellegent.
-
Can you substantiate this also? I'd love to see you try.
Tarias at least already agreed. And really? Can you honestly say that it is not wrong to murder and it is not wrong to steal? Do you really have no conscience? If not then I must say I would be very afraid of you.
-
Now to address possible objections:
Premise 1: You might object and say that even if God does not exist we still have objective moral values and duties, but then who is my duty to? Society? Why is society in charge of me and what do I owe them?
This got me agitated enough to post in this topic.
1) Euthyphro Dilemma (Either god determines what is moral and thus is not objectively good or god does not determine what is moral.) The Euthyphro dilemma comes from the theist Socrates' dialogue on piety.
2) You might want to look up all the myriad valid alternative philosophy to divine command theory. Some include Kantian Ethics and Utilitarianism. However a moral philosophy course is needed to cover a sizable portion of these alternative moral theories
-
oh boy. Sadly there is no argument FOR god, therefore not needing anything against that imaginary character. It may be wrong to murder and steal, but what if you were in a position either to murder or be murdered? I'm pretty sure you would rather live, unless your life sucks and don't care, hoping to go to the magical sky high heaven. Come on now, all species in the world are wild, unless trained somehow, and over a long period of time, our species has become the most developed. Nothing to to with god. Nothing to do with magic. Everything just takes time. >.>
-
This got me agitated enough to post in this topic.
1) Euthyphro Dilemma (Either god determines what is moral and thus is not objectively good or god does not determine what is moral.) The Euthyphro dilemma comes from the theist Socrates' dialogue on piety.
2) You might want to look up all the myriad valid alternative philosophy to divine command theory. Some include Kantian Ethics and Utilitarianism. However a moral philosophy course is needed to cover a sizable portion of these alternative moral theories
I don't have time to spend hours researching moral philosophy and I'm not old enough to go to college and take a moral philosophy class either (yet).
So you object to what and why exactly?
-
oh boy. Sadly there is no argument FOR god, therefore not needing anything against that imaginary character. It may be wrong to murder and steal, but what if you were in a position either to murder or be murdered? I'm pretty sure you would rather live, unless your life sucks and don't care, hoping to go to the magical sky high heaven. Come on now, all species in the world are wild, unless trained somehow, and over a long period of time, our species has become the most developed. Nothing to to with god. Nothing to do with magic. Everything just takes time. >.>
Did you not read any of my posts? I gave plenty of arguments for God and I gave personal reasons why I believe in God.
Also, if there is no proof for God and no proof against him (as the atheists on this thread illustrated with the Flying Spaghetti Monster etc.), then why do atheists even bother writing books and arguing with theists?
-
Can you please substantiate your claim that free will exists before this discussion continues any further (I'm not even going to touch your claim about the motives of God yet, ridiculous though it is).
Do you choose what kind of cheese you want when you make your sandwhich? Case closed.
Actually, no. What happens is my brain processes large amounts of qualia in the form of stimuli presented to it as electrical signals, the processing of which takes the form of (largely) chemical reactions with a known outcome. If you had a sufficient knowledge of the initial state of the system and the processes used, you could infer the answer (or determine the probability function if quantum effects are involved).
It's complicated, yes, but that doesn't mean it is free will.
-
Can you substantiate this also? I'd love to see you try.
Tarias at least already agreed. And really? Can you honestly say that it is not wrong to murder and it is not wrong to steal? Do you really have no conscience? If not then I must say I would be very afraid of you.
Is that an admission that you can't substantiate it?
Also, if there is no proof for God and no proof against him (as the atheists on this thread illustrated with the Flying Spaghetti Monster etc.), then why do atheists even bother writing books and arguing with theists?
Imagine a society where 80% of the population genuinely believed that Santa Claus was real. And not only that, but they subjected you to social pressure, discrimination and abuse because you didn't believe in Him. Wouldn't you be reactionary to such a ridiculous claim and the attendant discrimination?
-
Actually, no. What happens is my brain processes large amounts of qualia in the form of stimuli presented to it as electrical signals, the processing of which takes the form of (largely) chemical reactions with a known outcome. If you had a sufficient knowledge of the initial state of the system and the processes used, you could infer the answer (or determine the probability function if quantum effects are involved).
It's complicated, yes, but that doesn't mean it is free will.
Whatever happens in your brain or my brain, I know that I have freewill. I make my own descisions no matter what my brain directs me towards.
Imagine a society where 80% of the population genuinely believed that Santa Claus was real. And not only that, but they subjected you to social pressure, discrimination and abuse because you didn't believe in Him. Wouldn't you be reactionary to such a ridiculous claim and the attendant discrimination?
Okay, I understand what you mean. Society is becoming more and more welcoming to atheists and probably America will move from a "Judeo-Christian" nation to an Atheist one soon.
Is that an admission that you can't substantiate it?
Nope. To put it quite bluntly, I think you are lying or not a human if you say you do not have a conscience. Sorry, I imagine you don't like being accussed of lying but I and every person I know has a conscience.
-
This got me agitated enough to post in this topic.
1) Euthyphro Dilemma (Either god determines what is moral and thus is not objectively good or god does not determine what is moral.) The Euthyphro dilemma comes from the theist Socrates' dialogue on piety.
Old Trees, I sugggest you reading this topic right here. (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,16968.msg232771#msg232771)
ya know... where you and me already covered this topic? Im sorta dissapointed that a subject that was already covered, you choose to bring up. However, if you feel unsatisfied by the responses given, then I am no longer disapointed, and we can start back at the beginning to see if we come to a different conclusion
-
Actually, no. What happens is my brain processes large amounts of qualia in the form of stimuli presented to it as electrical signals, the processing of which takes the form of (largely) chemical reactions with a known outcome. If you had a sufficient knowledge of the initial state of the system and the processes used, you could infer the answer (or determine the probability function if quantum effects are involved).
It's complicated, yes, but that doesn't mean it is free will.
Whatever happens in your brain or my brain, I know that I have freewill. I make my own descisions no matter what my brain directs me towards.
So you don't actually have any proof that free will exists other than your personal perception of your own actions? This doesn't constitute proof as it is just anecdotal evidence (and unreliable evidence at that).
After all, if you're willing to put so much stock on your own experience, how do you know that what you experience is representative of the world around you? One only needs to drink a cup of coffee, go to a dance club, or take LSD to know that your experiences and mood are heavily influenced by your environment. The brain is a fantastically buggy piece of equipment.
Imagine a society where 80% of the population genuinely believed that Santa Claus was real. And not only that, but they subjected you to social pressure, discrimination and abuse because you didn't believe in Him. Wouldn't you be reactionary to such a ridiculous claim and the attendant discrimination?
Okay, I understand what you mean. Society is becoming more and more welcoming to atheists and probably America will move from a "Judeo-Christian" nation to an Atheist one soon.
There's certainly an encouraging trend towards secularisation1, though fundamentalism is currently in a revival. If one day you guys have a candidate for public office who can openly admit that they aren't a Christian without committing political suicide I would be happier.
Is that an admission that you can't substantiate it?
Nope. To put it quite bluntly, I think you are lying or not a human if you say you do not have a conscience. Sorry, I imagine you don't like being accussed of lying but I and every person I know has a conscience.
I'm not stating that I do not have a conscience (though I suspect you and I would disagree on what exactly "conscience" is), merely that you haven't actually made any claims which would support the idea of morality being objective2. You've just claimed that it is and then thrown up your hands in horror when I rejected an unsubstantiated claim.
1. Or possibly there isn't; a substantial amount of the founding fathers were deists rather than Christians. "...the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion," - John Adams, Treaty of Tripoli. This is of course a completely seperate discussion better suited to another thread.
2. As an aside, people's consciences differ on the moral weight of different actions, so personal feelings are not actually evidence of anything, except perhaps an indication that morality is anthropogenic in nature and relative rather than absolute.
-
This got me agitated enough to post in this topic.
1) Euthyphro Dilemma (Either god determines what is moral and thus is not objectively good or god does not determine what is moral.) The Euthyphro dilemma comes from the theist Socrates' dialogue on piety.
2) You might want to look up all the myriad valid alternative philosophy to divine command theory. Some include Kantian Ethics and Utilitarianism. However a moral philosophy course is needed to cover a sizable portion of these alternative moral theories
I don't have time to spend hours researching moral philosophy and I'm not old enough to go to college and take a moral philosophy class either (yet).
So you object to what and why exactly?
Sorry, I overestimated your age.
1)
Divine Command Theory is the theory that god commands something if and only if it is moral. You should recognize this even if not by its name. In the Dialogue Euthyphro (a very good read) Socrates discusses Piety. His same argument about piety can be applied to morality.
If "god commands something if and only if it is moral", then either "something is moral because god commands it" or "god commands something because it is moral". In the first case saying "god is good" becomes meaningless (see next paragraph), in the second case Divine Command theory fails to describe what makes some acts moral and other immoral.
Under the first interpretation "something is moral because god commands it" we would describe a person as good if they only did actions that god commanded.
"Bob is good because he only did actions God commanded"
As applied to God:
"God is good because he only did actions God commanded"
Replacing the word God with Joe which maintains the logical structure but shows something interesting
"Joe is good because he only did actions Joe commanded"
It becomes obvious that Joe cannot do other then what Joe want/commands himself to do therefore this application of the word good is meaningless.
The above is a brief summary of the Euthyphro Dilemma.
2)
Philosophers have moral theories (too many even to list for you). Divine Command Theory is just one of many.
Rights based ethics is the most plausible to me.
Very brief summary is that
Humans have innate rights. (may theories about why including but not limited to sapience, sentience, or life)
Rights describe what ought not what can be done to the one with the right.
This got me agitated enough to post in this topic.
1) Euthyphro Dilemma (Either god determines what is moral and thus is not objectively good or god does not determine what is moral.) The Euthyphro dilemma comes from the theist Socrates' dialogue on piety.
Old Trees, I sugggest you reading this topic right here. (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,16968.msg232771#msg232771)
ya know... where you and me already covered this topic? Im sorta dissapointed that a subject that was already covered, you choose to bring up. However, if you feel unsatisfied by the responses given, then I am no longer disapointed, and we can start back at the beginning to see if we come to a different conclusion
You misunderstood my intentions here.
I was trying to provoke him to read relevant literature that would give him a theist that did not believe in Divine Command Theory. This would allow him to conclude that god is not the source of morality (as even you agreed) but rather may be able to change the nature of the source.
2) I kinda lost the link to the posts so I thought this would be sufficient for you to post it.
On whether it was convincing to me:
I asked my Philosophy professor about it and he could not differentiate it from the "something is moral because god commands it" which I explained the argument against a little better this time for your chance to dissect it.
-
Sorry, I overestimated your age.
That could be taken as a compliment, a criticism, or a mere fact; but I think I'll choose to take it as a compliment.
In the Dialogue Euthyphro (a very good read)
Read it.
I'll get back to you on the other philosophies but I have to go somewhere now so for now I will only say that I am not concerned with what some philosphers think, I am concerned with truth (therefore if their philosophies include truth then I am concerned with them). You may argue their points if you like.
Rights based ethics is the most plausible to me.
Very brief summary is that
Humans have innate rights. (may theories about why including but not limited to sapience, sentience, or life)
Rights describe what ought not what can be done to the one with the right.
Why do people have innate rights? What rights do I owe them?
-
Sorry, I overestimated your age.
That could be taken as a compliment, a criticism, or a mere fact; but I think I'll choose to take it as a compliment.
Rights based ethics is the most plausible to me.
Very brief summary is that
Humans have innate rights. (may theories about why including but not limited to sapience, sentience, or life)
Rights describe what ought not what can be done to the one with the right.
Why do people have innate rights? What rights do I owe them?
It was a compliment.
Possible answers given to "Why do people have innate rights?":
They are sapient
They have the capacity to feel pain
They are alive
...
Possible answers given to "What rights do you/I owe them?":
Depends on which Rights based philosophy you ask a common one is the "Right from being Murdered".
-
Okay, I'm back. But I have some work to do that I need to get done fast so if I post here in the next 2 hours feel free to tell me to get out of here.
I'm not stating that I do not have a conscience (though I suspect you and I would disagree on what exactly "conscience" is), merely that you haven't actually made any claims which would support the idea of morality being objective2. You've just claimed that it is and then thrown up your hands in horror when I rejected an unsubstantiated claim.
Sorry about that other post from me about the lying nonsense (I was just stunned for a moment and didn't know what to say). For substantiating objective morality I will give you Lewis quote (one I did before but perhaps you have not read it).
"Everyone has heard people quarrelling. Sometimes it sounds funny and sometimes it sounds merely unpleasant; but however it sounds, I believe we can learn something very important from listening to the kind of things they say. They say things like this: "How'd you like it if anyone did the same to you?"-"That's my seat, I was there first"-"Leave him alone, he isn't doing you any harm"- "Why should you shove in first?"-"Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine"-"Come on, you promised." People say things like that every day, educated people as well as uneducated, and children as well as grown-ups. Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man's behaviour does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behaviour which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies: "To hell with your standard." Nearly always he tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if it does there is some special excuse. He pretends there is some special reason in this particular case why the person who took the seat first should not keep it, or that things were quite different when he was given the bit of orange, or that something has turned up which lets him off keeping his promise. It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play or decent behaviour or morality or whatever you like to call it, about which they really agreed. And they have. If they had not, they might, of course, fight like animals, but they could not quarrel in the human sense of the word. Quarrelling means trying to show that the other man is in the wrong. And there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying that a footballer had committed a foul unless there was some agreement about the rules of football."
Sorry for another long quote, but that should explain it. If there was no agreed objective morality, no one would have anything to quarrel about.
-
Sorry for another long quote, but that should explain it. If there was no agreed objective morality, no one would have anything to quarrel about.
However, the "standard" that the quote is describing can as easily be explained by invoking memetic methods of societal cohesion. For example, this suggests that we agree to an approximate common morality for much the same reasons that we all drive on the same side of the road - the benefits of the common standard are pretty high; it therefore becomes ingrained in cultural values that are programmed into all/most members of society, because societies which do this are more likely to succeed.
An example of this is murder: societies where homicide is commonplace are less likely to succeed because widespread homicide has a large negative effect on society. It makes sense therefore that more successful societies often have a prohibition on murder.
An example of different societies having different values is easy to find: cannibalism. The common standard of morality ingrained in western culture says that cannibalism is wrong. However, in other societies cannibalism is not only acceptable but in fact laudable behaviour which is enouraged by those societies. This demonstrates that societal morality is probably not necessarily related to some consistent objective truth, because "cannibalism is bad" and "cannibalism is good" are mutually exclusive concepts.
-
Saying God created all things... what exactly did he create? I don't know about you, but biology class and chemistry is meant to teach you what makes up matter and how everything came into being, and evolution is one of those things that is totally obvious, denying it is like saying Abraham Lincoln killed himself, just like OJ Simpsons wife! (anyone get the reference?). This "God" fellow had nothing to do with anything. Did he create the constitution? No. The big bang had to be created in some way of course, and as a theory it was a huge mass of crap that was too pressurized, so it exploded into every fragment in the universe. And to explain how any organism came to live with DNA and having such different features... that happened from evolution. If i was god i wouldn't waste my time creating an infinite amount of combinations for species and DNA sequences, I'd spend the time making some godly hookers in my magical heaven. God can do whatever he wants, and he would not let evil happen no matter what, if he was real of course, and he didn't give up.
If 1/100 people die in a plane crash, that's because it's the law of averages. Christians call it a miracle, and that "god" saved them. What if that person that lived had lost all of their family members and loved ones in that crash? Miracle for sure.
You get stranded on an island with no one there. You are well learned in survival techniques and learn to live off of the land and make a shelter to survive deadly storms. Finally, you are rescued by a ship that happens to come by, a year later. "god" MUST have helped that guy survive, there's no way he could have done it himself. What if that person made a mistake and ended up slipping off of a cliff and fell to his death, later to be found. Some would say that "god" wanted him to go, so he probably sent a little tickle to make him lose his footing right?
This picture is meant to lighten up the mood, even though it may not apply to all :D
(http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/5421/dinosaursj.jpg) (http://img19.imageshack.us/i/dinosaursj.jpg/)
-
It is equally fallacized (is that a word?) to blame the whole for the part.
Look up the fallacy of composition. By the way, that fallacy is the whole reason why this topic is irrelevant.
The word you're looking for is "fallacious".
You are correct to say that it's not always appropriate to associate the actions of a member of a group with a group as a whole, which is why I was pushing for the acknowledgement that you can't appropriate good acts by a person on the behalf of religion as a whole.
The real criticism of religion's danger lies not with the crimes that have been committed in its name, but in its strength as a tool for social control. Any system which allows people to exploit others and excuse away deplorable acts is in some small measure a problem if people are allowed to abuse it unchecked (most systems of representative governance and organised religion are the two major examples, each of which has benefits to counterbalance the problems that they cause).
Actually... they DO believe in dinosaurs.
-
Actually... they DO believe in dinosaurs.
Yes, I said it doesn't apply to all christians.
-
Saying God created all things... what exactly did he create? I don't know about you, but biology class and chemistry is meant to teach you what makes up matter and how everything came into being, and evolution is one of those things that is totally obvious, denying it is like saying Abraham Lincoln killed himself, just like OJ Simpsons wife! (anyone get the reference?). This "God" fellow had nothing to do with anything. Did he create the constitution? No. The big bang had to be created in some way of course, and as a theory it was a huge mass of crap that was too pressurized, so it exploded into every fragment in the universe. And to explain how any organism came to live with DNA and having such different features... that happened from evolution. If i was god i wouldn't waste my time creating an infinite amount of combinations for species and DNA sequences, I'd spend the time making some godly hookers in my magical heaven. God can do whatever he wants, and he would not let evil happen no matter what, if he was real of course, and he didn't give up.
If 1/100 people die in a plane crash, that's because it's the law of averages. Christians call it a miracle, and that "god" saved them. What if that person that lived had lost all of their family members and loved ones in that crash? Miracle for sure.
You get stranded on an island with no one there. You are well learned in survival techniques and learn to live off of the land and make a shelter to survive deadly storms. Finally, you are rescued by a ship that happens to come by, a year later. "god" MUST have helped that guy survive, there's no way he could have done it himself. What if that person made a mistake and ended up slipping off of a cliff and fell to his death, later to be found. Some would say that "god" wanted him to go, so he probably sent a little tickle to make him lose his footing right?
I appreciate your time but if it is alright I would rather stick with the main argument for now because last time I was trying to answer ten questions every post it became rather overwhelming. And besides, as I said before: if the universe is here by accident as you say the the world is here by accident and if the world is here by accident then the people in it and their ideas are here by accident. If people's ideas are here by accident then scientist's ideas are here by accident and I'm not to fond of the idea of putting trust in an accident.
Yeah, I appreciate the "mood lightening", though I myself do believe in dinosaurs. Things like the picture you posted and the Flying Spaghetti Monster (bless his Noodly Appendage) are actually rather amusing to me (though some people take it too far, the Flying Spaghetti Monster especially)
However, the "standard" that the quote is describing can as easily be explained by invoking memetic methods of societal cohesion. For example, this suggests that we agree to an approximate common morality for much the same reasons that we all drive on the same side of the road - the benefits of the common standard are pretty high; it therefore becomes ingrained in cultural values that are programmed into all/most members of society, because societies which do this are more likely to succeed.
An example of this is murder: societies where homicide is commonplace are less likely to succeed because widespread homicide has a large negative effect on society. It makes sense therefore that more successful societies often have a prohibition on murder.
An example of different societies having different values is easy to find: cannibalism. The common standard of morality ingrained in western culture says that cannibalism is wrong. However, in other societies cannibalism is not only acceptable but in fact laudable behaviour which is enouraged by those societies. This demonstrates that societal morality is probably not necessarily related to some consistent objective truth, because "cannibalism is bad" and "cannibalism is good" are mutually exclusive concepts.
Didn't you see the part of my post talking about the objection that the felt duty is merely social obligation?
-
It was a compliment.
Thank you by the way OldTrees. Your own intellegence stands out like a beacon of light among the primitive insults thrown at the intellegence of other theists and I. It is appreciated much.
-
Another thing being tossed around in this thread that has now annoyed me a bit is the assertion that there exists a burden of proof in this philosophical discussion.
I believe that killing sapient beings is prima facie Murder. If this were a formal debate I would indeed have the burden of proof to prove that killing humans is indeed prima facie murder. However the pursuit of moral action is not a debate but rather a quest. So please stop fighting over who is winning the debate. It is easy to win all the battles and still lose the war/quest for truth.
As for a strong argument against God, I am an agnostic and a student of philosophy and have not found any strong arguments either way against the existence of such a loose term as Deity or Deities.
-
Another thing being tossed around in this thread that has now annoyed me a bit is the assertion that there exists a burden of proof in this philosophical discussion.
I believe that killing sapient beings is prima facie Murder. If this were a formal debate I would indeed have the burden of proof to prove that killing humans is indeed prima facie murder. However the pursuit of moral action is not a debate but rather a quest. So please stop fighting over who is winning the debate. It is easy to win all the battles and still lose the war/quest for truth.
Agreed. If I understand you correctly you are simply saying that no one is obligated to prove anything, correct?
As for a strong argument against God, I am an agnostic and a student of philosophy and have not found any strong arguments either way against the existence of such a loose term as Deity or Deities.
My original question (as demonstrated by the title) was asking for strong evidence against God with the intention of atheists being on the offense and me being on the defense (I felt up to a challenge). However, the discussion has turned into me being on the offense and atheists (or agnostics) taking jabs at my arguments. I did not find any strong jabs (the closest was the objection that I needed to prove that there were objective moral values) so I think I will mostly withdraw from the discussion if the argument is not accepted (except, perhaps, for the occassional remark). I enjoyed talking to you all!
-
Another thing being tossed around in this thread that has now annoyed me a bit is the assertion that there exists a burden of proof in this philosophical discussion.
I believe that killing sapient beings is prima facie Murder. If this were a formal debate I would indeed have the burden of proof to prove that killing humans is indeed prima facie murder. However the pursuit of moral action is not a debate but rather a quest. So please stop fighting over who is winning the debate. It is easy to win all the battles and still lose the war/quest for truth.
Agreed. If I understand you correctly you are simply saying that no one is obligated to prove anything, correct?
Correct no side has an obligation to prove, all sides have an obligation to find the truth.
However I must admit that the broad question of do preternatural or supernatural immortal being exist seems irrelevant. I think it would be wise to define a subcategory of deity to discuss the existence of.
-
I also didn't think it was very productive. I do want to say you still have the reasoning upside down. I could look for an X, run a thousand experiments and not find X. That doesn't mean there is no X. It is highly improbable, but scientifically my findings mean nothing. What debate are you looking for? Anything I could say would mean nothing to me. Should I try to persuade you, while I myself do not find it convincing then. :))
There are some ways to disprove certain God types, if they have certain abilities they cannot all have. But still it is up to you to present your God and abilities. Something you have not done. Look at my first post where I covered the omnipresent and transcendent God, which is highly problematic, if not impossible. But then you never said your God had those qualities, so what is the point.
So the atheist offensive position does not exist as such. I can defend evolution if you want. Evolution is a THING. But evolution has nothing to do with the existence of a God. I can decimate ID. But again, has nothing to do with God. I cannot defend atheism, however. You see? I can say evolution and ID are conflicting claims. But at least they are all positive claims. But atheism is simply saying, ''Ok I don't buy that claim.'' There is no positive counter part. I can only say your claim is not compelling.
So if you want the atheist to defend something, ask if the atheist can defend a POSITIVE claim, that is something associated with atheism. Otherwise you will get the same old debate.
Regards
Day
-
Didn't you see the part of my post talking about the objection that the felt duty is merely social obligation?
If you are referring to the part I think you are referring to, unfortunately you assumed things like objective duties and obligations to society. The memetic theory does not require those things to exist; in that theory society just works that way because it is an emergent property of its composition.
Kreeft was also using the word instinct in a misleading way (this is an issue where defining terms would be helpful). Rather than use the word "instinct", it seems more useful to view conscience as a partially-learned, partially-innate behaviour, the source of which is part nature (expressed traits which became prevalent in the human population through natural selection) and part nurture (societal pressure and memetic propagation).
Therefore whilst the "conscience behaviour" might be different to behaviours which are solely innate, which is what he was referring to as instinct, this is only a matter of degree and can be explained without resorting to a supernatural source. Remember that consciences vary and sometimes directly conflict, which would seem to rule out any absolute moral law.
The example he gives in the second half of that quote is also extremely disingenuous because it tries to imply that people are drawing direct equivalences between more basic impulses and higher, learned impulses, which is a strawman argument. Simply pointing out that the two are different is not proof that conscience is an absolute authority.
Another thing being tossed around in this thread that has now annoyed me a bit is the assertion that there exists a burden of proof in this philosophical discussion.
I believe that killing sapient beings is prima facie Murder. If this were a formal debate I would indeed have the burden of proof to prove that killing humans is indeed prima facie murder. However the pursuit of moral action is not a debate but rather a quest. So please stop fighting over who is winning the debate. It is easy to win all the battles and still lose the war/quest for truth.
Actually I disagree with you rather fundamentally here. Sometimes the only defense against ridiculous claims is logic. If you start claiming things ex nihilo and removing the requirement for proof you are really just committing blind assertion, which in a debate (and this is a debate, look at the thread title and first post) is not good enough. I would have thought that this was illustrated well enough by the repeated references to Russell's Teapot.
-
@Polka: Concerning the original question, I do agree, that this was covered, already on page 1. But as this whole discussion migt have revealed, there is MUCH more about this question, then just stating "You cant prove that there is no God"
However, the discussion has turned into me being on the offense and atheists (or agnostics) taking jabs at my arguments.
Hmmm...we have quite a different understanding of being in the offense. It seemed to me that you were most of the time defending some of your assumptions and claims... :P But thats not really important anyway...cause this shouldnt be about who is in the offense or defense ;)
I did not find any strong jabs (the closest was the objection that I needed to prove that there were objective moral values) so I think I will mostly withdraw from the discussion if the argument is not accepted (except, perhaps, for the occassional remark). I enjoyed talking to you all!
What a pity. Honestly! I was really looking foward to get some response to my posts on p.3 and p. 4. :(
I really liked your improvement of argumentation (btw which already is quite well for somebody of your age) , when you started to question the assumptions of your syllogism, cause imo this is a very important thing to do with them.
If i look back in this thread, one could get to the impression, that you only opened this thread to have sth. comfirmed which you already knew: that there is no proof for or against the existence of god. and that there is even no need for it.
I also was happy to read your statement that you were interested in understanding each other better on p.5, cause i would like to see that happen.
But with you leaving now, one could argue, that you are not really serious about it...much is left open.
fyi: some stuff written above is a bit teasing you. I can completely understand if you focus on more important things, then to discuss philosophy and logics with some crazy atheists, that probably wont be convinced anyway. But im simply really courious what your replies would have been, and if we could actually come a bit closer of understanding each other. There are some implications of your argumentation i cant understand at all ;) But im making assumptions there...
Oh one last thing @ all: imho, as much as I would love to continue this Evolution vs. ID or Creationism (which btw are two completely different argumentations)...i think it would be better to move that topic to the corresponding thread...makes things easier and more focussed here.
-
What a pity. Honestly! I was really looking foward to get some response to my posts on p.3 and p. 4.
I'm sorry! :( I forgot about them in the various transitions of the discussion. Also, my first set of "arguments" (the ones you had questions about) weren't actually intended to really be arguments for God but rather personal reasons for my belief in him.
when you started to question the assumptions of your syllogism, cause imo this is a very important thing to do with them.
It definitely is important to question things, but I also try to never go overboard with my questioning. All logic and arguments begins with some basic assumptions after all.
But with you leaving now, one could argue, that you are not really serious about it...much is left open.
Oh, I won't exactly be leaving. I'll just be checking in a lot less often and not spending allot of time forming arguments and researching because unfortunately this discussion has made me so obsessed that I have fallen behind on some school work. Besides, I could continue this discussion indefinitely or live like Socrates and wander the city looking for people to talk to, but then I'd have to sacrafice allot of other things, and there are many other things worth living for.
Oh one last thing @ all: imho, as much as I would love to continue this Evolution vs. ID or Creationism (which btw are two completely different argumentations)...i think it would be better to move that topic to the corresponding thread...makes things easier and more focussed here.
That would be fun, but if there's one thing I'm "noob" at it would have to be science so I would probably be quite out matched there.
-
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,4398.0.html Thats the topic for ID and Evolution since it was referenced. I actually think Im going to post in there again since its been awhile.
-
That is the thread.
As you can see, the global flood had no defence against even one argument: Impossibility for inconsistencies with the historical timeline. (Could not have killed what it was supposed to kill) Check my historical timeline of evolution on page 7.
And then I haven't even covered all the other reasons.
-
Heh. Yeah, I did a horrible job with the flood. I do know more about it now than I did when I was first talking about it though. Been doing so much research lol
-
I've been reading the religion section of the forum and I see allot of atheist sharing their experiences of how they came to not believe in God because they see no evidence for him and such. Howerver, just because you don't see God, it does not mean he's there. It is a logical fallacy (faulty appeal to ignorance) to say that just because we don't know that something exists, it means that it does not. So, I would be interested to hear a clear and concise (summarize it in a syllogism if you can) argument why God does not exist. Also, as you've probably guessed, I am a theist and I've included a poll just to get a feel for whether the majority of the active community is atheist or theist.
Does anyone have a strong argument against God?
Is that a challenge? 8) Well I suppose I do then. It's not like it hasn't been used in this thread before, but it should really carry more weight here than people have let it show. While I agree with Daytripper's assessment that we can't disprove a deity in general, you said "God" - which refers to a specific entity. True, you haven't told us much about "God", but then again that's not even necessary.
Let's begin by assuming that there IS a supernatural entity, a divine force of some sort, that created the known Universe. Now let me ask you: What are the odds that this entity is a green cosmic leprechaun? Well since we can't disprove the green cosmic leprechaun they aren't zero. But you may call them negligible. Then what are the odds that it's a yellow cosmic leprechaun? Negligible. And you can probably see where I'm going with this: what are the odds that it's a green unicorn? Half man, half bull? A cosmic volcano? Negligible, negligible, negligible. We can think up a zillion distinct, mutually exclusive entities in this way. Since there's a zillion of them there's no way we can call the odds of each individual entity being "the correct one" anything other than negligible.
Why is it you people believe in deities again? I believe a part of it had to do with going to heaven... Now let's see here: The green leprechaun lets everyone go to heaven. The yellow leprechaun will send you to hell if you didn't live a virtuous life (and considers cannibalism a virtue), whereas the tooth fairy will condemn you to hell if you don't brush your teeth every day and go to bed before midnight. What are the odds of you knowing which set of "rules" you actually need to follow, assuming that there is a heaven (and who is to even say there isn't, say, reincarnation instead?). Yes, negligible.
Of course all of this is assuming that all deities are equally likely. You may argue that they are not. But the first point to take home here is that the only way your "God" entity is to be considered any more likely than any of the others is if there is some sort of 'evidence' for it that doesn't apply to the rest. And this is the why behind why a religion is the one that needs to provide evidence for their deity.
I've by now made my point in regards to the OP's request. But there's more to be said on the topic of why one would consider a deity 'more likely' than the rest, so here's just a few more paragraphs on that:
What would a person consider evidence for a specific supernatural entity? Well, for people who want scientific evidence there are no deities. For those who choose a religion I would argue that their choice has little to do with what they themselves think it does, since most don't actually examine all the existing 'evidence' for even two religions.
A few types of 'evidence' supporting a specific kind of deity/group of deities and what I think of them:
-We could try to infer things about the deity by looking at the Universe they supposedly created. For instance there is a lot of suffering going on on the world, so judging from that one could assume the deity likes to watch people (and animals) suffer... (or doesn't know it is happening, or is powerless to act, or didn't plan for 'life' to emerge in a corner of its Universe in the first place). Yes, it's really impossible to say anything definite. And two people won't necessarily both see the same glass as half full in the first place.
-We could believe thousands of years old written accounts. Perhaps the Iliad was right? There's certainly no one who can disprove it (especially if we can call any part we choose 'metaphorical' ...though obviously not the parts about gods personally taking part in the war). For the most part books like that look like they were written by superstitious people and/or for superstitious people. You can tell that all those rules in the old testament of the bible aren't just there for show: they were put there to be followed. And I bet those in top of the religious hierarchy at that time profited from people following those rules. The book's since been updated as times have changed, but essentially serves the same purpose; the Church isn't exactly poor these days. So I say those books aren't going to tell us much either, especially since there's absolutely no way to tell which one of several to believe when any. (Note that they DO differ in important details like who is and who isn't going to hell.)
-Remember the time when you felt that something significant was going on in the world, or maybe the time when you felt like the whole world loves you, then someone told you (or you remembered someone had told you) what it all means? This category also includes personal accounts. Furthermore, this category also explains the religions that believe people were created by aliens... no offense to anyone, but next...
...Actually that's all I could think of right now. If you can think of other categories, feel free to contribute.
-
Let's begin by assuming that there IS a supernatural entity, a divine force of some sort, that created the known Universe. Now let me ask you: What are the odds that this entity is a green cosmic leprechaun? Well since we can't disprove the green cosmic leprechaun they aren't zero. But you may call them negligible. Then what are the odds that it's a yellow cosmic leprechaun? Negligible. And you can probably see where I'm going with this: what are the odds that it's a green unicorn? Half man, half bull? A cosmic volcano? Negligible, negligible, negligible. We can think up a zillion distinct, mutually exclusive entities in this way. Since there's a zillion of them there's no way we can call the odds of each individual entity being "the correct one" anything other than negligible.
don't even start on probabilities. if it's an almighty being it is almighty enough to defy chance. lets turn this around. what's the probability that the universe came out of nowhere and can produce planets that support life. one scientist (who had a lot of time on his hands) worked out the number taking all the factors in hand. some of the factors were; matter beating antimatter (not drawing because that would mean no nothing ever), gravitational balance, sub atomic balance, etc... until he got a figure.
that is 1 in X. X being a digit and then more zeros than there are stars in the universe. so don't even mention likely hoods.
-
don't even start on probabilities. if it's an almighty being it is almighty enough to defy chance.
Doesn't mean a thing. Of the zillion dieties I just mentioned a sizeable portion are almighty (including the yellow leprechaun). So when you call one of them more likely than the rest you really DO need to have some sort of explanation for that claim. Preferrably something that makes sense.
lets turn this around. what's the probability that the universe came out of nowhere and can produce planets that support life.
That's not turning the matter around; it's dodging the issue. I'm not (currently) claiming that there isn't a diety out there. What I am claiming is that if there is then you have no way of actually knowing the first thing about it. (And if you define a diety by its traits then if you get those wrong then its not actually "the same" diety.) Presume a deity who just wants a universe to mess around with people. It goes on to make conflicting religions, causes wars, and in general has a lot of fun doing it. How could you prove that such a deity is any less likely than whichever you are proposing? Unfortunately for you you can not. You can cite the bible all you want, but if the deity is not above killing to further its goals then you can not assume it to always speak the truth, either.
one scientist (who had a lot of time on his hands) worked out the number taking all the factors in hand. some of the factors were; matter beating antimatter (not drawing because that would mean no nothing ever), gravitational balance, sub atomic balance, etc... until he got a figure.
that is 1 in X. X being a digit and then more zeros than there are stars in the universe. so don't even mention likely hoods.
And your source would be?
-
This whole issue about probabilities is a null argument. A prominent big bang theory is that the process is recurring, easily allowing for infinite universes one after another. If the universe only has a gazilionth (or whatever your number is) of a chance of supporting life, then how do you know it hasnt previously existed a gazilion times and this is the first time it has supported sentient life that can havee this debate?
This is a lot like receiving 5 cards in a poker game (any 5 cards) and claiming that it was ridiculously unlikely to have received these exact cards, therefore you cant have received them. Probabilities are tricky and need to be treated very carefully.
-
This whole issue about probabilities is a null argument. A prominent big bang theory is that the process is recurring, easily allowing for infinite universes one after another. If the universe only has a gazilionth (or whatever your number is) of a chance of supporting life, then how do you know it hasnt previously existed a gazilion times and this is the first time it has supported sentient life that can havee this debate?
This is a lot like receiving 5 cards in a poker game (any 5 cards) and claiming that it was ridiculously unlikely to have received these exact cards, therefore you cant have received them. Probabilities are tricky and need to be treated very carefully.
Not quite. I'm saying that when you receive exactly five random cards you are incredibly unlikely to have guessed them right (and that no matter how many people at the table trust in your having psychic powers).
I'm NOT saying the chance of 'deity of choice' being the correct answer is zero. In fact I'm saying that it CAN'T be zero, because we can not disprove said deity. But without a reason to favour this deity over the zillion other ones that we also can not disprove (and whose chances of existing are hence also greater than zero) it can not be any more likely than any of those. And since there are so many of those the chances of each individual one being "the correct one" are very close to zero, that is negligible.
When several theories are at odds, how do you determine which one is more likely to be correct? You look at which one is favoured by scientific evidence. When several deities are at odds, how do you determine which one is more likely to be correct? In absence of scientific evidence you may resort to making a choice based on 'evidence' the sort of which would never cut it by scientific standards. Which means it isn't worth very much.
-
mentioning the big ban has reminded me of another thing atheists say. they tell us that scientific evidence states that there is no God (evolution for example) but don't you think that the deity would want people to be able to observe the science that he created? saying that seems to further give evidence of a God.
please don't feel the need to reply to this point, it was just a little tangent from the current discussion :)
-
what's the probability that the universe came out of nowhere and can produce planets that support life.
The probability that the consciousness and self awareness required to ask this question arises in a universe that can support life is 1. This is known as the anthropic principle.
they tell us that scientific evidence states that there is no God (evolution for example)
Firstly, you can't just say shit like that without giving a source. "Them" and "they" are weasel words which essentially mean that you don't know anyone who has actually said that, but you'd like to believe that they've said that.
Secondly, the theory of evolution by natural selection has precisely nothing to say on the existence or otherwise of deities. Similarly, there is no scientific evidence which states that there are no gods - all it has done is failed to confirm that gods exist, and replaced a lot of our old explanations which attributed the cause of natural phenomena to god.
but don't you think that the deity would want people to be able to observe the science that he created? saying that seems to further give evidence of a God.
If you attribute the scientific method to a god, then perhaps. But since that scientific is slowly chipping away at the questions which were previously filled by gods, it seems odd that such a deity would give us tools that steadily limit its remit over our universe and cause fewer people to believe in it.
More importantly this is really a cop-out. If you're willing to admit that the scientific method has removed any need to believe in a god or gods, then why continue to attribute the scientific method to those gods? It's like saying that Yahweh buried stone models of dinosaurs in the earth with intricate amounts of atomic decay matching to a theory that implies the age of the earth was far greater than he later revealed to his prophets, all for the sole purpose of trolling paleontologists and geologists a few thousand years later. Why would a god that is supposedly omnibenevolent purposefully lie to its creation?
-
@Chemist Sorry, I shouldve made it clearer that I was replying to Killybobs point rather than yours. I was attempting to use an illustration to descrbe one of the difficulties in using probability to disprove somthing after it has happened.
I'm NOT saying the chance of 'deity of choice' being the correct answer is zero. In fact I'm saying that it CAN'T be zero, because we can not disprove said deity. But without a reason to favour this deity over the zillion other ones that we also can not disprove (and whose chances of existing are hence also greater than zero) it can not be any more likely than any of those. And since there are so many of those the chances of each individual one being "the correct one" are very close to zero, that is negligible.
Hmm, if the probability of any given diety being "correct" is negligable (ie can be ignored), then that should mean that there are no dieties and atheism rules all :P Anyway, this is straying far too close to a sorites paradox and they realy get under my skin, so i'll leave this point.
When several theories are at odds, how do you determine which one is more likely to be correct? You look at which one is favoured by scientific evidence. When several deities are at odds, how do you determine which one is more likely to be correct? In absence of scientific evidence you may resort to making a choice based on 'evidence' the sort of which would never cut it by scientific standards. Which means it isn't worth very much.
Yeah, I agree with this, whenever scientific reasoning is applied to anything religious, the result is invariably bad for religion. Naturally, scientific research isnt itself entirely infallible, every scientific theory to date is based on a set of assumptions which may or may not be true. However, it sure does seem to be more rock-steady than anything religion has to offer.
-
First of all, I rather like the premise of this post. It is completely true that there is a big difference between failing to prove something and disproving something.
If someone told you my middle name was Renfrew, and you had no evidence that he was telling the truth, this would not mean that this was evidence against that being my middle name.
However, that argument cannot be used as strongly in this case.
Humanity has always wanted to explain things. When we could not find an explanation, we would make one up, one that would explain every data point we would see.
Greco-roman mythology was a compilation of stories that would explain every event, because they lacked a better explanation.
For instance, winter was 3 months long, because the daughter of the harvest goddess ate three pomegranate seeds when in the underworld, and thus was bound there 3 months every year, during which time her mother would go into mourning, and all crops would wither.
When we fail to explain something with the natural, we turn to the supernatural, because any reason is, in the mind of man, better than no reason, regardless of its correctness.
Now, some intelligent readers may say that I have yet to disprove God at all, and have only stated a theory about where religion in general comes from that, even if correct, would not disprove God.
You would be correct. Bravo for you. (Or Brava, as the case may likely be. I have noticed a negative correlation between intelligence and number of Y chromosomes)
Anyways, my proof against God is this.
God, and religion explain what we were unable as a species to explain otherwise. As long as the original ignorance exists, then there exists no proof against the supernatural, and in fact, every occurrence of an un-explained phenomenon seems to serve as proof FOR the supernatural.
However, as soon as the correct explanation is found, any other explanations that are contradictory become un-arguably false.
Back to the mythology example:
The theory about the length of winter, as long as no other explanation is found, is strengthened by every seasonal cycle. The fact that the myth provides an explanation for seasons, and that seasons keep happening, is the only proof for the myth.
When astronomy becomes known, and seasons are now explained by the movement of planets, a theory that not only explains the data points, but also holds up with the rest of science, and also measurements about planets, and all manners of other data and information, it becomes clear that the planets are the cause of the seasons.
This does serve as proof against the myth, because if would be illogical to claim that the reason for the seasons is simultaneously a grieving harvest goddess, and the movement of the planets. One explanation necessarily replaces the other, because, unless the contention that both the harvest goddess and the planetary movement both contribute, or take turns, is what one is claiming, then one cannot logical claim that both are the reason.
The same holds true for the existence of God.
Someone, a very long time ago, looked at the species diversity of our planet, and couldn't explain it. People had no idea where the world came from, and had no answers to what happened after death, or why people are intelligent, or any number of other things.
So, preferring any explanation to no explanation, religion came about.
Different parts of the world, not being able to compare notes with each other, all made up different stories, and all gained followers by claiming that their account was the word of God.
However, the answers to these questions are now known.
Religion will claim that the world is a few thousand years old, created by God in a single day.
Religion will claim that over the next 5 days (the next one being a day of rest), God created all the species of this planet.
Religion will claim that man gained out massive intelligence (which I am beginning to doubt exists), as a result of eating a forbidden fruit.
The proof for these claims is that someone made up a story that, if true, would explain everything he couldn't explain before. He had no other proof.
The proof for these claims is that someone very long ago, claimed that God said it, and people believed him.
The proof for these claims is that for a long time, no one had a better explanation. People liked "God did it", much better than "I honestly don't know"
However, all this proof goes away, when we now have a real explanation.
Science claims, and provides layers and layers of proof, that the world is millions of years old, and the universe older still. We have carbon dating, fossil records, radioactive decay, and, with powerful telescopes, have been able to see light from fractions of a second after the big bang, which is completely consistent with every other piece of scientific evidence.
We now know where species diversity comes from. With bacteria, we have even been able to observe it on a timescale that is shorter than a human life. We have seen bacteria evolve to become anti-biotic resistant, such that it is now a new species. We know how genetic mutations work, and know that they code for new heritable traits. We know that geographic isolation, and specialization both can lead to new species forming.
We know that human intelligence evolved slowly, and that, unlike what religion claims, man is not the only intelligent species.
These arguments appear to be attacking just the Judeo-Christian faiths, and not God in general.
It is true, I, as of yet, cannot do a test that conclusively proves that there is no God. (Though every case of someone shouting "God, if you are out there, give me a sign", being greeted by, at best, something that can be shown to already be about to happen, seems to provide serious evidence for either his non-existence or dickishness, or odd sense of humour)
However, I can say that everything that God used to be the only explanation for, now has a much more confirm-able, logical, scientifically valid explanation, and that both explanations cannot logically both be correct.
I cannot say that God does not exist, and be able to 100% be logically sure.
I can however, contend that not only is there no proof for his existence, but that the existence of valid alternative explanations for what he allegedly has done, serve a proof against his existence.
Need I remind you that the Church has historically been anti-science (once it was clear that it didn't support their theories).
The church was against the Helio-centric model of the solar system for a very long time, and vehemently opposed the notion that orbits were not perfect circles.
So, yes. I do understand that not having of proof of God's existence is not the same as having proof against it. However, knowing and fully understanding that point, I can safely claim to have a strong, valid argument against him.
-
Firstly, you can't just say shit like that without giving a source. "Them" and "they" are weasel words which essentially mean that you don't know anyone who has actually said that, but you'd like to believe that they've said that.
Stephen Dawkin one of the most famous evolutionists in britain? Peter Atkins Professor of chemistry at Lincoln College, Oxford in England? Julius Axelrod American Nobel Prize winning biochemist? the list is endless. And they all are famous for trying to gather evidence against religion.
-
By Stephen Dawkins, I assume you mean Richard Dawkins, authour of the Selfish Gene, and The Extended Phenotype, and myriad others.
I appreciate the help in providing names, but I would prefer if they are correct.
I am doing a major/minor combination that involves both Biology and Game Theory, and Richard Dawkins was the first to combine the two.
Interestingly enough, he was also the first to coin the word "Meme", which was short for "Memetic replicator", which referred to how the concept of evolution doesn't just work for life, but instead for anything that is able to at all effect the likelihood that more copies of it will exist in the future, and thus that the concepts behind evolution could just as easily be applied to ideas. Thus, memes.
If I have time, I will start a thread "Is Religion A Meme?" I mean, I know that the answer is yes (if you really want me to I can explain), but am curious about your thoughts.
-
By Stephen Dawkins, I assume you mean Richard Dawkins, authour of the Selfish Gene, and The Extended Phenotype, and myriad others.
>:( >:( >:( >:( aaaaaaaah im always getting mixed up!!! kill me now
-
No problem mate. I am glad you knew him. It is clear that you didn't just Google "Evolutionary Biologists". And it is not like you put Stephen J. Gould or anything. (A biologist I tend to disagree with, as does Dawkins)
-
If I have time, I will start a thread "Is Religion A Meme?" I mean, I know that the answer is yes (if you really want me to I can explain), but am curious about your thoughts.
even though i don't seem that towards science i actually am. greatly. that idea does sound both brilliant and interesting. please do :)
-
Will do.
-
Firstly, you can't just say shit like that without giving a source. "Them" and "they" are weasel words which essentially mean that you don't know anyone who has actually said that, but you'd like to believe that they've said that.
Stephen Dawkin one of the most famous evolutionists in britain? Peter Atkins Professor of chemistry at Lincoln College, Oxford in England? Julius Axelrod American Nobel Prize winning biochemist? the list is endless. And they all are famous for trying to gather evidence against religion.
Can you actually provide a quotation, rather than just randomly posting names in the hope that I will believe what you said? I'm not sure you can, largely because as far as I can tell your characterisation of the arguments that the people you've just named tend to advance is not accurate.
-
Not to long ago I did not believe in a god or anything like that. Right now it is hard to explain but back then even when I was strongly disagreeing with the possibility of a god or anything like that I never once forced my ideas of why I don't believe god on another. Not once....
I honestly hate when people tell me to believe something, and hate when they tell me not to. Just because soemthing can not be proven dose not mean it is not real. When tech was less advanced 100's of years ago there were tons of things that were real even though we could not prove they were real.
-
First off, here is my thread about religion as a meme.
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,19557.new.html#new
I will give some of what Richard Dawkins has said.
Evolution acts on the level of genes, not of individuals or of species.
You have a 50% genetic similarity with your siblings, as do you with your children. Thus, from an evolutionary standpoint, if evolution works on the level of genes (which it does), evolution would encourage a tendency to do self-sacrificing behaviour to save a large number of children or siblings, which explains evolved altruistic behaviour.
He famously said "I would gladly give my life for 3 brothers, or 9 cousins"
-
I honestly hate when people tell me to believe something, and hate when they tell me not to. Just because soemthing can not be proven dose not mean it is not real. When tech was less advanced 100's of years ago there were tons of things that were real even though we could not prove they were real.
But that doesn't mean you should suppose those things to be real without any proof. There a variety of ways of explaining why, but I'm reminded of something that one of my high school teachers said.
There [may be] thousands of ways to be right, but there are billions of ways to be wrong.
Basically, if you take some idea completely at random, it's much more likely to be wrong than it is to be right, so you should be very discriminating in what ideas you accept as "right".
-
Atheists don't need to find arguments against god. Religions do this on their own.
Just an example: Bible says god is almighty, knows everything and is kind.
Why are there natural disasters and war?
If god knows there are problems, could help but don't want- he's not kind.
If god knows, wan't to help but isn't able - hes not almighty
If good could help, want's to help but doesn't know there are any problems- he doesn't know everything
possible answer of an christian: "That's because of Satan. He does all the bad things."
Wait! Satan aka Lucifer is an fallen angel. God created the angels. So he makes a failure? Thanks for helping my(yours?) argumentation.
Last argument: "Everything happens just because god want it to happen like this!" o.O
This argument will be repeated until the atheist fell to sleep or loses interrest in this discussion.
Similar argumentation is possible on all religions I know. (Of course I don't know all ;))
-
Atheists don't need to find arguments against god. Religions do this on their own.
Just an example: Bible says god is almighty, knows everything and is kind.
Why are there natural disasters and war?
If god knows there are problems, could help but don't want- he's not kind.
If god knows, wan't to help but isn't able - hes not almighty
If good could help, want's to help but doesn't know there are any problems- he doesn't know everything
possible answer of an christian: "That's because of Satan. He does all the bad things."
Wait! Satan aka Lucifer is an fallen angel. God created the angels. So he makes a failure? Thanks for helping my(yours?) argumentation.
Last argument: "Everything happens just because god want it to happen like this!" o.O
This argument will be repeated until the atheist fell to sleep or loses interrest in this discussion.
Similar argumentation is possible on all religions I know. (Of course I don't know all ;))
Problem of Evil
Possible valid responses (Note: almighty does not mean able to do the impossible)
1) God values Free Will more than preventing evil.
2) Everything happens because this is the best possible outcome. Even better than the world responding to a tyrannical controlling deity.
-
Problem of Evil
Possible valid responses (Note: almighty does not mean able to do the impossible)
There are many Christians who would disagree with you on that point.
1) God values Free Will more than preventing evil.
2) Everything happens because this is the best possible outcome. Even better than the world responding to a tyrannical controlling deity.
The whole notion of 'free will' kind of breaks down when you consider an omnipotent, omniscient god as creator. If god is omnipotent, then he creates me exactly the way he wants me to be. If god is omniscient, he can see every choice that I am going to make from the moment he creates me, and is choosing to create me that way. I'm really more akin to a robot executing a program than a being with actual free will.
-
The whole notion of 'free will' kind of breaks down when you consider an omnipotent, omniscient god as creator. If god is omnipotent, then he creates me exactly the way he wants me to be. If god is omniscient, he can see every choice that I am going to make from the moment he creates me, and is choosing to create me that way. I'm really more akin to a robot executing a program than a being with actual free will.
There is a difference between knowing what you will do and forcing you to do it.
-
I'm really more akin to a robot executing a program than a being with actual free will.
God's knowledge of the choices you make does not mean that you are not the one choosing.
Edit: Ninja'd.
-
Let me try to explain with an analogy. Let's suppose I build a robot and I put it on to a grid. I program its exact path into it, and it will be followed exactly. Does the robot have free will simply because the possibility to go a different way exists?
-
Let me try to explain with an analogy. Let's suppose I build a robot and I put it on to a grid. I program its exact path into it, and it will be followed exactly. Does the robot have free will simply because the possibility to go a different way exists?
No. But let's say you create a robot who can make its own choices. You watch it for a week, then travel back in time. Now, you have full knowledge of all the choices the robot is going to make, but you are not forcing it to make those choices.
-
Let me try to explain with an analogy. Let's suppose I build a robot and I put it on to a grid. I program its exact path into it, and it will be followed exactly. Does the robot have free will simply because the possibility to go a different way exists?
No. But let's say you create a robot who can make its own choices. You watch it for a week, then travel back in time. Now, you have full knowledge of all the choices the robot is going to make, but you are not forcing it to make those choices.
But how do we make choices? We have certain predispositions that are determined at birth. People are not only capable of evil, but in many situations are predisposed towards it.
-
Let me try to explain with an analogy. Let's suppose I build a robot and I put it on to a grid. I program its exact path into it, and it will be followed exactly. Does the robot have free will simply because the possibility to go a different way exists?
Because of what I know about you QT, I knew upon posting a rebuttal you would choose to post in this topic again.
Notice the wording. I did not say
I knew upon posting a rebuttal I would make you post in this topic again.
-
Let me try to explain with an analogy. Let's suppose I build a robot and I put it on to a grid. I program its exact path into it, and it will be followed exactly. Does the robot have free will simply because the possibility to go a different way exists?
Because of what I know about you QT, I knew upon posting a rebuttal you would choose to post in this topic again.
Notice the wording. I did not say
I knew upon posting a rebuttal I would make you post in this topic again.
Semantics
-
Let me try to explain with an analogy. Let's suppose I build a robot and I put it on to a grid. I program its exact path into it, and it will be followed exactly. Does the robot have free will simply because the possibility to go a different way exists?
No. But let's say you create a robot who can make its own choices. You watch it for a week, then travel back in time. Now, you have full knowledge of all the choices the robot is going to make, but you are not forcing it to make those choices.
But god creates his robot knowing every single choice they're going to make. If it were to ever exercise its supposed free will and make a different choice, it would only be because god made it that way.
God has determined every choice the robot going to make at the moment he makes it. It doesn't really have any free will to speak of, it's just along for the ride.
Let me try to explain with an analogy. Let's suppose I build a robot and I put it on to a grid. I program its exact path into it, and it will be followed exactly. Does the robot have free will simply because the possibility to go a different way exists?
Because of what I know about you QT, I knew upon posting a rebuttal you would choose to post in this topic again.
Notice the wording. I did not say
I knew upon posting a rebuttal I would make you post in this topic again.
You didn't have any hand in my creation, nor are you omniscient, so the analogy isn't really valid.
-
But god creates his robot knowing every single choice they're going to make. If it were to ever exercise its supposed free will and make a different choice, it would only be because god made it that way.
God has determined every choice the robot going to make at the moment he makes it. It doesn't really have any free will to speak of, it's just along for the ride.
Non-sequitur. Knowing != Determining.
-
I would like to point out that many times the Christian God has been described as 'outside of time'. When I asked for clarification it was described as god exists simultaneously at all times. This means that his consciousness works very much akin to a time machine and thus can know which possibility of a random event will occur. The event remains random (If morality exists so must Free Will) but the result is known to the time traveler.
-
But god creates his robot knowing every single choice they're going to make. If it were to ever exercise its supposed free will and make a different choice, it would only be because god made it that way.
God has determined every choice the robot going to make at the moment he makes it. It doesn't really have any free will to speak of, it's just along for the ride.
Non-sequitur. Knowing != Determining.
Knowing comes from the omniscient part, determining comes from the omnipotent part. With either one separately, it's possible to posit some sort of free will, but the combination removes that completely.
-
Let me try to explain with an analogy. Let's suppose I build a robot and I put it on to a grid. I program its exact path into it, and it will be followed exactly. Does the robot have free will simply because the possibility to go a different way exists?
No. But let's say you create a robot who can make its own choices. You watch it for a week, then travel back in time. Now, you have full knowledge of all the choices the robot is going to make, but you are not forcing it to make those choices.
If the robot in question truly does have free will, then it won't make the same decisions when you go back in time
-
Even if humans have free will (and they don't, but that's a whole other story), it's very easy for us to be evil. That is an important point. We could've been designed so that it was a lot easier for us to make the right choices. We could've been smarter and less selfish as a species. Why would a creator choose to make us this way? The common answer is that it's some kind of test, but it seems to me quite twisted. We have to pass a test to be angels in Heaven and some of us will fail and go to Hell. Why didn't God just make a bunch of angels and leave out the testing and Hell?
What these discussions always seem to boil down to is that God has his reasons for doing things that may seem backwards and barbaric to us. It's simply beyond human comprehension why things must be the way they are. It might intuitively seem better for us to all be created as angels in Heaven, but God made things that way for a reason and we just have to trust him.
-
Let me try to explain with an analogy. Let's suppose I build a robot and I put it on to a grid. I program its exact path into it, and it will be followed exactly. Does the robot have free will simply because the possibility to go a different way exists?
No. But let's say you create a robot who can make its own choices. You watch it for a week, then travel back in time. Now, you have full knowledge of all the choices the robot is going to make, but you are not forcing it to make those choices.
If the robot in question truly does have free will, then it won't make the same decisions when you go back in time
It will if it is the same time line.
-
Even if humans have free will (and they don't, but that's a whole other story), it's very easy for us to be evil. That is an important point. We could've been designed so that it was a lot easier for us to make the right choices. We could've been smarter and less selfish as a species. Why would a creator choose to make us this way? The common answer is that it's some kind of test, but it seems to me quite twisted. We have to pass a test to be angels in Heaven and some of us will fail and go to Hell. Why didn't God just make a bunch of angels and leave out the testing and Hell?
That's actually a very good question. If god is omniscient, then he knows that something is hellbound when he creates it, and he does it anyway. He is therefore creating something that is going to eternally suffer on purpose. That doesn't sound like very benevolent to me, in fact it sounds like the epitome of sadism.
What these discussions always seem to boil down to is that God has his reasons for doing things that may seem backwards and barbaric to us. It's simply beyond human comprehension why things must be the way they are. It might intuitively seem better for us to all be created as angels in Heaven, but God made things that way for a reason and we just have to trust him.
Why? There's no evidence that he has my well being in mind.
-
Even if humans have free will (and they don't, but that's a whole other story), it's very easy for us to be evil. That is an important point. We could've been designed so that it was a lot easier for us to make the right choices. We could've been smarter and less selfish as a species. Why would a creator choose to make us this way? The common answer is that it's some kind of test, but it seems to me quite twisted. We have to pass a test to be angels in Heaven and some of us will fail and go to Hell. Why didn't God just make a bunch of angels and leave out the testing and Hell?
Because Angels cannot glorify God. It is the test that give mortals the ability to glorify God.
-
Why? There's no evidence that he has my well being in mind.
Well of course, we don't. That's just the argument I've heard. Indeed, there is no evidence that God even exists, nevermind whether he has our best interests at heart. Quite an absurd position, if you ask me, but millions of people subscribe to it.
-
Even if humans have free will (and they don't, but that's a whole other story), it's very easy for us to be evil. That is an important point. We could've been designed so that it was a lot easier for us to make the right choices. We could've been smarter and less selfish as a species. Why would a creator choose to make us this way? The common answer is that it's some kind of test, but it seems to me quite twisted. We have to pass a test to be angels in Heaven and some of us will fail and go to Hell. Why didn't God just make a bunch of angels and leave out the testing and Hell?
Because Angels cannot glorify God. It is the test that give mortals the ability to glorify God.
Why can't angels glorify God? How does this test give us this ability? Are you making this up?
-
Even if humans have free will (and they don't, but that's a whole other story), it's very easy for us to be evil. That is an important point. We could've been designed so that it was a lot easier for us to make the right choices. We could've been smarter and less selfish as a species. Why would a creator choose to make us this way? The common answer is that it's some kind of test, but it seems to me quite twisted. We have to pass a test to be angels in Heaven and some of us will fail and go to Hell. Why didn't God just make a bunch of angels and leave out the testing and Hell?
Because Angels cannot glorify God. It is the test that give mortals the ability to glorify God.
Why can't angels glorify God? How does this test give us this ability? Are you making this up?
I am not making it up. It is second(or greater) hand information when I asked a Christian. The test gives us the ability because it is a symptom of our ability to choose and our ability to choose is what permits us to glorify god.
-
Even if humans have free will (and they don't, but that's a whole other story), it's very easy for us to be evil. That is an important point. We could've been designed so that it was a lot easier for us to make the right choices. We could've been smarter and less selfish as a species. Why would a creator choose to make us this way? The common answer is that it's some kind of test, but it seems to me quite twisted. We have to pass a test to be angels in Heaven and some of us will fail and go to Hell. Why didn't God just make a bunch of angels and leave out the testing and Hell?
Because Angels cannot glorify God. It is the test that give mortals the ability to glorify God.
Why can't angels glorify God? How does this test give us this ability? Are you making this up?
I am not making it up. It is second(or greater) hand information when I asked a Christian. The test gives us the ability because it is a symptom of our ability to choose and our ability to choose is what permits us to glorify god.
Though just to clarify, that idea isn't a Biblical principle or anything, It's just a theory that some Christians hold to.
-
Even if humans have free will (and they don't, but that's a whole other story), it's very easy for us to be evil. That is an important point. We could've been designed so that it was a lot easier for us to make the right choices. We could've been smarter and less selfish as a species. Why would a creator choose to make us this way? The common answer is that it's some kind of test, but it seems to me quite twisted. We have to pass a test to be angels in Heaven and some of us will fail and go to Hell. Why didn't God just make a bunch of angels and leave out the testing and Hell?
Because Angels cannot glorify God. It is the test that give mortals the ability to glorify God.
Why can't angels glorify God? How does this test give us this ability? Are you making this up?
I am not making it up. It is second(or greater) hand information when I asked a Christian. The test gives us the ability because it is a symptom of our ability to choose and our ability to choose is what permits us to glorify god.
Though just to clarify, that idea isn't a Biblical principle or anything, It's just a theory that some Christians hold to.
I would not know how to separate an interpretation of a theologian from a Biblical principle.
-
Even if humans have free will (and they don't, but that's a whole other story), it's very easy for us to be evil. That is an important point. We could've been designed so that it was a lot easier for us to make the right choices. We could've been smarter and less selfish as a species. Why would a creator choose to make us this way? The common answer is that it's some kind of test, but it seems to me quite twisted. We have to pass a test to be angels in Heaven and some of us will fail and go to Hell. Why didn't God just make a bunch of angels and leave out the testing and Hell?
Because Angels cannot glorify God. It is the test that give mortals the ability to glorify God.
Why can't angels glorify God? How does this test give us this ability? Are you making this up?
I am not making it up. It is second(or greater) hand information when I asked a Christian. The test gives us the ability because it is a symptom of our ability to choose and our ability to choose is what permits us to glorify god.
Though just to clarify, that idea isn't a Biblical principle or anything, It's just a theory that some Christians hold to.
I would not know how to separate an interpretation of a theologian from a Biblical principle.
Simply put, the Bible never says that we need free will to glorify God, nor does it say that angels don't already glorify God. The Bible doesn't really address the ultimate reason for the universe running the way it does, it just tells us what God is like and how we ought to act in order to have the proper relationship with him.
I'm not saying it's not worth discussing that idea. Many Christians hold to such theories. I just thought it was worth pointing out that even within Christian circles that is just considered an opinion, not a Biblical truth.
-
just remembered something i thought about a while back:
what if god was evil and satan was good, but god (being the more powerful at this time) claims to be good just to get more followers, ultimately gaining more strength? that would mean that all of those satanists who think evil is the way to go are actually doing good a favor, and all of the devout christians are evil :P.
monkey wrenches are fun
-
just remembered something i thought about a while back:
what if god was evil and satan was good, but god (being the more powerful at this time) claims to be good just to get more followers, ultimately gaining more strength? that would mean that all of those satanists who think evil is the way to go are actually doing good a favor, and all of the devout christians are evil :P.
monkey wrenches are fun
lol unit.
God defines good. Whatever is perfectly good, that is God (and vice versa).
Your argument is similar to asking "what if the ground is actually the sky?"
-
just remembered something i thought about a while back:
what if god was evil and satan was good, but god (being the more powerful at this time) claims to be good just to get more followers, ultimately gaining more strength? that would mean that all of those satanists who think evil is the way to go are actually doing good a favor, and all of the devout christians are evil :P.
monkey wrenches are fun
God defines good. Whatever is perfectly good, that is God (and vice versa).
So if god said that premeditated murder was good, it would be?
-
Even if humans have free will (and they don't, but that's a whole other story), it's very easy for us to be evil. That is an important point. We could've been designed so that it was a lot easier for us to make the right choices. We could've been smarter and less selfish as a species. Why would a creator choose to make us this way? The common answer is that it's some kind of test, but it seems to me quite twisted. We have to pass a test to be angels in Heaven and some of us will fail and go to Hell. Why didn't God just make a bunch of angels and leave out the testing and Hell?
Although Im not God, perhaps as a person who looks at the bible through his own eyes, and not of any denomination, I can clear a few things up.
Who says its easier to sin than to not sin? Take cuss words as a simple example. I dont cuss. I went through a period in my life where I did, however, I dont anymore. Is it hard for me to not sin? no.
Let me go through each of the 10 commandments.
1)Do not worship any other Gods.-That is very easy for me.
2)Do not make any graven image.-I would have to say this is the hardest for me being an avid video game fanatic. I often find myself spending my time unwisely.
3)Do not misuse the name of God.-Not hard at all.
4)Keep the sabbath day holy.-I consider this one to be relatively easy, although its an easy one to try to avoid due to the fast pace of the world.
5)Honor your father and mother.-My dad cheated on my mom, and then my grandparents (on my dads side) hooked my mom up with my dads brother. She ended up marrying my uncle (on my dads side obviously). Its messed up, but I can honestly say despite that, I honor both my step/father and step/mother.
6)Do not murder.-The bible also describes hatred as murder, however, I am good about not hating as well.
7)Do not commit adultery.-One many struggle with, especially since Jesus says that whoever looks at a woman with lust has commited adultery. I can give you this one as a hard one to do.
8)Do not steal.-An easy one to follow
9)Do not lie.-One many people have trouble with, myself included.
10)Do not covet.-This one is easy for me, however, many people have problems with this.
I'll concede 1 of those as hard for people to follow without any outside influence. That is lieing. You dont have to teach a baby to lie. It will on its own. meanwhile, many of the other things are taught to us today in society as being ok.---
1,2, and 3 are seen on a daily basis on just about any tv channel.
4) is one that many people ignore beacuse of how demanding they feel thier life is and think due to social pressure that its ok sometimes to not honour the sabbath.
5) Once again, moreso nowdays, you see tv shows abuot how teenagers are much smarter than their parents (or at least they think they are)
6)The actual murder part magority of people are good on, however, hatred is still running rampant in todays society.
7)When was the last time you turned on the tv and didnt see a show that has a scene meant to induce lust? Heck, forget tv, when was the last time you went to walmart and didnt see a girl wearing pants so short you could almost see her underwear? And people wonder why this is so hard for everyone (christians and non christians)
8)Stealing, another one I consider easy to follow, however, we also must remember that taking a pencil at school is also stealing.
9)Do not lie. One of the easiest thigns to do and something we are very good at figuring out how to do without any outside help.
10)We live in a nation where we are suppose to want the biggest and brightest things. If our neighbor has it, we want it. (I have a 65" 3d tv, with 4 pair of 3d glasses, you know youre jealous :P)
The point im getting at is that although it seems hard to follow Gods will, and granted, it was never just plain easy to do, it is harder today than it was when the world was first created.
I was ninjad by 3 posts, so Ill get to those later
-
just remembered something i thought about a while back:
what if god was evil and satan was good, but god (being the more powerful at this time) claims to be good just to get more followers, ultimately gaining more strength? that would mean that all of those satanists who think evil is the way to go are actually doing good a favor, and all of the devout christians are evil :P.
monkey wrenches are fun
God defines good. Whatever is perfectly good, that is God (and vice versa).
So if god said that premeditated murder was good, it would be?
Yes. Premeditated murder is wrong because He made the universe in such a way that it is.
-
just remembered something i thought about a while back:
what if god was evil and satan was good, but god (being the more powerful at this time) claims to be good just to get more followers, ultimately gaining more strength? that would mean that all of those satanists who think evil is the way to go are actually doing good a favor, and all of the devout christians are evil :P.
monkey wrenches are fun
lol unit.
God defines good. Whatever is perfectly good, that is God (and vice versa).
Your argument is similar to asking "what if the ground is actually the sky?"
and who's word do you have to go by? someone who talked to god? what if god just said everything he says to do is good and it will earn them in a wonderful place, but lied the entire time? what im saying is religion is pretty much just the telephone game. the "he said she said" thing. i wouldnt believe it the first time i heard it ;P
-
just remembered something i thought about a while back:
what if god was evil and satan was good, but god (being the more powerful at this time) claims to be good just to get more followers, ultimately gaining more strength? that would mean that all of those satanists who think evil is the way to go are actually doing good a favor, and all of the devout christians are evil :P.
monkey wrenches are fun
lol unit.
God defines good. Whatever is perfectly good, that is God (and vice versa).
Your argument is similar to asking "what if the ground is actually the sky?"
and who's word do you have to go by? someone who talked to god? what if god just said everything he says to do is good and it will earn them in a wonderful place, but lied the entire time? what im saying is religion is pretty much just the telephone game. the "he said she said" thing. i wouldnt believe it the first time i heard it ;P
Its more than a telephone game if you have an omnipotent God making sure his word gets out there corectly.
So if god said that premeditated murder was good, it would be?
Yes, however, God never changes.
-
just remembered something i thought about a while back:
what if god was evil and satan was good, but god (being the more powerful at this time) claims to be good just to get more followers, ultimately gaining more strength? that would mean that all of those satanists who think evil is the way to go are actually doing good a favor, and all of the devout christians are evil :P.
monkey wrenches are fun
lol unit.
God defines good. Whatever is perfectly good, that is God (and vice versa).
Your argument is similar to asking "what if the ground is actually the sky?"
and who's word do you have to go by? someone who talked to god? what if god just said everything he says to do is good and it will earn them in a wonderful place, but lied the entire time? what im saying is religion is pretty much just the telephone game. the "he said she said" thing. i wouldnt believe it the first time i heard it ;P
The word God generally refers to the highest moral authority. He is simply defined as good.
If you are asking "what if God defines good differently than what the Christian faith believes?" then that's another thought entirely.
-
just remembered something i thought about a while back:
what if god was evil and satan was good, but god (being the more powerful at this time) claims to be good just to get more followers, ultimately gaining more strength? that would mean that all of those satanists who think evil is the way to go are actually doing good a favor, and all of the devout christians are evil :P.
monkey wrenches are fun
lol unit.
God defines good. Whatever is perfectly good, that is God (and vice versa).
Your argument is similar to asking "what if the ground is actually the sky?"
and who's word do you have to go by? someone who talked to god? what if god just said everything he says to do is good and it will earn them in a wonderful place, but lied the entire time? what im saying is religion is pretty much just the telephone game. the "he said she said" thing. i wouldnt believe it the first time i heard it ;P
Its more than a telephone game if you have an omnipotent God making sure his word gets out there corectly.So if god said that premeditated murder was good, it would be?
Yes, however, God never changes.
there is my point :D! he decides what is said and what is not. therefor, he can make people think he is the good one ;P
p.s. entropy DOES have me ??? (imagine the smily is smiling rather than frowning)
-
God is a word describing a Deity. Good is not a necessary characteristic to belong to that category.
See Set or Chronos.
Most worshiped deities are described as Good but that is not a necessary characteristic to belong to that category.
-
there is my point :D! he decides what is said and what is not. therefor, he can make people think he is the good one ;P
p.s. entropy DOES have me ??? (imagine the smily is smiling rather than frowning)
But he obviously allows people to say what they want about him. You arent struck down with lightning are you?
We can ultimately say anything if we want to get conspiratory enough, however, on that same note, whats stopping God from striking every last living human down with lightning?
-
God is a word describing a Deity. Good is not a necessary characteristic to belong to that category.
See Set or Chronos.
Most worshiped deities are described as Good but that is not a necessary characteristic to belong to that category.
But I'm answering a question posed regarding the Christian God.
-
God is a word describing a Deity. Good is not a necessary characteristic to belong to that category.
See Set or Chronos.
Most worshiped deities are described as Good but that is not a necessary characteristic to belong to that category.
But I'm answering a question posed regarding the Christian God.
Neither the thread nor the question assumes that the Christian perspective on God is correct. In fact the question assumes that the Christian perspective was wrong.
-
Well one argument I take for being atheist/agnostic is the question:
Do we worship (the Christian) God for being right or do we worship him because he holds the keys to heaven?
If God decreed murder was good and murder pleased him, would we do it even though it wasn't morally sound to us? Thus it seems that if your morals disagree with God's you will go to hell. But, since we don't know what pleases some sort of ultimate purpose, we each create what is moral to us, so we can recieve some sort of ultimate reward.
To quote George Carlin:
"God loves you. If you don't do what he says, he'll let you burn in hell for eternity. Yup. He loves each and every one of you."
-
God is a word describing a Deity. Good is not a necessary characteristic to belong to that category.
See Set or Chronos.
Most worshiped deities are described as Good but that is not a necessary characteristic to belong to that category.
But I'm answering a question posed regarding the Christian God.
Neither the thread nor the question assumes that the Christian perspective on God is correct. In fact the question assumes that the Christian perspective was wrong.
often times when God is capitalized it is using it as a specific god. Does anyone have any strong arguments against gods, or even just god little g would make it seem more general, however, as the g is capitalized, and the topic maker is a christian, I dont see it wrong to assume that the god being talked about is God.
-
God is a word describing a Deity. Good is not a necessary characteristic to belong to that category.
See Set or Chronos.
Most worshiped deities are described as Good but that is not a necessary characteristic to belong to that category.
But I'm answering a question posed regarding the Christian God.
Neither the thread nor the question assumes that the Christian perspective on God is correct. In fact the question assumes that the Christian perspective was wrong.
often times when God is capitalized it is using it as a specific god. Does anyone have any strong arguments against gods, or even just god little g would make it seem more general, however, as the g is capitalized, and the topic maker is a christian, I dont see it wrong to assume that the god being talked about is God.
I think the Poll, the OP referring to being Theist not Christian and the specific question being asked about an alternate perspective on the bible would make assuming the normal interpretation Christian interpretation of God as the only possibility wrong.
-
God is a word describing a Deity. Good is not a necessary characteristic to belong to that category.
See Set or Chronos.
Most worshiped deities are described as Good but that is not a necessary characteristic to belong to that category.
But I'm answering a question posed regarding the Christian God.
Neither the thread nor the question assumes that the Christian perspective on God is correct. In fact the question assumes that the Christian perspective was wrong.
often times when God is capitalized it is using it as a specific god. Does anyone have any strong arguments against gods, or even just god little g would make it seem more general, however, as the g is capitalized, and the topic maker is a christian, I dont see it wrong to assume that the god being talked about is God.
I think the Poll, the OP referring to being Theist not Christian and the specific question being asked about an alternate perspective on the bible would make assuming the normal interpretation Christian interpretation of God as the only possibility wrong.
Eh all a matte of perspective I suppose. If I made this and one of my friends saw it, they would think I was referring to the christian God. So its all perspective.
-
I generally take 'God' to mean a monotheistic god, which encompasses Judaism and Islam as well as Christianity. However I don't take it to exclusively relate to that god, just any monotheistic god.
-
Even if humans have free will (and they don't, but that's a whole other story), it's very easy for us to be evil. That is an important point. We could've been designed so that it was a lot easier for us to make the right choices. We could've been smarter and less selfish as a species. Why would a creator choose to make us this way? The common answer is that it's some kind of test, but it seems to me quite twisted. We have to pass a test to be angels in Heaven and some of us will fail and go to Hell. Why didn't God just make a bunch of angels and leave out the testing and Hell?
Because Angels cannot glorify God. It is the test that give mortals the ability to glorify God.
Why can't angels glorify God? How does this test give us this ability? Are you making this up?
I am not making it up. It is second(or greater) hand information when I asked a Christian. The test gives us the ability because it is a symptom of our ability to choose and our ability to choose is what permits us to glorify god.
If God is so powerful he should really be able to create angels capable of glorifying him. Why choice between good and evil should be the only method of glorification is beyond me. It sounds like a special pleading.
-
If God is so powerful he should really be able to create angels capable of glorifying him. Why choice between good and evil should be the only method of glorification is beyond me. It sounds like a special pleading.
Its responses like this that let me know who really understands Gods love for us and who doesn't. It is most similar to a father wanting his child to understand the difference between right and wrong, but understanding that the child will reach an age where he must make his own choices, and face the consequences/
-
If God is so powerful he should really be able to create angels capable of glorifying him. Why choice between good and evil should be the only method of glorification is beyond me. It sounds like a special pleading.
Its responses like this that let me know who really understands Gods love for us and who doesn't. It is most similar to a father wanting his child to understand the difference between right and wrong, but understanding that the child will reach an age where he must make his own choices, and face the consequences/
Except I find it unlikely that the father would wish eternal suffering on his son, regardless of the choices he made.
-
Except I find it unlikely that the father would wish eternal suffering on his son, regardless of the choices he made.
I agree. God doesn't wish that for anyone.
-
Except I find it unlikely that the father would wish eternal suffering on his son, regardless of the choices he made.
I agree. God doesn't wish that for anyone.
Except that it's necessary for him to be glorified for some people to be tested, some of whom will inevitably face eternal suffering. Of course, his glorification is more important than that, though.
-
People having a choice of whether or not to worship Him is more important than them being forced to do so. Unfortunately, that allows people to choose to not worship Him, and therefore spend eternity without Him.
-
If God is so powerful he should really be able to create angels capable of glorifying him. Why choice between good and evil should be the only method of glorification is beyond me. It sounds like a special pleading.
Its responses like this that let me know who really understands Gods love for us and who doesn't. It is most similar to a father wanting his child to understand the difference between right and wrong, but understanding that the child will reach an age where he must make his own choices, and face the consequences/
If God created the universe, he didn't have to make Hell the alternative to Heaven. Seems pretty sadistic -- not loving. "The consequences" could've been whatever he chose them to be. He also controls the whole universe, including each person's environment. You'd think he'd be able to craft each person's upbringing such that they all grew up to be good people -- if he were such a good "father." If the answer to that is that some people are just born rotten, destined to become evil, you'd think he'd be able to prevent them from being born that way.
It takes some serious doublethink to accept these kinds of ideas.
-
If God is so powerful he should really be able to create angels capable of glorifying him. Why choice between good and evil should be the only method of glorification is beyond me. It sounds like a special pleading.
Its responses like this that let me know who really understands Gods love for us and who doesn't. It is most similar to a father wanting his child to understand the difference between right and wrong, but understanding that the child will reach an age where he must make his own choices, and face the consequences/
If God created the universe, he didn't have to make Hell the alternative to Heaven. Seems pretty sadistic -- not loving. "The consequences" could've been whatever he chose them to be. He also controls the whole universe, including each person's environment. You'd think he'd be able to craft each person's upbringing such that they all grew up to be good people -- if he were such a good "father." If the answer to that is that some people are just born rotten, destined to become evil, you'd think he'd be able to prevent them from being born that way.
It takes some serious doublethink to accept these kinds of ideas.
No, you just WANT to see it one way, therefor it is very easy for you to see it that way, meanwhile, it is hard for me to look at it through your angle due to me understanding God better (although we can never truely understand him).
Your basic responses (that you continously go back to) are:
1)God doesnt force me to be good, so he is just cruel
2)God allows evil to be in the world, so he must not really care.
3)God will send us to hell, and punishment is unfair.
My 3 basic responses are:
1)You arent truely good if you are forced to be good
2)God allows us to make our own choices, even if those choices are evil.
3)You send yourself to hell based on your choices.
I can go into semantics such as how Hell wasnt created for us, and all sorts of things, however, those mean nothing and are just further extrapolative reasonings of these 3 basic ideas. Bringing up examples isnt even necessary.
-
A point I would like to bring up is the mater of how the world was created, putting God aside, how did it happen?
We have about 3-5 popular theories, all of which are full of holes and cannot fully be explained, I would give examples, but I can't really remember them. ^^"
Anyway, I shall tell you a story, one day, a high level scientist became charismatic and turned to god, he told the other scientist, "Why don't you guys even allow God to be considered in the creation of earth?" and the scientists, annoyed that he had become charismatic, fired him.
Yep. Just because of that.
One scientist went so far as to make a book called 'The Delusions of God' that said how believing in God was stupid, and that everyone who does is an idiot. The scientist who was fired in turn made a book called 'The Delusions of [Insert name of scientist]' that countered everything he said against God.
The scientist still wouldn't believe in God.
The ex-scientist had and interview with the scientist and personally countered every single creation theory that he could think up. He ran out of options and said;
"Well, there is still one haven't mentioned, the earth was just a lifeless rock in space and something came and brought germs here."
The ex-scientist: "So your saying aliens came on to earth, had a picnic and left some trash on earth, then left, and those germs evolved into humans?"
Scientist: "Yes."
The ex-scientist: "Well, I don't have a counter for that one."
So, the only theory the scientist had left was one that was even more ridiculous than God.
Thank you for reading through my bone wall of opinion. If you want to learn more about those scientists there is a movie called 'Expelled: no intelligence allowed' that gos further into the subject. If you find any of my facts do not check with the movie or are in some parts exaggerated, I apologize, it has been a long time since I watched that movie and I may have gotten some things wrong. Now I'm gonna go rest my fingers :P.
-
If God did make the universe, and is truly omnipotent, then that means He chose the initial configurations by which this universe's laws stand. He created us by these means, and through our observations, we have created a definition of "free will" that is satisfactory when it comes to everyday life.
Consider the anthropic principle, which states that the we see the universe this way because, if it was different, we would not be alive to see it. Now, considering this, that actually presets a level of conceitedness on our own existence. Consider that we AREN'T at the "highest level" of free will, that is offered by the omnipotency of God, but are, in fact, only given a portion of free will that He has chosen to give us? Through this, it's like looking at a bird in a cage with no way to look out of the bars. Their universe is contained in the cage, and they live by the laws of the cage, in that they believe that their maximum potential freedom is offered in that tiny space.
Saying God COULDN'T offer us higher "free will" would be ideally moronic, since that contradicts the concept that He is omnipotent. God knew full well what He was making. Should He have designed us in a way that we were inherently empathic and loyal to Him, we would not object, because that would be the maximum scope by which we understand ourselves and the universe... Just like the way it is now.
-
Free will does not exist. The universe is merely a purely material construct of mass and energy, driven by the laws of physics which arised from the spontaneous random creation from nothingness. This explanation alone is enough to satisfy me, because everything is ordered and makes sense; I don't know about the details but I believe that they can be found if we try hard enough. I don't see the need for an omnipotent creator like the Christian God.
-
Quantum theory: Nothing is real until observed. I have not observed God.
Don't ask me what "observe" means. I don't know the exact requirements for something to be a "conscious observer". I've only read a little bit into quantum theory, but nothing I've read told me the exact qualifications for observant consciousness. And when you think about it, consciousness doesn't really exist, since the brain is just an arrangement of subatomic particles. There might be some kind of "soul particle" that allows consciousness, but it's up to the physicists to find it.
How about this. God is a probability wave function. He is nether existent nor nonexistent. You Christians believe in (observed) God, so you collapsed the quantum waveform of God and made Him exist. We atheists don't believe in God and cannot observe Him, so for us God is not real. We can't prove God doesn't exist, but we can't prove He exists either.
I am christian and im proud of it.
There is a lot of people in this world and all of them have difrent personality and difrent bolieves, witch is a good thing cuz it makes us what we are. Christian, atheist , budist ... we must believe in something or we are nothing . The point about god is not that he exosts or not it is just that believe in him makes beter people cuz all goods have some rules or choices that you need to make to go in heavon.But the most important thing is to have feit in your self!!
Cheers and best wishes 8)
-
Quantum theory: Nothing is real until observed. I have not observed God.
Don't ask me what "observe" means. I don't know the exact requirements for something to be a "conscious observer". I've only read a little bit into quantum theory, but nothing I've read told me the exact qualifications for observant consciousness. And when you think about it, consciousness doesn't really exist, since the brain is just an arrangement of subatomic particles. There might be some kind of "soul particle" that allows consciousness, but it's up to the physicists to find it.
How about this. God is a probability wave function. He is nether existent nor nonexistent. You Christians believe in (observed) God, so you collapsed the quantum waveform of God and made Him exist. We atheists don't believe in God and cannot observe Him, so for us God is not real. We can't prove God doesn't exist, but we can't prove He exists either.
I am christian and im proud of it.
There is a lot of people in this world and all of them have difrent personality and difrent bolieves, witch is a good thing cuz it makes us what we are. Christian, atheist , budist ... we must believe in something or we are nothing . The point about god is not that he exosts or not it is just that believe in him makes beter people cuz all goods have some rules or choices that you need to make to go in heavon.But the most important thing is to have feit in your self!!
Cheers and best wishes 8)
At the very least, attempt english.
Your point is flawed in that not all people need to have a belief in order to have what you claim to have (a sense of self-worth). Being human isn't about having some sense of spirituality with a metaphysical force. It's being an organism that prolongs its own existence and transfers genetic data to the next line. That much is not left up to a mysterious and undetectable presence in the universe.
"We must believe in something or we are nothing." Not necessarily. Are you claiming that agnostics are heartless?
Rules and choices to "get into heaven" are imposed moral codes that are developed by people in power who agree whether or not something is "right" or "wrong". Examples include the fact that, until more recent centuries (or milennia), humanity in general has developed a higher sense of value. Before this swing in an empathic direction, murder, rape, pillaging, etc. was actually ENCOURAGED by those who claimed to be "children of God". Simply reading about the things that the followers of God did in the Old Testament amount to that. Over time, morality changes. It's never set in stone, and those in power decide what it is to be good or evil.
Having faith in yourself and having a God to believe in are 2 separate things. Therefore, your closing argument is invalid.
-
Quantum theory: Nothing is real until observed. I have not observed God.
Don't ask me what "observe" means. I don't know the exact requirements for something to be a "conscious observer". I've only read a little bit into quantum theory, but nothing I've read told me the exact qualifications for observant consciousness. And when you think about it, consciousness doesn't really exist, since the brain is just an arrangement of subatomic particles. There might be some kind of "soul particle" that allows consciousness, but it's up to the physicists to find it.
How about this. God is a probability wave function. He is nether existent nor nonexistent. You Christians believe in (observed) God, so you collapsed the quantum waveform of God and made Him exist. We atheists don't believe in God and cannot observe Him, so for us God is not real. We can't prove God doesn't exist, but we can't prove He exists either.
I am christian and im proud of it.
There is a lot of people in this world and all of them have difrent personality and difrent bolieves, witch is a good thing cuz it makes us what we are. Christian, atheist , budist ... we must believe in something or we are nothing . The point about god is not that he exosts or not it is just that believe in him makes beter people cuz all goods have some rules or choices that you need to make to go in heavon.But the most important thing is to have feit in your self!!
Cheers and best wishes 8)
At the very least, attempt english.
Your point is flawed in that not all people need to have a belief in order to have what you claim to have (a sense of self-worth). Being human isn't about having some sense of spirituality with a metaphysical force. It's being an organism that prolongs its own existence and transfers genetic data to the next line. That much is not left up to a mysterious and undetectable presence in the universe.
"We must believe in something or we are nothing." Not necessarily. Are you claiming that agnostics are heartless?
Rules and choices to "get into heaven" are imposed moral codes that are developed by people in power who agree whether or not something is "right" or "wrong". Examples include the fact that, until more recent centuries (or milennia), humanity in general has developed a higher sense of value. Before this swing in an empathic direction, murder, rape, pillaging, etc. was actually ENCOURAGED by those who claimed to be "children of God". Simply reading about the things that the followers of God did in the Old Testament amount to that. Over time, morality changes. It's never set in stone, and those in power decide what it is to be good or evil.
Having faith in yourself and having a God to believe in are 2 separate things. Therefore, your closing argument is invalid.
Well m8 my english is not that good but your sarcasm will not help :) .
"Having faith in yourself and having a God to believe in are 2 separate things." It all depends with the way that you were raised , if you respect your self you will respect others ( if you have feith in your self you will have feith in something that you believe) .
I didnt wanted to mix science in this cuz sience and feith do not get a long, there are something that happend and even science cant explane them.
And as i told you there is X No. in the world and all have difrent way of thinking so this topic is same as discuss about why do you like green color and i do not ( it is pointless to discuss about it ) .
Nvm and sry if insult you in some way (i learned few things from your answer so im cool) .
Cheers and best wishes (grammatical errors are the result of not having coffee atm :( )
-
I didnt wanted to mix science in this cuz sience and feith do not get a long, there are something that happend and even science cant explane them.
This entire statement is absolutely ridiculous. My metaphysical/philosophical beliefs are entirely derived from real physics. And of course science can explain everything, because the very purpose of science is to explain things. Nothing can bypass logic and reason. I'm absolutely sick of the "science can't explain everything" statement, because science is f***ing intended to explain things.
-
I didnt wanted to mix science in this cuz sience and feith do not get a long, there are something that happend and even science cant explane them.
This entire statement is absolutely ridiculous. My metaphysical/philosophical beliefs are entirely derived from real physics. And of course science can explain everything, because the very purpose of science is to explain things. Nothing can bypass logic and reason. I'm absolutely sick of the "science can't explain everything" statement, because science is f***ing intended to explain things.
"Science and faith don't get along."
As in Bloodshadow's situation, it's clearly possible to have faith in science itself, not necessarily in some metaphysical force governing the universe from offscreen.
-
I didnt wanted to mix science in this cuz sience and feith do not get a long, there are something that happend and even science cant explane them.
This entire statement is absolutely ridiculous. My metaphysical/philosophical beliefs are entirely derived from real physics. And of course science can explain everything, because the very purpose of science is to explain things. Nothing can bypass logic and reason. I'm absolutely sick of the "science can't explain everything" statement, because science is f***ing intended to explain things.
I now m8, we were just chating i do not know why are you so nervous and angry .
- "I'm absolutely sick of the "science can't explain everything" statement, because science is f***ing intended to explain things." Day will come when things will be clear, but it is not now .Science progress is fast atm. so well see what will happen in the future and one day we will have answers for sure.
Just chill and relax plz.
Cheers and best wishes 8)
-
I didnt wanted to mix science in this cuz sience and feith do not get a long, there are something that happend and even science cant explane them.
This entire statement is absolutely ridiculous. My metaphysical/philosophical beliefs are entirely derived from real physics. And of course science can explain everything, because the very purpose of science is to explain things. Nothing can bypass logic and reason. I'm absolutely sick of the "science can't explain everything" statement, because science is f***ing intended to explain things.
No.
Science is intended to discover all falsifiable knowledge. Non falsifiable claims are not valid scientific hypotheses even when true.
-
If God is so powerful he should really be able to create angels capable of glorifying him. Why choice between good and evil should be the only method of glorification is beyond me. It sounds like a special pleading.
Its responses like this that let me know who really understands Gods love for us and who doesn't. It is most similar to a father wanting his child to understand the difference between right and wrong, but understanding that the child will reach an age where he must make his own choices, and face the consequences/
If God created the universe, he didn't have to make Hell the alternative to Heaven. Seems pretty sadistic -- not loving. "The consequences" could've been whatever he chose them to be. He also controls the whole universe, including each person's environment. You'd think he'd be able to craft each person's upbringing such that they all grew up to be good people -- if he were such a good "father." If the answer to that is that some people are just born rotten, destined to become evil, you'd think he'd be able to prevent them from being born that way.
It takes some serious doublethink to accept these kinds of ideas.
No, you just WANT to see it one way, therefor it is very easy for you to see it that way, meanwhile, it is hard for me to look at it through your angle due to me understanding God better (although we can never truely understand him).
Your basic responses (that you continously go back to) are:
1)God doesnt force me to be good, so he is just cruel
2)God allows evil to be in the world, so he must not really care.
3)God will send us to hell, and punishment is unfair.
My 3 basic responses are:
1)You arent truely good if you are forced to be good
2)God allows us to make our own choices, even if those choices are evil.
3)You send yourself to hell based on your choices.
I can go into semantics such as how Hell wasnt created for us, and all sorts of things, however, those mean nothing and are just further extrapolative reasonings of these 3 basic ideas. Bringing up examples isnt even necessary.
I never said we should be forced to be good, it just shouldn't be so hard. It doesn't have to be hard, but it is. Wouldn't it still be a choice if 99.999% of all people were on average likely to succeed? What if the chance was so high that odds were that no one failed? The odds can be whatever God makes them, and he made us poor students taking a hard test.
As for God allowing evil in the world -- he doesn't just allow us to be evil, he's also responsible for catastrophic natural disasters such as the recent tsunami in Japan. I'm sure he had a good reason for that, though. I hope they learned whatever lesson they were supposed to over there, right? Or are they all going to Hell anyway because they weren't baptized or didn't believe in Christ?
As for sending ourselves to Hell, that's ridiculous -- God is responsible for the existence of Hell, end of story. You can rationalize all you want, but the fact is that it's irrational. Bring up "examples" if you want, but rationalizing the irrational is a pointless exercise.
-
I don't know if God exist or not but He has helped me so much.
He is also very friendly^^
-
Well, you can't just say just because he hasn't been proven, that he can't be real. BUT, you also can't say that just because he hasn't been dis proven, he's real. I just personally don't see anything realistic about any of the religions. It just makes more sense to me that once we die, that's it for us. I mean, we all know the dark ages caused by religion, and what could be without them. We could possibly even be 1,000 years more advanced. I just want to say that whether you believe in a god, many gods, or none at all, I don't think that should change much about you. One final comment, I just want to say that religion shouldn't change any opinion of anything.
-
No.
Science is intended to discover all falsifiable knowledge. Non falsifiable claims are not valid scientific hypotheses even when true.
Science (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge") is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.
I think this explanation is better than yours, OT. Science should be able to explain everything, because its scope is just as limitless as religion.
I now m8, we were just chating i do not know why are you so nervous and angry .
Just chill and relax plz.
How can I not be angry when you Christians say I will burn in Hell forever for not believing your dogma? This has irritated me ever since my first contact with Christianity.
-
How can I not be angry when you Christians say I will burn in Hell forever for not believing your dogma? This has irritated me ever since my first contact with Christianity.
I hate this as well. I think that if you think this, just please keep it to yourself.
-
No.
Science is intended to discover all falsifiable knowledge. Non falsifiable claims are not valid scientific hypotheses even when true.
Science (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge") is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.
I think this explanation is better than yours, OT. Science should be able to explain everything, because its scope is just as limitless as religion.
Falsifiable means that a test would disprove it if it were wrong. AKA testable explanations are falsifiable explanations. Explanations that are not testable are not falsifiable.
Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion could be shown false by a particular observation or physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, it means that if the statement were false, then its falsehood could be demonstrated.
-
So you're basically saying that religion can't be proven or dis-proven. I agree with this, because that is completely what keeps religion alive. Everyone just looks for an explanation for life, so they come up with their own.
Also, question for everyone in the christian section. When Y2k and all the other predictions of the end of the world/judgement day didn't happen, did that make you think, 'is this really as realistic as I used to think?" or do you think, "Oh, I just must have read the signs wrong, so nothing is unrealistic about it."?
-
So you're basically saying that religion can't be proven or dis-proven.
No. I am not going as far as to make that claim.
If a religion makes falsifiable claims then those claims can be disproved if false or given support if not disproved.
(See Ezikiel's disproof about an aspect of the Baal worship religion in the bible)
If a religion makes non falsifiable claims then those claims can not be investigated through science.
-
As in most claims that are made by religion are not falsifiable.
-
As in most claims that are made by religion are not falsifiable.
With out current knowledge of reality, yes. Especially morality.
-
While i do not have any particular strong argument against god, i do have a pretty overused one:
WHY, why is, and was, so much war, hate, and so on, if there really is a supreme benevolent deity that watches over all the Universe, and particularly the earth, why doesn't it do ANYTHING? Aren't most of the wars because, while most people agree on the existance of a supreme being, they don't agree on what exactly might his/hers/its name is? Shouldn't God then just poof over into everybody's house and say "my name is *such*, you can now stop every war, and so on, about me. stop hating everybody, too."
-
While i do not have any particular strong argument against god, i do have a pretty overused one:
WHY, why is, and was, so much war, hate, and so on, if there really is a supreme benevolent deity that watches over all the Universe, and particularly the earth, why doesn't it do ANYTHING? Aren't most of the wars because, while most people agree on the existance of a supreme being, they don't agree on what exactly might his/hers/its name is? Shouldn't God then just poof over into everybody's house and say "my name is *such*, you can now stop every war, and so on, about me. stop hating everybody, too."
Some responses (varying widely by religion and sects within religions) I've heard are:
-- God has a plan. He hasn't told you the plan because you wouldn't understand, or because your knowing the plan might inherently defeat the plan, or simply because it's not your place to know the plan. You must have faith that the plan is ultimately beneficial to you.
-- God allows these events to happen to test the faithful. He's watching to see what you do in the face of such bad things.
-- God allows these events to happen to punish the faithful. If the faithful were more faithful, they wouldn't happen.
-- You don't need to worry about it, God doesn't let these things happen to the faithful. If they do happen, he'll fix it soon, or they're blessings in disguise.
-- What are you doing sitting around while others claim your God isn't real? Go get 'em! (where "get" can mean "convert," "kill," or "threaten to kill if they don't convert")
I'm sure there are others, this is just off the top of my head at 1 AM.
-
Every single one of the reasons above absolutely disgusts me. They make God sound like a pompous, spiteful bastard. +1 for why I don't believe in Christianity.
-
Every single one of the reasons above absolutely disgusts me. They make God sound like a pompous, spiteful bastard. +1 for why I don't believe in Christianity.
..... Chill m8...
-
..... Chill m8...
Yeah yeah, sure. I can "chill" while I burn in Hell for the rest of eternity. Chill indeed.
-
please, we need to settle something else first:
does anyone have strong argouments against the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
or else i'll assume that it exists...
(http://knowyourmeme.com/system/icons/206/original/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster.jpg?1241373617)
I see what you did there!!! nice south park refference!!!
-
-- God has a plan. He hasn't told you the plan because you wouldn't understand, or because your knowing the plan might inherently defeat the plan, or simply because it's not your place to know the plan. You must have faith that the plan is ultimately beneficial to you.
-- God allows these events to happen to test the faithful. He's watching to see what you do in the face of such bad things.
-- God allows these events to happen to punish the faithful. If the faithful were more faithful, they wouldn't happen.
-- You don't need to worry about it, God doesn't let these things happen to the faithful. If they do happen, he'll fix it soon, or they're blessings in disguise.
-- What are you doing sitting around while others claim your God isn't real? Go get 'em! (where "get" can mean "convert," "kill," or "threaten to kill if they don't convert")
The first reason is the only one that is not completely ignorant/contrary to Scripture. Even so, the first one isn't a valid response to the question posed. The real reason that there is evil and suffering in this world is that God could not eliminate these things without also eliminating freedom and, therefore, love.
We can, perhaps, conceive of a world in which God corrected the results of this abuse of free will by His creatures at every moment: so that a wooden beam became soft as grass when it was used as a weapon, and the air refused to obey me if I attempted to set up in it the sound waves that carry lies or insults. But such a world would be one in which wrong actions were impossible, and in which, therefore, freedom of the will would be void; nay, if the principle were carried out to its logical conclusion, evil thoughts would be impossible, for the cerebral matter which we use in thinking would refuse its task when we attempted to frame them
-
The first reason is the only one that is not completely ignorant/contrary to Scripture. Even so, the first one isn't a valid response to the question posed. The real reason that there is evil and suffering in this world is that God could not eliminate these things without also eliminating freedom and, therefore, love.
If God did make the universe, and is truly omnipotent, then that means He chose the initial configurations by which this universe's laws stand. He created us by these means, and through our observations, we have created a definition of "free will" that is satisfactory when it comes to everyday life.
Consider the anthropic principle, which states that the we see the universe this way because, if it was different, we would not be alive to see it. Now, considering this, that actually presets a level of conceitedness on our own existence. Consider that we AREN'T at the "highest level" of free will, that is offered by the omnipotency of God, but are, in fact, only given a portion of free will that He has chosen to give us? Through this, it's like looking at a bird in a cage with no way to look out of the bars. Their universe is contained in the cage, and they live by the laws of the cage, in that they believe that their maximum potential freedom is offered in that tiny space.
Saying God COULDN'T offer us higher "free will" would be ideally moronic, since that contradicts the concept that He is omnipotent. God knew full well what He was making. Should He have designed us in a way that we were inherently empathic and loyal to Him, we would not object, because that would be the maximum scope by which we understand ourselves and the universe... Just like the way it is now.
I would've hoped that someone would've at least compared their opinion to my own. Again, saying "God could not eliminate these things without also eliminating freedom and, therefore, love." is not proven to be true. Again, there are ways that he could've made us in a way in which we have free will and yet did no wrong. That's what omnipotency is.
-
-- God has a plan. He hasn't told you the plan because you wouldn't understand, or because your knowing the plan might inherently defeat the plan, or simply because it's not your place to know the plan. You must have faith that the plan is ultimately beneficial to you.
-- God allows these events to happen to test the faithful. He's watching to see what you do in the face of such bad things.
-- God allows these events to happen to punish the faithful. If the faithful were more faithful, they wouldn't happen.
-- You don't need to worry about it, God doesn't let these things happen to the faithful. If they do happen, he'll fix it soon, or they're blessings in disguise.
-- What are you doing sitting around while others claim your God isn't real? Go get 'em! (where "get" can mean "convert," "kill," or "threaten to kill if they don't convert")
The first reason is the only one that is not completely ignorant/contrary to Scripture.
Of course, Christians who agree with points other than the first would argue that your understanding of scripture is incorrect!
(For what it's worth, these are not necessarily specific references to Christian doctrine. I have heard each of the above from followers of at least two different religions.)
-
Holy Fire in Jerusalem.
Miracle that happens every year and so far scientist failed to provide strong evidence how that has something to do with nature ,cosmos ,gravity...
The flame that burns for 20 minutes at which it is impossible to burn up and strange think is that comes from the sky...
-
I would've hoped that someone would've at least compared their opinion to my own. Again, saying "God could not eliminate these things without also eliminating freedom and, therefore, love." is not proven to be true. Again, there are ways that he could've made us in a way in which we have free will and yet did no wrong. That's what omnipotency is.
I happen to agree with you that we could have perfectly good free will without evil, but Christians tend to frame good vs evil choices as the only ones that matter. For them, evil has to exist for any choices that matter to exist.
-
How can I not be angry when you Christians say I will burn in Hell forever for not believing your dogma? This has irritated me ever since my first contact with Christianity.
I hate this as well. I think that if you think this, just please keep it to yourself.
Im sorry, not trying to be insensitive here, but you go to a religion thread, enter a debate with christians, and then get angry when you are told you are going to hell? You obviously already have knowledge of this. If it angers you then I assume there is something much deeper, considering I am sure there are plenty of religions where I am not going to that religions "heaven" and could be going to that religions "hell". However, it would not upset me because I already know where I am going. I know what is true and therefor what other people think will happen to me when I die is irrelevant. Perhaps you should examine what you believe, because if someone saying you are going to hell bothers you when you dont believe a thing we say, then there seems to be some internal conflict.
I would've hoped that someone would've at least compared their opinion to my own. Again, saying "God could not eliminate these things without also eliminating freedom and, therefore, love." is not proven to be true. Again, there are ways that he could've made us in a way in which we have free will and yet did no wrong. That's what omnipotency is.
I happen to agree with you that we could have perfectly good free will without evil, but Christians tend to frame good vs evil choices as the only ones that matter. For them, evil has to exist for any choices that matter to exist.
Adam and Eve were originally created without sin. They had free will, but only did good until they were tricked.
-
I would've hoped that someone would've at least compared their opinion to my own. Again, saying "God could not eliminate these things without also eliminating freedom and, therefore, love." is not proven to be true. Again, there are ways that he could've made us in a way in which we have free will and yet did no wrong. That's what omnipotency is.
I happen to agree with you that we could have perfectly good free will without evil, but Christians tend to frame good vs evil choices as the only ones that matter. For them, evil has to exist for any choices that matter to exist.
Adam and Eve were originally created without sin. They had free will, but only did good until they were tricked.
God should've made them smarter, then, or he shouldn't have created evil, seductive snakes. Or is that asking too much? :))
-
If God is so powerful he should really be able to create angels capable of glorifying him. Why choice between good and evil should be the only method of glorification is beyond me. It sounds like a special pleading.
Its responses like this that let me know who really understands Gods love for us and who doesn't. It is most similar to a father wanting his child to understand the difference between right and wrong, but understanding that the child will reach an age where he must make his own choices, and face the consequences/
If God created the universe, he didn't have to make Hell the alternative to Heaven. Seems pretty sadistic -- not loving. "The consequences" could've been whatever he chose them to be. He also controls the whole universe, including each person's environment. You'd think he'd be able to craft each person's upbringing such that they all grew up to be good people -- if he were such a good "father." If the answer to that is that some people are just born rotten, destined to become evil, you'd think he'd be able to prevent them from being born that way.
It takes some serious doublethink to accept these kinds of ideas.
No, you just WANT to see it one way, therefor it is very easy for you to see it that way, meanwhile, it is hard for me to look at it through your angle due to me understanding God better (although we can never truely understand him).
Your basic responses (that you continously go back to) are:
1)God doesnt force me to be good, so he is just cruel
2)God allows evil to be in the world, so he must not really care.
3)God will send us to hell, and punishment is unfair.
My 3 basic responses are:
1)You arent truely good if you are forced to be good
2)God allows us to make our own choices, even if those choices are evil.
3)You send yourself to hell based on your choices.
I can go into semantics such as how Hell wasnt created for us, and all sorts of things, however, those mean nothing and are just further extrapolative reasonings of these 3 basic ideas. Bringing up examples isnt even necessary.
I never said we should be forced to be good, it just shouldn't be so hard. It doesn't have to be hard, but it is. Wouldn't it still be a choice if 99.999% of all people were on average likely to succeed? What if the chance was so high that odds were that no one failed? The odds can be whatever God makes them, and he made us poor students taking a hard test.
As for God allowing evil in the world -- he doesn't just allow us to be evil, he's also responsible for catastrophic natural disasters such as the recent tsunami in Japan. I'm sure he had a good reason for that, though. I hope they learned whatever lesson they were supposed to over there, right? Or are they all going to Hell anyway because they weren't baptized or didn't believe in Christ?
As for sending ourselves to Hell, that's ridiculous -- God is responsible for the existence of Hell, end of story. You can rationalize all you want, but the fact is that it's irrational. Bring up "examples" if you want, but rationalizing the irrational is a pointless exercise.
I would've hoped that someone would've at least compared their opinion to my own. Again, saying "God could not eliminate these things without also eliminating freedom and, therefore, love." is not proven to be true. Again, there are ways that he could've made us in a way in which we have free will and yet did no wrong. That's what omnipotency is.
I happen to agree with you that we could have perfectly good free will without evil, but Christians tend to frame good vs evil choices as the only ones that matter. For them, evil has to exist for any choices that matter to exist.
Adam and Eve were originally created without sin. They had free will, but only did good until they were tricked.
God should've made them smarter, then, or he shouldn't have created evil, seductive snakes. Or is that asking too much? :))
You seem to be missing a very basic point. So lets go to it. You talk abuot how it is so hard to be good, so lets focus on just that. What sin is so hard for you to deny? What do you think is so hard about being "good"
-
You seem to be missing a very basic point. So lets go to it. You talk abuot how it is so hard to be good, so lets focus on just that. What sin is so hard for you to deny? What do you think is so hard about being "good"
Obviously it's hard enough that there is a lot of sin in this world. Would you deny that? I wasn't just talking about myself personally. A kind God wouldn't make humans so prone to evil.
-
You seem to be missing a very basic point. So lets go to it. You talk abuot how it is so hard to be good, so lets focus on just that. What sin is so hard for you to deny? What do you think is so hard about being "good"
Obviously it's hard enough that there is a lot of sin in this world. Would you deny that? I wasn't just talking about myself personally. A kind God wouldn't make humans so prone to evil.
Youre talking general. I want to get to specifics. General sin is a hard thing to tackle, instead it is much easier to get to the specific things that are considered "hard sins"
-
You seem to be missing a very basic point. So lets go to it. You talk abuot how it is so hard to be good, so lets focus on just that. What sin is so hard for you to deny? What do you think is so hard about being "good"
Obviously it's hard enough that there is a lot of sin in this world. Would you deny that? I wasn't just talking about myself personally. A kind God wouldn't make humans so prone to evil.
Youre talking general. I want to get to specifics. General sin is a hard thing to tackle, instead it is much easier to get to the specific things that are considered "hard sins"
Well let's start with big fundamental ones, then. Murder is very common. If there were a kind God, he wouldn't have made people so murderous. War is just murder on a large scale and has existed since time immemorial. Why did God make people so violent?
-
How many people have you killed? Just curious. On an individual level, is it really that hard for people to not murder?
Youre trying to keep this as general as possible, I am intentionally (and obviously not trying to hide that I am doing so) sidestepping any generalizations.
-
Well let's start with big fundamental ones, then. Murder is very common. If there were a kind God, he wouldn't have made people so murderous. War is just murder on a large scale and has existed since time immemorial. Why did God make people so violent?
God's ways are ununderstandable to man.
-
How many people have you killed? Just curious. On an individual level, is it really that hard for people to not murder?
Youre trying to keep this as general as possible, I am intentionally (and obviously not trying to hide that I am doing so) sidestepping any generalizations.
"On an individual level" is a pretty general statement. The whole point is that generally people kill each other, which is the problem. It may be easy for me not to kill other people, but in the right situation I probably would. It's human nature. I'm not saying I hope I would, I'm just being honest about my own nature. I have violently fought against someone before. I'd say it was mainly in self-defense, but in the heat of the moment some of it was retributive for the pain that had been inflicted on me. It's hard to be rational and calm when someone is hurting you.
Well let's start with big fundamental ones, then. Murder is very common. If there were a kind God, he wouldn't have made people so murderous. War is just murder on a large scale and has existed since time immemorial. Why did God make people so violent?
God's ways are ununderstandable to man.
Indeed.
-
"On an individual level" is a pretty general statement. The whole point is that generally people kill each other, which is the problem. It may be easy for me not to kill other people, but in the right situation I probably would. It's human nature. I'm not saying I hope I would, I'm just being honest about my own nature. I have violently fought against someone before. I'd say it was mainly in self-defense, but in the heat of the moment some of it was retributive for the pain that had been inflicted on me. It's hard to be rational and calm when someone is hurting you.
So in self defense if pushed far enough you would. Ok, thats understandable. So you dont randomly wake up and think about if you should kill someone today and have to constantly fight back the will to murder. It sounds to me like 99.9% of the time not murdering is pretty easy for you to follow.
-
Im sorry, not trying to be insensitive here, but you go to a religion thread, enter a debate with christians, and then get angry when you are told you are going to hell? You obviously already have knowledge of this. If it angers you then I assume there is something much deeper, considering I am sure there are plenty of religions where I am not going to that religions "heaven" and could be going to that religions "hell". However, it would not upset me because I already know where I am going. I know what is true and therefor what other people think will happen to me when I die is irrelevant. Perhaps you should examine what you believe, because if someone saying you are going to hell bothers you when you dont believe a thing we say, then there seems to be some internal conflict.
It's the sheer amount of arrogance and pride they have that annoys me. How dare they say that I'm going to hell? What gave them the right to claim that their way is the only way? It is one thing to have beliefs, it's another thing to force your beliefs onto others and condemn all that don't convert. For me, I may think my beliefs are absolute truth, but I obviously can't make you guys all believe in me. I didn't condemn you guys, now did I?
It doesn't "bother" me. I'm just irritated by it.
As for the whole good and evil debate, there is simply no such thing as absolute good/evil. All moral values are relative and contrived. But this means your God cannot be a benevolent deity, since benevolence itself is relative. Thus, the whole argument of "God is nice" is invalid in its very foundation. It's pointless to try to pick holes in that argument, because the argument itself is already so intrinsically flawed.
As a substitute for the more relative "good" and "evil", I use selfishness and altruism. So let me rephrase your debate: "Is God selfish or altruistic?" But this question is also flawed. If God is truly selfless and only wants the happiness of his creations, then he can simply suspend all of us in a perpetual state of eternal bliss. If that's the case, then God does not want humans to have free will. There are two possible answers to this question: 1) God is altruistic, and he is trying to find a balance between absolute happiness and free will for his subjects; but this means God is not as omnipotent as Christians claim. 2) God is selfish, and is simply doing all of this for teh lulz. In which case, I'm not sure I'll want to believe in such a God.
In the first answer to the question above, I said God is not omnipotent and is trying to find the optimal point. But if he is omnipotent and altruistic, that means the current state of the world is already the optimal balance point between happiness and free will that he looked for. In this case, God will have no reasons to help any of us, since he is already satisfied with his world.
To summarize, I deduced that God can't be altruistic and omnipotent at the same time. If he is, then he still would not help us. Thus, I think that me believing in Christianity will not benefit me in any way other than deluding myself. I'm not that desperate yet.
-
It's the sheer amount of arrogance and pride they have that annoys me. How dare they say that I'm going to hell? What gave them the right to claim that their way is the only way? It is one thing to have beliefs, it's another thing to force your beliefs onto others and condemn all that don't convert. For me, I may think my beliefs are absolute truth, but I obviously can't make you guys all believe in me. I didn't condemn you guys, now did I?
I believe that there is only one way to heaven, and that is through Jesus Christ. I have every right to claim that as my belief, just as you have every right to claim beliefs to the contrary. Christianity absolutely does not promote forcing beliefs onto others or condemning those that don't convert. People that do these things give Christianity a bad name and drive me just as crazy as they do you, I assure you. And for clarification, expressing my belief that anyone who does not accept salvation from Jesus Christ will spend an eternity apart from God is not the same as condemning you - it is just expressing my beliefs.
As for the whole good and evil debate, there is simply no such thing as absolute good/evil. All moral values are relative and contrived. But this means your God cannot be a benevolent deity, since benevolence itself is relative. Thus, the whole argument of "God is nice" is invalid in its very foundation. It's pointless to try to pick holes in that argument, because the argument itself is already so intrinsically flawed.
As a substitute for the more relative "good" and "evil", I use selfishness and altruism. So let me rephrase your debate: "Is God selfish or altruistic?" But this question is also flawed. If God is truly selfless and only wants the happiness of his creations, then he can simply suspend all of us in a perpetual state of eternal bliss. If that's the case, then God does not want humans to have free will. There are two possible answers to this question: 1) God is altruistic, and he is trying to find a balance between absolute happiness and free will for his subjects; but this means God is not as omnipotent as Christians claim. 2) God is selfish, and is simply doing all of this for teh lulz. In which case, I'm not sure I'll want to believe in such a God.
In the first answer to the question above, I said God is not omnipotent and is trying to find the optimal point. But if he is omnipotent and altruistic, that means the current state of the world is already the optimal balance point between happiness and free will that he looked for. In this case, God will have no reasons to help any of us, since he is already satisfied with his world.
To summarize, I deduced that God can't be altruistic and omnipotent at the same time. If he is, then he still would not help us. Thus, I think that me believing in Christianity will not benefit me in any way other than deluding myself. I'm not that desperate yet.
I cannot argue with your conclusions because I disagree with your premise (relative morality).
-
Christianity absolutely does not promote forcing beliefs onto others or condemning those that don't convert.
Eh. I'm pretty sure when those people tried to convert me, they said I'd suffer if I don't join their religion. Maybe they did it out of deluded pity for me, but it's still annoying.
What about devout Christian fundamentalists? Don't they think I'll burn in hell forever? I've heard somewhere that some Christian fundamentalist group forced Dungeons and Dragons to change the races "demon" and "devil" to "tanar'ri" and "baatezu" respectively, because they thought the original names were satanic. It seems pretty arrogant and prideful to me to even attempt to force these changes on a freaking tabletop game.
I cannot argue with your conclusions because I disagree with your premise (relative morality).
Oh? You believe that morality is absolute then? Do you have any supporting arguments for this, other than "because God made it so"?
-
I cannot argue with your conclusions because I disagree with your premise (relative morality).
Oh? You believe that morality is absolute then? Do you have any supporting arguments for this, other than "because God made it so"?
Considering there is no argument for moral relativism that does not have holes to a believer in objective morality*, he does not need an argument to disbelieve your premise of moral relativism. (nice how that mirrors another such case :) )
*This was discussed in depth in multiple of my philosophy courses. Cultural relativism does not entail moral relativism and any claims based on the lack of evidence for a source of objective morality lend themselves to the antirealist position** rather than the moral relativism position.
**Sentences about morality are statements with objective truth values and all those truth values are false.
-
Christianity absolutely does not promote forcing beliefs onto others or condemning those that don't convert.
Then what happened all those years ago with the Native Americans?
Many other things were also caused by religion. Take for example the Holocaust and the rest of WWII. Or many wars in the middle east. Even the dark ages. Not only do I see no reason in religion, I don't want to be any part of those. Ask yourself, what part of all this actually makes sense?
-
"On an individual level" is a pretty general statement. The whole point is that generally people kill each other, which is the problem. It may be easy for me not to kill other people, but in the right situation I probably would. It's human nature. I'm not saying I hope I would, I'm just being honest about my own nature. I have violently fought against someone before. I'd say it was mainly in self-defense, but in the heat of the moment some of it was retributive for the pain that had been inflicted on me. It's hard to be rational and calm when someone is hurting you.
So in self defense if pushed far enough you would. Ok, thats understandable. So you dont randomly wake up and think about if you should kill someone today and have to constantly fight back the will to murder. It sounds to me like 99.9% of the time not murdering is pretty easy for you to follow.
That's not what I said. I said what might start out in self-defense could easily escalate to aggravated assault and even aggravated murder. No one randomly wakes up and thinks about if they should kill someone. That's ridiculous. Yes, 99.9% of the time it's easy not to murder, but that's besides the point. About every 3 seconds someone is murdered in the US. Murder is extremely common and just because I haven't killed anyone doesn't mean it's not part of human nature, or that I don't sin in other ways. As I've already said, people kill all the time. We are a violent animal. God could have chosen to make us peaceful.
That's just one way he could've made us less prone to sin. If he wanted us to be good, he shouldn't have made it so hard for us.
-
"On an individual level" is a pretty general statement. The whole point is that generally people kill each other, which is the problem. It may be easy for me not to kill other people, but in the right situation I probably would. It's human nature. I'm not saying I hope I would, I'm just being honest about my own nature. I have violently fought against someone before. I'd say it was mainly in self-defense, but in the heat of the moment some of it was retributive for the pain that had been inflicted on me. It's hard to be rational and calm when someone is hurting you.
So in self defense if pushed far enough you would. Ok, thats understandable. So you dont randomly wake up and think about if you should kill someone today and have to constantly fight back the will to murder. It sounds to me like 99.9% of the time not murdering is pretty easy for you to follow.
Yes, 99.9% of the time it's easy not to murder, but that's besides the point.
*snip*
That's just one way he could've made us less prone to sin. If he wanted us to be good, he shouldn't have made it so hard for us.
So 0.1% is too hard to sin? You see, that IS the point. You are one hand saying that it is easy to not murder, then on the other hand you say it is hard for humanity to not murder. I am talking individually. I am talking about YOU personally.
1,000,000,000,000 people is a lot of people. If even just 0.1% of those murder, then that means that 100,000,000 murder. It sounds like a lot, but that is ignoring the fact that 99,900,000,000 do NOT murder. Theres a lot of murder, but theres an exponentially larger amount of people who do NOT murder.
-
"On an individual level" is a pretty general statement. The whole point is that generally people kill each other, which is the problem. It may be easy for me not to kill other people, but in the right situation I probably would. It's human nature. I'm not saying I hope I would, I'm just being honest about my own nature. I have violently fought against someone before. I'd say it was mainly in self-defense, but in the heat of the moment some of it was retributive for the pain that had been inflicted on me. It's hard to be rational and calm when someone is hurting you.
So in self defense if pushed far enough you would. Ok, thats understandable. So you dont randomly wake up and think about if you should kill someone today and have to constantly fight back the will to murder. It sounds to me like 99.9% of the time not murdering is pretty easy for you to follow.
Yes, 99.9% of the time it's easy not to murder, but that's besides the point.
*snip*
That's just one way he could've made us less prone to sin. If he wanted us to be good, he shouldn't have made it so hard for us.
So 0.1% is too hard to sin? You see, that IS the point. You are one hand saying that it is easy to not murder, then on the other hand you say it is hard for humanity to not murder. I am talking individually. I am talking about YOU personally.
1,000,000,000,000 people is a lot of people. If even just 0.1% of those murder, then that means that 100,000,000 murder. It sounds like a lot, but that is ignoring the fact that 99,900,000,000 do NOT murder. Theres a lot of murder, but theres an exponentially larger amount of people who do NOT murder.
Yes, it is too hard.
Murder is not the only sin, either. I'm sure you've been hurt by the darkness of people personally. Murder is just a dramatic example.
-
*snip*
Yes, it is too hard.
Murder is not the only sin, either. I'm sure you've been hurt by the darkness of people personally. Murder is just a dramatic example.
I have been looking to see if I can find the percentage of the population that murders. Unfortunately, that is a hard number to find. I have a feeling it is less than 0.1%. Id say its closer to 1 out of every 10,000 people murder, however, we have no facts (unless you can find some) to back up any number.
If .1% is too hard, then how easy do you want it to be? Will anything beyond 0% be enough for you? You keep trying to be general.
Lets take another one of the 10 commandments.
In no particular order
Do not....
have any gods before me
make any graven image
use the lords name in vain
lie
covet
murder
commit adultery
steal
DO...
honor the sabbath day
honor your father/motherDo not Lie I would say is the hardest one there. We went from murder, to lie. I would say just about 100% of the world lies, many on a weekly or at least monthly basis, would you agree?
-
*snip*
Yes, it is too hard.
Murder is not the only sin, either. I'm sure you've been hurt by the darkness of people personally. Murder is just a dramatic example.
I have been looking to see if I can find the percentage of the population that murders. Unfortunately, that is a hard number to find. I have a feeling it is less than 0.1%. Id say its closer to 1 out of every 10,000 people murder, however, we have no facts (unless you can find some) to back up any number.
If .1% is too hard, then how easy do you want it to be? Will anything beyond 0% be enough for you? You keep trying to be general.
Lets take another one of the 10 commandments.
In no particular order
Do not....
have any gods before me
make any graven image
use the lords name in vain
lie
covet
murder
commit adultery
steal
DO...
honor the sabbath day
honor your father/motherDo not Lie I would say is the hardest one there. We went from murder, to lie. I would say just about 100% of the world lies, many on a weekly or at least monthly basis, would you agree?
Honestly this is getting tiring. If you think the world (including especially human nature) is perfect the way it is, more power to you. I think an omnipotent, kind God should be able to do better.
-
Quantum theory: Nothing is real until observed. I have not observed God.
Just two words: Air? Gas?
-
Quantum theory: Nothing is real until observed. I have not observed God.
Just two words: Air? Gas?
Observed is meant very loosely. Wind resistance or the mass of air is enough to count by his standard. Even bending a light wave would count as observed.
-
is getting tiring. If you think the world (including especially human nature) is perfect the way it is, more power to you. I think an omnipotent, kind God should be able to do better.
I dont know where I said that. In fact, I believe I pretty much said just the opposite. I think I just admitted that probably 100% of the world sins on a monthly basis. And that is just under 1 of the 10 commandments.
-
is getting tiring. If you think the world (including especially human nature) is perfect the way it is, more power to you. I think an omnipotent, kind God should be able to do better.
I dont know where I said that. In fact, I believe I pretty much said just the opposite. I think I just admitted that probably 100% of the world sins on a monthly basis. And that is just under 1 of the 10 commandments.
But you believe that such sin is basically necessary evil that results from free will. The system, in your view, can't be improved or it already would have been by God. I disagree because I don't share the premise that there exists an omnipotent, kind God.
-
But you believe that such sin is basically necessary evil that results from free will. The system, in your view, can't be improved or it already would have been by God. I disagree because I don't share the premise that there exists an omnipotent, kind God.
I think you misunderstand what I am trying to do here. All I am trying to get you to do is understand christianity more. I am not trying to convert you. This is a thread about if someone has a strong argument against God. It got on the subject of sin and if it is hard or easy to sin. You don't like how God made the world.Thats fine. You are allowed to not like it because you have free will. What I am trying to do is help you understand WHY it is how it is. It started off as a discussion, which is great, but now you are reverting to "well I dont believe in God so it doesnt matter" and when it comes to an argument against God, that is not one.
-
Quantum theory: Nothing is real until observed. I have not observed God.
Just two words: Air? Gas?
I never really found out what exactly qualifies as conscious observation. I started a thread about it but not many replied. So instead of trying to sound like a smartass and humiliate me, maybe you should read the theory yourself. I'm not stupid enough to leave such blatant gaping holes in my argument.
-
Quantum theory: Nothing is real until observed. I have not observed God.
Just two words: Air? Gas?
I never really found out what exactly qualifies as conscious observation. I started a thread about it but not many replied. So instead of trying to sound like a smartass and humiliate me, maybe you should read the theory yourself. I'm not stupid enough to leave such blatant gaping holes in my argument.
I'm pretty sure you can observe air, basically because you can examine the molecules and atoms that make up the air. Using electron microscopess rather than plain vision is a really good change. We can also observe the effects that what can't be normally observed gives off. For example, black holes.
-
Quantum theory: Nothing is real until observed. I have not observed God.
Just two words: Air? Gas?
I never really found out what exactly qualifies as conscious observation. I started a thread about it but not many replied. So instead of trying to sound like a smartass and humiliate me, maybe you should read the theory yourself. I'm not stupid enough to leave such blatant gaping holes in my argument.
I'm pretty sure you can observe air, basically because you can examine the molecules and atoms that make up the air. Using electron microscopess rather than plain vision is a really good change. We can also observe the effects that what can't be normally observed gives off. For example, black holes.
I would be careful how you use "effects" as a way to observe something. Whats to say that effect isnt God?
-
But you believe that such sin is basically necessary evil that results from free will. The system, in your view, can't be improved or it already would have been by God. I disagree because I don't share the premise that there exists an omnipotent, kind God.
I think you misunderstand what I am trying to do here. All I am trying to get you to do is understand christianity more. I am not trying to convert you. This is a thread about if someone has a strong argument against God. It got on the subject of sin and if it is hard or easy to sin. You don't like how God made the world.Thats fine. You are allowed to not like it because you have free will. What I am trying to do is help you understand WHY it is how it is. It started off as a discussion, which is great, but now you are reverting to "well I dont believe in God so it doesnt matter" and when it comes to an argument against God, that is not one.
I already understand Christianity. I'm well-versed in its defense. I'm open to your interpretation of the religion but it's not as though I'm totally ignorant of it.
I'm not reverting to "I don't believe in God so it doesn't matter." What I'm saying is that you're starting with the assumption that everything is perfect and then trying to figure out why, but anyone not starting with that assumption would never come to that conclusion. The only way to come to that conclusion is to twist reality around until it starts to jive with your assumption. You're not helping me to understand why it is how it is -- you're helping me to understand how you personally are able to believe that such a flawed existence is somehow perfect: a powerful manifestation of doublethink.
-
I dont know where I said that. In fact, I believe I pretty much said just the opposite. I think I just admitted that probably 100% of the world sins on a monthly basis. And that is just under 1 of the 10 commandments.
Once again, I never said I think the world is perfect. All I am saying is that it is not as bad as people make it out to be. Nothing more nothing less. In fact, the world is flawed due to the origin of sin (I believe I mentioned that as well but that may have been another topic).
The only way to come to that conclusion is to twist reality around until it starts to jive with your assumption.
How am I twisting reality?
If you want to have a conversation, be prepared to give examples, preferably in the post you say them so that we dont have to waste time asking each other what we are talking about. Since you seem to continue to be under the impression that I think the world is perfect, even though I specifically said (and just quoted myself saying) that it isnt, it is making me believe that you are having trouble looking at me as an individual Christian, and are instead lumping me into this worldview you have of Christians as a whole, which I can assure you I do not fall into. I do hope that isnt the case, however, you are not doing much to show otherwise.
-
I dont know where I said that. In fact, I believe I pretty much said just the opposite. I think I just admitted that probably 100% of the world sins on a monthly basis. And that is just under 1 of the 10 commandments.
Once again, I never said I think the world is perfect. All I am saying is that it is not as bad as people make it out to be. Nothing more nothing less. In fact, the world is flawed due to the origin of sin (I believe I mentioned that as well but that may have been another topic).
The only way to come to that conclusion is to twist reality around until it starts to jive with your assumption.
How am I twisting reality?
If you want to have a conversation, be prepared to give examples, preferably in the post you say them so that we dont have to waste time asking each other what we are talking about. Since you seem to continue to be under the impression that I think the world is perfect, even though I specifically said (and just quoted myself saying) that it isnt, it is making me believe that you are having trouble looking at me as an individual Christian, and are instead lumping me into this worldview you have of Christians as a whole, which I can assure you I do not fall into. I do hope that isnt the case, however, you are not doing much to show otherwise.
You neglected to include my response to when you first said the world isn't perfect, or to respond to it earlier.
At any rate, that you believe that the world is flawed because of the fall does give us something to talk about. I do now recall you mentioning it earlier, though you didn't respond to what I said about it. Like using God to explain the universe's origin, this explanation raises more questions than it answers: Flawed man sins because he is flawed. He is flawed because once, a long time ago, a man who wasn't flawed sinned. Now that seems a little harder to explain. Why did the man who wasn't flawed sin? Well, he had the capacity for sin -- a "gift" called "free will." But why would he do it? Well of course, a woman made him do it! Ok, well why did she do that? Well, there was an evil snake who tempted her. Oh, ok, everything is explained. Except wait -- why was there an evil snake in God's idyllic Garden of Eden? And why was there a forbidden tree within man's reach? And why does one man's sin from the beginning of humanity affect the entire race? I could go on, but I don't think it would be necessary.
-
Imho God has nothing to do with:
- Bad events
- Free will
- Man creation
- Origin of the Universe
- Sins and Afterlife
- Death and Birth
- Future of Universe
- Bible
Think about Bible as a collection of miths.
Sins and Afterlife are needed to young men to accept life.Then you can understand what sins are and eventually accept to die.
Future of universe is a non-sense;time is a dimension just like lenght and hight.
Death and Birth are needed to life to proceed and become stronger.
The world is not made for us but we are made for the world.
If you have doubt about God existance just ask him.It's easier than reading thousands of books:D
-
If you have doubt about God existance just ask him.It's easier than reading thousands of books:D
He doesn't communicate when I ask him. Even if logic is not true, I still receive syntax from books. That is more that I can say about a conscious deity if one exists.
-
All what is rational has his god.An irrational statement which is needed to answer 'why?' questions.
The irrational statement can be named 'god' for easy thinking but can be called in many other ways.
If you don't need an irrational statement to work you don't need gods ;)
-
Some people like to beleive that he or she exists, but there is no proof...
-
At any rate, that you believe that the world is flawed because of the fall does give us something to talk about. I do now recall you mentioning it earlier, though you didn't respond to what I said about it. Like using God to explain the universe's origin, this explanation raises more questions than it answers: Flawed man sins because he is flawed. He is flawed because once, a long time ago, a man who wasn't flawed sinned. Now that seems a little harder to explain. Why did the man who wasn't flawed sin? Well, he had the capacity for sin -- a "gift" called "free will." But why would he do it? Well of course, a woman made him do it! Ok, well why did she do that? Well, there was an evil snake who tempted her. Oh, ok, everything is explained. Except wait -- why was there an evil snake in God's idyllic Garden of Eden? And why was there a forbidden tree within man's reach? And why does one man's sin from the beginning of humanity affect the entire race? I could go on, but I don't think it would be necessary.
Im quite confused as to what you are arguing. Although sin is covered in the creation story, it is separate from creation itself. Much like the difference between evolution and bio-genesis. If I am understanding you right, your real argument is that God is not perfect due to sin existing in the world. Is that correct?
-
At any rate, that you believe that the world is flawed because of the fall does give us something to talk about. I do now recall you mentioning it earlier, though you didn't respond to what I said about it. Like using God to explain the universe's origin, this explanation raises more questions than it answers: Flawed man sins because he is flawed. He is flawed because once, a long time ago, a man who wasn't flawed sinned. Now that seems a little harder to explain. Why did the man who wasn't flawed sin? Well, he had the capacity for sin -- a "gift" called "free will." But why would he do it? Well of course, a woman made him do it! Ok, well why did she do that? Well, there was an evil snake who tempted her. Oh, ok, everything is explained. Except wait -- why was there an evil snake in God's idyllic Garden of Eden? And why was there a forbidden tree within man's reach? And why does one man's sin from the beginning of humanity affect the entire race? I could go on, but I don't think it would be necessary.
Im quite confused as to what you are arguing. Although sin is covered in the creation story, it is separate from creation itself. Much like the difference between evolution and bio-genesis. If I am understanding you right, your real argument is that God is not perfect due to sin existing in the world. Is that correct?
You said "the world is flawed due to the origin of sin." I assumed you meant the Fall of Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Man). I refer to that story. My argument is that the Fall of Man is a ridiculous tale because if God were perfect the Garden of Eden wouldn't have had an evil snake (among other points).
-
At any rate, that you believe that the world is flawed because of the fall does give us something to talk about. I do now recall you mentioning it earlier, though you didn't respond to what I said about it. Like using God to explain the universe's origin, this explanation raises more questions than it answers: Flawed man sins because he is flawed. He is flawed because once, a long time ago, a man who wasn't flawed sinned. Now that seems a little harder to explain. Why did the man who wasn't flawed sin? Well, he had the capacity for sin -- a "gift" called "free will." But why would he do it? Well of course, a woman made him do it! Ok, well why did she do that? Well, there was an evil snake who tempted her. Oh, ok, everything is explained. Except wait -- why was there an evil snake in God's idyllic Garden of Eden? And why was there a forbidden tree within man's reach? And why does one man's sin from the beginning of humanity affect the entire race? I could go on, but I don't think it would be necessary.
Im quite confused as to what you are arguing. Although sin is covered in the creation story, it is separate from creation itself. Much like the difference between evolution and bio-genesis. If I am understanding you right, your real argument is that God is not perfect due to sin existing in the world. Is that correct?
You said "the world is flawed due to the origin of sin." I assumed you meant the Fall of Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Man). I refer to that story. My argument is that the Fall of Man is a ridiculous tale because if God were perfect the Garden of Eden wouldn't have had an evil snake (among other points).
Ok, so your argument is "If God was perfect, then there wouldn't be sin in the world." Correct? It sounds like you are saying it, but at the same time, not quite saying it, only implying it.
-
At any rate, that you believe that the world is flawed because of the fall does give us something to talk about. I do now recall you mentioning it earlier, though you didn't respond to what I said about it. Like using God to explain the universe's origin, this explanation raises more questions than it answers: Flawed man sins because he is flawed. He is flawed because once, a long time ago, a man who wasn't flawed sinned. Now that seems a little harder to explain. Why did the man who wasn't flawed sin? Well, he had the capacity for sin -- a "gift" called "free will." But why would he do it? Well of course, a woman made him do it! Ok, well why did she do that? Well, there was an evil snake who tempted her. Oh, ok, everything is explained. Except wait -- why was there an evil snake in God's idyllic Garden of Eden? And why was there a forbidden tree within man's reach? And why does one man's sin from the beginning of humanity affect the entire race? I could go on, but I don't think it would be necessary.
Im quite confused as to what you are arguing. Although sin is covered in the creation story, it is separate from creation itself. Much like the difference between evolution and bio-genesis. If I am understanding you right, your real argument is that God is not perfect due to sin existing in the world. Is that correct?
You said "the world is flawed due to the origin of sin." I assumed you meant the Fall of Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Man). I refer to that story. My argument is that the Fall of Man is a ridiculous tale because if God were perfect the Garden of Eden wouldn't have had an evil snake (among other points).
Ok, so your argument is "If God was perfect, then there wouldn't be sin in the world." Correct? It sounds like you are saying it, but at the same time, not quite saying it, only implying it.
That happens to be my opinion. Yes, I believe sin to be an imperfection in this world that makes it difficult, if not impossible, to believe in a kind and omniscient God (one of many such imperfections). The only argument I've found that even leaves open the possibility of a kind, omniscient God existing is that the reason things are best the way they are is somehow beyond human comprehension, but that God knows.
Nevertheless, that's not what I'm arguing. What I'm arguing at the moment is that using the Fall as an explanation for the origin of sin is absurd.
-
There's always the possibility that God is either omnipotent and not omniscient, or omniscient and not omnipotent. No matter how offensive this may seem (I am Christian, though loosely), it's a possibility that has yet to be disproven. If he is omnsicient and not omnipotent, then he could know that although he can't create a perfect world, he is trying to create the best to his ability. If he is omnipotent and not omniscient, he is rather like a scientist, who made a universe to study it and learn about his own potential. This has been on the back of my mind for awhile, actually. I'm just curious to see if my opinion has merit.
-
There's always the possibility that God is either omnipotent and not omniscient, or omniscient and not omnipotent. No matter how offensive this may seem (I am Christian, though loosely), it's a possibility that has yet to be disproven. If he is omnsicient and not omnipotent, then he could know that although he can't create a perfect world, he is trying to create the best to his ability. If he is omnipotent and not omniscient, he is rather like a scientist, who made a universe to study it and learn about his own potential. This has been on the back of my mind for awhile, actually. I'm just curious to see if my opinion has merit.
A number of religious (and antireligious) thinkers have written about this, actually.
Similarly, a few religions also embrace the idea that God has been learning and growing along with mankind, or that God is slowly revealing his full truth and power piece by piece.
-
God exists because some duche wrote Ski-Fi book in year -300 or so and talked about someone who created a planet Earth.
This makes me go back in time and backslap him/her who wrote it.
-
There's always the possibility that God is either omnipotent and not omniscient, or omniscient and not omnipotent. No matter how offensive this may seem (I am Christian, though loosely), it's a possibility that has yet to be disproven. If he is omnsicient and not omnipotent, then he could know that although he can't create a perfect world, he is trying to create the best to his ability. If he is omnipotent and not omniscient, he is rather like a scientist, who made a universe to study it and learn about his own potential. This has been on the back of my mind for awhile, actually. I'm just curious to see if my opinion has merit.
This is similar to what I said a few pages ago. My post was completely ignored.
As for the whole good and evil debate, there is simply no such thing as absolute good/evil. All moral values are relative and contrived. But this means your God cannot be a benevolent deity, since benevolence itself is relative. Thus, the whole argument of "God is nice" is invalid in its very foundation. It's pointless to try to pick holes in that argument, because the argument itself is already so intrinsically flawed.
As a substitute for the more relative "good" and "evil", I use selfishness and altruism. So let me rephrase your debate: "Is God selfish or altruistic?" But this question is also flawed. If God is truly selfless and only wants the happiness of his creations, then he can simply suspend all of us in a perpetual state of eternal bliss. If that's the case, then God does not want humans to have free will. There are two possible answers to this question: 1) God is altruistic, and he is trying to find a balance between absolute happiness and free will for his subjects; but this means God is not as omnipotent as Christians claim. 2) God is selfish, and is simply doing all of this for teh lulz. In which case, I'm not sure I'll want to believe in such a God.
In the first answer to the question above, I said God is not omnipotent and is trying to find the optimal point. But if he is omnipotent and altruistic, that means the current state of the world is already the optimal balance point between happiness and free will that he looked for. In this case, God will have no reasons to help any of us, since he is already satisfied with his world.
To summarize, I deduced that God can't be altruistic and omnipotent at the same time. If he is, then he still would not help us. Thus, I think that me believing in Christianity will not benefit me in any way other than deluding myself. I'm not that desperate yet.
-
Well, I was thinking about this discussion during work, and came to this conclusion. God didnt create man to be perfect. When man was created, man was created "very good". Is it because God COULDNT make them perfect, or is it because he WOULDNT make them perfect? I believe he intentionally didnt make them perfect. Having free will essentially makes us less than perfect because we do not know what is best for us. Not as an individual, or as a species. On one hand, it makes it seem like it is impossible to not sin, but then, Jesus was went his life without sinning.
Ill get into the omnipotent vs omniscient debate at a later time. Sleep now.
-
I believe he intentionally didnt make them perfect.
Why? To me, imperfect creations -> imperfect creator. (The legend of) Jesus didn't sin because he was perfect/godly. I think you would agree with me that most people are less than that, and that they shouldn't be. Anything isn't as it should be -> imperfect creator.
-
If God is omnipotent, and he wants me to believe in him, then he will simply use his omnipotence to make me believe in him. I don't believe in him right now, so there are two possibilities. One, he wants me to believe in him, but he is not omnipotent so he cannot make me believe in him. Two, he is omnipotent, but he does not make me believe in him because he does not want me to. So why should I believe in God if he is not omnipotent or if he doesn't want me to?
Don't tell me that God is simply trying to make me believe in him through his followers. If you try to convert me, I guarantee that you have less than one percent chance of success. If God really wants to convert me, and is omnipotent, he would have surely used a more reliable method.
-
If God is omnipotent, and he wants me to believe in him, then he will simply use his omnipotence to make me believe in him. I don't believe in him right now, so there are two possibilities. One, he wants me to believe in him, but he is not omnipotent so he cannot make me believe in him. Two, he is omnipotent, but he does not make me believe in him because he does not want me to. So why should I believe in God if he is not omnipotent or if he doesn't want me to?
Don't tell me that God is simply trying to make me believe in him through his followers. If you try to convert me, I guarantee that you have less than one percent chance of success. If God really wants to convert me, and is omnipotent, he would have surely used a more reliable method.
It seems like we examine God on an efficiency level. "He has more reliable methods" and other statements like that make it seem so. The question is, though God may be omnipotent or omniscient, is he efficient? Does he prefer to have his will carried out at every possible end, and leave no loose ends?
-
If the premise is that God is omnipotent, then why wouldn't he be efficient? He can do anything, after all.
-
If God is omnipotent you will run in several paradoxes :)
Same about perfection and similar questions.
So God is omnipotent by definition.If you try to deny this, others will build huge wall of text :D
-
If God is omnipotent you will run in several paradoxes :)
Same about perfection and similar questions.
So God is omnipotent by definition.If you try to deny this, others will build huge wall of text :D
It all depends on what you mean by the string of characters "o-m-n-i-p-o-t-e-n-t".
Ex:
His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to his power. If you choose to say 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words 'God can.'... It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of his creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because his power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.
– Lewis, 18
This is the type of omnipotence typically attributed to deities by believers.
Alternatively there is the type of omnipotence that permits logical contradictions for a deity. This definition is typically used by non believers.
-
If God is omnipotent you will run in several paradoxes :)
Same about perfection and similar questions.
So God is omnipotent by definition.If you try to deny this, others will build huge wall of text :D
It all depends on what you mean by the string of characters "o-m-n-i-p-o-t-e-n-t".
Ex:
His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to his power. If you choose to say 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words 'God can.'... It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of his creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because his power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.
– Lewis, 18
This is the type of omnipotence typically attributed to deities by believers.
Alternatively there is the type of omnipotence that permits logical contradictions for a deity. This definition is typically used by non believers.
I was very interested in what Lewis had to say about omnipotence in The Problem of Pain when I read it years ago. To my surprise, I could not find a flaw in his argument. I admit that it's possible that this is the best possible world -- that evil exists only because a world with less evil would somehow contradict itself or be worse in other ways. It certainly seems obvious that you could improve this world quite dramatically with infinite power, but of course, the subtle contradictions could be escaping us. Yes, it's true: everything, even the most horribly bad thing, could all be a part of God's great plan, which is of course beyond human comprehension.
But I wouldn't bet on it. Just because something's possible doesn't mean it's likely :P
If God is omnipotent, and he wants me to believe in him, then he will simply use his omnipotence to make me believe in him. I don't believe in him right now, so there are two possibilities. One, he wants me to believe in him, but he is not omnipotent so he cannot make me believe in him. Two, he is omnipotent, but he does not make me believe in him because he does not want me to. So why should I believe in God if he is not omnipotent or if he doesn't want me to?
Don't tell me that God is simply trying to make me believe in him through his followers. If you try to convert me, I guarantee that you have less than one percent chance of success. If God really wants to convert me, and is omnipotent, he would have surely used a more reliable method.
Maybe it's all part of a magical storybook adventure God is making of your life. Perhaps you're just not supposed to believe yet. What may seem unreliable is a sure thing for someone who skips to the last page. There is no God, you die, and that's it. :P
I agree, though. I think if he wanted us to believe in something, he'd give us some kind of evidence.
-
I agree, though. I think if he wanted us to believe in something, he'd give us some kind of evidence.
What hypothetical evidence would be sufficient to disprove atheism?
-
I agree, though. I think if he wanted us to believe in something, he'd give us some kind of evidence.
What hypothetical evidence would be sufficient to disprove atheism?
Well for one thing, God could answer our prayers. Literally. I don't think you can "disprove" atheism anymore than you can disprove theism, but you can certainly make it seem a lot more likely.
-
Maybe it's all part of a magical storybook adventure God is making of your life. Perhaps you're just not supposed to believe yet.
Okay, stop trying to convert me then :P
Other than that, I suppose there's no other counter to my argument? Then I won't believe in your God, because he obviously doesn't want me to at the moment. If he exists.
-
Maybe it's all part of a magical storybook adventure God is making of your life. Perhaps you're just not supposed to believe yet.
Okay, stop trying to convert me then :P
Other than that, I suppose there's no other counter to my argument? Then I won't believe in your God, because he obviously doesn't want me to at the moment. If he exists.
To be more accurate:
If you disbelieve and a god exists and that god is powerful enough to make you believe then the god prefers the consequences of you not believing at this moment over the consequences of you believing at this moment
However, assuming a god exists and does not want to disable your rational thought process, what would be sufficient to convince you?
-
About all this "if god wants me to believe in him, he would just make me" talk in this thread, I heard some stupid explanation from one of my friends. They said that god gives you free will to do what you want in life, but that if you make the one small mistake of not believing, you will eternally burn in a lake of fire, which you only find out after death. I don't see the logic in this, because I would rather have no control over one small thing if it determines whether I burn forever, or have unlimited joy forever.
-
About all this "if god wants me to believe in him, he would just make me" talk in this thread, I heard some stupid explanation from one of my friends. They said that god gives you free will to do what you want in life, but that if you make the one small mistake of not believing, you will eternally burn in a lake of fire, which you only find out after death. I don't see the logic in this, because I would rather have no control over one small thing if it determines whether I burn forever, or have unlimited joy forever.
ya but then life would be pointless ::)
-
However, assuming a god exists and does not want to disable your rational thought process, what would be sufficient to convince you?
I dunno. He's supposed to be omnipotent and omniscient. He can figure it out if he exist and if he wants me to believe.
-
However, assuming a god exists and does not want to disable your rational thought process, what would be sufficient to convince you?
I dunno. He's supposed to be omnipotent and omniscient. He can figure it out if he exist and if he wants me to believe.
If your perspective is such that the only evidence that would convince you is logically impossible would you fault a logically constrained God (the typically meaning of omnipotence) for not convincing you? The only way to know if you do not have this kind of a perspective is to identify at least 1 possible evidence that would convince you.
-
If the person trying to convert me jumped off a tall building, splattered on the ground, and then became whole and uninjured again right there on the spot, then I would become much more receptive to that person's faith. Being of a scientific bent, I would want to see it repeated with others who share the same faith. Any takers?
That is gruesome, and I wouldn't want people to kill themselves. If someone wants to open a discussion on performing a miracle, I would be happy to brainstorm some safe ones. Given that miracles have an important place in sacred narratives, I think that asking to see some new ones is a reasonable request.
-
If the person trying to convert me jumped off a tall building, splattered on the ground, and then became whole and uninjured again right there on the spot, then I would become much more receptive to that person's faith. Being of a scientific bent, I would want to see it repeated with others who share the same faith. Any takers?
I think you'll find that 'Christian' God stopped doing major miracles around 1500-2000 years ago... and minor miracles ceased around the time of the enlightenment, or whatever it was called when people started to get scientific. However, if a person can jump of a building, get splattered, and then reconstitute their body into an uninjured state, I'd sure like to know the science behind that!
-
I think you'll find that 'Christian' God stopped doing major miracles around 1500-2000 years ago... and minor miracles ceased around the time of the enlightenment, or whatever it was called when people started to get scientific.
Convenient. Incidentally, I used to be able to make cold fusion by snapping my fingers, but I stopped doing that like 10 years ago ::)
-
Fraud is the default explanation for miracles of the past. It's much easier to say that you raised the dead and have your friends say it than it is to do it. If we look at the miracle workers of today, they are frauds. "Mind readers" use assistants to gather information. "Faith healers" use audience plants. It is completely reasonable for people to extrapolate the fraud to "miracles" of the past. They didn't have trained skeptics who could spot the tricks in real time and expose fraud.
-
I am a bit confused why we are now on miracles. Miracles, even real miracles, would not be sufficient to convince most skeptics because it would merely point out that the current understanding of the laws of the universe are incomplete. Miracles, at least in the general sense, would not be conclusive evidence of a deity.
I am wondering if the atheists and agnostics in this thread can give an example bit of evidence that would be evidence of a god.
-
First, I would say that a "conclusive" result is one that has been examined and replicated repeatedly by the scientific community. A one-off demonstration could never be conclusive.
Second, I would say you need two things: (1) a being that is present for inspection and (2) the being demonstrates powers and properties that fit the definition of god, whatever definition that may be. Miracles would address criterion 2, though the presumed being would remain hidden if a disciple did the miracles. Criterion 1 was no problem according to all the sacred stories of gods interacting with humans in ways that were observable - i.e., not just quiet whispering inside one's head.
-
Evidence of a god? hmm... That would (At leats to Douglas Adams) be impossible. "Proof denies Faith, and without Faith, I am nothing" - God
However, proof of the existance of God, for me, would be the world ending WITHOUT any nearby stars going supernova. There is an obvious problem there, though.
-
First, I would say that a "conclusive" result is one that has been examined and replicated repeatedly by the scientific community. A one-off demonstration could never be conclusive.
Second, I would say you need two things: (1) a being that is present for inspection and (2) the being demonstrates powers and properties that fit the definition of god, whatever definition that may be. Miracles would address criterion 2, though the presumed being would remain hidden if a disciple did the miracles. Criterion 1 was no problem according to all the sacred stories of gods interacting with humans in ways that were observable - i.e., not just quiet whispering inside one's head.
2 is insufficient. A God can raise his hand. I can raise my hand. My raising my hand is demonstrating a power that fits the definition of a god but also fits the definition of a human.
Fixed 2: 'the being demonstrates powers or properties that are a sufficient condition of being a deity.'
What sufficient conditions would be demonstrable? Are they truly sufficient conditions?
I submit for disproving the claim that skepticism is powerful enough in the modern atheist that no sufficient conditions for the existence of a deity are demonstrable.
-
2 is insufficient. A God can raise his hand. I can raise my hand. My raising my hand is demonstrating a power that fits the definition of a god but also fits the definition of a human.
Fixed 2: 'the being demonstrates powers or properties that are a sufficient condition of being a deity.'
So now you have to define "deity," and there is no consensus on that score. You just kicked the can down the road.
If you want to define "god" or "deity" in a trivial way ("The word 'god' is a synomyn for my big toe."), then you can demonstrate its existence. I assume that believers will be more ambitious.
What sufficient conditions would be demonstrable? Are they truly sufficient conditions?
I submit for disproving the claim that skepticism is powerful enough in the modern atheist that no sufficient conditions for the existence of a deity are demonstrable.
I submit that god talk is nothing but talk, with no substance behind it. Your faith is insufficient for you to move into the realm of demonstrative action. Start shitting gold bricks on TV or bring Pat Tillman back from the dead. Stop worrying about the "conclusive" part. Miracles will give me pause that my world view is insufficient. You can dot the i's and cross the t's later. Get the ball rolling by doing something that cannot be explained by natural science. If you have enough faith, that is.
-
First, I would say that a "conclusive" result is one that has been examined and replicated repeatedly by the scientific community. A one-off demonstration could never be conclusive.
Second, I would say you need two things: (1) a being that is present for inspection and (2) the being demonstrates powers and properties that fit the definition of god, whatever definition that may be. Miracles would address criterion 2, though the presumed being would remain hidden if a disciple did the miracles. Criterion 1 was no problem according to all the sacred stories of gods interacting with humans in ways that were observable - i.e., not just quiet whispering inside one's head.
2 is insufficient. A God can raise his hand. I can raise my hand. My raising my hand is demonstrating a power that fits the definition of a god but also fits the definition of a human.
Fixed 2: 'the being demonstrates powers or properties that are a sufficient condition of being a deity.'
What sufficient conditions would be demonstrable? Are they truly sufficient conditions?
I submit for disproving the claim that skepticism is powerful enough in the modern atheist that no sufficient conditions for the existence of a deity are demonstrable.
Numerous examples have been given here and in other threads of things that would if not convince atheists, would at least make them stop to reconsider. Surely if they were repeated they would be believed. I've mentioned keyboards turning into cheese as I type responses, Belthus mentioned a person reforming after splattering on concrete. Anything "miraculous" fits this description.
In fact, there is a related challenge for someone to prove that they have supernatural powers. There is a $1,000,000 reward. One well-known test was performed on people claiming to be able to see auras floating around people. Auras supposedly could pass through matter unaffected, and someone was sure enough of this ability to try to collect the prize. The test was simple: place the "psychic" in front of a wall. Have them say whether there is a person on the other side. Repeat, adding and removing people randomly. The psychic could not do better than random guessing. So it's not as though skeptics and atheists can't be convinced because they're closed-minded; it's because they're right! Or at least, they haven't been presented with evidence that there is a God, which, as is the point of this post, could exist.
-
What sufficient conditions would be demonstrable? Are they truly sufficient conditions?
I submit for disproving the claim that skepticism is powerful enough in the modern atheist that no sufficient conditions for the existence of a deity are demonstrable.
I submit that god talk is nothing but talk, with no substance behind it. Your faith is insufficient for you to move into the realm of demonstrative action. Start shitting gold bricks on TV or bring Pat Tillman back from the dead. Stop worrying about the "conclusive" part. Miracles will give me pause that my world view is insufficient. You can dot the i's and cross the t's later. Get the ball rolling by doing something that cannot be explained by natural science. If you have enough faith, that is.
[/quote]
I am an Agnostic. I am worried about both sides' biases.
I am also a student of science and know that Science can explain all falsifiable knowledge. Our current theories may be incorrect (or correct). If something repeatable occurs that disagrees with your theory of how the world works then science discards the old and makes a new theory. I would be extremely worried if a miracle like spontaneous transmutation of water into wine convinced anyone of anything more than water can spontaneously turn into wine.
Is your disbelief still attached to a rational discussion or have you become skeptical enough that nothing could exist that would change your mind regardless if a god existed or not? If not please take my challenge and present a demonstrable sufficient condition of the existence of a god.
@Neopergoss
I have assumed that all the Atheists in this thread concede that a god is possible. I am wondering if they are still able to be convinced that a god exists if a god exists. Your example of the auras is close to what I am looking for but for god not auras. A sufficient condition for the ability to track individuals on the other sides of walls would be someone able to describe the number and location of people on the other side of a wall. However note that this is not a sufficient condition for the existence of auras.
-
I have presented my criteria. They are sufficiently flexible to deal with multiple conceptions of god. Someone who wants to proceed to the next step would have to give me his/her definition of god, and then we could construct specific tests of godly powers and properties. I assume that under most conceptions, such powers and properties would include immortality, invulnerability, creation ex nihilo, transmutation, unaided destruction on a huge scale, resurrection, and omniscience. However, I am open to other conceptions, as long as they aren't trivial or mundane. Then a being would have to present itself to demonstrate the specified powers and properties. Is anyone ready to take up the challenge? Bueller? Bueller? Anyone?
-
(Ninja'd by Belthus, but I'm gonna post this anyway 'cause I worked on it for a while and I like it. :) )
I think one reason it's hard to answer the question about necessary and sufficient evidence is that no one -- theist or atheist -- agrees on what is a necessary and sufficient condition for Godhood. This isn't necessarily skepticism. How does anyone explain what God is or what separates God from humans?
Modern Western religion generally depends on the idea of a single, supernaturally powerful force that acts with intention. (Older Western religions might've had more than one such force.) To define this, we generally focus on these acts -- things God does that humans and nature can't do.
Taking another perspective of spiritual belief... some traditions of Hindu thought put forth the idea of Brahman -- the universal spirit that pervades all existence and transcends human concepts of space, time, and causation. It is not "God" in the aforementioned sense (believers in Brahman generally see our idea of "God" or "Gods" as an anthropomorphized characterization); however, nothing would exist without it. I can hardly start to think of how you would prove Brahman exists. It is by definition beyond human comprehension, so you can't simply go looking for it. You can't ask it if it's there, because it wouldn't respond. Fully understanding the true nature of Brahman instantly leads to freedom from material existence (including life and death), so I suppose Brahman could be proven if we witnessed someone who'd achieved this -- but we'd have no way of knowing what this looks like, since Brahman is beyond human comprehension.
I guess my point is that telling atheists that no evidence will ever be enough for them isn't much different from telling theists that they're too easy to convince.
But I could be limiting myself in scope. Do we need a definition of God before we can go looking for God? Alternately, if you claim to have found God or to know God, but you cannot define what God is, are you wrong?
-
@Neopergoss
I have assumed that all the Atheists in this thread concede that a god is possible. I am wondering if they are still able to be convinced that a god exists if a god exists. Your example of the auras is close to what I am looking for but for god not auras. A sufficient condition for the ability to track individuals on the other sides of walls would be someone able to describe the number and location of people on the other side of a wall. However note that this is not a sufficient condition for the existence of auras.
Of course they are. I think that Belthus, as usual, put it quite well when he said that we would have to be able to observe a deity directly to learn about its existence. A person going around performing true miracles would certainly prove that a power exists outside of what we understand, which is a start.
I'm not saying you could prove God beyond a shadow of a doubt, but definitely you can make God's existence believable quite easily. The burden of proof for personal belief for me would be much lower than the burden of proof for proving God in a way that I would expect others to take seriously. My keyboard turning into cheese right now would probably be enough for me, in fact. Not because the event is so bizarre, but because I was just typing about it in a discussion about God's existence. Not holding my breath :))
-
I have presented my criteria. They are sufficiently flexible to deal with multiple conceptions of god. Someone who wants to proceed to the next step would have to give me his/her definition of god, and then we could construct specific tests of godly powers and properties. I assume that under most conceptions, such powers and properties would include immortality, invulnerability, creation ex nihilo, transmutation, unaided destruction on a huge scale, resurrection, and omniscience. However, I am open to other conceptions, as long as they aren't trivial or mundane. Then a being would have to present itself to demonstrate the specified powers and properties. Is anyone ready to take up the challenge? Bueller? Bueller? Anyone?
And I have demonstrated that your 2 criteria would not be sufficient. It could mistake a person with future technology for a God.
You use the word God so you have a definition of what would be sufficient and necessary conditions of something being a God. Lets us your definition since it is the most applicable to the topic of your skepticism. Are any of the sufficient conditions demonstrable if such a God existed?
So far you listed
Immortality, Invulnerability, Creation ex nihilo, Transmutation, unaided destruction on a huge scale, resurrection and omniscience.
Are any of these Sufficient conditions of Godhood using your definition? Are any of those demonstrable if such a being existed?
@Astrocyte
Indeed people disagree about what defines a god. That I why I am asking each atheist or fellow agnostic to use their definition of god.
I actually do criticize Theists that do not look for falsifiable necessary conditions of their definitions of god.
Atheists need to identify demonstrable sufficient conditions, Theists need to identify falsifiable necessary conditions and Agnostic need to try to do both.
@Neopergoss
I think that the test of answered prayers which you did would not be sufficient evidence for many. Most would rationally attribute spontaneous keyboard to cheese correlated with a challenge to be possible evidence for a link between making a such a challenge and it being fulfilled. I hope few would make the unsupported leap to assume that a God did it. For all you would have known it could have been a mortal on this thread that caused that.
-
@Neopergoss
I think that the test of answered prayers which you did would not be sufficient evidence for many. Most would rationally attribute spontaneous keyboard to cheese correlated with a challenge to be possible evidence for a link between making a such a challenge and it being fulfilled. I hope few would make the unsupported leap to assume that a God did it. For all you would have known it could have been a mortal on this thread that caused that.
No mortal I know of can turn keyboards into cheese. Interesting theory, though, OldTrees. Moreover, the idea was originally for it to happen before I had a chance to mention the cheese on here. Since I've mentioned the cheese several times, it would be less impressive, but I'd probably still believe if it did.
-
And I have demonstrated that your 2 criteria would not be sufficient. It could mistake a person with future technology for a God.
That is an indictment of the sacred stories as well. Not my problem. It's a problem embedded in religions. All I am saying is that if we define a word, and we have a concrete being before us, we can see whether there is a match. Given the lack of agreement among religious believers, even within a religion, someone somewhere will niggle. But I personally could say, yes or no, this being does/doesn't fit this word.
You use the word God so you have a definition of what would be sufficient and necessary conditions of something being a God.
No. I use it in a generic way that refers to beliefs of people of many different faiths, which contradict each other. In order to construct a test, we would have to have a specific definition.
Lets us your definition since it is the most applicable to the topic of your skepticism. Are any of the sufficient conditions demonstrable if such a God existed?
So far you listed
Immortality, Invulnerability, Creation ex nihilo, Transmutation, unaided destruction on a huge scale, resurrection and omniscience.
Are any of these Sufficient conditions of Godhood using your definition? Are any of those demonstrable if such a being existed?
I haven't provided a definition. I listed features that various sacred stories have mentioned. However, any one of those features might be missing or even contradicted in any particular religious tradition.
This methodology does not validate or invalidate all conceptions of gods in one fell swoop. It takes one conception at a time and one candidate at a time and sees whether there is a fit.
To answer your last question, yes, I do think that we can test for those properties/powers. Science comes to tentative conclusions, so someone might think of an improved test somewhere down the line. But we could come up with tests that would rule out all but the most impressive pretenders. That is why religions got out of the miracle game a long time ago. The pretenders can't hack it any more.
-
Since you will not give your definition of the category titled gods then I will use Wikipedia's and hope it is sufficient.
"A deity is a recognised preternatural or supernatural immortal being." (yes a generic definition of the category is needed. The definition of Allah would be useless.)
Based on this definition what would be a sufficient condition of being a deity that could be demonstrated if such a deity existed (provided the deity decided to participate)?
You also seem to miss the point of why I asked this question. This question was in part a response to BloodShadow's comment about God not converting him and in part a desire to see if atheist is falsifiable or not.
-
Since you will not give your definition of the category titled gods then I will use Wikipedia's and hope it is sufficient.
"A deity is a recognised preternatural or supernatural immortal being." (yes a generic definition of the category is needed. The definition of Allah would be useless.)
Why is a generic definition of god necessary? People don't believe in generic gods. There are specific religions with specific definitions. If you want to use the category definition as a minimum to screen out the absurd and trivial, fine. Immortality is something I can test. I am not sure what to do with "supernatural" - that seems too vague.
Based on this definition what would be a sufficient condition of being a deity that could be demonstrated if such a deity existed (provided the deity decided to participate)?
That description doesn't fit anyone's deity. It is a generalization of many specific descriptions. It doesn't give me much to work with, though immortality is easy enough to test.
You also seem to miss the point of why I asked this question. This question was in part a response to BloodShadow's comment about God not converting him and in part a desire to see if atheist is falsifiable or not.
Atheism is the null hypothesis. It is not a claim. It is the default. If some being shows up, performs some miracles along the lines of some sacred text, these miracles are examined by skeptics for tricks and turn out clean, etc., then I would be willing to reject the null hypothesis and say that this being fits the description of a god in such-and-such tradition. Science is not a one-off process, so that tentative conclusion would be retested again and again by independent minds, just as, say, the principles of evolution have been tested repeatedly since Darwin.
-
Why is a generic definition necessary?
Short answer: Because I am asking about sufficient conditions of godhood not sufficient conditions of Allahood.
Long answer: Because all gods/deities are classified as Gods because they share the traits of the generic category god. This is similar to how Rectangles and Kites are examples of Quadrilaterals. Using the definition of a rectangle would give sufficient conditions of being a quadrilateral but it would also exclude other sufficient conditions of Quadrilateralness from consideration. That is why a definition of the category 'gods' is useful while a definition of Allah isn't.
However if you do not like the definition I provided you could always provide your definition of the category gods.
How would you test Immortality such that it would only return true if it were true?
Atheism is not a claim. That does not mean that identifying if it is falsifiable is not worthwhile.
"Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion could be shown to be false by a particular observation ..."
I am merely interested if such a logical possibility exists for Atheism or if it would be strictly irrational for them to change their mind.
I am also repeatably surprised at your willingness to hypothetically believe a religion based on its repeated correlation with a hypothetical unexplained phenomenon despite the large risk of a false/misattributed positive.
PS: Most nulls in science are falsifiable. That is what permits scientists to use nulls as a means to ensure rigor.
-
Why is a generic definition necessary?
Short answer: Because I am asking about sufficient conditions of godhood not sufficient conditions of Allahood.
Then your inquiry lies in a domain such as comparative religion or sociology of religion or anthropology. The concepts of god vary a great deal. It's a very fuzzy definition. As someone mentioned above, the Eastern conceptions of god are radically different from the anthropomorphic Old Man with a Beard Who Shoots Lightning.
I am also repeatably surprised at your willingness to hypothetically believe a religion based on its repeated correlation with a hypothetical unexplained phenomenon despite the large risk of a false/misattributed positive.
Large risk? Like what? I will have to look back at your posts, but I believe that the only possibility you mentioned was some science fantasy being with advanced technology. That's hardly unique to the issue of testing gods. Maybe some alien is shooting a pink laser beam into your brain, and your whole life as you know it is a dream. Our ability to investigate the world is only as good as our tools, which are and always will be imperfect. Nevertheless, we do the best we can.
-
I am also repeatably surprised at your willingness to hypothetically believe a religion based on its repeated correlation with a hypothetical unexplained phenomenon despite the large risk of a false/misattributed positive.
Large risk? Like what? I will have to look back at your posts, but I believe that the only possibility you mentioned was some science fantasy being with advanced technology. That's hardly unique to the issue of testing gods. Maybe some alien is shooting a pink laser beam into your brain, and your whole life as you know it is a dream. Our ability to investigate the world is only as good as our tools, which are and always will be imperfect. Nevertheless, we do the best we can.
Depending on your definition, such aliens could be considered gods.
-
Why is a generic definition necessary?
Short answer: Because I am asking about sufficient conditions of godhood not sufficient conditions of Allahood.
Then your inquiry lies in a domain such as comparative religion or sociology of religion or anthropology. The concepts of god vary a great deal. It's a very fuzzy definition. As someone mentioned above, the Eastern conceptions of god are radically different from the anthropomorphic Old Man with a Beard Who Shoots Lightning.
I am also repeatably surprised at your willingness to hypothetically believe a religion based on its repeated correlation with a hypothetical unexplained phenomenon despite the large risk of a false/misattributed positive.
Large risk? Like what? I will have to look back at your posts, but I believe that the only possibility you mentioned was some science fantasy being with advanced technology. That's hardly unique to the issue of testing gods. Maybe some alien is shooting a pink laser beam into your brain, and your whole life as you know it is a dream. Our ability to investigate the world is only as good as our tools, which are and always will be imperfect. Nevertheless, we do the best we can.
True people using improper criteria is hardly secluded to the issue of testing gods. However that does not make it any less invalid.
Having something exhibit a necessary condition of a category does not demonstrate that it is part of that category. A quadrilateral could have 4 equal sides (necessary condition of a square) but does not mean that it is a square. The valid assumption would be that the quadrilateral is a rhombus because 4 equal sides is a sufficient condition of a rhombus.
Science and Philosophy both have safeguards against such invalid leaps of faith.
If the definition of god you are using is anything that repeatable contradicts the current scientific theory then I retract my critique. However there are many things that if they existed would contradict current scientific theory that I would not classify as gods.
In conclusion, use necessary conditions to test for the lack and sufficient conditions to test for the presence of the thing in question.
-
Since you will not give your definition of the category titled gods then I will use Wikipedia's and hope it is sufficient.
"A deity is a recognised preternatural or supernatural immortal being." (yes a generic definition of the category is needed. The definition of Allah would be useless.)
Based on this definition what would be a sufficient condition of being a deity that could be demonstrated if such a deity existed (provided the deity decided to participate)?
If you want us to play along, that definition is falsifiable. You can't prove something is supernatural, but you can certainly prove that it isn't by killing it. If we were presented with a supernatural being (demonstrated easily enough by repeatedly turning things into cheese) that we couldn't kill no matter how hard we tried, and we continued trying to kill it for decades, repeatedly and without success, a pretty good scientific theory would be that it was a deity. Satisfied?
-
Since you will not give your definition of the category titled gods then I will use Wikipedia's and hope it is sufficient.
"A deity is a recognised preternatural or supernatural immortal being." (yes a generic definition of the category is needed. The definition of Allah would be useless.)
Based on this definition what would be a sufficient condition of being a deity that could be demonstrated if such a deity existed (provided the deity decided to participate)?
If you want us to play along, that definition is falsifiable. You can't prove something is supernatural, but you can certainly prove that it isn't by killing it. If we were presented with a supernatural being (demonstrated easily enough by repeatedly turning things into cheese) that we couldn't kill no matter how hard we tried, and we continued trying to kill it for decades, repeatedly and without success, a pretty good scientific theory would be that it was a deity. Satisfied?
Thanks. I am satisfied.
-
If God is omnipotent you will run in several paradoxes :)
Same about perfection and similar questions.
So God is omnipotent by definition.If you try to deny this, others will build huge wall of text :D
It all depends on what you mean by the string of characters "o-m-n-i-p-o-t-e-n-t".
Ex:
His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to his power. If you choose to say 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words 'God can.'... It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of his creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because his power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.
– Lewis, 18
This is the type of omnipotence typically attributed to deities by believers.
Alternatively there is the type of omnipotence that permits logical contradictions for a deity. This definition is typically used by non believers.
I was very interested in what Lewis had to say about omnipotence in The Problem of Pain when I read it years ago. To my surprise, I could not find a flaw in his argument. I admit that it's possible that this is the best possible world -- that evil exists only because a world with less evil would somehow contradict itself or be worse in other ways. It certainly seems obvious that you could improve this world quite dramatically with infinite power, but of course, the subtle contradictions could be escaping us. Yes, it's true: everything, even the most horribly bad thing, could all be a part of God's great plan, which is of course beyond human comprehension.
But I wouldn't bet on it. Just because something's possible doesn't mean it's likely :P
I think the same thing when I think about evolution. I believe this pretty much summed up "The Problem of Evil" that we talked about. I shoulda referred to this topic earlier so I could catch this while it was a new post.
If God is omnipotent, and he wants me to believe in him, then he will simply use his omnipotence to make me believe in him. I don't believe in him right now, so there are two possibilities. One, he wants me to believe in him, but he is not omnipotent so he cannot make me believe in him. Two, he is omnipotent, but he does not make me believe in him because he does not want me to. So why should I believe in God if he is not omnipotent or if he doesn't want me to?
Don't tell me that God is simply trying to make me believe in him through his followers. If you try to convert me, I guarantee that you have less than one percent chance of success. If God really wants to convert me, and is omnipotent, he would have surely used a more reliable method.
*sigh* I'm sorta tired of people making lists, and leaving out the obvious answer. One of the reasons why I gave this thread a vacation.
The choices you gave are
1)He wants to but cant make you
2)He can but he doesnt want to.
When you left out
3)He wants to but he won't.
Why wouldn't he, you may ask.
Take this story for example. Pretend it is true.There was a large fire in a forest that had many houses in it. One of the men who lived there was a Christian. He sensent a fax to his house that said "God, please protect my house." All the houses were destroyed except for his. The man then used this as evidence for God existing.
Now the ways I see an atheist responding to it are:
1)It was pure coincidence.
2)Why didnt God protect all the other houses?
Now, do you have a response for a reason God wouldn't protect them? (paraphrased this story from whywontgodhealamputees.com)
-
But I wouldn't bet on it. Just because something's possible doesn't mean it's likely :P
I think the same thing when I think about evolution. I believe this pretty much summed up "The Problem of Evil" that we talked about. I shoulda referred to this topic earlier so I could catch this while it was a new post.
lol...yeah, they're totally the same. One is a scientific theory with mountains of evidence, another is a belief supported by faith. ::)
Take this story for example. Pretend it is true.There was a large fire in a forest that had many houses in it. One of the men who lived there was a Christian. He sensent a fax to his house that said "God, please protect my house." All the houses were destroyed except for his. The man then used this as evidence for God existing.
Now the ways I see an atheist responding to it are:
1)It was pure coincidence.
2)Why didnt God protect all the other houses?
Now, do you have a response for a reason God wouldn't protect them? (paraphrased this story from whywontgodhealamputees.com)
Wow...unless I'm totally misunderstanding you, that comes across as really odious. You're saying that God does bad things to us because we are bad. But who created us? Worse, that even sounds like you're saying that merely being a Christian entitles someone to be saved from tragedy.
And importantly, your argument fails to explain why sometimes, the Christian's house is the only one that burns. But I'm sure you have a good explanation for that, too ::)