The One they call "God" [Archive]

Bijo

12-12-2007, 18:33

Sigurd, are you telling us to wait? Please go on and let Kukri open a debate in connection with this thread if that's to be, that's fine, but I do want to respond to Andres.

Most of the misery in the world is caused by us, humans. Don't blame God, blame humanity. God gave us a free will. It's up to us to do something good with it.

Would you prefer a constantly interfering God? That would mean the end of our own free will. For some of us, living a life with constant interference of a supreme being would be equal to living in hell...

You are implying that if there is a God, he should be "Good". Why would you assume that if there is a God, he should be "Good"? After all, he is God. He doesn't need to respond to us, mere mortals. He can do (or not do) whatever He wants. Maybe He doesn't even know the difference between "Good" and "Evil". Maybe He doesn't even care. And if he's Evil, I wouldn't call him an underachiever. Au contraire...

[Bijo mode]Your statement is based on the assumption that God should be good. An assumption is not a fact. Discussing your statement is pointless. [/Bijo mode ~;) ]
Wait a minute there, old boy. What is in question is the statement in the first post. What matters is whether the statement is true or false.

You are stating the misery and so on is caused by us humans? Are you forgetting it is the one they call God who is supposedly the Creator of us humans? Why create us in such a way that we are corrupt, evil, and so forth? Does this not testify of an evil divine entity (if He exists and how He has been, is, and will be perceived)? Why design us mere mortals with terrible flaws? He is God and supposedly almighty. It only indicates He is evil.

And maybe if He is NOT evil, he is not that almighty at all. Or maybe He is evil AND not totally almighty.

Bottom line: the first statement seems correct and true. You are to oppose it and counterargument it. So far it holds true.

rvg

12-12-2007, 18:35

Why create us in such a way that we are corrupt, evil, and so forth? Does this not testify of an evil divine entity (if He exists and how He has been, is, and will be perceived)? Why design us mere mortals with terrible flaws?

We are not born evil.

Husar

12-12-2007, 19:26

I'm sure Sigurd's debate will be...better, longer, but here goes my short rebuttal anyway. ~;)

Well, he gave us free choice, that means if we do evil, it's us not him, what you want is no free choice, but that wouldn't be perfect.
The other thing is quite silly, if he is not all-powerful and cannot make the world better, then he isn't an underachiever as it is not possible for him to make things better, or would you consider yourself an underachiever because you cannot fly when naked without any tools? :dizzy2:

Crazed Rabbit

12-12-2007, 19:33

It is true that often there have been discussions and debates regarding "God", religion, science, philosophy, and so on, and this time let us do so again more or less. Only now I commence with a simple statement and an explanation for it to criticize the entity they call "God".

Statement: "If God exists, He must be a sadist or some underachiever."

Explanation: He is supposed to be all-powerful, almighty, capable of anything, for He is God, therefore since the world has been, is, and will be in such terrible state and He has ultimate divine power and is our overseer, He is evil for allowing evil to occur, for having it installed in nature, in us.
If He is NOT evil, but good, then He must not be allpowerful, almighty, and so on as He must be some kind of underachiever, for the world is in a terrible state as there's much evil.

Free will.

To explain, if we are to have free will, than we must be free to choose the evil path.

CR

Odin

12-12-2007, 19:36

Statement: "If God exists, He must be a sadist or some underachiever."

God and his devine plan is a metaphor for human judgement. You see we all have the ability to make a bad decision, a failure. The metaphor in scripture is right there for all to see. I think its Isaiah(I havent brushed up on it in some time) but essentially it states the lord will provide a sign and a woman shall concieve a son.

That son was the Christ, supposedly promised to the jews to reunite judah. So what happened? Christ was not accepted by the Jews, therefore god failed.

Now some like to call it a devine plan, but its clear that this son was meant for the jews exclusively. Hence the metaphor for the human condition we are all susceptable to fail.

What greater failure has there been then god having a son to unite the israelites and him being spurrened by the chosen people?

Religion is filled with metaphor of the human condition Bijo.

JimBob

12-12-2007, 20:39

Bijo, did your father stop you from making every mistake you ever made? Did he constantly hover over your shoulder and correct you and stop you from failing at every turn? Did he help you when you came to him for help? Or when you'd made a mistake?

Geoffrey S

12-12-2007, 20:52

Besides, who are we to judge what is good or evil to God?

rvg

12-12-2007, 20:55

Besides, who are we to judge what is good or evil to God?

Well, the 10 commandments come directly from God, so we do have some idea regarding what God approves or disapproves.

master of the puppets

12-12-2007, 21:11

A human is not evil, you would be very hard pressed to find an utterly evil person among the masses, and most of us realise we could not stomp a baby or blow up a building. Neither is humanity good. as a whole we are panicky, stupid, ill-tempered and vain. But this does not stem from evil.

We Are SELFISH!

to our very core every human desires foremost in there hearts to be, comfortable, loved, and honored. Whether you choose to attribute this to the flaws imbued in man when he took the apple in the garden because he and eve were convinced they desired it. or whether biosocialogicly speaking we are all still animals who care only for ourselves and our offspring. Either way this selfish desire to be rich(theres a war), powerful (a couple of wars i think), correct (2 crusades and a jihad), are what is running the world. Those who ignore these desires and suffer to bring them to others are what we call heroes and inspirations, there not inherently good, they just care about others more than themselves

and don't say that the world is in bad shape, come on, the world has always been in bad shape. For as long as man has attributed might to right there have been wars, famine, religious wars, greed. the only thing that is changing is the numbers. the numbers born, the number killed, the number lost, the amount gained. thats it.

caravel

12-12-2007, 21:15

Fear the camel god, fear him as do the horses!

Geoffrey S

12-12-2007, 21:33

Well, the 10 commandments come directly from God, so we do have some idea regarding what God approves or disapproves.
That depends on how much faith you put in reliability of development of the Bible, which was written and passed down by man.

Kagemusha

12-12-2007, 21:44

How can one judge something, one does not know? Lets take an example from something that we can observe. Is Sun evil or good? Without Sun there would not be life on this planet we call earth. Also if nothing else before, the Sun will ultimately destroy everything on this planet, the planet itself included. So its basically predetermined to destroy us. Does these facts make Sun good or evil compared to us?

rvg

12-12-2007, 21:45

How can one judge something, one does not know?

If you release that mod, I will declare you divine.

Kagemusha

12-12-2007, 21:51

If you release that mod, I will declare you divine.

:laugh4: Well unless there will be divine intervention that should happen sooner or later.~;)

Big_John

12-12-2007, 22:23

all of the hand wringing in this thread can be reduced very quickly. either 1) the description of god as both omnipotent and omni-benevolent is flawed, or 2) our definition/understanding of potency/benevolence is flawed, or 3) god is an absurd concept.

of course, i lean hard towards 3, but most bible-type theists out there seem to think 2 is the best solution, as evidenced by phrases like, "god acts in mysterious ways". but another way to say that would be to say, "the infliction of 'evil' on humans by other humans is god's will", or, "when a pedophile rapes and murders children, or a tyrant gases millions, this is simply an aspect of the divine path for humanity".

otherwise, if those examples are not coherent with the will of god, then god cannot be both omnipotent and omni-benevolent. an omnipotent god would have the ability to stop 'evil', and an omni-benevolent god would always choose to. hence, god is either weak or sadistic at least some of the time (or, option 3, is an absurd concept).

free will is a scapegoat that is as problematic in a divine frame as it is in the material world. an omnipotent god, through both action and inaction, negates the possibility of 'free will' as strongly as causality in the physical universe. especially if that god is the creator of existence.

this issue is about as dead as a horse can be. believers will believe, and the rest of us won't.

note: the idea that 'reality' is an illusion and we're all just souls sitting in gods waiting room is a fairly clever escape. it allows for no real suffering in the world, and more-or-less loopholes the whole problem of evil (perceived suffering is abundant, but meaningless, i guess). but, it feels more like clever semantics than a meaningful philosophy to me, though not an impossibility.

Ironside

12-12-2007, 22:35

HOLD YOUR HORSES!!!

There will be a debate on this soon (I have already sent my proposition)... Kukri will be opening a moderated thread in connection with this.

Bah, you're debating whatever God exist or not, much funnier to debate whatever if it's worth worshipping him if he would exist.

Here's some nice ones:

After God decided to end his perma-ban on the whole of humanity after thier ancestors messed up (and that the all-seeing eye was obviously not seeing it...), he sent Jesus that showed some people the true path to heaven.
Of course he missed informing most of the human population on anything on the matter, condemning them all to hell, or at least limbo. If you claim that you don't need to belive in God to go to heaven, just live a fair life, then why the injustice on informing some and not the rest?

Then he goes around convincing Moses that he should say "let my people go, or I send God to kick your ass. And your subjects" to Pharao. He then proceeds to convince Pharao to say "No." And then repeats this quite a few times, all very good signs of a benevolent god.

I a child is born without evil, isn't the ultimate sacrifice infanticide? You will probably end up in hell, but your child enters heaven. I'm quite certain that a considerble amount of parents finds that a fair deal.

God work in mysterious ways you say, but then comes the question on why you should still consider him good. I mean if a leader would condemn me to eternal torture (life in a nasty prison should be quite enough) for no particular reason except that it somehow fits his plans, I might consider him competent, but there's no way I would consider that good.

And if God isn't good why worship him? He's not exactly good at punishing the disbelivers, making worship out of fear hardly worth it and worshipping someone evil that can punish you anyway is'nt a good deal. You would rather do the opposite.

And that's not even touching the questions that shows up if you go outside the Christian God and touches the more blurry God as the creator of universe etc, etc. Can put up some if anybody wants it though.

Fragony

12-12-2007, 22:43

Now I am no real believer or anything, but it never ceases to amaze with me how how much passion athiests want to convert those that believe in something and how they never seem to notice that about theirselves. Must be lacking something, somewhere, and they can't stand that they have to denounce it, break it.

Myrddraal

12-12-2007, 22:46

omni-benevolent god would always choose to.

free will is a scapegoat that is as problematic in a divine frame as it is in the material world. an omnipotent god, through both action and inaction, negates the possibility of 'free will' as strongly as causality in the physical universe. especially if that god is the creator of existence.

These two statements are not logical. God is omni-powerful; he can stop or start anything he likes. God is omni-benevolant; he wants what is best for all of us.

These two statements can be both equally true if combined with the simple statement; Free will is what is best for all of us.

This way, God, who is all powerful, refrains from stopping evil deeds, because he will not take away the best gift he has given us, independent consciousnesses and the freedom of choice.

All other discussion about whether this is true will go nowhere. I think Bijo was asking the question from an abstract logicl and philosophical perspective; is it possible, given an omni-potent god, for that got to be omni-benevolant, and vica versa.

Clearly, it is possible. End of an old and much repeated discussion.

RoadKill

12-12-2007, 22:49

Is it that hard to figure out. If any of you actually understand the meanings in the bible. God gives man freewill, God can not prevent evil, as evil is produced by humans not God. And because we have freewill there will always be evil on this earth.

Big_John

12-12-2007, 23:05

These two statements are not logical. God is omni-powerful; he can stop or start anything he likes. God is omni-benevolant; he wants what is best for all of us.this only holds true if we admit that we have no real understanding of 'good' and 'evil'. the 10 commandments, as mentioned before, lay out a few basic rules, which are routinely violated by humanity. if god wanted what was "best for us", and is omnipotent, then the torture and murder of babies, for example, is what is best for us? care to explain how? or are god's 'mysterious acts' inscrutable?

These two statements can be both equally true if combined with the simple statement; Free will is what is best for all of us.without presupposing a metaphysical world, free will is, so far as we can tell, nonsensical. and in a metaphysical world ruled by an omnipotent benevolence, we run into the same old problem.

so a man freely choosing to exterminate a bunch of 'innocents', for example, is best for all of us. ok. so can we just throw out the 10 commandments then? should there be only 1 commandment, "do... whatever you want."

This way, God, who is all powerful, refrains from stopping evil deeds, because he will not take away the best gift he has given us, independent consciousnesses and the freedom of choice.so god is choosing the lesser of two evils? :inquisitive: i expect more from omnipotence. a god that does not stop evil is either not omnipotent (inability to stop evil) or not benevolent (not inclined to stop evil). i see no way around that, unless free will is the only good, and the only evil is not to exercise our free will... so again, our actions shouldn't be sanctioned by any divine rule other than to 'act freely'.

All other discussion about whether this is true will go nowhere. I think Bijo was asking the question from an abstract logicl and philosophical perspective; is it possible, given an omni-potent god, for that got to be omni-benevolant, and vica versa.

Clearly, it is possible. End of an old and much repeated discussion.clearly. :sweatdrop:

Myrddraal

12-12-2007, 23:28

without presupposing a metaphysical world, free will is, so far as we can tell, nonsensical. and in a metaphysical world ruled by an omnipotent benevolence, we run into the same old problem.

This is the logical problem with your argument. You say: if god is omni-potent, then free will cannot exist. This is not true, the ability to do something does not force him to (that would hardly be omni-potent now would it)

So to spell it out in full:

Step one:

Can a god be omni-potent and we have free will. Logical answer: Yes, if he chooses to leave us to choose our own actions.

To draw an analogy: if I had a gun and pointed it to your head, I could force you to do anything, I am omni-potent (not really ;) I hope you see the analogy). However, I could allow you to do whatever you wanted, and never shoot you. You would be free of danger, and free of my power, but only because I choose to allow this to be so. I am still omni-potent.

Step 2:

Can an omni-benevolent god allow evil. The logical answer is: if free will is the best thing in the world, the greatest gift, a fundemental good if you will, then god will allow us to choose to be evil, because he cares for us.

You say that the lesser of two evils is not good enough. We are trying to be logical here right? You realise that the phrase "the lesser of two evils" describes a situation where one two exclusive outcomes is better than the other. If you expect better from God, you expect him to destroy logic (and therefore all creation as we know it).

As for the rest of your post:

then the torture and murder of babies, for example, is what is best for us? care to explain how? or are god's 'mysterious acts' inscrutable?

Sensational language; you are describing the acts of free men, not of any god.

So basically, you argument is 2 points:
1. An omni-potent god means free-will is not possible. I hope my analogy cleared this one up.
2. The lesser of two evils is not good enough. This one is also a logical fallacy. Is there any one thing which is infinitely good? No, and there are things that are better, and things that are worse. When two things are mutually exclusive, choosing the outcome which gives the best result is the benevolent thing to do. God can be omni-benevolent and choose the lesser of two evils, more than that; if he is truely omni-benevolent, then he always will.

Seriously, this argument can be answered by simple logic. There are much more interesting debates we could have. Ironside named one with the revelation of Jesus only to the jews.

Another more interesting and more difficult debate might concern the miracles of the Bible (if we are to accept for the sake of argument they are true). When God intervenes to help someone in life, does he have an obligation to then go on helping that person? Can God choose to save the jews once, but not the second time they need saving?

Big_John

12-12-2007, 23:41

Can a god be omni-potent and we have free will. Logical answer: Yes, if he chooses to leave us to choose our own actions.by giving us free will, god has weakened his own influence, and hence cannot be considered infinitely powerful.

Can an omni-benevolent god allow evil. The logical answer is: if free will is the best thing in the world, the greatest gift, a fundemental good if you will, then god will allow us to choose to be evil, because he cares for us.nope. only if free will is an overriding good, a force that clears all evil before it (an infinite good, essentially) does this make any sense. you can try to disregard the 'lesser of two eveils' analysis, but it still stands. either murder, for example, is evil, but a lesser evil than taking away our free will to murder others, or murder is no evil at all.

Seriously, this argument can be answered by simple logic.i admire your daring, but more capable men than you and i have tried dealing with this question before. if it was such a clear-cut case, we wouldn't be talking about it.

Myrddraal

12-12-2007, 23:50

by giving us free will, god has weakened his own influence, and hence cannot be considered infinitely powerful.

At any moment this god can remove our free will. His power is still infinite. Letting somone else make a decision is not a reduction in power if you can always overrule that decision. Like my analogy of the man with the gun.

nope. only if free will is an overriding good, a force that clears all evil before it (an infinite good, essentially) does this make any sense. you can try to disregard the 'lesser of two eveils' analysis, but it still stands. either murder, for example, is evil, but a lesser evil than taking away our free will to murder others, or murder is no evil at all.

No, because the lesser of two evils is equivalent to benevolence! You have not addressed this point at all! Murder is evil, but a benevolent man will always minimise 'evil', and maximise 'good'. This does not change the fact that murder is evil, but neither does it change the fact that free will is good, and neither does it change the fact that benevolence means, by definition, always wishing the best for others.

So while what you say about evil is logical, it does not affect the definition of benevolance!

i admire your daring, but more capable men than you and i have tried dealing with this question before.

You are right of course, excuse my arrogance :shame:, but at the same time, I cannot see the fault with my logic. Your issues with my thought process just don't apply... :shrug:

Myrddraal

12-12-2007, 23:55

PS, though it's a frustrating one, I appreciate banging my head against yours about this one.

Caius

12-12-2007, 23:55

I won't say a thing, but I will quote someone:

God is sutil but not wicked.

Big_John

12-13-2007, 00:06

At any moment this god can remove our free will. His power is still infinite. Letting somone else make a decision is not a reduction in power if you can always overrule that decision. Like my analogy of the man with the gun.allowing for others to make a decision that may not be the decision you would have made is not really omnipotence. that seems completely logical to me. maybe we have different understandings of omnipotence.

No, because the lesser of two evils is equivalent to benevolence!this just underlines my contention that a benevolent god can't be omnipotent, since he is reduced to choosing the lesser of two evils. remember, we are talking about an infinitely powerful and infinitely good being allowing his 'children' to commit evil. either he's not really as good or powerful as "infinitely" implies, or free will is infinitely good, and acting on our free will, in whatever fashion we freely choose, is a product of that infinite good.

You are right of course, excuse my arrogance :shame:, but at the same time, I cannot see the fault with my logic. Your issues with my thought process just don't apply... :shrug:i'm beginning to suspect that we're operating with different definitions of "infinite"/"omni-". if that's the case, i'm not sure how to proceed.

Myrddraal

12-13-2007, 00:17

Big_John

12-13-2007, 01:08

I think the difference in definition is not infinite, but potent. (haha, what a great pun :no:)

You seem to think that an omni-potent being must influence everything. If it does not influence everything, it is not omni-potent.

omni-potent to me means that this being can potentially do anything. It has the potential, if it desires, to influence everything. However it doesn't have to to remain omni-potent.we agree here, kind of. the standard arguement is that if a being "can potentially do anything" and does nothing to prevent "evil", that being cannot be considered "infinitely good."

I think we also have a disagreement about the the effect of being omni-benevolent.

Omni-benevolence is not a restriction applied to god, we are arguing that it is simply a fact. God is not forced to be omni-benevolent, he simply is. Therefore, omni-benevolence is not a restriction of power, as you seem to be suggesting.

Is that fair?i'm not suggesting omni-benevolence is any sort of restriction, because i'm not disputing that god could have a free will, even if free will is extremely problematic for his.. underlings (so to speak). my question is how an omni-benevolent being would allow for evil if he has the power to prevent it. the counter you've put forward, as far as i understand it is, to countermand our ability to choose evil would be the greater evil.

as far as i can figure, this leads to two situations: either god chooses the lesser of two evils or free will is the only good, and the only evil is to not exercise free will.

in the former case, it seems to me that an omnipotent god wouldn't need to choose, and an omni-benevolent god wouldn't abide any evil. maybe he's a 'tough love' god? :inquisitive:

in the latter case, any act of free will (praying, healing, raping, killing) should be considered a demonstration of god's will. :worried:

from what's i've read, both would be consistent with a biblical god. :clown:

Myrddraal

12-13-2007, 01:37

Big_John

12-13-2007, 02:19

But since free will and the lack of an ability to choose to be evil are incompatible, god must choose, and he chooses what is best for us.

In this world, logic applies. Things are logical, that is how this world was made/always existed/whatever.

If two events are mutually exclusive, they cannot both be true in this world. Having said this, I can't see how choosing "the lesser of two evils" is not equivalent to choosing "good". This is benevolence, and omni-benevolent means always benevolent, to the max.you're putting god in a box. if he is bound by logical rules, he is in some sense, not omnipotent. this might seem a bit of a stretch, but if we can allow for god to be beholden to some external rules, why not others?

So we agree that an omni-potent god can allow free will and still be omni-potent. At least that's something :smile:actually, i would tweak that a bit; i think an omnipotent being could surrender some of its power to allow 'freedom' of its subjects, and then take that freedom away later and regain omnipotence. but while a human can act in a way that is not consistent with the will of god, god cannot be considered omnipotent.

The sticking point seems to be the lesser of two evils issue. Let me propose my point of view in strong words:
- There is nothing better than the best possible
- When an event is going to happen, the best of all possible outcomes is that best possible thing above.
- That outcome is the best of two (or many) evils, where each outcome has a "goodness" rating, and each outcome is mutually exclusive.to me this sounds like "god is just doing the best he can with what he has to work with". not a description of omnipotence i'd expect.

but let's assume god is, and god is all powerful. why can't god's infinite power create humans who are free to choose, but always choose good over evil? it seems like a lot of religious types tend to believe the exact opposite, that humans choose evil over good, by default. why create such a creature to begin with if you're an infinitely good creator?

Myrddraal

12-13-2007, 02:35

actually, i would tweak that a bit; i think an omnipotent being could surrender some of its power to allow 'freedom' of its subjects, and then take that freedom away later and regain omnipotence. but while a human can act in a way that is not consistent with the will of god, god cannot be considered omnipotent.

Is it not God's will to accept the decision of the human being, and allow it? :inquisitive: If it is, then God remains omnipotent.

free to choose, but always choose good over evil? it seems like a lot of religious types tend to believe the exact opposite, that humans choose evil over good, by default.

Neither of these is free will.

You are right that I am applying rules of logic to a god when I apply the idea of a choosing the best for us, but you might look at it this way. God creates a logical world, and so he follows his own rules. He has the potential to break those rules should he wish, but this is not compatible with the logical world he has created.

Now if you say that in itself is a rule, then by your defnition then yes there are rules that apply to God. God cannot do destroy something without destroying it. God cannot create something without it being created. God cannot create a logical world without applying logic to that world.

These I do not consider rules, but rather statements of fact. If a man is walking, he is walking.

Big_John

12-13-2007, 02:48

Is it not God's will to accept the decision of the human being, and allow it? :inquisitive: If it is, then God remains omnipotent.then when a man chooses to take a hundred babies, hang them all upside down and saw them in half from crotch to sternum with a rusty shovel (how's that for sensational? :eyebrows:), that's god's will? gotcha.

You are right that I am applying rules of logic to a god when I apply the idea of a choosing the best for us, but you might look at it this way. God creates a logical world, and so he follows his own rules. He has the potential to break those rules should he wish, but this is not compatible with the logical world he has created.

Now if you say that in itself is a rule, then by your defnition then yes there are rules that apply to God. God cannot do destroy something without destroying it. God cannot create something without it being created. God cannot create a logical world without applying logic to that world.

These I do not consider rules, but rather statements of fact. If a man is walking, he is walking.all in all, this seems to leave little room for a meaningful god. we just live in a world governed by logical rules and god apparently sits back and lets us do whatever we want. why bother with a god in the first place?

Myrddraal

12-13-2007, 03:04

To create this thing we call logic? :wink:

Seriously, my point was a bit incomplete there. Where God affects the world, logic doesn't apply, but in the everyday rules of life, logic does apply, because god grants us the free will to do as we wish within the rules of the world we live in.

that's god's will? gotcha.
It's not what god would do in your position, but it is his will that the choice should be yours.

Big_John

12-13-2007, 03:23

Where God affects the world, logic doesn't applywait, i thought you said god was beholden to logical rules?

It's not what god would do in your position, but it is his will that the choice should be yours.for an omnipotent being, the difference between "allowing me to saw babies" with my 'free will' and willing that i saw babies seems merely semantic. he obviously knew i was going to go on a sawing spree...

let's use your example of a man with a gun to my head. lets say he tells me to rob joe horn's neighbor or he'll blow my head off. now, would he be at all culpable for my subsequent robbery? shouldn't god know better than to give a baby-sawer free will to saw babies? isn't god at least partly to blame for the half-babies littering the basement floor?

Evil_Maniac From Mars

12-13-2007, 04:44

Bijo, have you considered that perhaps humans are neither good nor evil, only corruptable, and God and the Trinity are the only good and Satan the only evil?

AntiochusIII

12-13-2007, 05:30

Incongruous

12-13-2007, 06:22

To me, a Christian, any attempt to claim a great understanding of God is futile. For God is God, our creator and thus above the rules which govern us, God is something of such magnitude and perfection that no man may ever truly contemplate God's meanings and wills. To claim that one has found out through the use of one's great intelligence is hubris and vanity.
However we can be sure that we have free will, to what end? I don't know.
But that is what I know and must accept, God does not give us a guiding hand through life, he has laid out his rules or peace and acceptance. It is for us to adhere top them. Simple.

My beleifs.

Navaros

12-13-2007, 07:02

CountArach

12-13-2007, 07:10

The original post is logically put.

I would submit that there is another alternative possiblity to the premises it suggests: there are good reasons for why God allows evil to occur on Earth, and human beings are incapable of understanding what those reasons are. Because God chooses to leave them incapable to, for good reasons.
Of course, it would seem unlikely to me that God would allow us to comprehend that he may not allow us to comprehend evil and yet not in turn allow us to comprehend evil.

Unless I am unable to comprehend why he is not letting me comprehend why he is not letting me comprehend evil.

My head hurts.

Navaros

12-13-2007, 07:17

or 3) god is an absurd concept.

God may seem like an absurd concept. But, all the alternatives are just as absurd if not moreso. The universe, all life in the universe, just magically poofing into existence with all it's infinite complexity --- that concept will always be every bit as absurd as any God concept is.

Humans will never be able to come up with any explanation for that that is not absurd. So, to say God is an absurd concept, isn't saying much.

Human beings' limited capacity requires absurdity in any potential explanation of such things, whether it be God, the big bang etc.

Big_John

12-13-2007, 07:33

God may seem like an absurd concept. But, all the alternatives are just as absurd if not moreso. The universe, all life in the universe, just magically poofing into existence with all it's infinite complexity --- that concept will always be every bit as absurd as any God concept is.

Humans will never be able to come up with any explanation for that that is not absurd. So, to say God is an absurd concept, isn't saying much.

Human beings' limited capacity requires absurdity in any potential explanation of such things, whether it be God, the big bang etc.even if that were true, why add god into the mix? just one more level of absurdity for the heck of it?

i probably wouldn't be so pessimistic regarding the epistemic potential of humanity, but it is a fair point to acknowledge that evolution has equipped humans with brains fit for solving problems like, how to get food? how to get sex? how to not get eaten?, not problems like, what is the nature of existence?

Louis VI the Fat

12-13-2007, 15:36

I won't say a thing, but I will quote someone:

God is sutil but not wicked.Spanish 'sutil' translates as 'subtle' in English. The meaning and pronunciation are very similar, but the spelling differs.

The correct translation of the saying 'Dios es sutil, pero no malicioso' is 'God is subtle, but not malicious'. :bow:

The very aptness of your quote in the context of this thread makes it seem like the visible tip of an iceberg to me. We only see a small part, but we can assume it's part of a much bigger mountain of subtle understanding of the theological considerations about the subject.

Myrddraal

12-13-2007, 15:39

let's use your example of a man with a gun to my head. lets say he tells me to rob joe horn's neighbor or he'll blow my head off. now, would he be at all culpable for my subsequent robbery?

No, the analogy is - I am the man with the gun to your head. Do what you want. I know you might do evil, and in fact, since I am the perfect judge of character I know if you will do evil, but I would be more evil than anything you might do if I were to enslave you and take away your free will.

Ironside

12-13-2007, 18:55

I think one trait in these discussions is to go into either the Judeo-Christian tradition of God ("Bible") or a philosophical "Aristotelian" one. Why must those two be the only choices when it comes to discussing the nature of the Divine, when there are so many cultures in human history and so many of them have many many ways of defining the nature of their Deity(ies) as such?

Home grown issues? I'm not sure how many people on these boards that can refer to the downsides of Kali worshipping neighbours. Side effects includes sudden cases of strangulation.
But I agree that these "lesser" dieties or sources of divine power can be quite interesting to debate, more so than the omnipotent God that can create a universe, yet is supposed to give extreme care to some humans compared to anything else that he have created.

Now I am no real believer or anything, but it never ceases to amaze with me how how much passion athiests want to convert those that believe in something and how they never seem to notice that about theirselves. Must be lacking something, somewhere, and they can't stand that they have to denounce it, break it.

Faith? :inquisitive:

What would you do on a debating forum if theres a quite interesting subject were you well lack the thing that makes your opponents arguments make sence and all the other things you see indicates the opposite?

Big_John

12-13-2007, 22:39

No, the analogy is - I am the man with the gun to your head. Do what you want. I know you might do evil, and in fact, since I am the perfect judge of character I know if you will do evil, but I would be more evil than anything you might do if I were to enslave you and take away your free will.so you have a gun to my head, and i tell you i'm going to boil your son alive and eat his inards right in front of you. and your son, who is obviously weaker than i, is standing right there, and is like, "dad, don't let him ea me!"

you, tell your son, "sorry boy, but it would be a greater evil to stop this maniac from doing what he wants, good luck!".

am i getting a clear picture of your god now?

how i this any different from the complete absence of a man with a gun (god)?

rvg

12-13-2007, 22:43

so you have a gun to my head, and i tell you i'm going to boil your son alive and eat his inards right in front of you. and your son, who is obviously weaker than i, is standing right there, and is like, "dad, don't let him ea me!"

you, tell your son, "sorry boy, but it would be a greater evil to stop this maniac from doing what he wants, good luck!".

am i getting a clear picture of your god now?

how i this any different from the complete absence of a man with a gun (god)?

This is exactly what God did when he let the Romans crucify Christ.

Big_John

12-13-2007, 22:52

This is exactly what God did when he let the Romans crucify Christ.yes, the biblical god is a shining example of brutality and capricious cruelty. in that case, in exercising my free will, the first thing i would do is choose not to believe in or worship such a god.

Boyar Son

12-13-2007, 23:27

Myrddraal

12-14-2007, 00:18

The other thing to consider is, given god and an afterlife exist; is this world a test? Will those that suffer be recompensed in the next life, and those that cause suffering be punished?

This adds a slant away from suffering and towards free will in terms of "what is good for god to allow"

The Celtic Viking

12-14-2007, 00:36

Let me first just point out to all of you Christians or muslims (or anyone else of a religion that invokes an equivalent to hell): Your religion do not say you have free will! Or if it does, then it contradicts itself by having hell (or the equivalent). To have free will you cannot be punished for any decision you make (or equally punished no matter what your choices are). Since hell punish everyone who choose not to do as your god commands, but not those who do follow the commands, your choice isn't free.

A few questions to all theists, too: 1) What, exactly, is god? 2) Why is a god needed? 3) Why do you believe in your god/s, and consequently, why don't you believe in any other god/s?

Now I am no real believer or anything, but it never ceases to amaze with me how how much passion athiests want to convert those that believe in something and how they never seem to notice that about theirselves. Must be lacking something, somewhere, and they can't stand that they have to denounce it, break it.

Do you even know what atheism is? It’s the lack of belief in any god, so one atheist has just as much in common with another atheist per default as one who don't like apples have things in common by default with another who don't like apples. To say that "they want this or that" is flawed since atheists can differ on every point you could possibly imagine except that neither of them believe in any god.

If you're not a "real believer", what does that mean? You either believe, or you don't. It's as simple as that. Claiming to be somewhere in the middle would be dishonest.

But if you really want to know why I want religion to either cease to exist or prove itself true, look at Hitler. Look at 9/11. Look at the inquisitions, the crusades, all the jihads, all who attacks innocent people in the name of their made-up lord. Look at how atheists are treated in America (amongst other places). Look at the treatment of homosexuals. Look at the brainwashing of the children. Look at the bigotry that comes with religion. Look at the irrationality. Look at the hindrance to progress. Look at the loss of (or the blocking of) critical thinking. Look at what "holy books" such as the bible and the koran advocates. Look at… you get the picture.

believe in Jesus too while your at it instead of "why should I, I don't believe, I want proof".

Oh yes, let's all be irrational and completely discard critical thinking. I mean, if that's what it takes to believe in something so stupid as the god-concept... :shrug:

Bijo

12-14-2007, 00:40

Bijo why do you try to understand Almighty God?

If you went to church (I'm assuming you don't) you would know the father says or said "God is mysterious(and/or)and we are constantly trying to understand Him."

Think Bijo, you are a human trying to figure out One who is simply above you, higher in every way, what you should do is follow what God has commanded his creations follow (the commandments), believe in Jesus too while your at it instead of "why should I, I don't believe, I want proof".

I cant see why people refuse to believe in the greater good or question the existence, when simply they should ask themselves if they have done good and love thy neighbor instead.
I would like to think I have a fair understanding of Him. I still do not refrain from my original post. My only purpose with this thread was to prove that God -- if He exists -- is either evil or not so almighty, more or less.

Let me ask again: if He truly created us all, the world, and such, why install all these corruptions, emotions, greed, high probabilities for conflict, pain and suffering, "free will", and so on? If He is allpowerful, the answer is He is evil (or any fitting word for it). He must have created all this rubbish on purpose. It is the only logical answer I can find. He could've created the "perfect world" where harmony and peace would exist, but noooooo... he gives us "free will", emotions, greed, conflict, and so on. He is evil, or He is an underachiever.

Hah hah, I won't go any further than that :laugh4:

Myrddraal

12-14-2007, 00:45

But if you really want to know why I want religion to either cease to exist or prove itself true, look at Hitler. Look at 9/11. Look at the inquisitions, the crusades, all the jihads, all who attacks innocent people in the name of their made-up lord.

In the name of. I think it's naive to believe that religion caused these events. If you look at the history, there is generally another motivation. Being aggresive in the name of a religion that preaches peace just goes to show that some people will use any old excuse to do wrong.

Your religion do not say you have free will!

By free will we all mean independent consiousnesses and the ability to make a decision which is (however limited) our own. This we do have, there is no denying it.

Of course we don't have complete free will, for that we would all need to be omni-potent.

If this is going to be an argument about wether we should believe in a god or not, I'd suggest waiting for the Gahzette debate to start, and debate this in the parallel topic (which is going to happen right?)

Hah hah, I won't go any further than that
Have you actually read the debate you started? You just re-stated your proposition. :inquisitive:

The Celtic Viking

12-14-2007, 01:05

In the name of. I think it's naive to believe that religion caused these events. If you look at the history, there is generally another motivation. Being aggresive in the name of a religion that preaches peace just goes to show that some people will use any old excuse to do wrong.

Oh, please. Have you even read the bible? (Assuming that Christianity is what you're hinting at with "a religion that preaches peace".) I mean, the whole bible? Because I can tell you one thing, it does not preach peace... quite the opposite, in fact. It straight out commands you to attack any city that is filled with people who do not believe in the christian god, and kill all those people. The bible describes an awful, evil, murderous, petty, sexist, insecure, slavery-endorcing, genocidal bully of a god.

To think that the inquisitions, the crusades and the jihads were not based on religion is madness. There are of course conspiracy theories about 9/11, but I find that the most likely explanation is that it was religiously based in Islam, which also demands that infidels should be murdered, just like good ol' Christianity. Hitler himself said that he was acting on god's direct command, and that he merely continued Jesus' fight against the jews. That his actions were not religously motivated is out of the question... unless you can prove that he was just lying.

By free will we all mean independent consiousnesses and the ability to make a decision which is (however limited) our own. This we do have, there is no denying it.

That would just be to have a will, not a free one.

If this is going to be an argument about wether we should believe in a god or not, I'd suggest waiting for the Gahzette debate to start, and debate this in the parallel topic (which is going to happen right?)

Sure, that I can do.

Myrddraal

12-14-2007, 01:11

Hitler himself said that he was acting on god's direct command, that he merely continued Jesus' fight against the jews. That his actions were not religously motivated is out of the question.

Jesus was a jew, and in his lifetime he knew only jews. Hitler was lying to use religion as an excuse. He was not religiously motivated. The same can be said of all of your historical cases.

Have you read the bible? And I mean all of it, and taken it on balance, rather than focussing on the cases that suit you best? The bible was written by men, though they may have been guided by God, they were not his puppets.

There's a great passage by John the Baptist, all about the fire and brimstone that awaits the rich. He was a poor man, and he was surely angry with the lack of compassion these rich people had displayed to him. He was a man, and like all men (bar one :wink:) had human failings.

woad&fangs

12-14-2007, 01:11

Vicious Monkey, you're argument is perfectly valid against organized religion. However, religion as a whole is not the problem. A gun can be used for good or evil depending on the holder. So can religion.

Big_John

12-14-2007, 01:29

By free will we all mean independent consiousnesses and the ability to make a decision which is (however limited) our own. This we do have, there is no denying it.this has been debated for like 2000+ years, and basically every major philosopher has had something to say about it. some of them would indeed deny your characterization.

Have you actually read the debate you started? You just re-stated your proposition. :inquisitive:well, he may not be particularly interested in what we had to say.

Bijo, as someone else mentioned before, the book of job is a good place to start. iirc, god's response to job and his friends is basically, "i got a lot of mouths to feed man! you don't know what it's like being god, so don't judge me." not very satisfying to me, but some people like it, i'm sure. anyway, god pimps job's ride after all is said and done. so job comes out ahead in the end. just like in real life! ;)

Jesus was a jew, and in his lifetime he knew only jews. Hitler was lying to use religion as an excuse. He was not religiously motivated. The same can be said of all of your historical cases.either you're vastly overstating your case, or you're basically admitting that religion/spirituality is just a product of societal power structures, and consequently, little more than a tool.

Have you read the bible? And I mean all of it, and taken it on balance, rather than focussing on the cases that suit you best? The bible was written by men, though they may have been guided by God, they were not his puppets.well if he can't pick and choose, neither should you be able to. there is a lot of violence in the bible to go along with all the peace. its a clichéd example, but look at moses's advice in numbers, 31. if you open the door to undermine the import of parts of the bible, where can you draw the line?

The Celtic Viking

12-14-2007, 01:32

Jesus was a jew, and in his lifetime he knew only jews. Hitler was lying to use religion as an excuse. He was not religiously motivated. The same can be said of all of your historical cases.

Hitler did not agree with you, and just saying that he was lying is a little bit too easy. Do you have any evidence of that?

Have you read the bible? And I mean all of it, and taken it on balance, rather than focussing on the cases that suit you best? The bible was written by men, though they may have been guided by God, they were not his puppets.

I don't need to have read the whole bible, no. But I have read enough of it to support my claims, much thanks to others who have read the whole thing.

But what are you really saying here? That you cannot trust the bible? Then from where do you get your ideas about god? Do you mean to say that you can only trust parts of it? If so, how do you know which parts you can trust and which parts you cannot

There are also at least a lot of Christians who claim that the bible was written through "divine inspiration". Why are they wrong and you right?

Vicious Monkey, you're argument is perfectly valid against organized religion. However, religion as a whole is not the problem. A gun can be used for good or evil depending on the holder. So can religion.

Irrationality, the brainwashing of children, the blocking of critical thinking, the bigotry, the "holier-than-thou" mentality etc., such things would still not go away. And even disregarding that, is there any actual reason to believe that religions would ever deorganize to never reorganize again?

Big_John

12-14-2007, 01:48

Irrationality, the brainwashing of children, the blocking of critical thinking, the bigotry, the "holier-than-thou" mentality etc., such things would still not go away. And even disregarding that, is there any actual reason to believe that religions would ever deorganize to never reorganize again?charity, inspiration, happiness. there are counter-examples to consider. being an atheist, i'm certainly not in favor of abandoning rationality at any cost, but a society can seek to minimize the harmful effects of religion without simply abolishing it. maybe societies will evolve past the need to lean on belief to gain some of it's positive effects, and one fine morning---

but until then, not every believer is hitler.

woad&fangs

12-14-2007, 01:58

Irrationality, the brainwashing of children, the blocking of critical thinking, the bigotry, the "holier-than-thou" mentality etc., such things would still not go away. And even disregarding that, is there any actual reason to believe that religions would ever deorganize to never reorganize again?

Irrationality-Einstein believed in a divine presence. I highly doubt that you could call him irrational. Also, following that grain of thought, since god created the universe wouldn't it make since that the best way to come closer to understanding god is through understanding his creations?

Brainwashing of Children- Organized Religion brainwashes.

Blocking of Critical thinking-See Irrationality

Bigotry-Jesus taught to be patient and calm and to respect other people.

"Holier-than-thou"- Jesus taught to be humble

Evil_Maniac From Mars

12-14-2007, 02:08

What? Hitler was not religious, he was an atheist, or pagan at best. To argue that he was Christian is interesting, considering the amounts of Christian leaders he imprisoned. Also, as Myrddraal pointed out, religion can be used as an excuse for something, but often there is another underlying cause, and religion is only invoked to make it acceptable to the people it is being done in the name of.

Big_John

12-14-2007, 02:08

Irrationality-Einstein believed in a divine presence.that's rather misleading. einstein characterized himself as an agnostic and explicitly stated that he did not believe in a "personal god". but there are plenty of amazingly intelligent true theists out there, so your point could be considered safe.

Bigotry-Jesus taught to be patient and calm and to respect other people.

"Holier-than-thou"- Jesus taught to be humblethis is, again, just the 'no true scotsman' idea. villains and saints alike can claim to follow the word. who are you say which is doing it correctly?

Big_John

12-14-2007, 02:17

What? Hitler was not religious, he was an atheist, or pagan at best.hitler was never an atheist. he was born and baptized roman catholic, iirc. as a statesman, he referenced the importance of "faith" in mein kampf, advocated 'positive christianity', and believed himself to be doing god's work.

but you most people would consider stalin, mao, and pol pot to be atheists, use them instead. :wink:

woad&fangs

12-14-2007, 02:17

this is, again, just the 'no true scotsman' idea. villains and saints alike can claim to follow the word. who are you say which is doing it correctly?

"A good tree bears good fruit, a bad tree bears bad fruit"

Okay, I admit that my memory of the parables is a bit rusty but I think that Jesus said something along those lines.

Big_John

12-14-2007, 02:20

"A good tree bears good fruit, a bad tree bears bad fruit"

Okay, I admit that my memory of the parables is a bit rusty but I think that Jesus said something along those lines.that reasoning works for either side.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

12-14-2007, 02:25

but you most people would consider stalin, mao, and pol pot to be atheists, use them instead. :wink:
Yes, I was going to cite them in the same post. However, I would argue that with the Catholic and Lutheran leaders Hitler imprisoned, while he believed in faith, associating him directly as a follower of the Catholic Church during adulthood is interesting.

Also, being baptized Catholic at birth, common in Hitler's era and before, does not mean you are necessarily a devout follower of the faith. My own mother is a prime example.

Big_John

12-14-2007, 02:36

However, I would argue that with the Catholic and Lutheran leaders Hitler imprisoned, while he believed in faith, associating him directly as a follower of the Catholic Church during adulthood is interesting.i'm not sure what you're trying to argue here.

Also, being baptized Catholic at birth, common in Hitler's era and before, does not mean you are necessarily a devout follower of the faith. My own mother is a prime example.sure, it's just an observation. but the sum total of like observations could not lead a reasonable person to believe that hitler was ever an atheist.

Myrddraal

12-14-2007, 02:52

Hitler was mad, he can believe whatever he likes, it doesn't change the fact.

It's a totally unrelated point that means very little.

Big_John

12-14-2007, 03:02

Hitler was mad, he can believe whatever he likes, it doesn't change the fact.anyone can claim anyone else is mad. one could easily claim people who believe jesus could work miracles must be mad. what does that have to do with hitler's theism?

edit: meh, all of this is OT anyway. or just peripherally related.

Myrddraal

12-14-2007, 03:07

Anyone can claim anything. Who are you or I to decide which claims are right and wrong?

We could go down that route forever, and ever, and ever.

Navaros

12-14-2007, 03:17

even if that were true, why add god into the mix? just one more level of absurdity for the heck of it?

Why not add God into the mix?

Not adding God into the mix is making a value judgement that the absurdity of the concept of the Universe, all it's laws, and everything in it randomly coming into existence by happenstance is less absurd than a God concept.

But, there is no tangible way to measure those two absurd concepts against each other. There is no definitive answer to which is less absurd. Therefore, any value judgement about which is less absurd, or more likely to be true, is merely a matter of perception and opinion. Therefore there can be no reasonable claim that the "Universe by random happenstance" concept is irrefutably less absurd than a God concept.

Bottom line: it's an opinion-based choice. Everyone must pick which absurdity he chooses to put faith in.

Big_John

12-14-2007, 03:19

Anyone can claim anything. Who are you or I to decide which claims are right and wrong?

We could go down that route forever, and ever, and ever.we can look at people's words and deeds, and make an informed decision. for example, hitler's words indicate that he was a theist of some sort. hitler's deeds? well, that's open to interpretation, i suppose.

Big_John

12-14-2007, 03:29

Why not add God into the mix?

Not adding God into the mix is making a value judgement that the absurdity of the concept of the Universe, all it's laws, and everything in it randomly coming into existence by happenstance is less absurd than a God concept.

But, there is no tangible way to measure those two absurd concepts against each other. There is no definitive answer to which is less absurd. Therefore, any value judgement about which is less absurd, or more likely to be true, is merely a matter of perception and opinion. Therefore there can be no reasonable claim that the "Universe by random happenstance" concept is irrefutably less absurd than a God concept.

Bottom line: it's an opinion-based choice. Everyone must pick which absurdity he chooses to put faith in.except that, if you beileve that physical reality exists, we already have that at hand. we don't need to conceptualize a metaphysical "will" to pick up and eat an apple, for example. i can see the apple, and i can touch it and interact with it. so if i believe i exist as a physical being (which i think is a foundational belief for anyone that's not a schizophrenic), if i have any sort of personal identity, the existence of the physical universe is a given. i don't need to imagine an elaborate set of unlikely circumstances to believe in it, because it's right in front of me.

so to not have a god concept is no more absurd than to pick up and eat an apple. unless, of course, there are signs of god in the physical world.

edit: this is the difference between making a positive claim, and making no claim. i take the world as i experience it. if you tell me there is something beyond, that is no onus on me.

Incongruous

12-14-2007, 04:43

Big_John

12-14-2007, 05:12

How does this disprove his point?
I beleive physical reality exists, I can also touch an apple. How does that disprove or prove anything?
The physical universe is a given to you, you don't care about what happened to make it occure thus you deem an explanation of it's creation as absurd?perhaps i misunderstood what he was trying to say. but if you're arguing that invoking god is simply replacing one absurdity with another, ok. is that the best a theist can do?

even still, that is one added level of absurdity, because it posits an absurd cause (god). whereas, an atheist need posit no cause. taking existence for granted is like taking an apple for granted, instead of imagining johnny appleseed put it there.

moreover, though it may be hard to fathom, there is nothing necessarily absurd about an uncaused universe, since a fundamental aspect of causality, time, did not necessarily exist "before" the universe.

Sigurd

12-14-2007, 12:29

Let me first just point out to all of you Christians or muslims (or anyone else of a religion that invokes an equivalent to hell): Your religion do not say you have free will! Or if it does, then it contradicts itself by having hell (or the equivalent). To have free will you cannot be punished for any decision you make (or equally punished no matter what your choices are). Since hell punish everyone who choose not to do as your god commands, but not those who do follow the commands, your choice isn't free.

I tried to not get involved here but I feel I must make a comment on free will.
You have to understand the whole picture before discussing the particulars.

Men were given freedom to eat of every tree in the Garden which contradicted another statement about eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
To me this reads: you shall not eat of that tree, but you can freely choose to do so.

Free will in the Judeo/Christian theology necessitates a few principles.
1. The need for a law.
2. Opposites in all things.
3. Knowledge if what is right and what is wrong.
3. Freedom to choose.

God have laid down the law: You can do this and this. You can't do this and this.
There are opposing forces in play. Good vs. evil, vice vs. virtue, true vs. false. Etc…
For man to be accountable for his choices, he must have knowledge of what is right and what is wrong.
And man must be granted the freedom to choose.

There are consequences for choices, and they work outside free will.
Like the law we live under, there are consequences for breaking them. If you murder, the law demands jail time. The picture of Justice as a blindfolded woman with a scale and a sword is quite fitting. Justice is blind and it demands that the scale is in balance. If a law is broken, something must be paid to rebalance order. Free will ensures that man have the ability to unbalance the scales of justice. But payment is still needed to rebalance it.
So free will is: man is free to choose salvation by obeying the laws and is free to choose damnation by breaking the laws.
God put down the laws and we are free to obey them or not. We are however not exempted any consequence for breaking them. Justice will be paid either while on earth or in the worlds to come.

This is where the Saviour comes into the equation. He paid justice with his atonement and set down a payback plan that would free mankind from their debt to justice.
The payback plan only demands that humankind does their best in following the outline in it; an outline which includes repentance.
How many times can you repent? Seven score seventy… which is such a high number in ancient times that you could as well put always in.

This is how I understand the Judeo/Christian notion of free will.

The Celtic Viking

12-14-2007, 14:22

Could every theist please answer these three questions: 1) what, exactly, is “god”? 2) Why is he necessary? 3) Why do you believe in the god you believe in, and not any other?

charity, inspiration, happiness. there are counter-examples to consider. being an atheist, i'm certainly not in favor of abandoning rationality at any cost, but a society can seek to minimize the harmful effects of religion without simply abolishing it. maybe societies will evolve past the need to lean on belief to gain some of it's positive effects, and one fine morning---

Why can’t charity, inspiration and happiness exist without religion? Yeah, that’s just a rhetorical question as reality says it does. To then ignore the bad things that religion do bring, which lack of religion do not bring (but granted do not block either), is wrong.

If you’re not in favour of abandoning rationality too, why are you arguing that religion could stay in any form? The belief in anything without evidence is irrational by definition, and since there is no evidence for any god keeping religion is keeping irrational beliefs.

but until then, not every believer is hitler.

I know, but that still doesn’t make the brainwashing, the anti-gays, the stoning of people, the bigotry etc. that DOES exist and IS NOT just confined to 10 or so people any better.

Irrationality-Einstein believed in a divine presence. I highly doubt that you could call him irrational.

Sigh. First of all, I’m sick of the Einstein example. It’s just an appeal to authority. Secondly, as Big John points out, he was not talking of any god like that.

But let’s just accept that he believed in the Christian god (which he in reality didn’t). Then that belief would be irrational. I’ve never said that a theist can’t be rational in every other aspect of his life, but when it comes to religion the theist mind bars the gate for rationality.

What? Hitler was not religious, he was an atheist, or pagan at best. To argue that he was Christian is interesting, considering the amounts of Christian leaders he imprisoned.

He was not an atheist. Read his book “Mein Kampf”. He time and time again says straight out that he’s Christian, that he was working on the command of the Christian god etc. He believed that Jesus was not a Jew and that he himself was descended from him... he even said, and I quote: “I will not teach anyone in atheism”. He simply thought that every other church was wrong, something he’s not the only one to have done and still do, what with all the Christian denominations that all claim to be the “true way”.

but you most people would consider stalin, mao, and pol pot to be atheists, use them instead.

Whether Stalin was an atheist or not is debatable. I think not, based on the fact that his daughter in interviews said that she believed he was a theist, that he had told her that he believed in Jesus, and that the poems he wrote also support that. But that doesn't matter, because his actions were not religiously based at all - it was all political. He wanted the people to worship the government and see them as gods instead.

Why not add God into the mix?

Why not add the Flying Spaghetti Monster into the mix? Why not add the Invisible Pink Unicorn into the mix? Why not add fairies, dragons, undetectable teapots orbiting Uranus or that little Schnarfwidget on my shoulder into the mix? Because it's COMPLETELY IRRATIONAL and devoid of any reason or function at all. It may have worked for the dark ages, but I would have thought that we'd moved on by now.

It's also switching the burden of proof. It's up to the theist to prove not only that there is a god, but also that it is theirs and not some other god, before it can be brought into the mix.

Bottom line: it's an opinion-based choice. Everyone must pick which absurdity he chooses to put faith in.

No. Atheism is the lack of faith. Please tell me how it requires faith to lack faith.

Oh, and while we’re at it, science doesn’t require faith either. Faith is belief without evidence or belief despite evidence to the contrary. Any scientific claim is based on evidence, and thus does not require faith.

How does this disprove his point?
I beleive physical reality exists, I can also touch an apple. How does that disprove or prove anything?
The physical universe is a given to you, you don't care about what happened to make it occure thus you deem an explanation of it's creation as absurd?

That’s switching the burden of proof. Anyone who makes the claim that a god exists must prove that claim to be true. If he cannot, then the rational thing is not to believe. There is no evidence and no need for a god.

Men were given freedom to eat of every tree in the Garden which contradicted another statement about eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
To me this reads: you shall not eat of that tree, but you can freely choose to do so.

Ignoring the begging of the question, the fact that “the Garden” you speak of never existed and that getting knowledge to eating one frigging fruit is utterly ridiculous…

No, you could not “freely choose to do so”. You could choose to do so, but hardly “freely” because… well, Adam and Eve were punished for that, you know.

And while we're at it, is not the Christian god all-knowing? Would he not know what would happen if he put such a tree there? Why did he put it there in the first place? If he knew that they would eat of it, he'd know that he would punish them for it, and that would not be the work of a good god, which Christianity and Christians claim that their god is.

Free will in the Judeo/Christian theology necessitates a few principles.
1. The need for a law.
2. Opposites in all things.
3. Knowledge if what is right and what is wrong.
3. Freedom to choose.

God have laid down the law: You can do this and this. You can't do this and this.
There are opposing forces in play. Good vs. evil, vice vs. virtue, true vs. false. Etc…
For man to be accountable for his choices, he must have knowledge of what is right and what is wrong.
And man must be granted the freedom to choose.

There are consequences for choices, and they work outside free will.

Changing the definition isn’t a valid argument, you know. I could say that “according the mighty Schnarfwidgetmagidwah, the true god on my shoulder, slavery is freedom” and then claim that slaves do have freedom. See the absurdity of that claim?

And man must be granted the freedom to choose.

Let’s imagine that Sweden attacked and defeated Norway, for whatever reason, and a puppet dictator was installed. Anyone who don’t openly confess his or her own love for this dictator and follow the cruel rules he set up would be put to death on the spot. Would you call yourself free? If no, then you seem to have a different definition of free in reality and when it comes to god. After all, with death AND eternal torture, the christian god's threat to breakers of the commandments is endlessly worse than anything the dictator in the example could ever give.

If he really gave us free will, he wouldn’t torture us for not following his commands. If he had just done nothing to those disobeying, and brought all who did obey up to heaven, then free will could be argued. Dealing out eternal torture to those who don’t believe and/or don’t follow his commands removes the free part. It also removes this whole :daisy: about how "he loves us".

This is where the Saviour comes into the equation. He paid justice with his atonement and set down a payback plan that would free mankind from their debt to justice.

Prove that he even existed. Hint: you can’t.

Besides, how the cuss can you claim that I am of any debt to an absurd and unproven notion of “god”? That two people who never existed ate a fruit that never were that somehow gave them something they never were given that the god that doesn't exist didn’t want them to have is not my sin. I'm not in debt for what "they" allegedly did, and to say that is completely :daisy: up.

This is how I understand the Judeo/Christian notion of free will.

I see it as the same thing. I just don’t alter the definition of “free”.

(Please note that I'm not used to writing big posts like this, so expect certain errors to pass my vigilance. I'm just a man, and since I'm not possessed by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I'm not flawless. ~;))

Odin

12-14-2007, 14:26

(Please note that I'm not used to writing big posts like this, so expect certain errors to pass my vigilance. I'm just a man, and since I'm not possessed by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I'm not flawless. ~;))

I've stepped back into the peanut gallery on this thread but as a word of encouragement I think your doing great.

Give em hell (pun intended) :thumbsup:

Sigurd

12-14-2007, 14:48

@ The Vicious Monkey:

I will answer you in full regarding your comments to my recent post at a later time (at work now).
However I feel I must insert that I am not a theist. I was only showing what the theistic views on free will are.

But one thing I will answer since I am already typing. The first commandment of God to mankind was to go forth and mulitply. Somehow according to the lore, they couldn't until they had broken the commandment of eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Somehow by doing so.. their bodies were changed and they were able to conceive.
So you have..

1. You must go forth and mulitply
2. You can't eat of that tree.
3. *Can't multiply without eating from that tree*

A dilemma that Eve solved and introduced sin and eternal condemnation for humankind.
But humankind could not have come about without it and Adam and Eve would have lived in the garden still, eternaly ignorant.

I have discarded my agnosticism during the period of the debate I am supposed to have with Cheetah. I guess he is a little occupied in the mafia game. So, I'll play along as a theist.

Husar

12-14-2007, 17:29

but there are plenty of amazingly intelligent true theists out there, so your point could be considered safe.
Yeah, take me for example.

Big_John

12-14-2007, 20:15

Why can’t charity, inspiration and happiness exist without religion? Yeah, that’s just a rhetorical question as reality says it does. To then ignore the bad things that religion do bring, which lack of religion do not bring (but granted do not block either), is wrong.the point is that hatred and war would exist without religion as much as charity and peace would exist with it. humans are violent animals, we're going to go to war over real-world things like land and water. religion is just a belief system that helps unite the ranks.. like nationalism, communism or democracy. if you want to peg religion with the 'bad', you should consider the 'good' too.

If you’re not in favour of abandoning rationality too, why are you arguing that religion could stay in any form? The belief in anything without evidence is irrational by definition, and since there is no evidence for any god keeping religion is keeping irrational beliefs.i said i was not in favor of abandoning rationality at any cost. we live in the real world, and i'm a pragmatist. we're not going to be able to eliminate superstition over night. the truth is, the uperstitions some people hold onto have great meaning for them and, according to studies, make them happier, healthier, and more productive than they would be without those beliefs.

of course there are negative fallouts from most of these beliefs. but if we consider the plenty of 'good' people who still believe in god(s) and aren't bigots or racists or hatemongers or whatever, it seems evident that we could seek to live in a world that lets people have their irrational beliefs about things like the origin of existence, and be happier for it, and still respects rationality in the public sphere. pragmatically, we should seek to encourage these 'good' theists, and discourage the others. and after that is accomplished, we can encourage rationality in all things.

but, rationality about remote concepts with little bearing on how we live our lives is not, in my opinion, worth a whole lot of turmoil. eventually, people will come around.

Yeah, take me for example.i won't take you anywhere for less than $20.

Boyar Son

12-14-2007, 22:42

Oh yes, let's all be irrational and completely discard critical thinking. I mean, if that's what it takes to believe in something so stupid as the god-concept... :shrug:

So what your saying is you wouldnt believe in Jesus..

.. because this happened loong time ago..

..and even though he's the _son of God_ he shouldnt be able to walk on water because YOU cant do it... right?

I mean if all you can attack me with is hate and see it to believe it then next aethiest plz

Husar

12-14-2007, 23:02

i won't take you anywhere for less than $20.
Actually you should pay me for my allowance to use me as an example, not everybody gets that honour from me. ~;)

The rest of your post was very nice though. :2thumbsup:

Big_John

12-15-2007, 00:25

.. because this happened loong time ago..

..and even though he's the _son of God_ he shouldnt be able to walk on water because YOU cant do it... right?this is conjecture. that's not a very useful place to start to have a meaningful discussion.

husar, i'll pick you up at 8.

Kagemusha

12-15-2007, 00:37

I just wanted to say that ive enjoyed reading the debate in this thread between Myrddraal and Big_John. Either side is not "preaching" and can debate in respectful manner without attacking the other person or insulting his beliefs or lack of beliefs. Maybe you guys should do that debate for the Gahzette?:yes:

Myrddraal

12-15-2007, 01:24

I was going to save my arguments for the Gahzette debate on the existance of God, but hey.

Frankly, I don't know why I'm replying to someone who repeatedly calls me stupid, but here goes anyway.

Please Vicious Monkey, consider what I have to say with respect, and not as ammunition to ridicule me.

I believe in a god of some kind. I'm rock solid in that belief. I also call myself a Christian (Catholic actually, I'm sure the pope would disagree) but I'm not so rock solid in that belief.

The first and most important reason for my belief in a god or spiritual force is my belief in a soul or some kind of life force.

I am self aware. It's a philosophical argument as old as the hills, "I think therefore I am (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum)". Descartes used this as a philosophical argument, considering the idea that even if there was an all deceiving all powerful being bent on confusing him, he would remain sure of the fact that 'he' (the being which is being confused) must exist in order to be confused. However, I want to use this argument with reference to our brains, and the limitations of science (as we know it).

I can create a very complex electric system, with plenty of feedback control and some very complex mathematics. That kind of system could fly an airplane better than I can, but it would not be self aware (at least not in the same way as I am).

I could make a similar chemical system, and extend that to basic cells. I still cannot accept that such a system can be self aware.

The next step is to extend this argument to the human mind.

As an organism becomes more and more complex, as the control systems that make it work become more and more complex, at what point does it become self aware?

You could argue that it becomes self aware after the first feedback loop is introduced. You could argue that that it becomes self aware after some kind of system component monitors the rest of the system to check all it's outputs are still correct.

But in that case, why am I not conscious in some form of every system in my mind? Large parts of your mind you are never conscious of, they don't even enter your subconscious. The nerve impulses that keep you heart ticking over, the nerve impulses that never leave your spinal chord for example.

So what is this thing that is self aware, it certainly isn't the human brain. Is it only one part of the brain? I'm not a neurologist, but I cannot accept the idea that a chemical reaction, however complex, can have self awareness in the same way that I do.

This is why I believe that I have a soul. That soul is completely tied in with my brain, (I would be a fool to claim it is independent of it, if I were writing this smashed it would less comprehensible, if it is at all :wink:) but it is also separate. It is, if you like, part of me that is empowered by my brain. It is the spark of consciousness, and it is not a physical thing. This is what I believe a soul is.

The obvious criticism of my argument is my use of the phrase: "the limitations of science (as we know it)".

Let me rephrase that, perhaps there is a science which governs this thin I call the soul, but it is not explained by any science we have to date (oh we can explain systems and control, I study systems and control all the time, but as I already said, I cannot accept that the human consciousness is governed entirely by a complex chemical reaction).

So if we do not understand the soul, who are we to judge what limitations there are to 'soul science'. Could there not be a consciousness independent of a physical brain? Of course, this is not proof, since I don't understand the soul, just an idea.

And secondly, what is it that creates the soul in each of us? Certainly it is created, since it did not exist before 'I' existed*. Our bodies are created following the laws of physics, through biology and chemistry. Since this sould is not a physical thing however, we cannot look to physics. Whatever that force is, I believe in it.

*(unless of course, 'I' can exist without being self aware, then become self aware when I get a body, but let's not confuse things)

Now you can dismiss my entire argument if you like, but if you believe yourself to be an amazing and incredibly complex chemical reaction, I believe you are underestimating yourself.

Why am I a Christian? Because I was raised one. A better question would be; why am I still a Christian? Well I don't think any atheists here will be interested in my answer, but I'll tell you anyway (I've left big spaces between the sections of this post, so feel free to skip this one).

Since I am persuaded of the existence of a soul and the existence of some force which creates and governs the soul, this is not an issue. Believing in the Christian God is the leap of faith for me.

I should stress at this point that calling myself a Catholic is a little hypocritical of me. I by no means believe in every word of the bible or the church's dogma. I believe in the Christian God because of Christ. The events of his life are what lead me to believe in the Christian God.

Why should I believe in Jesus? Well I think it's fact that he existed, but I also believe that the events described by the evangelists follow the truth because I don't believe that they could have been successful if it was just a good yarn written on a cold night when they had nothing better to do. The history of Jesus' life is full of witnesses. The early Christian church could never have existed if those witnesses did not.

Why do I believe that Jesus wasn't a very very clever con man? Well apart from the improbability of his success, giving the ultimate sacrifice for the sake of a good laugh is a little unlikely.

Lastly, I believe in an interventionalist god because I believe that some miracles have happened. You'll say to me that accounts of miracles are either very old, or very dubious. I invite you to google a most recent example; google "The Miracle of the Sun".

Now I don't necessarily accept all the worded messages and instructions that accompany this miracle; they are vulnerable to abuse. Yet at the same time, the prediction combined with the widely witnessed event are enough for me.

I've seen a possible scientific explanation given. I don't doubt that it was a phenomenon of this kind that was witnessed, but that it just happened to occur at the time and place predicted, I doubt it.

The other explanations I've heard are that it was a UFO (which takes no account of the prediction) or the work of Satan... :shrug:

If you read all that, congratulations. I'm sure you're eager to pick it apart and point out logical flaws, and I'll appreciate it.

I hope I at least made you think of some new arguments, if not agree.

Big_John

12-15-2007, 01:41

i actually have little interest in a gahzette debate. formal debates bore me, i prefer a conversation like i'd have with my friends. myrddraal, i'll get to that post later... :wink:

Myrddraal

12-15-2007, 01:47

Hehe, I understand you completely.

I've got this feeling of dread, like I'm about to be leapt on by Catholics, Evangelicals, Creationists, Protestants, Atheists, Muslims, Buddists, and anyone who has an oppinion on the matter.

I'll have to take refuge with any Anglicans or Agnostics around, one'll just say: "You mentioned God, that counts", the other won't know really.

Boyar Son

12-15-2007, 03:08

this is conjecture. that's not a very useful place to start to have a meaningful discussion.

Does the big bang theory count too?

Or the formation of the earth?

Or plate tectonics?

Might as well assume everyone's in the dark.

Aethiests obviously know their strongest argument is the lack of evidence from religion, and I hope anybody who plays the thiest knows what they're doing.

Big_John

12-15-2007, 03:23

i'll apologize in advance for chopping up the post, but it's the only way i can deal with such a long one.
The first and most important reason for my belief in a god or spiritual force is my belief in a soul or some kind of life force.i would argue that the belief in a soul is as irrational as beilef in god, so long as we are defining "soul" as in anyway metaphysical. the definition of "soul" is very problematic, though. to really have a discussion about it, you need to explain as clearly as possible what you mean by the word.

I am self aware. It's a philosophical argument as old as the hills, "I think therefore I am (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum)". Descartes used this as a philosophical argument, considering the idea that even if there was an all deceiving all powerful being bent on confusing him, he would remain sure of the fact that 'he' (the being which is being confused) must exist in order to be confused. However, I want to use this argument with reference to our brains, and the limitations of science (as we know it).

I can create a very complex electric system, with plenty of feedback control and some very complex mathematics. That kind of system could fly an airplane better than I can, but it would not be self aware (at least not in the same way as I am).

I could make a similar chemical system, and extend that to basic cells. I still cannot accept that such a system can be self aware.why would you expect a complex electric system to be self-aware? i don't think it's fair to expect an laptop to be self-aware, and then, when it exhibits no evidence of self-awareness to hold that as evidence for a spiritual 'soul'.

but, what criteria are you using to decide if something is self-aware or not? why do you know an airplane auto-pilot is not self-aware? better yet, is an amoeba self-aware? an ant? a dog? a porpoise? a chimpanzee? do they have 'souls'?

The next step is to extend this argument to the human mind.

As an organism becomes more and more complex, as the control systems that make it work become more and more complex, at what point does it become self aware?afaik, the nature of consciousness is an open field of research. cognitive science is still a developing field, and may hold answers in the future (or already, i don't keep up with it).

You could argue that it becomes self aware after the first feedback loop is introduced. You could argue that that it becomes self aware after some kind of system component monitors the rest of the system to check all it's outputs are still correct.

But in that case, why am I not conscious in some form of every system in my mind? Large parts of your mind you are never conscious of, they don't even enter your subconscious. The nerve impulses that keep you heart ticking over, the nerve impulses that never leave your spinal chord for example.must awareness of the 'self' be perfect to count as "self-awareness"? and, do you consider the autonomic nervous system to be part of the mind? that's a broad definition.

So what is this thing that is self aware, it certainly isn't the human brain. Is it only one part of the brain? I'm not a neurologist, but I cannot accept the idea that a chemical reaction, however complex, can have self awareness in the same way that I do.i don't understand how you are certain that the brain is not the seat of awareness. have you witnessed brainless people that are self-aware in the sense you've been talking about above? again, why would you expect a chemical reaction to have self awareness? awareness could be an emergent property of complex central nervous systems. as a very simple example of an emergent property, take water. neither hydrogen, nor oxygen are liquid at 20 degrees celsius. but combine the two, and you have a new substance with very different properties.

This is why I believe that I have a soul. That soul is completely tied in with my brain, (I would be a fool to claim it is independent of it, if I were writing this smashed it would less comprehensible, if it is at all :wink:) but it is also separate. It is, if you like, part of me that is empowered by my brain. It is the spark of consciousness, and it is not a physical thing. This is what I believe a soul is.to me, none of this is any more sensible than blind faith. i dont see how you get from: consciousness is mysterious to me to i have a soul!

The obvious criticism of my argument is my use of the phrase: "the limitations of science (as we know it)".

Let me rephrase that, perhaps there is a science which governs this thin I call the soul, but it is not explained by any science we have to date (oh we can explain systems and control, I study systems and control all the time, but as I already said, I cannot accept that the human consciousness is governed entirely by a complex chemical reaction).i think a more useful approach would be empiricism. instead of starting with the contention that human consciousness cannot be a product of the physical system alone, why not replicate that physical system first, and see if it exhibits consciousness? in the case of humans, this means, let's build a human brain, down to the molecule, and see if it can exhibit the whatever signs of consciousness we're looking for.

sounds far-fetched? it's certainly science fiction right now, but i don't think it's impossible that we could someday be able to construct a perfect example of a human brain. if we do, we would have a way to test whether consciousness is more than a physical phenomenon.

So if we do not understand the soul, who are we to judge what limitations there are to 'soul science'. Could there not be a consciousness independent of a physical brain? Of course, this is not proof, since I don't understand the soul, just an idea.

And secondly, what is it that creates the soul in each of us? Certainly it is created, since it did not exist before 'I' existed*. Our bodies are created following the laws of physics, through biology and chemistry. Since this sould is not a physical thing however, we cannot look to physics. Whatever that force is, I believe in it.

*(unless of course, 'I' can exist without being self aware, then become self aware when I get a body, but let's not confuse things)

Now you can dismiss my entire argument if you like, but if you believe yourself to be an amazing and incredibly complex chemical reaction, I believe you are underestimating yourself.and i believe you are underestimating chemistry. :wink:

as for your christianity, i think the rest of this thread deals with the problems associated with that particular faith well enough. though i must say, i find chirsitianity no more irrational than any other belief system that makes metaphysical claims.

Lastly, I believe in an interventionalist god because I believe that some miracles have happened. You'll say to me that accounts of miracles are either very old, or very dubious. I invite you to google a most recent example; google "The Miracle of the Sun".

Now I don't necessarily accept all the worded messages and instructions that accompany this miracle; they are vulnerable to abuse. Yet at the same time, the prediction combined with the widely witnessed event are enough for me.

I've seen a possible scientific explanation given. I don't doubt that it was a phenomenon of this kind that was witnessed, but that it just happened to occur at the time and place predicted, I doubt it.

The other explanations I've heard are that it was a UFO (which takes no account of the prediction) or the work of Satan... :shrug:nothing about the "miracle of the sun" strikes me as especially credible (i.e., more credible than other miracles one hears about). in general, i will always believe a physical explanation over a metaphysical one, simply because, as i've stated before, i have reason to believe in a physical world, and no reason to believe in a metaphysical world. and even if a metaphysical world exists, i have no reason to believe that there can be interaction between the two.

this, i suppose, is a basic philosophical difference. i am always inclined to believe that a physical event has a physical explanation. and if we don't understand a physical event, i either assume that there is a physical explanation that i'm not aware of, or i simply reserve judgment. i have never had cause to believe that a metaphysical reality has intruded upon the phenomenal world.

Big_John

12-15-2007, 03:28

Does the big bang theory count too?

Or the formation of the earth?

Or plate tectonics?count for what? all three of those things are supported by empirical evidence, if that is what you are asking.

Might as well assume everyone's in the dark.

Aethiests obviously know their strongest argument is the lack of evidence from religion, and I hope anybody who plays the thiest knows what they're doing.as descartes recognized in formulation the meditations, the only truly useful tact is begin from a position of ignorance. from there we can build up the world around us. to start from assumptions is simply unsafe.

Boyar Son

12-15-2007, 03:56

count for what? all three of those things are supported by empirical evidence, if that is what you are asking.

as descartes recognized in formulation the meditations, the only truly useful tact is begin from a position of ignorance. from there we can build up the world around us. to start from assumptions is simply unsafe.

The big bang. How'd we observe that?

to attack the existence of someone we cannot see, hear, smell etc with science but is believed in by faith is simply unsound. Since according to todays society faith and science are incongruent..well I guess we can assume the rules of scientific proof do not apply to faith and religion at all.~D

Big_John

12-15-2007, 04:08

The big bang. How'd we observe that?you can educate yourself fairly easily about the empirical evidence for the singularity at the beginning of the universe.

to attack the existence of someone we cannot see, hear, smell etc with science but is believed in by faith is simply unsound. Since according to todays society faith and science are incongruent..well I guess we can assume the rules of scientific proof do not apply to faith and religion at all.~Dsure, that's one tact. you can simply admit there is no logical reason to believe in god.

Boyar Son

12-15-2007, 04:12

you can educate yourself fairly easily about the empirical evidence for the singularity at the beginning of the universe.

sure, that's one tact. you can simply admit there is no logical reason to believe in god.

No no, do not spare how we observed it.

by science you're correct, but it doesnt really matter if all I need is faith isnt it?...

besides..logic? part of science and science in todays world cannot connect so those arguments dont hit the target to the trained theist eye.

Big_John

12-15-2007, 04:16

can't say i follow your last post, Boyar Son. if you want to understand the evidence for the big bang, start with wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Observational_evidence).

Boyar Son

12-15-2007, 04:27

can't say i follow your last post, Boyar Son. if you want to understand the evidence for the big bang, start with wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Observational_evidence).

oops.

try this a little changed.

by the rules of science you're correct, but it doesnt really matter if all I need is faith (God) isnt it?...

besides..logic? thats part of science, and science in todays world cannot connect, so those arguments (science disproves God...) _dont_ hit the target to the trained theist eye (regular believers in God with no debating skills can easily fall victim to the over used argument from the aethiest side, but " _dont_ hit the target to the trained theist eye ").

and nah I dont think wiki will bring aethiest point any closer to proof.

Big_John

12-15-2007, 06:13

oops.

try this a little changed.

by the rules of science you're correct, but it doesnt really matter if all I need is faith (God) isnt it?...are you arguing that all you need to believe in god is faith? if so, then i suppose that's true. though, i think many theists would disagree with you. but that's not what we are arguing here. we are arguing first about whether the description of a omnipotent, omni-benevolent god is tenable, and then we also began to consider whether there is a rational reason to believe in god.

besides..logic? thats part of science, and science in todays world cannot connect, so those arguments (science disproves God...) _dont_ hit the target to the trained theist eye (regular believers in God with no debating skills can easily fall victim to the over used argument from the aethiest side, but " _dont_ hit the target to the trained theist eye ").i'm only concerned with rational reasons in this discussion. i don't deny that there are irrational reasons to believe in god, and other supernatural things. but i try not to construct my worldview from irrational building blocks.

and nah I dont think wiki will bring aethiest point any closer to proof.it's not meant to bring any point "closer to proof". you asked what evidence there is for the big bang theory, wikipedia has a good primer on that. i was just trying to help you out with the leg work.

your writing style is hard for me to understand (is english your primary language?). sorry if i've missed your points.

Ice

12-15-2007, 08:14

your writing style is hard for me to understand (is english your primary language?). sorry if i've missed your points.

Sadly, it is. :shame:

Boyar Son

12-15-2007, 17:11

but that's not what we are arguing here.

i'm only concerned with rational reasons in this discussion. i don't deny that there are irrational reasons to believe in god, and other supernatural things. but i try not to construct my worldview from irrational building blocks.

it's not meant to bring any point "closer to proof". you asked what evidence there is for the big bang theory, wikipedia has a good primer on that. i was just trying to help you out with the leg work.

your writing style is hard for me to understand (is english your primary language?). sorry if i've missed your points.

1. so why'd you try to argue against my argument instead of saying that?

2. rationality sounds good and is the right thing in determining most things, but when it comes to FAITH it has no place, so the closest aethiests will ever get to discredit God is "logic, rationality".. but never disproving Him (because there is no way to prove with logic, rationality).

3. wiki isnt the most trusted source for info isnt it?

why do you try to make it sound bad when I said instead of scientific proof you need faith to believe that God is real?

so it is irrational to have faith? or hope? (also, english is my 1st language. but I dont bother to re-read and spell check :P) and thanks for not bashing God by calling him some fairy tale,like most aethiests do

iCe-:drama2: :quiet:

Husar

12-15-2007, 17:36

(also, english is my 1st language. but I dont bother to re-read and spell check :P)
The sad thing is when someone needs a spell check to write something that others can understand. :hide:

Big_John

12-15-2007, 20:19

1. so why'd you try to argue against my argument instead of saying that?for one thing, i think (i could be wrong) that this thread is primarily concerned with finding a rational foundation for a certain type of god. the reason i first addressed you is that you were answering vicious monkey's post, which was concerned with rationalism, with mere presumption.

2. rationality sounds good and is the right thing in determining most things, but when it comes to FAITH it has no place, so the closest aethiests will ever get to discredit God is "logic, rationality".. but never disproving Him (because there is no way to prove with logic, rationality).personally, i agree with you. i don't think i can 'disprove' god, but i don't think i need to in order to disregard the existence of god. a basic axiom of "one can't prove a negative" could apply here.

however, to my understanding, there are a good many atheists who do in fact positively assert that god can be disproved based on logcal impossibility. i'm not that familiar with that school of thought, so don't ask me to elaborate.

3. wiki isnt the most trusted source for info isnt it?come on, what are you arguing here? are you saying that wikipedia's entry on the evidentiary basis for the big bang theory has been doctored? is run by rabid atheists with no concern for the science? wikipedia's entries, in general, are based on outside sources. that particular entry references sources such as the astrophysical journal, the national academy of sciences, and the royal astronomical society, among others.

but, if you don't trust wikipedia, you can follow their sources and read the material first hand. or go to a library and check out the big bang books there. it's not a hard subject to find.

why do you try to make it sound bad when I said instead of scientific proof you need faith to believe that God is real?as i said above, i believe this thread is primarily concerned with rational reasoning. so, i felt your argument was out of place.

personally, i don't mind people that use faith to justify their belief in god. as i said earlier, irrational reasoning about something remote and of little import to how people live day-to-day lives is nothing to get in a huff over. but when that type of non-critical thinking spills over into other aspects of life, it is very dangerous. i believe that societies and individuals

so it is irrational to have faith? or hope? (also, english is my 1st language. but I dont bother to re-read and spell check :P) and thanks for not bashing God by calling him some fairy tale,like most aethiests doi wouldn't say it's strictly irrational to have faith or hope for certain things. to have hope that your lost daughter will be found, for example could make a lot of sense. it might be what keeps you going. it could be the driving force that ultimately leads you to find your child. an unreasonable belief can be very useful, adaptively beneficial. but it is not an valid argument. because i have faith that my child will be found is no kind of argument that she will be.

AntiochusIII

12-15-2007, 21:31

The sad thing is when someone needs a spell check to write something that others can understand. :hide:

Native speakers are actually much more sloppy when writing their language down than non-natives who have the same level of "proficiency" essentially.

It's a strange phenomenon somebody somewhere probably has an explanation for. I can guarantee it's true at least for me though. I type just as sloppily in my "native" language as anybody else (the way that would drive language teachers up the wall wailing and gnashing their teeth) but I think my English is at least decent; although using the stuff everyday does help...

Still, I do prefer people to do their best typing when online. I'm the kind of idiot to use full sentences in chat rooms. :sweatdrop:

woad&fangs

12-15-2007, 21:41

I've noticed that my grammar and spelling is a lot worse than most of the euro members in the backroom.

I never tried to say that Einstein believed in a personal deity such as the christian god. I have a very broad definition of what it means to be religious. If I remember correctly he believed in some form of an overarching force in the universe. To me that makes him religious.

Viking

12-15-2007, 22:12

Einstein was a human like everyone else is. Einsten's beliefs does not change reality in anway. As a side note, Einstein pursued for the rest of his life to disprove one of his theories simply because he did not like it. He failed however, and the theory still stands today (I saw this in a movie, I assume it is correct; cannot remember which theory in particular).

What Vicious is trying to point out however...is that the only way of being irrational is by believing in a god, which is of course a huge fallacy; since irrationality is, as anything else, relative. From a nihilistic point of view, everything in life is in reality based upon faith. Atheism is only better in this aspect, not in the other. It all boils down to the aspect(s). Same goes for political views and so on..

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

12-15-2007, 22:26

Plato answered this one over 2,000 years ago and I think it works today as well as it did then.

God is good, all that is good proceeds from God and since all proceeds from God everything is good.

We're just too stupid to realise it, we can't get to grips with the world so we think it is full of evil. In reality the evil is only within us.

The arguement is the basis of Stoicism, everything that comes to you can be turned to good or evil and the choice about which it is is up to you.

An example from Seneca: A man who looses his eyes will appreciate the beauty of music more readily. It's a hard philosophy but if you think about it it makes a lot of sense of the world we live in.

At every juncture bad decisions are made and those lead to bad events but they are only bad events after the next bad decision.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

12-15-2007, 22:34

Boyar Son

12-16-2007, 01:16

for one thing, i think (i could be wrong) that this thread is primarily concerned with finding a rational foundation for a certain type of god. the reason i first addressed you is that you were answering vicious monkey's post, which was concerned with rationalism, with mere presumption.

I just had to respond to him. His posts want me to start a holy war...

And about that presumption.

Jesus is the son of God, so he walks on water (because he the _son of God_).
So when no one else can, he presumes its false.

Its because its so hard to believe isnt it?

that no one believes...but the big bang.. as soon it is credited by science (with no _direct_ proof) everyone assume it happened (even though its a theory).

a basic axiom of "one can't prove a negative" could apply here.

so you're assuming he doesnt exist? even though i don't think i can 'disprove' god means there is no way to show he cant?

Husar

12-16-2007, 01:49

Native speakers are actually much more sloppy when writing their language down than non-natives who have the same level of "proficiency" essentially.

It's a strange phenomenon somebody somewhere probably has an explanation for. I can guarantee it's true at least for me though. I type just as sloppily in my "native" language as anybody else (the way that would drive language teachers up the wall wailing and gnashing their teeth) but I think my English is at least decent; although using the stuff everyday does help...

Still, I do prefer people to do their best typing when online. I'm the kind of idiot to use full sentences in chat rooms. :sweatdrop:

I drank a 750ml bottle of wine alone on my own today so erm, whatever but I just think that using the correct grammar, in germand and english can only be useful because when I get used to it I may always write like that even if i should happen to write an exam. Only exception is when i write all lowercase in german chats sometimes as it's easier than writing every noun in uppercase as it should be in german(I tend to release Shift before typing the letter, couldn't really get rid of that so far), however you may notice my grammar is usually correct even when slightly drunkas I am right now. exceptions prove the rule(and indicate I'm a bit more drunk ~;) )

When you are taught a new language you learn the gammar, therefore you write with a better syntax than someone who learns their native tongue, because they speak and write by "feel".
Bollox.
In this case I have to say I'm just somewhat gifted or talented, the german and english grammar just come to me, i never really learned both. I learned a bit of german grammar in my latin lessons (7th class and on, was supposed to learn it 5th class and on but always managed to get around it), I never bothered to learn the english grammar despite it being required by the teachers. I flunked latin and ended the course with a 5 (6 being the worst grade), ah well, now I forgot what I was aiming at(oh the joys of drunken posting) but maybe you get part of my point, a bit of effort and some skilland you can produce a decent message or something like that. :beam:

Big_John

12-16-2007, 04:51

And about that presumption.

Jesus is the son of God, so he walks on water (because he the _son of God_).
So when no one else can, he presumes its false.

Its because its so hard to believe isnt it?you state that jesus is the son of god, but you provide no reasoning for that belief. in this thread, i contend but an objective person, starting from ignorance, has no cause to believe jesus was the son of god, nor that a god even exists.

that no one believes...but the big bang.. as soon it is credited by science (with no _direct_ proof) everyone assume it happened (even though its a theory).what do you me by "direct" proof? do you mean you will not believe that something occured unless you see it with your own eyes? do you believe george washington was ever president of the united states? did you see him take office?

a basic axiom of "one can't prove a negative" could apply here.

so you're assuming he doesnt exist? even though i don't think i can 'disprove' god means there is no way to show he cant?i'm not assuming god doesn't exist, i'm beginning from a state of ignorance. the theist makes the positive claim, and carries the burden of proof. i'm not trying to disprove god; i just see no reason to believe one should exist.

Myrddraal

12-16-2007, 05:17

the definition of "soul" is very problematic, though

The jist of my argument is: I don't believe that consciousness and self awareness can be the product of any chemical reaction. Therefore there must be something more; this I call the soul.

The next step is to say that something must have created this thing, and since I don't understand this thing, the only conclusion I can draw is that there is a force I don't understand that causes the existance of this soul. This force I call god.

That is the one of the foundations of my belief.

why would you expect a complex electric system to be self-aware? i don't think it's fair to expect an laptop to be self-aware, and then, when it exhibits no evidence of self-awareness to hold that as evidence for a spiritual 'soul'.

Hang on, you got the wrong end of the stick completely here. What I'm saying is that a complex electrical or chemical system can exhibit evidence of self-awareness. I do not believe however that it is self aware. I'm saying that the symptoms of self-awareness can be created chemically/electrically; a very good robot from the far future could reproduce type and submit this argument to the .org, yet I don't believe that it is self-aware in the same way as I am conscious of my own existence. There is something more to my existance than the reactions in my brain.

The rest of you, I don't know, you could all be complex chemical reactions, because I have no awareness of you beyond my senses.

sounds far-fetched? it's certainly science fiction right now, but i don't think it's impossible that we could someday be able to construct a perfect example of a human brain. if we do, we would have a way to test whether consciousness is more than a physical phenomenon.

It would indeed be very interesting. I don't think it would work. However, just to argue the point for the sake of arguing (devils advocate time). What if spirits are drifting around all the time, waiting for a medium into this world, and every time a brain is formed, a spirit enters the brain? Now this is complete science fiction and I don't believe it for a second, but I'm just making the point because we should consider all possibilities, however ridiculous :wink:

nothing about the "miracle of the sun" strikes me as especially credible ... i am always inclined to believe that a physical event has a physical explanation. and if we don't understand a physical event, i either assume that there is a physical explanation that i'm not aware of, or i simply reserve judgment. i have never had cause to believe that a metaphysical reality has intruded upon the phenomenal world.

Oh I agree, I'm sure there was a physical phenomenon that occured that day. However, how was it predicted so accurately, or rather, was it triggered?

This miracle seems incredibly credible to me. Prophesy + Prophesy fulfilled in a way which humans couldn't reproduce, and witnessed by a huge crowd of theists and atheists alike. What are the odds?

Big_John

12-16-2007, 06:48

The jist of my argument is: I don't believe that consciousness and self awareness can be the product of any chemical reaction. Therefore there must be something more; this I call the soul.i find this reasoning very unsound. edit: see below

The next step is to say that something must have created this thing, and since I don't understand this thing, the only conclusion I can draw is that there is a force I don't understand that causes the existance of this soul. This force I call god.

That is the one of the foundations of my belief.i read this as saying, "i don't understand something, therefore 'god' and 'the soul.'" it makes little sense to me. it seems no different from coming upon a forest fire, looking around for the arsonist responsible, and upon not being able to find one, forming the conviction that thor must have descended from asgard and struck the forest with his hammer.

Hang on, you got the wrong end of the stick completely here. What I'm saying is that a complex electrical or chemical system can exhibit evidence of self-awareness. I do not believe however that it is self aware. I'm saying that the symptoms of self-awareness can be created chemically/electrically; a very good robot from the far future could reproduce type and submit this argument to the .org, yet I don't believe that it is self-aware in the same way as I am conscious of my own existence. There is something more to my existance than the reactions in my brain.

The rest of you, I don't know, you could all be complex chemical reactions, because I have no awareness of you beyond my senses.ah, i misunderstood you. sorry.

ok, so you are just stating your belief without providing any rationale for that belief, is that correct? i see no good reason agree with your belief that a chemical or electrical system that exhibits evidence of awareness is not in fact aware. what is your rationale for holding this belief?

It would indeed be very interesting. I don't think it would work. However, just to argue the point for the sake of arguing (devils advocate time). What if spirits are drifting around all the time, waiting for a medium into this world, and every time a brain is formed, a spirit enters the brain? Now this is complete science fiction and I don't believe it for a second, but I'm just making the point because we should consider all possibilities, however ridiculous :wink:in such a case, the person making the claim of wandering spirits should be able to provide some reason for others to believe the claim. what evidence is there of such spirits, and that they make a habit of moving into new brains? as occam would say, 'do not multiply entities unnecessarily'.

Oh I agree, I'm sure there was a physical phenomenon that occured that day. However, how was it predicted so accurately, or rather, was it triggered?

This miracle seems incredibly credible to me. Prophesy + Prophesy fulfilled in a way which humans couldn't reproduce, and witnessed by a huge crowd of theists and atheists alike. What are the odds?i probably wouldn't take the description as particularly accurate without evidence. so i'm curious, are there pictures of the event and the crowd or written and signed statements by people stating that they are 'atheists' and have just witnessed something they would describe as miraculous? if a prophesy existed beforehand, that could be an argument against the objective reality of the miracle as easily as for. i would simply ask the question, "can we account for the event, in totality, within the physical system?" if so, then i see no reason to postulate a non physical cause. that appears to be the likely case here.

Myrddraal

12-16-2007, 07:43

i read this as saying, "i don't understand something, therefore 'god' and 'the soul.'

No rather, there is something. I don't understand it. I will call this thing 'soul' and whatever force or event that caused this creation 'god'.

You could call 'soul' 'life spark' or 'god' 'life force', or even call them 'thingy' and 'bobby'.

All I am concluding from this argument is that there is more to a living conscious object than the physical, and that some force or event that controls this thing.

It's a very basic idea of a 'god'.

ok, so you are just stating your belief without providing any rationale for that belief, is that correct?

Well no :inquisitive:. I spent some time drawing parallels between systems that I think all would agree are not self aware, and parts of the human brain and nervous system. The question I ultimately asked is; can a combination of non-aware objects, arranged in a certain manner, now be self-aware?

i see no good reason agree with your belief that a chemical or electrical system that exhibits evidence of awareness is not in fact aware. what is your rationale for holding this belief?

This is the argument I was expecting from you in your first reply :smile:. Of course I don't know. I'm a building up an argument, asking a question, and pointing to what seems to me to be the most plausible answer. However, to use the age old argument of the non believer; there is no proof that a complex chemical or electrical system is self aware as I am. Proove it, the burden of proof lies with the claimant :wink:
For that matter, you cannot proove to me that you are self-aware, I think therefore I am. The problem with taking these kind of 'proove it' arguments is that we'll all end up nihilists.

Since there's no proof, I'm going to ask you; do you believe that a theoretical genius could create an electronic conscious being?

If not then why do you believe that a theoretical genius could create a conscious biological being?

If I as a conscious being am only aware of part of the information in my brain, are the other systems in my brain self aware too?

Ultimately, if you wanted to argue with me for the sake of arguing, we could never resolve this point. Do you sincerely believe that the sum total of human consciousness can exist due only to a sum of non-conscious elements? I don't, if you do, I can't disprove it (not till we get your molecular built brain to test anyway :wink:)

Of course there are other arguments for the existance of a god. The clockmaker one I'm sure you're familiar with. We could discuss the origins of life, and the probabilities of life evolving from primordial soup, but these arguments of probability are doomed to go down a path of what we each believe as well, because nobody knows the probabilities, or can even make anything more than a vague guess, since any estimate of the number of worlds with similar conditions to ours can be based on a wide range of assumptions.

Let me just make one point on these kinds of arguments. A common argument against the clockmaker argument is that if there is any probability of something occuring, then the universe is so huge that actually it's quite likely it'll happen somewhere. This is a logical fallacy. If time passed and the amount of matter in the universe is infinite, only then can you start using this argument. Any other time, the probability can always be considerably smaller than the number of places where it might occur. Just because it's a very small number doesn't mean it can't exist.

Frankly, this seems quite likely given that the best science can provide is to set up a reaction in which the proteins needed for a protein shell to protect rna or dna* from immediate breakdown are created. This was done in conditions that all agree are nothing like those of early earth.

*assuming that these too have spontaneously formed (!)

Gah! I only wanted to mention that argument as an aside, but now I've written this much I might as well post it. Please note that I wrote the facts of that last section from memory, and it's very early in the morning here and I should be asleep. Tomorrow I'll check wikipedia :grin:

Big_John

12-16-2007, 13:11

excuse me, i've had a bit to drink tonight, so this response will probably be incomplete, at best.
No rather, there is something. I don't understand it. I will call this thing 'soul' and whatever force or event that caused this creation 'god'.

You could call 'soul' 'life spark' or 'god' 'life force', or even call them 'thingy' and 'bobby'.

All I am concluding from this argument is that there is more to a living conscious object than the physical, and that some force or event that controls this thing.

It's a very basic idea of a 'god'.to me it sounds like you are not so much "concluding" anything, as starting from the basic assumption. you're first statement is "there is something". well, back up that claim.

Well no :inquisitive:. I spent some time drawing parallels between systems that I think all would agree are not self aware, and parts of the human brain and nervous system. The question I ultimately asked is; can a combination of non-aware objects, arranged in a certain manner, now be self-aware?why couldn't a combination of non-aware objects become aware once arranged correctly? two gaseous elements, once combined in the correct proportions can become liquid water. where is the 'wetness' of water in elemental hydrogen? in elemental oxygen? where does it come from?

This is the argument I was expecting from you in your first reply :smile:. Of course I don't know. I'm a building up an argument, asking a question, and pointing to what seems to me to be the most plausible answer. However, to use the age old argument of the non believer; there is no proof that a complex chemical or electrical system is self aware as I am. Proove it, the burden of proof lies with the claimant :wink:
For that matter, you cannot proove to me that you are self-aware, I think therefore I am. The problem with taking these kind of 'proove it' arguments is that we'll all end up nihilists.not quite. unless you are a global skeptic or a nihilist, we can agree that the physical world exists. therefore, when we observe a physical phenomenon, we can agree that a physical explanation is is at least possible, or better likely, or best definite. we both accept physical reality, and for good reason. i make no metaphysical (supernatural) claim in expecting that the physical phenomenon of consciousness has a physical cause.

Since there's no proof, I'm going to ask you; do you believe that a theoretical genius could create an electronic conscious being?i believe it is possible.

If I as a conscious being am only aware of part of the information in my brain, are the other systems in my brain self aware too? i don't understand this question. is your foot self-aware? should it be?

Ultimately, if you wanted to argue with me for the sake of arguing, we could never resolve this point. Do you sincerely believe that the sum total of human consciousness can exist due only to a sum of non-conscious elements? I don't, if you do, I can't disprove it (not till we get your molecular built brain to test anyway :wink:)again, i'll point you to the fact of emergent properties. that alone can account for the 'whole is greater than the sum of its parts' phenomenon you seem to be stuck on.

Of course there are other arguments for the existance of a god. The clockmaker one I'm sure you're familiar with. We could discuss the origins of life, and the probabilities of life evolving from primordial soup, but these arguments of probability are doomed to go down a path of what we each believe as well, because nobody knows the probabilities, or can even make anything more than a vague guess, since any estimate of the number of worlds with similar conditions to ours can be based on a wide range of assumptions.we can always err on the side of caution, using what we know must be true to determine what is likely, and what is unnecessary. that is the rational method.

Let me just make one point on these kinds of arguments. A common argument against the clockmaker argument is that if there is any probability of something occuring, then the universe is so huge that actually it's quite likely it'll happen somewhere. This is a logical fallacy. If time passed and the amount of matter in the universe is infinite, only then can you start using this argument. Any other time, the probability can always be considerably smaller than the number of places where it might occur. Just because it's a very small number doesn't mean it can't exist.the more direct counterargument to the watchmaker analogy is to simply say that the claim that the universe appears to be designed is flawed. we can simply say the universe is, and need make no further inferences. it is a false analogy.

but we could play out a more elaborate watchmaker argument if you'd like. for example, you say all watches imply a watchmaker, and so a designed universe implies a designer (god)... but all watchmakers imply father and mother, and so all designers imply a... father of god. tell me about god's father, if you will.

Frankly, this seems quite likely given that the best science can provide is to set up a reaction in which the proteins needed for a protein shell to protect rna or dna* from immediate breakdown are created. This was done in conditions that all agree are nothing like those of early earth.

*assuming that these too have spontaneously formed (!)you are talking about the billions of years of evolution. you wish to test theories about the origin of life that make no metaphysical claim (as i've mentioned, i believe we can both agree on the existence of physical reality). are you willing to wait a few million years, to see the results? of course we can't wait that long.. so what's the next step, to assume a supernatural cause or draw logical inference and parallels based on the physical reality that we understand very well and interact with everyday?

Gah! I only wanted to mention that argument as an aside, but now I've written this much I might as well post it. Please note that I wrote the facts of that last section from memory, and it's very early in the morning here and I should be asleep. Tomorrow I'll check wikipedia :grin:let me know what you find out. ~:)

Redleg

12-16-2007, 15:26

are you arguing that all you need to believe in god is faith? .

Yes Big John that is all that is required to believe in God. Faith is a strange and wonderful concept. It does not have to relay on rational input to be valid, it just takes a belief.

Myrddraal

12-16-2007, 16:12

I'm not talking about emergent properties, because I'm considering my self-awareness to have a single core. To follow the "I think therefore I am" kind of path, I can accept that it is possible that there might be an all deceiving omni-potent being, therefore the only thing I can be sure of is that something exists (in order to be deceived) that is part of what I consider to be me.

What I'm trying to say is that my self-awareness is not only a property of me. To display the property of self awareness I would just need to react appropriately, and act like a human being. By that definition a robot oculd be self-aware. Yet at the same time I am much more aware of my own existence, not because I am reacting to my senses (or sensors, in the robot's case), but simply because I know I exist.

i believe it is possible.

Then this one is a dead end, because ultimately the argument relies on a belief we differ on. However, don't use the burden of proof argument on me this time. There is no proof or even evidence of being able to recreate a conscious being outside of biology. The burden of proof is on you this time around :smile:

we can simply say the universe is, and need make no further inferences.

No we can't, because the universe has evolved. Each step in that evolution must be accounted for. The clockmaker argument (if you boil away all the talk about nectar feeding the bees etc) is that the step from a chemical soup to a self-replicating string of dna or rna is unexplained.

Now as I'm sure you're about to point out, this is not proof of the existence of a god. It is an argument though.

Your argument for everything is that burden of proof lies on me. That the rational way to think is to look for any solution which does not involve a god.

I'm saying that I don't offer proof. I look at a variety of aspects of human existence (the existence of conscious beings, the creation of dna, the life of jesus and the existence of miracles) and I ask myself if a world without some kind of overarching force we don't understand makes sense.

I can't prove it, nobody can, but it's perfectly believable.

So perhaps I can't persuade you that a god exists, but hopefully I can persuade the vicious monkey's out there that there is more to be considered than a bunch of stupid superstitious imbeciles spouting nonsense.

Boyar Son

12-16-2007, 19:08

do you believe george washington was ever president of the united states? did you see him take office?

dont you think that could be said about Jesus?

assuming that he is part of a religion automaticaly means its up for debate? but when its not...

Big_John

12-16-2007, 21:18

Yes Big John that is all that is required to believe in God. Faith is a strange and wonderful concept. It does not have to relay on rational input to be valid, it just takes a belief.blind faith has proven to be fairly unreliable, in my opinion. i don't consider it a valid foundation for knowledge.

I'm not talking about emergent properties, because I'm considering my self-awareness to have a single core. To follow the "I think therefore I am" kind of path, I can accept that it is possible that there might be an all deceiving omni-potent being, therefore the only thing I can be sure of is that something exists (in order to be deceived) that is part of what I consider to be me.

What I'm trying to say is that my self-awareness is not only a property of me. To display the property of self awareness I would just need to react appropriately, and act like a human being. By that definition a robot oculd be self-aware. Yet at the same time I am much more aware of my own existence, not because I am reacting to my senses (or sensors, in the robot's case), but simply because I know I exist.but you have given me no reason to doubt that a robot that behaves exactly as you do does not know it exists. you are simply stating (assuming) that there is some property of you that makes you different. you are assuming your awareness has "a single core". you're assuming you have a soul, but put forth no argument for this contention that i can see.

Then this one is a dead end, because ultimately the argument relies on a belief we differ on. However, don't use the burden of proof argument on me this time. There is no proof or even evidence of being able to recreate a conscious being outside of biology. The burden of proof is on you this time around :smile:i believe it is possible that man could create a self-aware artificial being. i'm not arguing that it is a certainty. do you deny the possibility? if so, why?

No we can't, because the universe has evolved. Each step in that evolution must be accounted for. The clockmaker argument (if you boil away all the talk about nectar feeding the bees etc) is that the step from a chemical soup to a self-replicating string of dna or rna is unexplained.

Now as I'm sure you're about to point out, this is not proof of the existence of a god. It is an argument though.the current state of the universe can be accounted for, to a great degree, by the physical laws we understand. cosmology is an evolving science (see e.g., garrett lisi's new unification theory).

there are models for the origin of life and the evolution of organic molecules. so to say it is "unexplained" is overboard, imo. but i think we can agree that our understanding is "incomplete", yes? also, to characterize the evolution of dna from primordial origins as a "step" strikes me as odd. and explain to me why an unexplained phenomenon is any argument for the supernatural?

Your argument for everything is that burden of proof lies on me. That the rational way to think is to look for any solution which does not involve a god.the burden of proof lies on the claimant, whoever that may be.

I'm saying that I don't offer proof. I look at a variety of aspects of human existence (the existence of conscious beings, the creation of dna, the life of jesus and the existence of miracles) and I ask myself if a world without some kind of overarching force we don't understand makes sense.

I can't prove it, nobody can, but it's perfectly believable.at this point, no one is asking for proof, just evidence. i don't think an objective person should consider your examples as evidence of the supernatural.

So perhaps I can't persuade you that a god exists, but hopefully I can persuade the vicious monkey's out there that there is more to be considered than a bunch of stupid superstitious imbeciles spouting nonsense.monkey's argument may be sound, i haven't really looked at it that closely. he may be uncouth, but that's not an argument against the validity of his position. again, i'm don't consider myself a positive atheist (that is, i don't posit that all forms of supernatural "gods" are necessarily impossible), but i don't know much about that line of reasoning, so i can't comment on its virtues or lack thereof.

the faithful are certainly not necessarily "imbeciles" by any measure, though.

dont you think that could be said about Jesus?we are talking about an order of magnitude difference between jesus and george washington, in terms of when they lived. so we certainly have much more reliable records for the existence and characterization of the life of washington than for jesus.

but you haven't answered my question, so i will repeat: what do you mean by "direct" proof? do you mean you will not believe that something occurred unless you see it with your own eyes? do you believe george washington was ever president of the united states?

assuming that he is part of a religion automaticaly means its up for debate? but when its not...everything is up for debate. this is why the rational person seeks good evidence. all i'm asking for is good evidence for the supernatural.

Myrddraal

12-16-2007, 22:24

Big_John

12-16-2007, 23:11

Well then I'll have to bring you back to the miracle of the sun.

Sure physics can provide some explanation which might cause a similar phenomenon, but how can physics provide the prediction, in that day and age, by a bunch of kids.that cuts both ways. if you have a prediction about something as central to many people as their faith, and a large group of religiously primed people gather to see the predicted miracle unfold, suggestion and collective behavior could account for the "observation" of an unreal event. so the 'prediction' could work as easily against the claim as for it. we are limited in our ability to critically evaluate this event by information.

where do we get the information about the prediction and the event from? are there recorded first-hand accounts? if so, how many? are there photographs of the event?

the accounts of ufo abductees seem no less credible. do you believe in ufo abduction? plagues of locusts used to be considered acts of a wrathful god by people who didn't understand the life-cycle of the insects.

everything about the "miracle" seems like it can be accounted for within the physical world. i see no reason to "multiply entities" from what you've told me.

Soulforged

12-16-2007, 23:42

blind faith has proven to be fairly unreliable, in my opinion. i don't consider it a valid foundation for knowledge.
It's not necessary to know, just to believe in it. Though comprehension is a valid base for knowledge, although not scientific.

Myrddraal

12-16-2007, 23:58

Read the wikipedia article on the subject.

It is supposedly one of many apparitions to 3 kids that happened. Their story spread and loads of people came along to the last of their predicted appartitions, and sure enough, the apparition occured.

It was witnessed by up to 100,000 people, within a distance of 18 kilometers means that mass halucination, or people seeing what they expected to see (because of the prediction, as you seem to imply) are out of the question. Again, see the wiki article and it's sources.

Avelino de Almeida is a high profile witness, he reported for his newspaper on the events. Though a Catholic, he was a skeptic in the run up to the miracle, taking the piss of the supposed previous appartitions in his paper.

You can have a look yourself at the eye-witness reports. There are plenty

Boyar Son

12-17-2007, 01:52

we are talking about an order of magnitude difference between jesus and george washington, in terms of when they lived. so we certainly have much more reliable records for the existence and characterization of the life of washington than for jesus.

but you haven't answered my question, so i will repeat: what do you mean by "direct" proof? do you mean you will not believe that something occurred unless you see it with your own eyes? do you believe george washington was ever president of the united states?
everything is up for debate. this is why the rational person seeks good evidence. all i'm asking for is good evidence for the supernatural.

The record is in the bible, just like washington is in the history books. But I think you dont believe because Jesus preformed miracles a loong tiem ago, and GW lived only a couple centuries before.

Direct proof? I see it directly could be one...

what do you mean by "reliable" records

Navaros

12-17-2007, 05:07

except that, if you beileve that physical reality exists, we already have that at hand. we don't need to conceptualize a metaphysical "will" to pick up and eat an apple, for example. i can see the apple, and i can touch it and interact with it. so if i believe i exist as a physical being (which i think is a foundational belief for anyone that's not a schizophrenic), if i have any sort of personal identity, the existence of the physical universe is a given. i don't need to imagine an elaborate set of unlikely circumstances to believe in it, because it's right in front of me.

so to not have a god concept is no more absurd than to pick up and eat an apple. unless, of course, there are signs of god in the physical world.

edit: this is the difference between making a positive claim, and making no claim. i take the world as i experience it. if you tell me there is something beyond, that is no onus on me.

There are signs of God in the physical world by means of circumstantial evidence, the existence of which doesn't really make sense and cannot reasonably be classified as anything other than absurd if not from it being made by the hand of God. Part of a human's personal identity is his ability to think and reason. A person being reasonable would surely admit that all the things that are physically evident in the universe, coming into existence randomly by happenstance and working together randomly by happenstance, is absurd. To deny this is to deny the physical reality of one's ability to be reasonable. Which was my original point: you had implied that believing in God is absurd because humans do not understand a way in which a belief in a God concept could be reasonable. The point is, the lack of belief in God given all the circumstantial evidence that cannot be reasonably "explained away" via random happenstance (as the lack of a God concept requires to be the case), is every bit as absurd. If you are going to make a claim that it is less absurd, then the onus is indeed on you to prove how it's less absurd. Being able to see/pickup/eat an apple but not taking into account all the complex factors that are required to work together for the apple to be created in the first place does not satisfy that onus.