The One they call "God"

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bijo

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.

---

I disagree. Evil in nature simply does not exist, nature is neither good nor evil. As for humans, we choose to be evil, in a sense, we are abusing God's greatest gift to us, which is freedom.

Evil never comes from God.

Bijo, I don't know if you're aware of it or not, but you're pounding down a well-worn path. The seeming paradox of an omnipotent, benevolent god in a world that contains manifest evil has been toyed with for millennia. Try the Book of Job, for starters.

Some theologies ascribe the existence of evil to Original Sin and the fall of man. Others theorize that God allows the world to go its own way as part of free will. Others suggest that aspects of our world shun God, and therefore fall outside his grace.

The Christian Scientists have the most logical, if hard to swallow solution: The material world is an illusion, as is all evil. Reality is pure love and God's grace, so if you can just see through the material veil, you can cause miracles to occur.

Of course, as South Park made clear, the Mormons are the only ones with the correct answer.

Those who seek to disprove God through science have only codified his laws. There is a divine being who's laws bind us all. We call it mathematics.

And that's not some scientology crap either. And stop with this endless circular debate; the only thing that matters are the actions that result from your belief.

you mean Clapton(is God)?


I mean.....he sure had some tough times....with all the coke he was doing and stuff...

but I wouldn´t go as far as calling him evil....we all have our problems....:laugh4:

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bijo

Statement: "If God exists, He must be a (...) underachiever."

---

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 ~;) ]

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bijo

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bijo

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bijo

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.

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?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

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.

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

How can one judge something, one does not know?

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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

---

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd Fafnesbane

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.

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.

Quote:

---

omni-benevolent god would always choose to.

---

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myrddraal

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?

Quote:

---

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."

Quote:

---

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'.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myrddraal

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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!

Quote:

---

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:

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

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

God is sutil but not wicked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myrddraal

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myrddraal

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."

Quote:

---

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:

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.

So we agree that an omni-potent god can allow free will and still be omni-potent. At least that's something :smile:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myrddraal

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myrddraal

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.

Quote:

---

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?

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myrddraal

Where God affects the world, logic doesn't apply

---

wait, i thought you said god was beholden to logical rules?

Quote:

---

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?

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?

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?

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big_John

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caius

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myrddraal

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)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big_John

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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.

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.

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"

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boyar Son

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boyar Son

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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?)

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myrddraal

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myrddraal

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.

Quote:

---

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! ;)

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myrddraal

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?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woad&fangs

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Vicious Monkey

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Vicious Monkey

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woad&fangs

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.

Quote:

---

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

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

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big_John

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woad&fangs

"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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big_John

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myrddraal

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big_John

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myrddraal

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big_John

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.

---

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?