NationStates Jolt Archive

Sorry I have a question I know this has been posted numerous times, but what proof of there is god or what is a definitive evidence even though there might not be one.

Sorry I have a question I know this has been posted numerous times, but what proof of there is god or what is a definitive evidence even though there might not be one.
By definition you can't disprove god - as god (if she/he existed) is omnipotent, any conceivable evidence against god's existence could be fabricated by god. Similarly, you can't prove god, as it's a fallacy to argue that because we can't yet explain some phenomenon (without resorting to a god) we won't ever be able to explain it (without resorting to a god). Of course, this won't stop many other posters from trying.

Sorry I have a question I know this has been posted numerous times, but what proof of there is god or what is a definitive evidence even though there might not be one.

Either way is impossible. I believe Yoda put it best when he said, "There is no try. There is only do, or do not." But, then, only Siths deal in absolutes.

Sorry I have a question I know this has been posted numerous times, but what proof of there is god or what is a definitive evidence even though there might not be one.

I'm right here.

Either way is impossible. I believe Yoda put it best when he said, "There is no try. There is only do, or do not." But, then, only Siths deal in absolutes.
Whachu trying to say!? That The Fonz's right-hand dude is of the dark side!? You take that back!

I've got an air tight logical argument that there can either be free-will or and all powerful all knowing God, but not both. This ofcourse doesn't give you a definitive answers and so is merely an exercise in logic.
But people usually end up saying you can't apply logic to god or you're just human you don't have the capacity to understand his powers. They can't really fault the logic, they try but they can't.

I've got an air tight logical argument that there can either be free-will or and all powerful all knowing God, but not both. This ofcourse doesn't give you a definitive answers and so is merely an exercise in logic.
True. That does demand, though, that you assume that any God that exists must be all-powerful. The logic doesn't work if you remove that from the definition.

True. That does demand, though, that you assume that any God that exists must be all-powerful. The logic doesn't work if you remove that from the definition.
Well yes that is why I said all-powerful god. the logic does not dispute the existance of any god(s) just that if any god is All-Powerful we don't have free-will. If we have free-will there is no all-powerful god.

God is a touchy subject with most people, which is why I consider myself to be a Buddhist, since Buddhism doesn't really take a side on the issue of Deities each Buddhist can explore the issue of God(s) and come to their own personal conclusions.

I think Voltaire said it best:

If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.

Voltaire
I wonder if Voltaire knew just how important a statement he was making? It's true; God will always need to exist as an explanation. Given a second run through existence, it would probably not be the same explanation, but something similar to it will inevitably crop up.

God is a touchy subject with most people, which is why I consider myself to be a Buddhist, since Buddhism doesn't really take a side on the issue of Deities each Buddhist can explore the issue of God(s) and come to their own personal conclusions.
:eek: You're a Buddhist just because you won't take sides?

:eek: You're a Buddhist just because you won't take sides?
I believe he said he's buddhist because that religion allows him to figure out for himself if he believes in god.

I wonder if Voltaire knew just how important a statement he was making? It's true; God will always need to exist as an explanation. Given a second run through existence, it would probably not be the same explanation, but something similar to it will inevitably crop up.
As an explanation, god (or the supernatural in general) will always be inadequate.

There are far better uses for god.

I believe he said he's buddhist because that religion allows him to figure out for himself if he believes in god.
Ah, I see. My bad.

People don't seem to understand. There may not be any physical proof with DNA evidence included, but that doesn't matter.

Those who follow religion do so by faith, not neccessarily by fact.

By using Occam's Razor, it is easily derived that God does not exist.

I've got an air tight logical argument that there can either be free-will or and all powerful all knowing God, but not both.

This assumes that God has no free will of his own. Which I think is a silly idea. It's a very common assumption, but is never-the-less false. If God is all-powerful and capable of everything and anything, this does not neccessarily denote what He does. It merely depicts what He is capable of doing.

Eventually, religion comes down to faith. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, you have to believe that the Bible is divinely inspired to be able to prove the existence of God, and you have to believe in the existence of God to prove that the Bible is divinely inspired. If it sounds like circular reasoning it is, assuming that you do not accept one of these two statements as fact. Unfortunately, in religion you need to make some basic assumptions, and one of those is that there is a God out there. There's no way around it.

This assumes that God has no free will of his own. Which I think is a silly idea. It's a very common assumption, but is never-the-less false. If God is all-powerful and capable of everything and anything, this does not neccessarily denote what He does. It merely depicts what He is capable of doing.
Actually it doesn't make any claims on an all-powerful gods free-will? It merely states that either there is no all-powerful god or no free-will. I should possibly made it clearer I was talking about the free-will of everything not which is not god.

Actually it doesn't make any claims on an all-powerful gods free-will? It merely states that either there is no all-powerful god or no free-will. I should possibly made it clearer I was talking about the free-will of everything not which is not god.
That's so much clearer.

:)

Either way is impossible. I believe Yoda put it best when he said, "There is no try. There is only do, or do not." But, then, only Siths deal in absolutes.

Yoda's setting you up man, just look at this (http://www.sounddoctrine.com/baphomet.htm).

By using Occam's Razor, it is easily derived that God does not exist.

Does the movie Contact ring a bell here?:rolleyes:

Sorry I have a question I know this has been posted numerous times, but what proof of there is god or what is a definitive evidence even though there might not be one.

Immanual Kant had a fameous one

1. Objective, perfect moral laws exist throught all humanity
2. Perfect moral laws need a perfect author
3. The only perfect author can be God
4. Therfore God exists

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/

See here for more detail

Immanual Kant had a fameous one

1. Objective, perfect moral laws exist throught all humanity
2. Perfect moral laws need a perfect author
3. The only perfect author can be God
4. Therfore God exists

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/

See here for more detail
Why do perfect moral laws need a perfect author? Why does this author have to be God? Does objective, perfect moral laws exist? Does this really prove the existance of God?

Proof of existence or non-existence of God all comes down to what you will accept as proof. Many people believe that God must exist simply because they are breathing. Other people believe God doesn't exist simply because they can say "God does not exist!" and they are not struck by lightning.

What do you want to believe? When you have that answer, you can find all the proof you want.

As an explanation, god (or the supernatural in general) will always be inadequate.

There are far better uses for god.
What other uses are there? If miracles or supernatural interaction with existence can be done through him, then he must be invoked as an explanation. Otherwise, God is there as an explanation to something we all experience, and one that comes naturally to mankind.

Sorry I have a question I know this has been posted numerous times, but what proof of there is god or what is a definitive evidence even though there might not be one.
Belief in god rests on faith. By definition there is no proof of faith.

Yoda's setting you up man, just look at this (http://www.sounddoctrine.com/baphomet.htm).
Sorry, that got a chuckle out of me. Seriously, stating that philosophy is occultic completely kills what little credibility anyone spouting that stuff might possibly have had.

What other uses are there? If miracles or supernatural interaction with existence can be done through him, then he must be invoked as an explanation. Otherwise, God is there as an explanation to something we all experience, and one that comes naturally to mankind.
The supernatural does not interact with existence --if it did, it would be natural, not supernatural. In order for god to remain supernatural, there can be no interaction with nature. This leaves only our immaterial selves for god to "interact" with. That is where we "know" god, in our hearts and our souls. Then it is up to us to act in body, in existence, when we are moved in spirit.

So what is the purpose of god in this context? Spiritual enlightenment, comfort in suffering, morality, responsibility, love, etc.; good stuff.

Invoking god as an explanation of miracles is rather redundant; it is man (like Jesus) who performs miracles, who moves mountains, when he is moved in spirit.

The supernatural does not interact with existence --if it did, it would be natural, not supernatural. In order for god to remain supernatural, there can be no interaction with nature. This leaves only our immaterial selves for god to "interact" with. That is where we "know" god, in our hearts and our souls.
Surely that's a contradiction? The immaterial selves must be contained within existence, else they would not exist...

Surely that's a contradiction? The immaterial selves must be contained within existence, else they would not exist...
No... it's immaterial. Not material.

EDIT: If you look up the modern accepted definition of existence, it is limited to the physical world, to reality.

Existence is not "everything that exists" ...not anymore.

I've got an air tight logical argument that there can either be free-will or and all powerful all knowing God, but not both.
Might be interesting to see.

I don't see a problem, logically, with both human free will and deific omniscience/ omnipotence existing... is it along the lines of "could God create something so heavy even He couldn't lift it?"

One argument I've seen in the past is that if God is omniscient, humans cannot have free will because God knows what our choices will be, but I don't find that argument at all convincing.

No... it's immaterial. Not material.

EDIT: If you look up the modern accepted definition of existence, it is limited to the physical world, to reality.

Existence is not "everything that exists" ...not anymore.
Forgive me for being of little understanding here, but your immaterial self Exists in some sense, and you are aware of that fact. Whether or not it is in this particular little existence doesn't change the fact that if it exists, it has an existence relative to itself. But this immaterial self does interact with the physical; we know that. Things that affect your form can affect your self, like images you see, sounds you hear, feelings you experience and connections you make. So it must, on some level, be in a higher level of being that is connected to ours. Mustn't it?

A sense of Existence (by which, regardless of definition, I mean reality in whatever multiplanar or dimensional sense it takes) that includes the "immaterial" spirit must be connected to the "material" world that it affects. And if God communicates with Spirit, he must also be in some form within this Existence (same as before).

Why does God have to be supernatural? Why does Spirit have to be supernatural? Nature is an immensely complex entity, and I wouldn't put it past her to be capable of being, if not actually creating, divinity.

Sorry I have a question I know this has been posted numerous times, but what proof of there is god or what is a definitive evidence even though there might not be one.

There is no proof that God exists. The existence of God is based on faith alone.

One argument I've seen in the past is that if God is omniscient, humans cannot have free will because God knows what our choices will be, but I don't find that argument at all convincing.

Why don't you find the argument convincing?

The other piece of that argument, by the way, is that if God is both omnipotent and benevolent, then God can't allow for humanity to do evil, but if humanity can't do evil, then we cannot have free will.

Why don't you find the argument convincing?
Actually, it's not a very strong argument. Omniscience in itself is not capable of denying choice. Look back at yesterday; you made decisions that could have affected today. But today, although you witness the result of your decisions, you do not deny the you of yesterday free will. You could still have chosen to do yesterday differently.

A solely Omniscient God is also affected by causality. If he exists without time, he can see without denying choice, because had you chosen differently, you would change what he would see were he restricted to the present. Choice remains. God knows what you eventually choose, but the choice is still yours to make at the time.

Apparently.

Actually, it's not a very strong argument. Omniscience in itself is not capable of denying choice. Look back at yesterday; you made decisions that could have affected today. But today, although you witness the result of your decisions, you do not deny the you of yesterday free will. You could still have chosen to do yesterday differently.

A solely Omniscient God is also affected by causality. If he exists without time, he can see without denying choice, because had you chosen differently, you would change what he would see were he restricted to the present. Choice remains. God knows what you eventually choose, but the choice is still yours to make at the time.

Apparently.

See above. The omniscience piece is only one part of the argument, which must be taken in its entirety.

Forgive me for being of little understanding here, but your immaterial self Exists in some sense, and you are aware of that fact.
Aware of the fact, but not directly aware of the thing.

Whether or not it is in this particular little existence doesn't change the fact that if it exists, it has an existence relative to itself. But this immaterial self does interact with the physical; we know that.
We do? Or do we assume it, just as we (some of us) assume god does?

Most identify the self completely with the body and the mind --the physical vehicle of perception and the mental processor of perception --though, at the same time, most promote the idea of it as something separate (and for some, even, a thing that can separate) from the body. We cannot be aware of its existence as a thing, though. We refer to the self as "a consciousness" or "a soul" or "the person" that is a thing different from "his mind" or "her body". (This is why "myself" is one word, instead of two. It is "me" as opposed to "what is mine.")

According to metaphysics (http://importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Consciousness.html), consciousness is the person's sense of awareness, and they cannot be aware of it; they are only aware of things existing external to the self by utilizing the sense of awareness. If you're of a mind to identify consciousness with self, and as we cannot be aware of it as a thing, we assume its existence. All we really have is our concept of it. God is the same: we cannot be aware of its existence; all we have is our concept of it, most often experienced as a feeling.

I assert that the only existence we can be aware of for the immaterial self is in the mind as a concept or idea; a workable idea, mind you, utilized subconsciously everyday by every conscious person. We talk about it objectively as a "thing" much the same way we can objectively talk about "nothing" --although "nothing" is non-existence itself, we give it existence as a concept.

Things that affect your form can affect your self, like images you see, sounds you hear, feelings you experience and connections you make.
Things in the physical world can shape our concepts of ourselves, right. The immaterial self --the idea of a self as part of and yet apart from the body or mind --is one of them.

So it must, on some level, be in a higher level of being that is connected to ours. Mustn't it? A sense of Existence (by which, regardless of definition, I mean reality in whatever multiplanar or dimensional sense it takes) that includes the "immaterial" spirit must be connected to the "material" world that it affects. And if God communicates with Spirit, he must also be in some form within this Existence (same as before).
I don't see the self as anything "connected to us" as another "level of being", no. I think this existence is all we get, and all we need. Whatever the true nature of the self might be (real, or unreal) what matters most is that we have a sense of it, and utilize the idea of it everyday. With it, we have developed languages, societal structures and stop signs on every street corner. This product of interaction between our "selves" makes us unique (as far as I know) in the animal world.

In the same way, I don't think it is important to know what god is, or even if god is. I think of god as a reflection of self; self is the unknown and unknowable "in here", and god is the great unknown "out there". What matters most is what we do with our assumptions and our beliefs.

Why does God have to be supernatural? Why does Spirit have to be supernatural? Nature is an immensely complex entity, and I wouldn't put it past her to be capable of being, if not actually creating, divinity.
Many have an idea of god as nature or as the universe; but then, if god is nature and we already have a workable concept of nature, what do we need god for?

By definition you can't disprove god - as god (if she/he existed) is omnipotent, any conceivable evidence against god's existence could be fabricated by god. Similarly, you can't prove god, as it's a fallacy to argue that because we can't yet explain some phenomenon (without resorting to a god) we won't ever be able to explain it (without resorting to a god). Of course, this won't stop many other posters from trying.
A nice summary of my agnostic side :)

Why don't you find the argument convincing?
Because just because God knows what choice a person will make does not mean that person doesn't have that choice.

The other piece of that argument, by the way, is that if God is both omnipotent and benevolent, then God can't allow for humanity to do evil, but if humanity can't do evil, then we cannot have free will.
I disagree with the assertion that "God can't allow for humanity to do evil".

If an omnipotent and benevolent God exists, He might prefer that humans do no evil, but it is still something that He "allows". Why? I don't know. I make no claims of omniscience for myself.

Actually, it's not a very strong argument. Omniscience in itself is not capable of denying choice. Look back at yesterday; you made decisions that could have affected today. But today, although you witness the result of your decisions, you do not deny the you of yesterday free will. You could still have chosen to do yesterday differently.

A solely Omniscient God is also affected by causality. If he exists without time, he can see without denying choice, because had you chosen differently, you would change what he would see were he restricted to the present. Choice remains. God knows what you eventually choose, but the choice is still yours to make at the time.

Apparently.
Uh no that's the weak argument. How can you compare the omniscient God to knowing what you did yesterday? If God is Omniscient then with EACH and EVERY interaction he has had with the past affects the present.
God knew when he created the world that my parents would have a child that is me. He knew when he gave the tablets to moses that that action would cause the universe to produce me, he knew what the world would be like if He had done it 3 years later on a different mountain. If a being is Omniscient AND Omnipotent then it's devine will overpowers freewill at every turn. You don't make a decission on the spur of the moment, every choice you make is made with your entire life history behind it. Every decision you make is surrounded by circumstances set in place from moments before to days before, to centuries before right back to the beginings of creation.

God does not want me to believe in him or he could not know I wouldn't. He knew who everything would tuern out and created the universe in that way. he could have made it anyway he wanted and this is the way he wanted it and therfore every descision made in the guise of free-will was already decided by devine-will.
If we have free-will then god is either not Omniscient or not Omnipotent and therefore not all-powerful.
That is logically sound. Now lets here you say logic cannot be applied to God or my mind to so inferior compared to god that I can't understand or comprehend how he works.
The last resort of the faithful in the face of logic. Not that I am saying faith is baseless. I will readly admit that faith requires no logic and through faith you can deny logic. But my argument is air tight, wheather you like it or not.

Uh no that's the weak argument. How can you compare the omniscient God to knowing what you did yesterday? If God is Omniscient then with EACH and EVERY interaction he has had with the past affects the present.
God knew when he created the world that my parents would have a child that is me. He knew when he gave the tablets to moses that that action would cause the universe to produce me, he knew what the world would be like if He had done it 3 years later on a different mountain. If a being is Omniscient AND Omnipotent then it's devine will overpowers freewill at every turn. You don't make a decission on the spur of the moment, every choice you make is made with your entire life history behind it. Every decision you make is surrounded by circumstances set in place from moments before to days before, to centuries before right back to the beginings of creation.

God does not want me to believe in him or he could not know I wouldn't. He knew who everything would tuern out and created the universe in that way. he could have made it anyway he wanted and this is the way he wanted it and therfore every descision made in the guise of free-will was already decided by devine-will.
If we have free-will then god is either not Omniscient or not Omnipotent and therefore not all-powerful.
That is logically sound. Now lets here you say logic cannot be applied to God or my mind to so inferior compared to god that I can't understand or comprehend how he works.
The last resort of the faithful in the face of logic. Not that I am saying faith is baseless. I will readly admit that faith requires no logic and through faith you can deny logic. But my argument is air tight, wheather you like it or not.
But you are trying to apply human logic and understanding to the divine.

Let's assume for a second that god does indeed exist, and is omnipotent and omniscient. I don't think you understand what omnipotent and omniscient means. You know the definition, but not the concept. By being both omni's at once, it's entirely possible for god to exist beyond human logic and understanding.

The way I look at it, it's like my son. I know what he's going to choose in certain instances, and I know how I wish he would choose. I have the ability to make him choose to do the right thing, but I need to let him make the choice... and then help him understand how his choice could have been better. Makes perfect sense to me.

Because just because God knows what choice a person will make does not mean that person doesn't have that choice.


I disagree with the assertion that "God can't allow for humanity to do evil".

If an omnipotent and benevolent God exists, He might prefer that humans do no evil, but it is still something that He "allows". Why? I don't know. I make no claims of omniscience for myself.

That's not what I said, though. What I said was that god cannot be simultaneously all-benevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient if he/she/it allows humans to do evil. This is particularly true in the case of religions that maintain that particular behaviors can result in eternal punishment (torture).

If God is all-benevolent and omniscient but evil still takes places, then he is powerless to stop it and is not omnipotent.

If god is omnipotent and omniscient but allows evil to take place, then he is not all-benevolent.

If god in omnipotent and all-benevolent, but evil takes place because he is not aware of it, then he is not omniscient.

By "evil" here, I'm particularly referencing anything in a given religion which is condemned by the deity in question to the point of punishment for the transgression (i.e., being sentenced to an eternity in Hell).

The final part of the argument is the question of whether a deity that makes you guess whether or not it exists, and then enforces against the wrong choice with eternal punishment, is allowing for free will at all. After all, if I put a gun to your head and say, "Your money or your life," one wouldn't be inclined to say that I was allowing you to have free will in whether or not to hand over your wallet.

That's not what I said, though. What I said was that god cannot be simultaneously all-benevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient if he/she/it allows humans to do evil. This is particularly true in the case of religions that maintain that particular behaviors can result in eternal punishment (torture).

If God is all-benevolent and omniscient but evil still takes places, then he is powerless to stop it and is not omnipotent.

If god is omnipotent and omniscient but allows evil to take place, then he is not all-benevolent.

If god in omnipotent and all-benevolent, but evil takes place because he is not aware of it, then he is not omniscient.

By "evil" here, I'm particularly referencing anything in a given religion which is condemned by the deity in question to the point of punishment for the transgression (i.e., being sentenced to an eternity in Hell).

The final part of the argument is the question of whether a deity that makes you guess whether or not it exists, and then enforces against the wrong choice with eternal punishment, is allowing for free will at all. After all, if I put a gun to your head and say, "Your money or your life," one wouldn't be inclined to say that I was allowing you to have free will in whether or not to hand over your wallet.
You are adding the term "all-benevolent". That doesn't necessarily belong here.
He is a vengeful god.

The way I look at it, it's like my son. I know what he's going to choose in certain instances, and I know how I wish he would choose. I have the ability to make him choose to do the right thing, but I need to let him make the choice... and then help him understand how his choice could have been better. Makes perfect sense to me.

And when your son makes the wrong choice, do you then lock him in his room and torture him for the rest of his life?

What you're doing now is precisely applying human logic, and comparing your limited powers to an asserted all-powerful entity. The reason you allow your son to make his own choices is because you don't have the ability to force him to make the right choice. You can't watch him all the time, and you can't wave your hand and make him understand perfectly why his choice might be wrong. An omnipotent and omniscient being could do that, by definition.

And when your son makes the wrong choice, do you then lock him in his room and torture him for the rest of his life?

What you're doing now is precisely applying human logic, and comparing your limited powers to an asserted all-powerful entity. The reason you allow your son to make his own choices is because you don't have the ability to force him to make the right choice. You can't watch him all the time, and you can't wave your hand and make him understand perfectly why his choice might be wrong. An omnipotent and omniscient being could do that, by definition.
Yes, I am applying human logic... because I have human intellect and am not capable of divine logic. However, the difference, I don't pretend that my intellect, understanding and logic must aply to god and that god must conform to said understanding.

Yes, I am applying human logic... because I have human intellect and am not capable of divine logic. However, the difference, I don't pretend that my intellect, understanding and logic must aply to god and that god must conform to said understanding.

My point was that you were saying that someone else was wrong for applying "human logic" to god, but then did so yourself.

The thing is, there's no such thing as "human logic." Logic is mathematical and universal. It's a way to test for validity beyond the need for interpretation. The only loophole in this would be to state, for example, that god is something other than omniscient, omnipotent and all-benevolent. But if he isn't these things, then what is said about him in religion is incorrect, and if what is said about him in religion is incorrect, then the religion itself is incorrect and its textual basis can no longer be taken as infallible. In other words, to take Christianity as an example, the Bible would not be 100% accurate if it didn't accurately portray what God was and instead asserted that he was omnipotent, omniscient, and all-benevolent.

This is the catch-22 demonstrated by the argument. Regardless of how it is approached, something is wrong in one of the views (the three-natures and the Biblical inerrancy views cannot both be simultaneously correct) unless one is expected to abandon reason all together.

But you are trying to apply human logic and understanding to the divine.
Let's assume for a second that god does indeed exist, and is omnipotent and omniscient. I don't think you understand what omnipotent and omniscient means. You know the definition, but not the concept. By being both omni's at once, it's entirely possible for god to exist beyond human logic and understanding.Yes, I am applying human logic... because I have human intellect and am not capable of divine logic. However, the difference, I don't pretend that my intellect, understanding and logic must aply to god and that god must conform to said understanding.
And there we go the humans can't understand god line. This is the flawed argument.

Logic is logic, there is no divine logic. Things either add up or they don't.

The way I look at it, it's like my son. I know what he's going to choose in certain instances, and I know how I wish he would choose. I have the ability to make him choose to do the right thing, but I need to let him make the choice... and then help him understand how his choice could have been better. Makes perfect sense to me.
You don't know what choice you're child will make. You have an idea that might be somewhat accurate. But you do attempt to condition him in his life up to that moment. If you were all power then you would know with absolutely certainty what choice he would make and you would know what you did that made him make those choices. You would know if you come home from work late tonight then in 15 years time he will commit an act of murder. being omnipotent you can get home at any moment you desire. By coming home at what ever time you do you have decided what your child will do in that situation. Because being omniscient and omnipotent you know everything and have complete power to do anything. Not doing anything is still an act of your omnipotence because you know everything that has will be going to have happened and you made the conscious decision to have it that way. Even more so if you actually created the universe.

Either free-will or all-powerful both is impossible, but you either free to dismiss me or God already made your mind up.

Originally Posted by Douglas Adams
"I refuse to prove I exist," says God "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, therefore by your own arguement, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God "I hadn't thought of that." and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.
"That was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed at the next zebra crossing.

Hope that helped.

unless one is expected to abandon reason all together.
Welcome to blind faith.

That's not what I said, though. What I said was that god cannot be simultaneously all-benevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient if he/she/it allows humans to do evil.
Well, as noted, "all-benevolent" is a new addition to the discussion.

For purposes of the debate, I'll need a definition of terms (so I know whether to continue arguing or not :))

The original assertion was that there was an "air tight logical argument" that proved that human free will was contradictory with the existence of an omnipotent and omniscient deity. No mention of that deity being all-benevolent (presumably, unable to directly or indirectly cause harm?) was made.

God may be Supreme but is not necessarily a Being.
Some concepts of God may include anthropomorphic attributes, gender, particular names, and ethnic exclusivity (see Chosen people), while others are purely transcendent or philosophic concepts.
The concept of God is often embedded in definitions of truth, where the sum of all truth is equated to God.
There are variations on defining God either as a person, or not as a person but as an ambiguous impersonal force (see Absolute Infinite). Also at stake are questions concerning the possibilities of human/God relations. There are countless variations in traditions of worship and/or appeasement of God.
Some concepts of God center on a view of God as ultimate, immanent, transcendent, eternal Reality beyond the shifting and constantly mutable multiplicities of the sensible world.

-snip-
No, logic can be applied, and this is reasonable, but I never mentioned anything about omnipotence. All I was saying is that omniscience in itself isn't sufficient to deny free will; it takes power to do that. Knowing isn't enough. And the argument was:

One argument I've seen in the past is that if God is omniscient, humans cannot have free will because God knows what our choices will be, but I don't find that argument at all convincing.

Well, as noted, "all-benevolent" is a new addition to the discussion.

For purposes of the debate, I'll need a definition of terms (so I know whether to continue arguing or not :))

The original assertion was that there was an "air tight logical argument" that proved that human free will was contradictory with the existence of an omnipotent and omniscient deity. No mention of that deity being all-benevolent (presumably, unable to directly or indirectly cause harm?) was made.

Not a new addition, no.

All-benevolent means "always desiring what is good." Which can be stated, equivalently and inversely, "never desiring what is bad." To state "unable to" do something would necessarily contradict the concept of omnipotence from the outset.

To summarize, the view of God we are discussing is that god is:

Omniscient (capable knowing everything)
Omnipotent (capable of doing everything)
All-benevelont (always wanting the good)

The word "omnibenevolent" is frequently used for the third concept. It isn't a new introduction to the argument. Here are 37,000 or so previous uses. (http://www.google.com/search?q=omnibenevolent&hl=en&lr=&start=10&sa=N)

My point was that you were saying that someone else was wrong for applying "human logic" to god, but then did so yourself.

The thing is, there's no such thing as "human logic." Logic is mathematical and universal. It's a way to test for validity beyond the need for interpretation. The only loophole in this would be to state, for example, that god is something other than omniscient, omnipotent and all-benevolent. But if he isn't these things, then what is said about him in religion is incorrect, and if what is said about him in religion is incorrect, then the religion itself is incorrect and its textual basis can no longer be taken as infallible. In other words, to take Christianity as an example, the Bible would not be 100% accurate if it didn't accurately portray what God was and instead asserted that he was omnipotent, omniscient, and all-benevolent.

This is the catch-22 demonstrated by the argument. Regardless of how it is approached, something is wrong in one of the views (the three-natures and the Biblical inerrancy views cannot both be simultaneously correct) unless one is expected to abandon reason all together.


2 words: Free Will!

Logic and common sense are also very much alive and well. They too, are GOD given.

2 words: Free Will!

As already pointed out in this topic you cannot both have free will AND an omnipotent and omniscient God.

As already pointed out in this topic you cannot both have free will AND an omnipotent and omniscient God.

Of course you can, GOD gave man that free will. It's up to each individual to choose their path in life. And GOD already knows which path we have each chosen, and what changes we are or are not going to make in life. That ultimatelly leads to our salvation or damnation.

2 words: Free Will!

Logic and common sense are also very much alive and well. They too, are GOD given.

You're restating a premise as a conclusion and ignoring the argument.

The question is:

If god is omniscient, omnipotent, and all-benevolent, then how can there be things that can be done which contradict what god wants to happen?

In other words, if the three conditions are true of god (which a particular religious viewpoint maintains), then how is it possible that free will exists whereby it is possible to do anything that angers this god so much that he would sentence one to an eternity of torture. One of the three conditions must not be met (e.g., god either can't or won't prevent the action, contradicting omnipotence and all-beneveloence, respectively; or isn't aware of the action, contradicting omniscience) in order for the possibility of doing wrong by god to exist at all.

Your response amounts to: "Free will exists because free will exists." It gives a miss to the whole logical argument. Whether or not logic is god-given, that's what's being applied in the argument.

Of course you can, GOD gave man that free will. It's up to each individual to choose their path in life. And GOD already knows which path we have each chosen, and what changes we are or are not going to make in life. That ultimatelly leads to our salvation or damnation.

By what you've said here, then god isn't all-benevolent.

If god already knows what we're going to do, and god gave man free will, then the conditions of omniscience and omnipotence are met. However, if god allows the exercise of this free will in such a way that it leads to "damnation," which god (as you say) knows about beforehand, and he allows this, then he cannot be said to be all-benevolent.

By what you've said here, then god isn't all-benevolent.

If god already knows what we're going to do, and god gave man free will, then the conditions of omniscience and omnipotence are met. However, if god allows the exercise of this free will in such a way that it leads to "damnation," which god (as you say) knows about beforehand, and he allows this, then he cannot be said to be all-benevolent.


Ah! Well that depends on how one interprets all-benevolent? One's view could be that humans can do anything they please and still be saved in the end because of GOD's all-benevolence. While another's view (mine as well), is that we are all loved and saved when first born. However, through Adam and Eve's sin and free will, we must prove our worthieness to GOD through trials and tribulations. GOD loves every single human being that he has created, but man through free-will grows distant and defiant to GOD and therefore, is judged for his/her decicions and actions in life. In other words, when we are born, GOD loves us all, but that changes as we grow. That is why GOD will judge each and everyone of us based on our faith, humility and actions. That is why Jesus said that to enter heaven we must return to being like an innocent child, in thoughts and actions. I'm sure there are other views as well. This is just the one I choose to live by through my interpretation and understanding of GOD's holy word. I'm sure that we could continue debating this until our final breath, but I choose to end it here. I hope that I said something that you would consider of value. If not, I'm sorry I could not respond any better than I did. Call me human I guess, for failing to communicate properly. GOD bless! :)

No, logic can be applied, and this is reasonable, but I never mentioned anything about omnipotence. All I was saying is that omniscience in itself isn't sufficient to deny free will; it takes power to do that. Knowing isn't enough. And the argument was:
The argument I have specifically deals with an all-powerful god (I said this in my first post)... that is both omnipotent and omniscient.
The argument can only be applied to this particular type of deity. I have at no point said that a god that lack either of these abilities defies free-will. Nor have I said that a god with these abilities cannot exist. Only that if an all-powerful God (read omnipotent and omniscient) exists we cannot have free-will. That is the sum total of the argument.

If god already knows what we're going to do, and god gave man free will, then the conditions of omniscience and omnipotence are met.
Umm no as stated that means either man doesn't really have free will or God is not omniscient and omnipotent

The arguement I have specifically deals with an all-powerful god (I said this in my first post)... that is both omnipotent and omniscient.
The arguement can only be applied to this particular type of deity. I have at no point said that a god that lack either of these abilities defies free-will. Nor have I said that a god with these abilities cannot exist. Only that if an all-powerful God (read omnipotent and omniscient) exists we cannot have free-will. That is the sum total of the arguement.
But I wasn't arguing your post. You were arguing mine, which was arguing someone else's. Okay, fine, your argument applies to an omnipotent omniscient God, but it requires omnipotence for that argument to work. The other definition:

One argument I've seen in the past is that if God is omniscient, humans cannot have free will because God knows what our choices will be, but I don't find that argument at all convincing.

... doesn't, because it doesn't include omnipotence.

Are we agreed?

But I wasn't arguing your post. You were arguing mine, which was arguing someone else's. Okay, fine, your argument applies to an omnipotent omniscient God, but it requires omnipotence for that argument to work. The other definition:



... doesn't, because it doesn't include omnipotence.

Are we agreed?
Yes I agree but you should now he said that to me in responce to mine first post.

Who are these heathens trying to tell God what God can and can't do!? God ought to spank you for such insolence! Why exactly does God have to obey your mortal laws of logic and science?

Who are these heathens trying to tell God what God can and can't do!? God ought to spank you for such insolence! Why exactly does God have to obey your mortal laws of logic and science?
First logic and science are two different things. I don't think anyone has brought up science in this thread. Philosophy is being used heavily, and I ask you why do you think logic is mortal? It is a device to over come personal and emotional desires when figuring out an answer.
Second who are you to say that God can avoid the considerations of logic. Of course you can just use you faith and that is fine, I haven't postulate on the existence of a God, merely that the definition of an all-powerful god and free-will cannot exist in a single logical frame. Unless you remove aspects of all-powerfulness or free-will.
Logic allows us to postulate beyond boundaries we cannot physically examine. For example, what we believe goes on inside a black hole was arrived at in large part using logic although in that case science was used as well. I think when dealing with the nature of God (being supposedly the ultimate uncrossible boundary) logic is exactly the tool we have to use. Faith merely allows you to accept what you are told or follow your heart. (Following your heart is a commendable things so long as it doesn't lead you to intolerance.) Logic means you are thinking about it without emotional bias, for consistent truth.

Who are these heathens trying to tell God what God can and can't do!? God ought to spank you for such insolence! Why exactly does God have to obey your mortal laws of logic and science?

He doesn't have to follow science - which is exactly why speculation about the (non) existence of a supreme being should not be taught in a scienceclass (see the numerous other topics on ID etc).

He does have to follow the rules of logic though - simply because logic is logic - for supreme beings and mortals alike.

He doesn't have to follow science - which is exactly why speculation about the (non) existence of a supreme being should not be taught in a scienceclass (see the numerous other topics on ID etc).

He does have to follow the rules of logic though - simply because logic is logic - for supreme beings and mortals alike.
So because logic is logic God has to obey? What kind of logic is that? Omnipotence removes all boundries, logical or otherwise.

So because logic is logic God has to obey? What kind of logic is that? Omnipotence removes all boundries, logical or otherwise.

Query: what is the point of omnipotence (and omnicience for that matter) in your definition ? Because defined like that it is completely and utter useless...

So because logic is logic God has to obey? What kind of logic is that? Omnipotence removes all boundries, logical or otherwise.
Logic is a tool for discovering truth.
An omnipotent being may behave and think illogically (I'd prefer to think that if he does exist he is logical,) I know many mortals that act illogical all the time. However the results of there actions are always logical. A sound logical argument can be considered truth. Granted it should be continually debated, you should look for holes in a logical argument. Apply new knowledge to it.
If you have faith ignore the argument. I'm not trying to convert anyone from their vision of God. This is an exercise in logic and therefore is an entirely valid discussion. Saying logic doesn't apply to god is a complete cop-out because you can't find a hole in it. If you don't care about logic that is completely up to you, but it does mean you comments are pointless in this exercise of logic..

Logic is a tool for discovering truth.
An omnipotent being may behave and think illogically (I'd prefer to think that if he does exist he is logical,) I know many mortals that act illogical all the time. However the results of there actions are always logical. A sound logical argument can be considered truth. Granted it should be continually debated, you should look for holes in a logical argument. Apply new knowledge to it.
If you have faith ignore the argument. I'm not trying to convert anyone from their vision of God. This is an exercise in logic and therefore is an entirely valid discussion. Saying logic doesn't apply to god is a complete cop-out because you can't find a hole in it. If you don't care about logic that is completely up to you, but it does mean you comments are pointless in this exercise of logic..

God wrote the rules for logic, and he can break them if he wants...

Discussing an omnipotent being in terms of him not being omnipotent is purely academic: entertaining, but completely useless.

So because logic is logic God has to obey? What kind of logic is that? Omnipotence removes all boundries, logical or otherwise.

So, according to you, god is tricking us by not following the same set of laws set up for absolutely everything in the universe but not giving any explanation of his own existence... and then sentencing to eternal torture those who fail to believe without evidence, since evidence itself can only be seen by the application of reason.

Ergo, god is a sadistic, temperamental child, and certainly not benevolent at all.

Frankly, I'm more inclined to believe that this very poor line of reasoning is more the result of ignorance than a necessity for faith in something outside reason, which are themselves universally applicable and have been successful in deciphering the universe with such incredible regularity.

In other words, the problem isn't with god, but with a group of humans who believe that it is necessary to separate the divine and the mundane due to unreasonable adherence to ideas that have long since been shown incorrect.

If there is a god who keeps its eye on things, it must be sorely disappointed with the rejection of the very "gift" which allowed those people to survive and prosper in the first place.

God wrote the rules for logic, and he can break them if he wants...

Discussing an omnipotent being in terms of him not being omnipotent is purely academic: entertaining, but completely useless.

A group of people believe that they have a handle on absolute truth and wish to affect social and political policy based on that idea. Demonstrating that such absolute truth is not in their possession is far from useless. In fact, it's rather important, considering that this belief is being used as justification to do things like redefine science and pass laws, and perhaps even to start wars.

By your definition (god wrote the laws and can break them if he wants), god turns out to not be a benevolent being, because he wrote a bunch of understandable laws that govern everything while concealing his own true nature and relying on not following the law he laid down to decide who gets cast into some fiery pit and who doesn't.

Such behavior would be exceptionally childish. Why would a benevolent, omnipotent entity do such a thing to those with limited capability for understanding? The entertainment value?

Here's a though; god wrote down the laws of logic because following those laws leads to an understanding of god, and god wants us to understand. God spends all his time talking to us, but some people are too busy coming up with elaborate defenses of archaic theologies and claiming unwarranted exceptionalism to focus their rational abilities and actually listen.

Silly chattering monkeys.

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that You exist, and so therefore, by Your own arguments, You don't. Q.E.D."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

But, then, only Siths deal in absolutes.

which is an absolte in itself

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that You exist, and so therefore, by Your own arguments, You don't. Q.E.D."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
Yes sorry this one's been posted in this thread already.
It's a great book though.

To summarize, the view of God we are discussing is that god is:

Omniscient (capable knowing everything)
Omnipotent (capable of doing everything)
All-benevelont (always wanting the good)


You're restating a premise as a conclusion and ignoring the argument.

The question is:

If god is omniscient, omnipotent, and all-benevolent, then how can there be things that can be done which contradict what god wants to happen?

Because "capable of doing everything" does not equate to doing it. You yourself indicate a God with "wants". The premise assumes a will of sorts for God, and that his will is that we be allowed total free will. So it is the fact of our free will that allows for those things to be not-contradictory by an exercise of his will.

In this context, Hell is not some torture or punishment applied by God but the torment we (freely) put ourselves through placing ourselves apart from God.

Sorry I have a question I know this has been posted numerous times, but what proof of there is god or what is a definitive evidence even though there might not be one.


If you belive in the bible then you definitely believe in God. The real question is what is our purpose here?

It is natural for humans to believe in something as a source of something that will make you feel safe or secured. Believing to the Almighty that is capable of doing anything or will provide salvation is the most common.

We believe in something because we want something from it, people have faiith in God because that means salvation.

Maybe believing in something comes for a reason.

Because "capable of doing everything" does not equate to doing it. You yourself indicate a God with "wants". The premise assumes a will of sorts for God, and that his will is that we be allowed total free will. So it is the fact of our free will that allows for those things to be not-contradictory by an exercise of his will.

In this context, Hell is not some torture or punishment applied by God but the torment we (freely) put ourselves through placing ourselves apart from God.

If God has no wants, then what are the 10 Commandments?

The word "omnibenevolent" is frequently used for the third concept. It isn't a new introduction to the argument. Here are 37,000 or so previous uses. (http://www.google.com/search?q=omnibenevolent&hl=en&lr=&start=10&sa=N)
None of those "37,000 or so previous uses" were in this thread. You seem to want to just be able to change the terms of the debate to suit your fancy whenever you like... and so participating in this thread is futile.

None of those "37,000 or so previous uses" were in this thread. You seem to want to just be able to change the terms of the debate to suit your fancy whenever you like... and so participating in this thread is futile.

They're the same argument that I'm resuming in this thread. You stated that all-benevolence was a new factor that I was bringing into the argument. It isn't, and that's what those 37,000 examples demonstrate. I haven't changed anything; I've simply restated the same three characteristics in that same argument, which has been in existence for at least a couple of centuries.

Sorry I have a question I know this has been posted numerous times, but what proof of there is god or what is a definitive evidence even though there might not be one.
If you have to "prove" there is a God, you don't have sufficient faith to believe there is one. God is a concept which isn't amenable to being proven.

By definition you can't disprove god - as god (if she/he existed) is omnipotent, any conceivable evidence against god's existence could be fabricated by god. Similarly, you can't prove god, as it's a fallacy to argue that because we can't yet explain some phenomenon (without resorting to a god) we won't ever be able to explain it (without resorting to a god). Of course, this won't stop many other posters from trying.


Agreed. I believe in God, but I myself cannot prove or disprove Him because like you said, any evidence against Him might have been placed by Him, and there is no evidence for Him unless you have faith and have personally accepted Him.

People have been trying for centuries, but they bypass over this simple fact, and this is what seperates them from the knowledge they want.

Agreed. I believe in God, but I myself cannot prove or disprove Him because like you said, any evidence against Him might have been placed by Him, and there is no evidence for Him unless you have faith and have personally accepted Him.

People have been trying for centuries, but they bypass over this simple fact, and this is what seperates them from the knowledge they want.

Unexamined faith is what separates people from knowledge. What you've stated here is that you can't know God unless you already know God. Then, you can't know anything specific, since nothing is demonstrable. Basically, you're left with nothing but an unreasoned, unexamined faith.

What if it was possible to have direct, concrete, demonstrable knowledge, and the acceptance of the idea that you simply can't was the only thing standing between yourself and that knowledge?

Because "capable of doing everything" does not equate to doing it. You yourself indicate a God with "wants". The premise assumes a will of sorts for God, and that his will is that we be allowed total free will. So it is the fact of our free will that allows for those things to be not-contradictory by an exercise of his will.

In this context, Hell is not some torture or punishment applied by God but the torment we (freely) put ourselves through placing ourselves apart from God.
Wrong, choosing not to act is still an action of his divine will. If he chooses not to take an action then he has decided to leave what you choose with your "free-will" to select the same option he decided you would at his last interaction with the world. If he has never interacted with the world then your acts of 'free-will' were chosen by God at the creation of the universe. This is because if God is both Omnipotent and Omniscient then he must know everything from every time and everywhere. He decides what your free-will will be every time he does or does not interact with the world of man.
This does not come from him doing things it comes from his perfect knowledge of the exact consequences of everything he does or doesn't do and the perfect knowledge of what you will do in every circumstance you face.

Every time he interacts and even the act of creation required him to make that decision, or he just doesn't not have Omniscience. You cannot deny that your decisions made by free-will are based on your experiences and the beliefs that have been taught to you. If God had made the universe with Alpha Centauri In a different location might that have effected early astrology and the influences that might have on later cultures and the influences those cultures might have had on my childhood. And the beliefs and decisions I make based on that childhood? Sure an extreme and unlikely example. But the point is we don't know what all the consequences of an action will be, an all-powerful God does and he knows how to change the situation. There is no-point saying he doesn't use this ability because he has at least once in creation.

and there is no evidence for Him unless you have faith and have personally accepted Him.
having faith isn't evidence, it's faith. You are believing something to be true (rightly or wrongly) without evidence. That's why it is faith and not knowledge or evidence.

if God is both Omnipotent and Omniscient then he must know everything from every time and everywhere. He decides what your free-will will be every time he does or does not interact with the world of man.
This does not come from him doing things it comes from his perfect knowledge of the exact consequences of everything he does or doesn't do and the perfect knowledge of what you will do in every circumstance you face.

He wouldn't decide what your free will be. He would already know what you were going to choose. I think it'd be sort of like watching a movie that you've seen before. The people in the movie "don't know" what's going to happen next, but you do (unless you weren't paying attention earlier). This could be how God views the world. Somehow he knows what will happen before it actually does.

Somehow he knows what will happen before it actually does.


So what are we then? Puppets?

/me signs himself out of that religion....


Also... Could Jesus Microwave a burrito so hot that he, himself, could not eat it?

So what are we then? Puppets?

Umm no, he just knows what will happen. He's not controlling us. And I don't know if this is from any religion at all, this is just my personal opinion.



Also... Could Jesus Microwave a burrito so hot that he, himself, could not eat it?

That's a good question. But I don't think he'd use a microwave. He'd use the sun or something that would actually make it really hot.

He wouldn't decide what your free will be. He would already know what you were going to choose. I think it'd be sort of like watching a movie that you've seen before. The people in the movie "don't know" what's going to happen next, but you do (unless you weren't paying attention earlier). This could be how God views the world. Somehow he knows what will happen before it actually does.
Yes but only if it is a movie He created where every decision, action, inaction and thought He has alters the movie.

So what are we then? Puppets?
Only if God is both Omnipotent and Omniscient. If he lacks either of these attributes then we have free-will.

Also... Could Jesus Microwave a burrito so hot that he, himself, could not eat it?
That depends Jesus the man, yes quite definitely. I think the bible established that he was infact quite easy to injure.

Jesus the aspect of a Tri-God. No, quite simply, As a god or an aspect of one, physical properties cannot hurt him.

Only if God is both Omnipotent and Omniscient. If he lacks either of these attributes then we have free-will.


That depends Jesus the man, yes quite definitely. I think the bible established that he was infact quite easy to injure.

Jesus the aspect of a Tri-God. No, quite simply, As a god or an aspect of one, physical properties cannot hurt him.
No, we are not puppets. God can be omnipotent and omniscient and omnibenevolent and we still have free will.

To use someone else's phrase, God wants us to choose correctly. He wants us to do good, do the right thing. But if he were to force us, to decide for us, then our "choice" would mean nothing. He must allow us the ability to do wrong, choose evil, in order for our choice to have meaning.

Yes, God allows evil to happen. He must allow us choice.

And could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot he couldn't eat it? Yes.
Could he then eat it? Yes.
Are both possible at the same time? Yes.

No, we are not puppets. God can be omnipotent and omniscient and omnibenevolent and we still have free will.
....

Yes, God allows evil to happen. He must allow us choice.



Why "must" God allow anything? And if he allows for the existence of evil, then he is not, by definition, omnibenevolent. This is precisely the opposite of omnibenevolent in fact.

So, why MUST an all-powerful deity allow for the existence of evil? Why MUST free will be allowed at all? And, in fact, if making the wrong choice results in damnation, how is that free will? Giving someone a choice and then threatening not just death but eternal torture is hardly saying that they can do whatever they like. The exercise of free will could not possibly carry the ramification of endless pain were the choice extended by an omnibenevolent and omnipotent originator. It's a direct contradiction.

The only thing this kind of reasoning can be based upon is an absolute abandonment of any sense of logic. This is the very negation of reason itself. If that is your definition of faith, so be it. You have the free will to ignore reason and instead indulge in all the psychic dissonance you wish.

But don't expect it not to be ridiculed, because it's certainly ridiculous... and it is entirely unnecessary, except insofar as it goes to protect an outmoded dogma suitable for the same target that makes a good mark for a three card monty hawker.

Why "must" God allow anything? And if he allows for the existence of evil, then he is not, by definition, omnibenevolent. This is precisely the opposite of omnibenevolent in fact.
Not true. God must allow the existance of evil, because he must allow us choice. Without the existance of evil to "balance" out Gods existance, there would be no choice. As to being "precisely the opposite of omnibenevolent", that phrase is meaningless. Omnivenevolent is something we choose to apply to God. It is an absolute. Absolutes can not apply to the divine because by definition, the divine is beyond the paradox that would be involved with absolutes.

So, why MUST an all-powerful deity allow for the existence of evil? Why MUST free will be allowed at all? And, in fact, if making the wrong choice results in damnation, how is that free will? Giving someone a choice and then threatening not just death but eternal torture is hardly saying that they can do whatever they like. The exercise of free will could not possibly carry the ramification of endless pain were the choice extended by an omnibenevolent and omnipotent originator. It's a direct contradiction.
I really can't understand how you can see this as a direct contradiction. Without a choice, our "obedience" would be meaningless. Faith would be meaningless.
And it's not eternal torture, no lake of fire, no deamons pulling at the flesh... that's pretty much a creation of man. It's an eternity of exclusion from God's presense. It's an important distinction.

The only thing this kind of reasoning can be based upon is an absolute abandonment of any sense of logic. This is the very negation of reason itself. If that is your definition of faith, so be it. You have the free will to ignore reason and instead indulge in all the psychic dissonance you wish.
Faith is, by definition, without reason or logic. It is faith.

But don't expect it not to be ridiculed, because it's certainly ridiculous... and it is entirely unnecessary, except insofar as it goes to protect an outmoded dogma suitable for the same target that makes a good mark for a three card monty hawker.
What I don't understand, is why you are so vehemently opposed to a belief system (speaking of Christianity at the time) that teaches love and acceptance of one another?
And how is it unnecessary? Religion, and religious beliefs do indeed serve a purpose. If it's not your boat, fine, live your life as you see fit, but don't ridicule what you don't understand.

Not true. God must allow the existance of evil, because he must allow us choice. Without the existance of evil to "balance" out Gods existance, there would be no choice. As to being "precisely the opposite of omnibenevolent", that phrase is meaningless. Omnivenevolent is something we choose to apply to God. It is an absolute. Absolutes can not apply to the divine because by definition, the divine is beyond the paradox that would be involved with absolutes.

You say there are no absolutes and then repeatedly say what god must and must not do, and you don't see the utter contradiction. Do you not see how ridiculous this is?

You also say that evil is something that "balances out" god. It is something separate from god. The god didn't create it, and it is a co-equal of god. If not, there is nothing to "balance out."

I really can't understand how you can see this as a direct contradiction. Without a choice, our "obedience" would be meaningless. Faith would be meaningless.
And it's not eternal torture, no lake of fire, no deamons pulling at the flesh... that's pretty much a creation of man. It's an eternity of exclusion from God's presense. It's an important distinction.

Why does faith have to be meaningful? If god can do anything, why do it thia way? Ah, but here comes the imposition of willful ignorance again. The assertion that we can't know. The assertion of god the trickster, who sets up everything in the universe one way, and then expects that man will see it some other way when it comes to this question of faith.

It's the twisted "reasoning" of the defense of a dogma.

Whatever hell is, its being cast away from god for all eternity. Why is THAT necessary?

It isn't.

Faith is, by definition, without reason or logic. It is faith.

Only according to the definition used by THIS dogma. There si no necessary conflict between faith and reason, and no necessity that faith cannot be examined and reformed by reason, other than due to the decree of some orthodoxy that wishes to restrain the exercise of intellect.

What I don't understand, is why you are so vehemently opposed to a belief system (speaking of Christianity at the time) that teaches love and acceptance of one another?

I am opposed to all forms of ignorance, whatever they think their intent might be. The very idea that the divine is somewhere "out there," beyond the reach of reason, does very little to promote understanding of anything at all. The rise of fundamentalism, not only in Christianity but in other religions as well, is a ramification of this decision to separate god from the rest of reality, to insist that the logic and reason that we can apply to everything else in the universe is somehow not applicable to the question of the divine because to do so is to contradict some archaic theology.

And how is it unnecessary? Religion, and religious beliefs do indeed serve a purpose. If it's not your boat, fine, live your life as you see fit, but don't ridicule what you don't understand.

But I do understand it. I understand it well enough to form cogent, long-thought-out arguments against it. I am not opposed to religion. I'm opposed to religion that makes a travesty of reason. There is no necessity to believe that reason can't be applied to this question as well as it has been to everything else. It makes perfect sense to do so, in fact. I ridicule it because I do understand this other argument, not because I don't.

The idea that faith is exempt from reason is a shell game. The idea that god is playing a game by revealing a logical, mathematically precise universe to us on the one hand, and then telling us not to believe in it when it comes to some transcendent understanding, is a game played by a child.

It has been said elsewhere in these forums that since Christians "know the truth" and must exercise compassion by explaining it to others. Is the same thing not incumbent upon others, then, or is it only Christians that have "the truth?" I dispute the latter condition entirely.

I've got an air tight logical argument that there can either be free-will or and all powerful all knowing God, but not both. This ofcourse doesn't give you a definitive answers and so is merely an exercise in logic.
But people usually end up saying you can't apply logic to god or you're just human you don't have the capacity to understand his powers. They can't really fault the logic, they try but they can't.

Yep, generally why I dismiss "Free Will" (at least as people these days use the term) as a myth...

No... it's immaterial. Not material.

EDIT: If you look up the modern accepted definition of existence, it is limited to the physical world, to reality.

Existence is not "everything that exists" ...not anymore.

ex·is·tence
n.

1. The fact or state of existing; being.
2. The fact or state of continued being; life: our brief existence on Earth.
3.
1. All that exists.
2. A thing that exists; an entity.
4. A mode or manner of existing: scratched out a meager existence.
5. Specific presence; occurrence: The Geiger counter indicated the existence of radioactivity.

The language begs to differ that your particular definition is the "only accepted one" anymore.

Immanual Kant had a fameous one

1. Objective, perfect moral laws exist throught all humanity
2. Perfect moral laws need a perfect author
3. The only perfect author can be God
4. Therfore God exists

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/

See here for more detail
Ok..
Point 1 is a false and rather undefined assumption.
Point 2 is a false/dubious assumption
Point 3 is also a false/dubious assumption
Point 4 is therefore a conclusion based on one outright false and undefined assumption and two false/dubious assumptions and therefore carries no weight.

If God has no wants, then what are the 10 Commandments?
I didn't say God has no wants in this scenario.

Wrong, choosing not to act is still an action of his divine will. If he chooses not to take an action then he has decided to leave what you choose with your "free-will" to select the same option he decided you would at his last interaction with the world. If he has never interacted with the world then your acts of 'free-will' were chosen by God at the creation of the universe. This is because if God is both Omnipotent and Omniscient then he must know everything from every time and everywhere. He decides what your free-will will be every time he does or does not interact with the world of man.
This does not come from him doing things it comes from his perfect knowledge of the exact consequences of everything he does or doesn't do and the perfect knowledge of what you will do in every circumstance you face.
You are correct that knowledge of the future by itself is still a contradiction with free will; however, if the future is not yet written, and so not yet knowable, then, as there is no future, yet, there is nothing yet to know about it. Omniscience, then, encompasses the capacity to know everything about what is knowable. That does not include a future that does not yet exist.

To me, free will means making our own determinations. If God decides for us, that is not an exercise of our free will, but his. (Note, in this scenario there is no such thing as "the illusion of free will," because, besides being all those omni-'s, God is also Truth. We must leave free will intact in this scenario, an untouchable variable, then everything follows from that.)

If God has never interacted with the world, then he did not even create the world, and we are not here. Obviously that's wrong. ;) I'm guessing that what you meant was if God has participated only that one time, and predestination (and Omniscience of it) was set in place at that time... then we have no free will, yes. Everything was determined by God at that time. If there is no future --literally is no future yet, it doesn't exist --then not even God can know it, unless you also support predestination, the idea that God set all the time-line out and circumstances play themselves out according to his will. Then he need only have intervened that one time, at Creation.

However, if you leave the idea of free will intact and in place, then predestination cannot be, and you are left with the conclusion that God did not determine things for us, and that any interaction he can have (is capable of) is circumstantial. If God acts on us at any time, like making a decision for us, then and only then does he violate free will. But... if he manipulates circumstances in the present, then he has not interfered with free will. We are still left with our capacity to determine our own direction because of his capacity to not act.

Every time he interacts and even the act of creation required him to make that decision, or he just doesn't not have Omniscience. You cannot deny that your decisions made by free-will are based on your experiences and the beliefs that have been taught to you. If God had made the universe with Alpha Centauri In a different location might that have effected early astrology and the influences that might have on later cultures and the influences those cultures might have had on my childhood. And the beliefs and decisions I make based on that childhood? Sure an extreme and unlikely example. But the point is we don't know what all the consequences of an action will be, an all-powerful God does and he knows how to change the situation. There is no-point saying he doesn't use this ability because he has at least once in creation.
Determinations made by me are an exercise of my free will. Events determined by circumstance are not an exercise of my free will.

I understand that most people's idea of the future includes the entire "space-time continuum", but that's a very modern concept. When the idea of the all-knowingness of God was put forth, they had no such ideas of time as an inflexible flow. The idea actually addresses what God knows of our hearts, minds and souls; nothing more. It is distorted even by conversations like this one. :)

Enough debate on God goddammit!

Proof for God's non-existance:
1. Without man, God is nothing (or so the Bible says), for without a mind to comprehend His existance, there can be no God. This also means that God did not theoretically exist BEFORE the creation of the universe.

2. Everything sprang forth from nothing, therefore it can be assumed that eventually everything will return to nothing in time, therefore nothing exists. By extension, God does not exist... But then neither does anything else... Aww crap:eek:. (Disappears into a vortex of nothingness)

Enough debate on God goddammit!

Proof for God's non-existance:
1. Without man, God is nothing (or so the Bible says), for without a mind to comprehend His existance, there can be no God. This also means that God did not theoretically exist BEFORE the creation of the universe.
Can't argue with that, except of course that things in the mind exist. There is also the realization that the mind does not create reality, so there is always the allowance that god might exist in reality as an unknown.

2. Everything sprang forth from nothing, therefore it can be assumed that eventually everything will return to nothing in time, therefore nothing exists. By extension, God does not exist... But then neither does anything else... Aww crap:eek:. (Disappears into a vortex of nothingness)
B came from A, therefore B will produce A? I don't see the logic in that assumption.

Now everyone has given different reasons for god's existence, but mostly I am seeing stuff on free will. So I am going to go back to the original question of proof of his existence. I think the proof is frankly simple if you look at the whole world for an answer and not one religion/mythos.

Every religion/mythos that has a definitive god or set of gods/goddesses has a sacrificial king. For example Jesus in the Christian religion sacrificed himself to save us all from sin. Or, I think that is how it goes, I'm not Christian. In the celtic mythos it was the Holly King is sacrificed. I could probaby list 50 or 60 more with very little research.

The point being that hundreds of religions have sprung up throughout time with the same basic themes or formula. I don't know if any of them are right or if one of them is right. What I do believe is that their very existance proves god. Why should all men believe in a common theme for god if god never existed in the first place? If there were no god, just a universal need to believe in one then the stories would not have a common thread.

Sorry I have a question I know this has been posted numerous times, but what proof of there is god or what is a definitive evidence even though there might not be one.

There is no proof. There is no evidence to support the existence of gods. Gods are philosophical constructs used as psychological crutches to support us when events are beyond our control.
"Faith" is the belief in something with no evidence. A problem occurs when you try to build something based on faith like a bridge or a government or something. Then faith becomes dangerous.

There is no proof. There is no evidence to support the existence of gods. Gods are philosophical constructs used as psychological crutches to support us when events are beyond our control.
"Faith" is the belief in something with no evidence. A problem occurs when you try to build something based on faith like a bridge or a government or something. Then faith becomes dangerous.
Actually, faith is more often based on evidence. There is evidence of god: witness testamony is evidence. But no doubt what you meant is that there is no objectively examinable empirical evidence.

While I've seen many a government "built on faith", how does one build a bridge based on faith? Or were you speaking metaphorically?

While I've seen many a government "built on faith", how does one build a bridge based on faith? Or were you speaking metaphorically?

Throw a rope across a large gorge and do not secure it tightly with knots, but expect your deity to hold it.

Throw a rope across a large gorge and do not secure it tightly with knots, but expect your deity to hold it.

There is no deity that has ever said He/She would hold the rope.

Actually, faith is more often based on evidence. There is evidence of god: witness testamony is evidence. But no doubt what you meant is that there is no objectively examinable empirical evidence.
I don't want to get sidetracked into an argument on semantics. You know perfectly well what I mean by "evidence". With evidence there is no need for faith. You may call witness testimony "evidence" but, as you know, I'm using the term scientifically not legalistically. If you want to clarify every word in a discussion which has more than one meaning the argument is fruitless.

While I've seen many a government "built on faith", how does one build a bridge based on faith? Or were you speaking metaphorically?

It would be absurd to build a structure based on assumptions with no evidence. It's equally absurd to build a government or go to war or fly a jet into a building based on "faith".

The dual problem is proving God's non-existence, a much more difficult exercise than trying to prove God's existence. Strong atheism (which states that God does not exist) appears to be a logically untenable position. You cannot know God does not exist without having searched every corner of the universe where He/She might be. Proving an absolute negative like this is pretty much impossible. You can say "God exists" or "I do not believe God exists" but you're putting yourself on unstable ground if you say "God does not exist".

The dual problem is proving God's non-existence, a much more difficult exercise than trying to prove God's existence. Strong atheism (which states that God does not exist) appears to be a logically untenable position. You cannot know God does not exist without having searched every corner of the universe where He/She might be. Proving an absolute negative like this is pretty much impossible. You can say "God exists" or "I do not believe God exists" but you're putting yourself on unstable ground if you say "God does not exist".
What about proving a different kind of God? I mean, if you could empirically show and demonstrate the existence of something that isn't God in the commonly accepted sense of the word that instead accounts for everything that people attribute to God, would that be sufficient evidence to say that "God" as a universal external and all powerful creator is disproven?

I don't want to get sidetracked into an argument on semantics. You know perfectly well what I mean by "evidence". With evidence there is no need for faith. You may call witness testimony "evidence" but, as you know, I'm using the term scientifically not legalistically. If you want to clarify every word in a discussion which has more than one meaning the argument is fruitless.
Yes; as I indicated, I knew perfectly well that you had overlooked witness testamony as evidence. Ignoring the significant context for understanding a concept is a common means of dismissing it.

You have that backwards, though. Faith is dependent upon evidence; it is not dependent upon proof. I have faith that you can someday understand what I'm saying. We both speak English, you see.

It would be absurd to build a structure based on assumptions with no evidence. It's equally absurd to build a government or go to war or fly a jet into a building based on "faith".
Again; you are speaking metaphorically, aren't you? I figure you must be, but it's hard to tell.

There is no deity that has ever said He/She would hold the rope.
Aye; unless it's another euphamism for holding the sausage hostage (http://www.worldwidewank.com/synonyms2.html), in which case pagan gods probably have said they would. ;)

There will never be any proof that God exists. However there will never be any proof the God does not exist. Those that claim to have this proof, one way or the other, are weak in thier faith, or lack there of, and are trying to hide it.

While there will never be proof, there is evidence of God's existance. The sheer number of things that had to happen just right for humanity to exist is evidence. The balence of literally billions of systems nessasary for us to exist, from the quantim to the realitive, is evidnence, but not proof.

The ablility to choose whether to belive in God or not is one of the basic tenits of free will. Proof, one way or the other would eliminate that choice.

You are correct that knowledge of the future by itself is still a contradiction with free will; however, if the future is not yet written, and so not yet knowable, then, as there is no future, yet, there is nothing yet to know about it. Omniscience, then, encompasses the capacity to know everything about what is knowable. That does not include a future that does not yet exist.

To me, free will means making our own determinations. If God decides for us, that is not an exercise of our free will, but his. (Note, in this scenario there is no such thing as "the illusion of free will," because, besides being all those omni-'s, God is also Truth. We must leave free will intact in this scenario, an untouchable variable, then everything follows from that.)

If God has never interacted with the world, then he did not even create the world, and we are not here. Obviously that's wrong. ;) I'm guessing that what you meant was if God has participated only that one time, and predestination (and Omniscience of it) was set in place at that time... then we have no free will, yes. Everything was determined by God at that time. If there is no future --literally is no future yet, it doesn't exist --then not even God can know it, unless you also support predestination, the idea that God set all the time-line out and circumstances play themselves out according to his will. Then he need only have intervened that one time, at Creation.

However, if you leave the idea of free will intact and in place, then predestination cannot be, and you are left with the conclusion that God did not determine things for us, and that any interaction he can have (is capable of) is circumstantial. If God acts on us at any time, like making a decision for us, then and only then does he violate free will. But... if he manipulates circumstances in the present, then he has not interfered with free will. We are still left with our capacity to determine our own direction because of his capacity to not act.


Determinations made by me are an exercise of my free will. Events determined by circumstance are not an exercise of my free will.

I understand that most people's idea of the future includes the entire "space-time continuum", but that's a very modern concept. When the idea of the all-knowingness of God was put forth, they had no such ideas of time as an inflexible flow. The idea actually addresses what God knows of our hearts, minds and souls; nothing more. It is distorted even by conversations like this one. :)
Then he does not have perfect knowledge. Even the bible says God knows the future, Jesus on the cross supposedly looked in to the hearts all all men alive and to come... Therefore omniscience includes knowledge of the future. This means if there is any aspect of the future unknown to God, he is not Omniscient, and Thus not "all-powerful".

Yes; as I indicated, I knew perfectly well that you had overlooked witness testamony as evidence. Ignoring the significant context for understanding a concept is a common means of dismissing it.
Actually at best the information in the bible (I assume this is what you mean by eye-witness testimony) can only be established as at best second hand information, and thus not admissible as evidence.

You're going to have to come up with another argument for the existence of a god or gods besides "you can't prove god doesn't exist" for me to take that belief seriously.

While there will never be proof, there is evidence of God's existance.
Evidence for A God's existence; not any given particular interpretation of him. All things describable using one personification of God as a discriptor can be equally well interpreted using another.

Then he does not have perfect knowledge. Even the bible says God knows the future, Jesus on the cross supposedly looked in to the hearts all all men alive and to come... Therefore omniscience includes knowledge of the future. This means if there is any aspect of the future unknown to God, he is not Omniscient, and Thus not "all-powerful".
Can you point me to the passage? I'd like to read that one.

Actually at best the information in the bible (I assume this is what you mean by eye-witness testimony) can only be established as at best second hand information, and thus not admissible as evidence.
Well, no; I meant testimony of people today and throughout the past, but witness recorded in the Bible, too.

Can angels swear? On an episode of South Park it has at least five instances of St. Michael saying "Aww Goddammit!"

While there will never be proof, there is evidence of God's existance. The sheer number of things that had to happen just right for humanity to exist is evidence. The balence of literally billions of systems nessasary for us to exist, from the quantim to the realitive, is evidnence, but not proof.
It isn't evidence, because it pre-supposes that it was intended that we would exist, which means it pre-supposes that there was a creator with intent, which means that it is a circular argument.

The balance of system wasn't created so that we can exist. We were created by the balance of systems, and are part of them, so it is inevitable that they are just right for us. If they weren't, humanity as we know it would never have evolved in the first place.