NationStates Jolt Archive

So...yeah...what's your proof and all. I have no say cause I would just piss everyone off. So talk amucst yourselfs

Oh dear... not another one of these.

Your post lacks premise. We have nothing to go on.

You have simply demanded proof of God, which is impossible to be shown.

:headbang: Religous beliefs have nothing to do with facts, they deal with faith, thats the whole point:headbang:

Geez, how many of these threads must we have per week?

:headbang: Religous beliefs have nothing to do with facts, they deal with faith, thats the whole point:headbang:

That's one thing that baffles me about religious beliefs:
If you have faith in the Bible and God without requiring any proof, then why don't you also have faith in invisible pink elephants, and that fairy tales are true?

You have simply demanded proof of God, which is impossible to be shown.

Actually, if you look at the wording of the title, he demanded proof either way, of God's existance or non-existance.

And proof of God's non-existance is something that I think needs to be asked much more often than it is. Why is it not asked for as often as proof of God's existance?

invisible pink elephants

Nothing can be invisible and pink.


Except God :p

Actually, if you look at the wording of the title, he demanded proof either way, of God's existance or non-existance.

And proof of God's non-existance is something that I think needs to be asked much more often than it is. Why is it not asked for as often as proof of God's existance?

That is because it is extremely difficult if not impossible to prove the absence of something (in this case, god). It is easy to prove something exists, because once you find it, there it is, but to prove something doesn't exist, you'd have to pretty much look in every space of the universe.

Logical arguments against the existance of God are generally not accepted as proof of his non-existance.

Why is it not asked for as often as proof of God's existance?
Because it's philosophically impossible to prove a negative. That's why we have such ideas as "innocent until proven guilty."

Scientists reasoned a 65% chance God exists. I'll go with them. ^^

When it comes to the existence or non-existence of God, you have to come up with your own proof. All anyone can tell you is what proof they have that makes them believe. Regardless of what anyone tells you is their proof, you are always free to accept or reject it. Nobody can force either option upon you.

Because it's philosophically impossible to prove a negative. That's why we have such ideas as "innocent until proven guilty."

Is it not also philosophically impossible to prove a positive? One of the defining characteristics of philosophy is the lack of absolute certainty regarding anything.

That is because it is extremely difficult if not impossible to prove the absence of something (in this case, god). It is easy to prove something exists, because once you find it, there it is, but to prove something doesn't exist, you'd have to pretty much look in every space of the universe.

Logical arguments against the existance of God are generally not accepted as proof of his non-existance.

But the God debate goes outside the bounds of a normal debate. Since my view of God places God outside the universe (but still within existance), it is just as difficult to prove that He does exist as it is to prove that He doesn't, because you can't, as you put it, "find it".

But the God debate goes outside the bounds of a normal debate. Since my view of God places God outside the universe (but still within existance), it is just as difficult to prove that He does exist as it is to prove that He doesn't, because you can't, as you put it, "find it".

Exactly what I believe. We can't know for sure. However, as it was stated before, proof is subjective. Life itself might be proof of the existence of God for one person, while another may desire more substantial proof.

Exactly what I believe. We can't know for sure. However, as it was stated before, proof is subjective. Life itself might be proof of the existence of God for one person, while another may desire more substantial proof.

Good point, I agree with you.

And on that note, I'm going to bed :)

Good point, I agree with you.

Damn... so much for a debate...

And on that note, I'm going to bed :)

G'night

Let n be some even integer. n + n is therefore 2n, which is of the form 2k, and is therefore even.

Rather, let n be some odd integer. n is therefore of the form 2p+1, and n + n is therefore (2p +1) + (2p + 1), which equals 4p +2, which equals 2(2p +1), which is of the form 2k, so it is also even.

So, we thus prove that any non-zero integer added to itself will yield an even number, which in turn proves that God is sitting in an off-strip bar in Vegas, hitting on the waitress and smoking a joint, because he knows nobody's going to say shit 'cause he's God.

Let n be some even integer. n + n is therefore 2n, which is of the form 2k, and is therefore even.

Rather, let n be some odd integer. n is therefore of the form 2p+1, and n + n is therefore (2p +1) + (2p + 1), which equals 4p +2, which equals 2(2p +1), which is of the form 2k, so it is also even.

So, we thus prove that any non-zero integer added to itself will yield an even number,

Doesn't have to be non-zero. Zero is even.

which in turn proves that God is sitting in an off-strip bar in Vegas, hitting on the waitress and smoking a joint, because he knows nobody's going to say shit 'cause he's God.

That's quite an extrapolation :p

Is it not also philosophically impossible to prove a positive? One of the defining characteristics of philosophy is the lack of absolute certainty regarding anything.
Fine then. I'm posting this message from inside my toaster. Since I can't philosophically prove a positive, you're just going to have to take my word on it.

What...NO! MOM! NOT THE BAGELS!!! OWOWOWOWOWOWOWOW!!!! :eek: :(

So...yeah...what's your proof and all. I have no say cause I would just piss everyone off. So talk amucst yourselfs

"I have no say cause..." And no grasp of the English language either.

"So talk amucst yourselfs" As for the amucst yourselfs, why would anyone respond to such lazy and pathetic posting, save to mock the mouth-breathing imbecile who posted it?

"I have no say cause..." And no grasp of the English language either.

"So talk amucst yourselfs" As for the amucst yourselfs, why would anyone respond to such lazy and pathetic posting, save to mock the mouth-breathing imbecile who posted it?

I just feed on every chance to debate religion:

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/atheist.htm

I'm just kidding

As for the amucst yourselfs, why would anyone respond to such lazy and pathetic posting, save to mock the mouth-breathing imbecile who posted it?
Because living in a toaster is boring. When your average day consists of eating burnt bread and itching from healing bagel burns, you take any amusement you can get. :(

I wish I lived in the Asstral Plane instead, where everyone was perfect and you weren't crushed by superheated baked goods every day. :(

One cannot prove that a higher power does or does not exist.

Doesn't have to be non-zero. Zero is even.



That's quite an extrapolation :p

Ah, thanks. Okay, since zero is even, I amend my proof to say that God is at an off-strip bar in Vegas, hitting on the waitress, smoking a joint, and making loud, disparaging remarks about L.A.'s ability to host an NFL team.

That's one thing that baffles me about religious beliefs:
If you have faith in the Bible and God without requiring any proof, then why don't you also have faith in invisible pink elephants, and that fairy tales are true?

Don't be silly. The invisible elephants are green.

Don't be silly. The invisible elephants are green.

But if the elephants are invisible, light passes through them, they reflect no light and have no color.

Which proves that John Travolta is left handed (when taken in light of the Lindsey Lohan Lesbian Lemma).

With your line of logic, since the ancient greeks didn't prove the existance of oxygen it didn't exist when they were alive. Now, I'm not saying god does exist, but you're just being silly.

With your line of logic, since the ancient greeks didn't prove the existance of oxygen it didn't exist when they were alive. Now, I'm not saying god does exist, but you're just being silly.

There was no oxygen during the time of the ancient greeks. All ancient greeks engaged in anaerobic respiration, forming small amounts of adenosine triphosphate and fermenting huge amounts of Vodka which they mixed with Red Bull.

This was proven in 1973 by the accomplished forensic biochemist Dr. Piotr Wernstrom.

OK, the OP is stupid in it's supposed question since it asks, in part at least, that a negative be proven. That said, I'll assert that that very nature of God requires that his/her/its existence or non-existence be unproveable. If God is proveable, everyone will believe (they may reject, but they would believe). The entire point, however, of belief is that of faith and belief without proof. If I have no choice but to believe in God, then free will is but a joke. If, however, I can choose to believe or not believe, then I have free will. God has chosen to limit himself in this fashion as he must in order to grant us free will.

Just my $0.02

I wish I lived in the Asstral Plane instead, where everyone was perfect and you weren't crushed by superheated baked goods every day. :(
The Asstral plane sounds like a good deal, yes, but then you get there and realize that the tourism board altered the name a bit when they removed the word "Fat."
The joke, for those of you who don't follow, is a ruthless pun playing upon his misspelling of "Asstral." I have just implied that the proper name is the "Fat Asstral" plane, which would be unpleasant because it would be a plane filled with Fat Asses. Literally, everything there is just a collection of huge anuses. Such a place would be bizarre, and the connection unexpected and incongruous. Hence, the humor. Now that you see what I did there, you can go back to your regularly scheduled Interweb porn search

OK, the OP is stupid in it's supposed question since it asks, in part at least, that a negative be proven.

Lots of people have tried to prove a negative with God, and have come pretty close, at least. All that's necessary is to demonstrate that God is logically untenable, that is to say, that according to rationality an omnipotent, omniscient, etc. being cannot exist.

The famous "Can God create a rock even He cannot lift?" argument is a perfect example of that kind of approach.

"Sure he could, but why?" XD

Loved the Homer Simpson version of that.

OK, the OP is stupid in it's supposed question since it asks, in part at least, that a negative be proven. That said, I'll assert that that very nature of God requires that his/her/its existence or non-existence be unproveable. If God is proveable, everyone will believe (they may reject, but they would believe). The entire point, however, of belief is that of faith and belief without proof. If I have no choice but to believe in God, then free will is but a joke. If, however, I can choose to believe or not believe, then I have free will. God has chosen to limit himself in this fashion as he must in order to grant us free will.

Just my $0.02

so by creating duck billed platypusses, god robbed me of my free will to beleive in said platypusses by giving me evidence that they exist?

He ummm came to my house for tea...it's true.

*nods*

Does god exist and what is your Proof?
But proof denies faith, and without faith we'd all be rational - think what would happen then!

Your post lacks premise. We have nothing to go on.

You have simply demanded proof of God, which is impossible to be shown.

While its nearly impossible to prove God's existance objectively, it is possible to offer proofs of his existance

http://www.carm.org/dialogues/atheist_absolutes.htm

http://www.carm.org/demo/God/proof.htm

Lots of people have tried to prove a negative with God, and have come pretty close, at least. All that's necessary is to demonstrate that God is logically untenable, that is to say, that according to rationality an omnipotent, omniscient, etc. being cannot exist.

The famous "Can God create a rock even He cannot lift?" argument is a perfect example of that kind of approach.
I've never really understood that question. I mean it's a circular argument or something right? They question itself puts limits on Gods omnipotence. It's starts on the false premise that an omnipotent being could'nt lift a rock which is in no way logical. Why exactly would not failing to do something make you less than omnipotent?

I've never really understood that question. I mean it's a circular argument or something right? They question itself puts limits on Gods omnipotence. It's starts on the false premise that an omnipotent being could'nt lift a rock which is in no way logical. Why exactly would not failing to do something make you less than omnipotent?

That arguement doesnt prove that God cant be omnipotent. What it proves is that we cannot understand God. The only reason that arguement works is because of our language barriers. Its like saying "can God create a four sided pentegon" the answer is no. Why? Well because thats not what pentegon means. Its not that God is somehow made more feable by our overarching logical powers, its that our minds cannot understand him

That arguement doesnt prove that God cant be omnipotent. What it proves is that we cannot understand God. The only reason that arguement works is because of our language barriers. Its like saying "can God create a four sided pentegon" the answer is no. Why? Well because thats not what pentegon means. Its not that God is somehow made more feable by our overarching logical powers, its that our minds cannot understand him
Well not just language bariers

But by very nature of the universe he can not be described or contained in the context of this universe.

That does not mean he does not exist but rather he has to exist beyond this universe as well.

Thats all good and fine but it makes his existance compleatly un-falcifiable (thus making the deductive reasoning of "failed to disprove" which is used in the scientific method as well as other areas) useless and non-discriptive

I say no to God's existence, but I cannot construct a proof without premises that all proof-verifying parties agree on.

Well not just language bariers

But by very nature of the universe he can not be described or contained in the context of this universe.

That does not mean he does not exist but rather he has to exist beyond this universe as well.

Thats all good and fine but it makes his existance compleatly un-falcifiable (thus making the deductive reasoning of "failed to disprove" which is used in the scientific method as well as other areas) useless and non-discriptive

Hence we are required to use philosophical proofs of his existance, such as those presented in the two links I gave earlier.

While its nearly impossible to prove God's existance objectively, it is possible to offer proofs of his existance

http://www.carm.org/dialogues/atheist_absolutes.htm

Not a particuarly good proof. I acknowledge the existence of logical absolutes but they don't require a divine explanation, they are simply axiomatic. It's a bit like saying "There are no married bachelors and therefore God exists".

http://www.carm.org/demo/God/proof.htm

The second argument is just a rehashed version of the argument above.

The first argument is a variation on the old Cosmological argument which is flawed beyond belief.

link (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/cosmological.html)

Not a particuarly good proof. I acknowledge the existence of logical absolutes but they don't require a divine explanation, they are simply axiomatic. It's a bit like saying "There are no married bachelors and therefore God exists".


They are a little more than axiomatic. They exist beyond matter and energy, thus are trancendent, as the series of points explains

Since the laws of logic are conceptual, absolute, and transcendent and since conceptual realities require a mind, and since the conceptual realities reflect the mind thinking them, then the mind that thinks the laws of logic is absolute and transcendent.
Therefore, there is an absolute, transcendent mind in existence.

"There are no married bachelors" is a concept based on the existance of humans, and a language, and a culture of momogomy etc they arnt trancendednt.

So...yeah...what's your proof and all. I have no say cause I would just piss everyone off. So talk amucst yourselfs
God exists. No proof necessary.

Lots of people have tried to prove a negative with God, and have come pretty close, at least. All that's necessary is to demonstrate that God is logically untenable, that is to say, that according to rationality an omnipotent, omniscient, etc. being cannot exist.

The famous "Can God create a rock even He cannot lift?" argument is a perfect example of that kind of approach.
But then, all you have proven is that an omnipotent, omniscient, etc. being cannot logically exist ...one version put forward about God. That says nothing about whether or not god exists.

Now, students, you see before you a specimen of the common, yet elusive spamicus flamebaiterius.

But then, all you have proven is that an omnipotent, omniscient, etc. being cannot logically exist ...one version put forward about God. That says nothing about whether or not god exists.

And even that argument is flawed. The "can god create a rock..." arguement only proves that we cannot comprehend omniptence within our language structure. For example, can God create a four sided triangle, can god create a 100% green cube that is 50% red? No. Why? Because it is logically impossible. Not because God is some weak feable creature but because we cannot comprehend what omnipotence is with our language understanding.

Well not just language bariers

But by very nature of the universe he can not be described or contained in the context of this universe.

That does not mean he does not exist but rather he has to exist beyond this universe as well.

Thats all good and fine but it makes his existance compleatly un-falcifiable (thus making the deductive reasoning of "failed to disprove" which is used in the scientific method as well as other areas) useless and non-discriptive
Right; although, I wouldn't say useless. That would depend on what use you intend to put him. :)

And even that argument is flawed. The "can god create a rock..." arguement only proves that we cannot comprehend omniptence within our language structure. For example, can God create a four sided triangle, can god create a 100% green cube that is 50% red? No. Why? Because it is logically impossible. Not because God is some weak feable creature but because we cannot comprehend what omnipotence is with our language understanding.

I was pretty sure it was "can do anything" and God not having to obey natural laws has led to an impasse in most theological debates I get into...

And even that argument is flawed. The "can god create a rock..." arguement only proves that we cannot comprehend omniptence within our language structure. For example, can God create a four sided triangle, can god create a 100% green cube that is 50% red? No. Why? Because it is logically impossible. Not because God is some weak feable creature but because we cannot comprehend what omnipotence is with our language understanding.
It is not just a language barrier, but a logical one, and therefore one that deals with truthfulness. God cannot defy logic, even though "all things are possible", without being untruth.

I was pretty sure it was "can do anything" and God not having to obey natural laws has led to an impasse in most theological debates I get into...

That is what omnioptence means, but we cannot comprehend it completely

Can God make a three sided square
Can God make an object 100% white and 100% red at the same time
Can God make a cat that is a dog

No is the answer to these three. Why?

Because the word square means a four sided shape with equal sides and right angles on each corner
Because if it is 100% white there is no more space for it to be red. That is what the term 100% means
Because a cat is the term for a type of domesticated feline where as a dog is a domesticated canine.

The reasons for all these not to work is not because God is in himself flawed. But because our language is the way it is.

That is what omnioptence means, but we cannot comprehend it completely.
There is no word in our language that we cannot comprehend the meaning of, because we made the words; we made them to meaning something.

There is no word in our language that we cannot comprehend the meaning of, because we made the words; we made them to meaning something.

We dont comprehend the logical consequences of it completely. IE we dont understand God's power. For example, we have a word for the universe but that doesnt mean we understand everything about it.

We dont comprehend the logical consequences of it completely. IE we dont understand God's power
Right; god is an unknown. That is why putting a label like "omnipotent" on him is so wrong.

God exists. My proof is Faith.

That's religion, it's all about Faith.

God exists. My proof is Faith.

That's religion, it's all about Faith.

Then again, faith without logic is rather fruitless. (Mind you, I'm a Christian, and ergo do believe in God).

Let n be some even integer. n + n is therefore 2n, which is of the form 2k, and is therefore even.

Rather, let n be some odd integer. n is therefore of the form 2p+1, and n + n is therefore (2p +1) + (2p + 1), which equals 4p +2, which equals 2(2p +1), which is of the form 2k, so it is also even.

So, we thus prove that any non-zero integer added to itself will yield an even number, which in turn proves that God is sitting in an off-strip bar in Vegas, hitting on the waitress and smoking a joint, because he knows nobody's going to say shit 'cause he's God.

No, no, no, no, NO! If you want to prove something absurd, never turn to that sort of proof. Instead, try THIS one: (It only works with people who have decent level math skills, though... if anyone can disprove it, I'll be totally impressed.)

1=1
Sqrt(1)=Sqrt(1)
Sqrt(1*1)=Sqrt((-1)*(-1))
Sqrt(1)*Sqrt(1)=Sqrt(-1)*Sqrt(-1)
1*1=i*i
1=i^2
1=(-1)
1+1=(-1)+1
2=0
2/2=0/2
1=0

Therefore 1=0. And from that conclusion, you CAN assert the God in a bar with fair validity.

I dare you - prove me wrong.

Sqrt(1*1)=Sqrt((-1)*(-1))
Sqrt(1)*Sqrt(1)=Sqrt(-1)*Sqrt(-1)

Gotta be something roun about here...

I've never really understood that question. I mean it's a circular argument or something right? They question itself puts limits on Gods omnipotence. It's starts on the false premise that an omnipotent being could'nt lift a rock which is in no way logical. Why exactly would not failing to do something make you less than omnipotent?

God either can or cannot create a rock which He cannot lift.

If He can, God is not omnipotent, because He cannot lift the rock.

If He cannot, God is not omnipotent, because He cannot create the rock.

But then, all you have proven is that an omnipotent, omniscient, etc. being cannot logically exist ...one version put forward about God. That says nothing about whether or not god exists.

Of course. I am aware of the limitations. Furthermore, the best response to these arguments is very simple - that God is in fact not perfectly omnipotent, in that He cannot counter himself, but can control everything else anyway, so the question is immaterial.

Does God really care if He can create a rock that even He cannot lift? Probably not. And if we accept the Compatibalist concept of freedom, one could argue that, therefore, God's omnipotence is not limited at all anyway.

There is discussion about omnipotency and how proving that god is not omnipotent proves that god doesn't exist. But I think that the paradox should be approached like this: If god is omnipotent he can create the rock that he cannot lift and he can lift it. The paradox doesn't prove anything.

By the way I don't believe in god/gods.

God either can or cannot create a rock which He cannot lift.

If He can, God is not omnipotent, because He cannot lift the rock.

If He cannot, God is not omnipotent, because He cannot create the rock.

See previous posts regarding the problem of the language barrier and this puzzle

That is what omnioptence means, but we cannot comprehend it completely

Can God make a three sided square
Can God make an object 100% white and 100% red at the same time
Can God make a cat that is a dog

No is the answer to these three. Why?

Because the word square means a four sided shape with equal sides and right angles on each corner
Because if it is 100% white there is no more space for it to be red. That is what the term 100% means
Because a cat is the term for a type of domesticated feline where as a dog is a domesticated canine.

The reasons for all these not to work is not because God is in himself flawed. But because our language is the way it is.

They are a little more than axiomatic. They exist beyond matter and energy, thus are trancendent, as the series of points explains



"There are no married bachelors" is a concept based on the existance of humans, and a language, and a culture of momogomy etc they arnt trancendednt.

My example was merely to demonstrate that all of the laws of logic are axiomatic, there is no reason to assume that they are transcendent.

The best evidence that there is a God is that He or She made a very special Hell for those who doubt Hir Existence.

Anyway, more to the point:
we do live in a Feynman-Omniverse, so if a thing is possible, it is.
Therefore, God must exist.
( If you wish to argue that you can also use the same rule to argue that we live in a Universe in which god does NOT exits, I will not contradict you. Every possibility actually happenend.)

( If you find Feynman confusing, I happily re-direct you to the history of the universe in a nutshell, by Hawking. )

My example was merely to demonstrate that all of the laws of logic are axiomatic, there is no reason to assume that they are transcendent.

Of course there is.

They are not related to the physical universe. IE they are not caused by it. No matter where in this universe you go, they are always true. How could they be not.

See previous posts regarding the problem of the language barrier and this puzzle

As in, "God cannot create colorless green ideas that sleep furiously"?

The difference is that a three-sided square and a cat that's a dog are contradictions in themselves; they are meaningless.

The rock God cannot lift only becomes contradictory when God's omnipotence enters the picture, because God's omnipotence (in the traditional sense) must be both capable and incapable of violating itself. That's the essential question - can God overpower God?

God exists and I can prove it! He called me yesterday and I have His voice on my answering machine tape! I put the tape right here by this...um...magnet.

Damn. :(

Um... carry on. :p

The rock God cannot lift only becomes contradictory when God's omnipotence enters the picture, because God's omnipotence (in the traditional sense) must be both capable and incapable of violating itself. That's the essential question - can God overpower God?

And its a language contridiction again. Its like trying to prosecute the Queen. It will be "Regina vs Regina" which is not a big case, and she will win. If you say "Yes God can overpower God" or "No God cant over power God" in both cases God has won since in both cases he beat himself.

If you say "Yes God can overpower God" or "No God cant over power God" in both cases God has won since in both cases he beat himself.

Well, yes. In both cases He violates His own omnipotence with His own omnipotence.

The point is that omnipotence, unrestrained by sensible theology, violates logic.

Well, yes. In both cases He violates His own omnipotence with His own omnipotence.

The point is that omnipotence, unrestrained by sensible theology, violates logic.

Or, our understanding of logic cannot comprehend omnipotence in its total form.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/rock.html

Bump

Bump

Or, our understanding of logic cannot comprehend omnipotence in its total form.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/rock.html
Logic is a human construct ... if it does not fit in the human construct of "logical" it is not logical

That does not make it good or bad it just means it does not fit that deffinition

Hence we are required to use philosophical proofs of his existance, such as those presented in the two links I gave earlier.
Flowery words ... proof no ... conjecture and flowery ideas ... maybe

I believe that God does exist, but we need not "prove" it, for we live by faith, not by sight. Anyway, you folks that listen to scientists who say that God doesn't exist need to pay attention to what they say they are. SCIENCE does NOT deal with: Magic, Fairy tales, Religion. Just about anything else is game.

I believe that God does exist, but we need not "prove" it, for we live by faith, not by sight. Anyway, you folks that listen to scientists who say that God doesn't exist need to pay attention to what they say they are. SCIENCE does NOT deal with: Magic, Fairy tales, Religion. Just about anything else is game. Also, even if you think "faith" is for idiots, look at it this way:

Life is like a giant flip of a coin. Either He exists, or he doesn't. If you believe (and act like you believe) He exists, and he does, then you have won everything. If you believe (and again, act like you believe) he exists and he doesn't, you haven't lost anything. You have simply changed a single, infinitesimal life. Not even that, the way you LIVE that single, small space of time.

God does not exist, and the evidence is:

1) No legitimate evidence in favor of God's existence has been presented.
2) The most prominent ideas about God apparently match the products of wishful thinking and religion.

I don't have all the knowledge in the universe, so how could I know? Nothing is absolutely certain outside the realm of logic and mathematics, and nothing can ever be "proven" in the natural world. Our brains could be fed sensory illusions in a sadistic laboratory, and we would never be able to prove otherwise. However, we make conclusions about the universe based on high probabilites ranging from almost 0% to almost 100% (never exactly 0% or exactly 100%). We know with very reasonable certainty that the Sun is a large fiery ball of gas, not an illusion, because of the observations made of it. We can conclude with reasonable certainty that Santa's eight flying reindeer as described in popular myth do not exist, because of our understanding of society's myth and our observations of the physical world. Likewise, I can know with very reasonable certainty that God does not exist.

Let me start with a definition of God. God is a very powerful spiritual supernatural entity who is the obejct of worship in monotheistic religions such as Christianity and Islam. I would say God is magic. You may not like the word "magic" to describe God since it has the connotations of illusionist art and fantasy fiction, but "magic" without the connotations is defined as, "Of, relating to, or invoking the supernatural" (American Heritage Dictionary of English). Besides God, here are some other things that are thought to be supernatural (magic):

ESP
Psychics
Palmreading
Reincarnation
Ghosts
Curses
Charms
Santa Claus
Fairies
Sorcery
Karma
Chi
Spirits

People believe in supernaturalism for various reasons, but largely because of religion. If you are a Christian, then you probably believe in God because it is a part of the religion. You might say that you are not part of a religion, but "religion" is defined as, "a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship" (American Heritage Dictionary of English). If you go to a church, worship God at this church, adhere to a moral system associated with this church, listen to some guy teach about the way God is, and you believe it, then you are part of a religion.

People believe the doctrines of religions because the doctrines promise to fulfill our fantasies. Most of us, largely out of our nature, desire these things that the monotheistic religions promise:

1) Eternal life of happiness
2) Transcendent importance to our lives
3) A powerful trustworthy father figure
4) A perfect guide to living
5) Universal morality and enforced justice
6) Simple answers to tough important questions

And people generally believe what they want to be true. With some exceptions, people believe in God NOT because it is a reasonable thing to believe.

However, as it was stated before, proof is subjective. Life itself might be proof of the existence of God for one person, while another may desire more substantial proof.

Very good. Although proof doesn't have to be subjective, your statment raises a valid point. No one throughout this thread has defined and set the criteria for what constitutes proof. Without that, every usage of the word proof so far has been meaningless. The opening poster needs to define (or someone else could do it) what constitutes proof for this situation, and then talk about if we can meet that criteria for God.

And its a language contridiction again. Its like trying to prosecute the Queen. It will be "Regina vs Regina" which is not a big case, and she will win. If you say "Yes God can overpower God" or "No God cant over power God" in both cases God has won since in both cases he beat himself.

Seems like everyone went off about God lifting rocks. Anyway, you brought up a good point as well. It is a contradiction in language. More specifically, the argument that God, if he was omnipotent by definition, could make a rock so large he couldn't lift it, and really any version of this, is a fallacy. It falls under the category that encompasses all fallacies of definition, and is referred to as the conflicting conditions fallacy.

For a definition to be valid in logic, it can't have contradictory or conflicting criteria. If you include a contradiction within what defines omnipotence, such as having the ability to make a rock so big you can't lift it, then you've set up a meaningless definition due to its fallacious nature.

Its ironic that everyone would be saying that being omnipotent is illogical, or that God's omnipotence is illogical, etc., when using a common fallacy to support it. I really question how familiar everyone on this thread is with real logic. Like I wrote above, it is a science of reason. It has set rules and principles just like you find in math.

For those that used the fallacious rock argument and the word 'illogical' in the same post, shame on you.

Is it not also philosophically impossible to prove a positive? One of the defining characteristics of philosophy is the lack of absolute certainty regarding anything.

Uh no, it isn't philosophically impossible to prove a positive. We prove both negatives (see below) and positives logically all the time. Keep in mind that logic is a branch of philosophy, and it is often defined as as sciencec, a science of reason. I hear so many people throwing the word "logic" around without knowing what exactly it entails.

In any case, and without trying to be offensive, your statement was uninformed. A defining characteristic of philosophy isn't a lack of absolute certainty. That can only be attributed to some philosophical systems, not to philosophy as a whole, and certainly not to logic.

Because it's philosophically impossible to prove a negative. That's why we have such ideas as "innocent until proven guilty."

This is only partially correct. In logic, there is what is called the negative proof fallacy. Its a form of denying the antecedent. It would be along the lines of "no one has proven that God doesn't exist, therefore God exists."

However, it is possible to prove a negative logically. Take the following syllogism.

All cats are animals.
No animals are rocks.
Therefore, no cats are rocks.

This is a sound argument. The premises are true, the conclusion is true. The conclusion is also a negative propositon. We've just proven a negative.

Or, our understanding of logic cannot comprehend omnipotence in its total form.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/rock.html

Here is a prime example of someone misusing the term logic again. Omnipotence is easy to define, and thus can be understood logically. Anyway, I wanted to comment on this apologetic website you posted. Here are some quotes...

"Some of the arguments against omnipotence are plain silly and stupid."
"These kinds of arguments are clearly illogical and even silly, although they are commonly used by inexperienced atheists. Most intelligent atheists have dropped these kinds of arguments long ago."

Since we've all gotten into discussing logic, I thought I'd point out that these are ad hominem fallacies. Once agian, shame on the author of this article for using a fallacy and the word 'illogical' in the same sentence.

The article did have one thing right though - the Bible never claims that God is omnipotent. It clearly defines things that God can't do.

Back to definitions, no one defined which God we're talking about. Without a working definition of God, or at the least a general idea of which God we're talking about, we sure can't prove or disprove anything.


Life is like a giant flip of a coin. Either He exists, or he doesn't. If you believe (and act like you believe) He exists, and he does, then you have won everything. If you believe (and again, act like you believe) he exists and he doesn't, you haven't lost anything. You have simply changed a single, infinitesimal life. Not even that, the way you LIVE that single, small space of time.

Yes, that sounds like Pascal's Wager. Pascal's Wager has a ton of problems to it, too. Theism isn't as one sided as belief vs. non-belief. Lets examine...

According to many religions, like the big two, you can't just believe in a God, you must believe in the RIGHT God. Factor that in for every religion out there. Now your two-sided coin has turned into a thousand sided die. You have to roll the die, and hope that your God is the right God. If its the wrong God, you're just as damned as non-believers.

In fact, those of us who are Jews believe that Atheists will be better off than Christians, because Christians (if they worship Jesus) practice idolatry. There is another exmaple of how it isn't as black and white as Pascal, or you, thought it was.

Factor in the religions that say belief isn't enough. Now not only do you have to believe in God, the right God, but you have to keep the various laws, pillars, etc. to "win everything."

I could go on and on with how it isn't as black and white as belief or non-believe in a vague God concept, and why Pascal's Wager fails. I'm if you think about it, you can come up with dozens of scenarios that drive that point home.

1) God does not exist, and the evidence is:

1) No legitimate evidence in favor of God's existence has been presented.

It looks like you managed to get your post out before I did. This is a prime example of the negative proof fallacy. The fallacy goes like this:

There is no evidence for X
X does not exist

You can argue about it if you like, but you'd be being illogical. Keep in mind that logic is a science, and the fallacies as defined within the science of logic are considered to be facts.

Its so ironic that you would state this:

Nothing is absolutely certain outside the realm of logic and mathematics, and nothing can ever be "proven" in the natural world.

Following the fallacy listed above. It seems to me like there is an epidemic of people talking about logic a lot, and yet being steeped in the illogical.

It looks like you managed to get your post out before I did. This is a prime example of the negative proof fallacy. The fallacy goes like this:

There is no evidence for X
X does not exist

You can argue about it if you like, but you'd be being illogical. Keep in mind that logic is a science, and the fallacies as defined within the science of logic are considered to be facts.And you just poisoned the well. I have a legitimate answer, but you have already concluded that, just by arguing my answer, that I am being illogical. I did not use the negative proof fallacy--you missed #2 of my argument, which is that God seems to be a creation of wishful thinking and religion. All you got was #1. If all I had was #1, then you would be right, but you simplified my argument too much.

Part of the evidence that Santa Claus, the Lochness Monster, and the Tooth Fairy do not exist is because there is no positive evidence in favor of their existences. The rest of the evidence has to do with constructing how the myths were created.

And you just poisoned the well. I have a legitimate answer, but you have already concluded that, just by arguing my answer, that I am being illogical. I did not use the negative proof fallacy--you missed #2 of my argument, which is that God seems to be a creation of wishful thinking and religion. All you got was #1. If all I had was #1, then you would be right, but you simplified my argument too much.

Part of the evidence that Santa Claus, Lochness Monster, or the Tooth Fairy do not exist is because there is no positive evidence in favor of their existences. The rest of the evidence has to do with constructing how the myths were created.

Poisoning the well is to say something about the source. I never said a thing about you, the source. I went after your argument. Here is an example of the fallacy of poisoning the well, from nizkor.org:

Before Class:
Bill: "Boy, that professor is a real jerk. I think he is some sort of eurocentric fascist."
Jill: "Yeah."

During Class:
Prof. Jones: "...and so we see that there was never any 'Golden Age of Matriarchy' in 1895 in America."

After Class:
Bill: "See what I mean?"
Jill: "Yeah. There must have been a Golden Age of Matriarchy, since that jerk said there wasn't."

Unless I made an argument about your information or premises being untrue due to your person, it wasn't poisoning the well.

Now lets recap...

Regardless of if your whole 'argument' had two parts or not, the first part was invalid and unsound, because it was a fallacy. If a fallacy is a PART of an argument, it makes the entire argument invalid and unsound. Keep in mind that the criteria for a validity and soundness, in logic, is having true premises (to be valid) and a conclusion that is true and follows necessarily (to be sound). If you want to claim that your argument had two parts, its still logically unsound and invalid, because one was a fallacy.

Lets break it down into a non-standard syllogistic form:

1)No legitimate evidence in favor of God's existence has been presented.
2)The most prominent ideas about God apparently match the products of wishful thinking and religion.
2)Therefore, God does not exist.

Because your first premise is a fallacy, it invalidates the argument and makes it unsound. You wrote that if all you was #1, then I'd be right. In logic, it only takes one premise to be wrong to invalidate the entire argument. By admitting that #1 alone is invalid, like you just did, its impossible to deny that the entire argument is both invalid and unsound.

Now, while the fallacy I pointed out is informal, I just noticed that your argument has a formal fallacy as well. The fallacy of undistributed middle.

Poisoning the well is to say something about the source. I never said a thing about you, the source. I went after your argument. Here is an example of the fallacy of poisoning the well, from nizkor.org:

Unless I made an argument about your information or premises being untrue due to your person, it wasn't poisoning the well.

Now lets recap...

Regardless of if your whole 'argument' had two parts or not, the first part was invalid and unsound, because it was a fallacy. If a fallacy is a PART of an argument, it makes the entire argument invalid and unsound. Keep in mind that the criteria for a validity and soundness, in logic, is having true premises (to be valid) and a conclusion that is true and follows necessarily (to be sound). If you want to claim that your argument had two parts, its still logically unsound and invalid, because one was a fallacy.

Lets break it down into a non-standard syllogistic form:

1)No legitimate evidence in favor of God's existence has been presented.
2)The most prominent ideas about God apparently match the products of wishful thinking and religion.
2)Therefore, God does not exist.

Because your first premise is a fallacy, it invalidates the argument and makes it unsound. You wrote that if all you was #1, then I'd be right. In logic, it only takes one premise to be wrong to invalidate the entire argument. By admitting that #1 alone is invalid, like you just did, its impossible to deny that the entire argument is both invalid and unsound.

Now, while the fallacy I pointed out is informal, I just noticed that your argument has a formal fallacy as well. The fallacy of undistributed middle.Tropical Sands, the fallacy of negative proof is what you have already stated:

There is no evidence for X
Therefore, X does not exist

But my argument goes something like this:

There is no evidence for X
There is some evidence in favor of the inexistence of X
Therefore, X does not exist.

Using the statement, "There is no evidence for X" as part of my argument does not mean that I using the fallacy of negative proof. The fallacy of negative proof requires using only that line of evidence alone to lead to my conclusion. I know that your website that describes the logical fallacies does not mention that, but you just got to use your head.

How do we know Peter Pan does not exist, Tropical Sands?

1) There is no good evidence that Peter Pan exists.
2) There is positive evidence that Peter Pan is a fictional character.

Therefore, Peter Pan does not exist.

#1 is an essential part of the argument. If #1 were not true, then it would compete with and possibly override #2.

EDIT: You stated, "In logic, it only takes one premise to be wrong to invalidate the entire argument. By admitting that #1 alone is invalid, like you just did, its impossible to deny that the entire argument is both invalid and unsound."

My premise is, "No good evidence that God exists can be observed." You are not denying that, so you are not attacking that premise or any other premise. You are attacking the logic. That is an important difference.

Tropical Sands, the fallacy of negative proof is what you have already stated:

There is no evidence for X
Therefore, X does not exist

But my argument goes something like this:

There is no evidence for X
There is some evidence in favor of the inexistence of X
Therefore, X does not exist.

The form I listed refers only to one premise and one conclusion. As we all know, a valid syllogism has at least two premises and one conclusion. The missing premise could be ANYTHING and it would still be the fallacy of negative proof.

For example:
There is no evidence for X.
<insert any premise you want here>
Therefore, X does not exist.

Using the statement, "There is no evidence for X" as part of my argument does not mean that I using the fallacy of negative proof. The fallacy of negative proof requires using only that line of evidence alone to lead to my conclusion.

Actually, using "there is no evidence for X" as part of your argument is what defines the negative proof fallacy. Arguments are evaluated on all three criteria individually, not on a compliation of all three. The two premises and the conclusion in a syllogism must all fit the form for it to be valid. Yours simply doesn't.

That's still the fallacy of negative proof, regardless of what the missing premise is.

I'm sorry, I guess I incorrectly assumed you were familiar with the way informal fallacies worked in syllogisms. They can apply to entire arguments and single premises. I hope this cleared it up some.

And you still have an undistributed middle, which renders your argument invalid. If I had to rate them, I would say that formal fallacy is more serious. Your argument has the form of (AIE), which can never be valid.

*snip*

Tis a bad conclusion...What might be better is, say...Therefore, it's reasonable to assume god doesn't exist. Or something like that

For example:
There is no evidence for X.
<insert any premise you want here>
Therefore, X does not exist.


Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And in any case that arguemnet is flawed also

http://www.carm.org/atheism/positions2.htm

http://www.carm.org/atheism/viable.htm

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And in any case that arguemnet is flawed also

Thats true. Keep in mind that when evaluating a syllogism, or a logical argument, you start by assuming that the premises are true. If there really is no evidence for God is another issue, and actually irrelevent to the fallacious form of the argument.

The problems with the form of this argument, the reason it is invalid and unsound, is the negative proof fallacy and the undistributed middle.

I wrote to CARM a few times and they never responded. I really don't have much good to say about apologetic websites like that. I prefer to see Jesus and Christian apologetics refuted systematically by Jews:

http://www.messiahtruth.com/

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/

My own site, Shema. :D
http://www.shema.bravehost.com/

The form I listed refers only to one premise and one conclusion. As we all know, a valid syllogism has at least two premises and one conclusion. The missing premise could be ANYTHING and it would still be the fallacy of negative proof.

For example:
There is no evidence for X.
<insert any premise you want here>
Therefore, X does not exist.

Actually, using "there is no evidence for X" as part of your argument is what defines the negative proof fallacy. Arguments are evaluated on all three criteria individually, not on a compliation of all three. The two premises and the conclusion in a syllogism must all fit the form for it to be valid. Yours simply doesn't.

That's still the fallacy of negative proof, regardless of what the missing premise is.

I'm sorry, I guess I incorrectly assumed you were familiar with the way informal fallacies worked in syllogisms. They can apply to entire arguments and single premises. I hope this cleared it up some.

And you still have an undistributed middle, which renders your argument invalid. If I had to rate them, I would say that formal fallacy is more serious. Your argument has the form of (AIE), which can never be valid.My argument isn't really a logical syllogism, nor did I claim it to be. There is no purely logical way to prove the inexistence of God or anything else supernatural. What I have is simply two pieces of evidence that lead to a conclusion, informal in logic, but reasonable nonetheless. Maybe all the trouble comes out of thinking it is a logical syllogism. It isn't.

I want you to show me where you get the definition of the negative proof fallacy. Only after we have a common definiton can I argue with you about it.

Also, I want you to pay attention to my Peter Pan example. Show me how you would make an argument that Peter Pan does not exist.

To even consider the existence of God is like assuming there is a Ford Fiesta parked on my forehead. A blue one, by the way.

Why does the idea of a vengeful creator being even enter one's head?

To even consider the existence of God is like assuming there is a Ford Fiesta parked on my forehead. A blue one, by the way.

Why does the idea of a vengeful creator being even enter one's head?

Indoctrination?

Proof? We need no "proof" when it is blatantly obvious that God is a green, one-eyed blob.

God paradox.
(Religious people pig-headed btw.) :eek: (burns documents.)

God is all powerful.
God is infinitely good.
There is evil.
God has the power to destroy it
God will destroy it because he is infinitely good.
There is no evil.
OH WAIT A MOMENT...

Paradox two.
God is all-powerful, can he make something more powerful than him.

Paradox three.
God creates all.
God Knows all.
God creates a soul knowing it will go to hell.
God--> evil.

My argument isn't really a logical syllogism, nor did I claim it to be. There is no purely logical way to prove the inexistence of God or anything else supernatural. What I have is simply two pieces of evidence that lead to a conclusion, informal in logic, but reasonable nonetheless. Maybe all the trouble comes out of thinking it is a logical syllogism. It isn't.

I want you to show me where you get the definition of the negative proof fallacy. Only after we have a common definiton can I argue with you about it.

Also, I want you to pay attention to my Peter Pan example. Show me how you would make an argument that Peter Pan does not exist.

Your argument was a syllogism, even if you didn't realize it as such. That is how we evaluate arguments logically, and virtually all arguments are syllogisms even if not in standard form. Your argument had two premises and a conclusion; its a syllogism.

I've studied logic for quite some time. I've got a few texts on it, and they all list fallacies of definition, including the negative proof fallacy.

Hurley, Logic 8th Edition defines it as listed above.
So does Kahane/Cavender's Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric, 8th edition.
And then we have Engel's With Good reason, 6th edition.

All of those list it as I've defined it. I'm not sure what part I was unclear on with the definition of this fallacy. If a premise states that there is a lack of evidence or observation, while the conclusion says it does not exist therefore, then it commits this fallacy. You don't need to have two premises outlined in standard syllogistic form, as non-standard syllogisms have implied premises.

The examples below are logically the same:
There is no evidence for X
Thus X does not exist

And:
There is no evidence for X
<insert extra premise here for standard syllogistic form>
Thus X does not exist

In any case, pretty much anything you pair the phrase "there is no evidence for X" with is going to end up with the form of (AEI) and thus be logically invalid due to the formal fallacy of undistributed middle. So we see that the whole argument is illogical on a number of levels.

Thats usually how it is in logic, arguments overlap. Your argument could also be called on the informal fallacy of the argument from ignorance and the formal fallacy of drawing an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise. If I spent more time on it, I could probably find more ways that its illogical.

Now, here is an argument about the non-existance of Peter Pan that fits the criteria for validity and soundness.

Sometmes JM Barrie wrote about fictional characters
JM Barrie acknowledged that Peter Pan was a fictional character
JM Barrie wrote a fictional story about a fictional character named Peter Pan

Your argument was a syllogism, even if you didn't realize it as such. That is how we evaluate arguments logically, and virtually all arguments are syllogisms even if not in standard form. Your argument had two premises and a conclusion; its a syllogism.

I've studied logic for quite some time. I've got a few texts on it, and they all list fallacies of definition, including the negative proof fallacy.

Hurley, Logic 8th Edition defines it as listed above.
So does Kahane/Cavender's Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric, 8th edition.
And then we have Engel's With Good reason, 6th edition.

All of those list it as I've defined it. I'm not sure what part I was unclear on with the definition of this fallacy. If a premise states that there is a lack of evidence or observation, while the conclusion says it does not exist therefore, then it commits this fallacy. You don't need to have two premises outlined in standard syllogistic form, as non-standard syllogisms have implied premises.

The examples below are logically the same:
There is no evidence for X
Thus X does not exist

And:
There is no evidence for X
<insert extra premise here for standard syllogistic form>
Thus X does not exist

In any case, pretty much anything you pair the phrase "there is no evidence for X" with is going to end up with the form of (AEI) and thus be logically invalid due to the formal fallacy of undistributed middle. So we see that the whole argument is illogical on a number of levels.

Thats usually how it is in logic, arguments overlap. Your argument could also be called on the informal fallacy of the argument from ignorance and the formal fallacy of drawing an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise. If I spent more time on it, I could probably find more ways that its illogical.

Now, here is an argument about the non-existance of Peter Pan that fits the criteria for validity and soundness.

Sometmes JM Barrie wrote about fictional characters
JM Barrie acknowledged that Peter Pan was a fictional character
JM Barrie wrote a fictional story about a fictional character named Peter PanOK, I have more respect for you now. You are right and I was wrong, in the sense of talking about syllogism. What I am saying is not a syllogism, and I mistakenly made it look like it was. I still contend that my argument has value. I looked up "Negative Proof" at reference.com, and it seems to defend my sort of argument:

The fallacy of negative proof is a type of logical fallacy of the following form:

"No one has produced an example of one; therefore it doesn't exist."

While the assertion has some strength as an epistemic directive, logically it has none. Logically one may argue that just because we have not observed a particular phenomenon, that is no reason to exclude its possibility. The epistemological slant though is to require a demonstration, before one admits that one is compelled to admit the phenomenon as real.

The problem with the argument is precisely that it has no logical force, but is nevertheless a necessary guiding principle for scientists.
So my argument is not logical, but it is epistemic, meaning that it deals with knowledge gained through observation. It is true that the premise, "there is no evidence for God," accompanied by any other line of evidence does not prove logically that there is no God, but it still holds some "epistemic" weight.

In light of that, let me address your version of the Peter Pan argument:

Sometmes JM Barrie wrote about fictional characters
JM Barrie acknowledged that Peter Pan was a fictional character
JM Barrie wrote a fictional story about a fictional character named Peter Pan

This, of course, does not logically prove that Peter Pan does not exist. It is only somewhat good evidence in favor of Peter Pan's inexistence. But suppose I am a child, and I tell you, "That isn't enough. It could be a story, but that doesn't mean he isn't real. I think there is lots of evidence out there that Peter Pan is real." And maybe there is evidence, even with your premises! Suppose Peter Pan has been observed and recorded by multiple independent trustworthy witnesses and his nature has been scientifically modeled and theorized. That would simply overpower your argument. But you didn't even address the possibility. Instead, you seem to have taken it for granted that there is no good evidence that Peter Pan exists. Do you see what I mean?

Your argument is only somewhat good, but mine is better. It goes like this:

There is no good evidence that Peter Pan exists.
There is evidence that Peter Pan is a fictional character.
Therefore (or maybe I shouldn't say that word since it isn't a logical syllogism, but you know what I mean now I hope), Peter Pan does not exist.

No, I don't think god exists. Just doesn't make sense to me.

Geez, how many of these threads must we have per week?

I'm not sure if anyone has already said this cause I didn't bother reading much further than your post, but, I'm going to make another one just to piss you off.:D

God paradox.
(Religious people pig-headed btw.) :eek: (burns documents.)

God is all powerful.
God is infinitely good.
There is evil.
God has the power to destroy it
God will destroy it because he is infinitely good.
There is no evil.
OH WAIT A MOMENT...

Paradox two.
God is all-powerful, can he make something more powerful than him.

Paradox three.
God creates all.
God Knows all.
God creates a soul knowing it will go to hell.
God--> evil.

Two words. Free will. Fix that into your equations and you'll see why God allows evil.

God allows evil because if he didnt, it wouldnt be free will. He wants us to have free will because free will gives us the capacity to love. To love him, to love each other etc. God is very sad that we abused this free will to do evil things but fortunelty for us he created a way of dealing with evil so we could be spared hell, which is evil's ultimate consequence.

So...yeah...what's your proof and all. I have no say cause I would just piss everyone off. So talk amucst yourselfs
Of course God exists. He is always looking out for me and He talks to me.

I don't believe in God, but I don't think we need this many threads.

Two words. Free will. Fix that into your equations and you'll see why God allows evil.

God allows evil because if he didnt, it wouldnt be free will. He wants us to have free will because free will gives us the capacity to love. To love him, to love each other etc. God is very sad that we abused this free will to do evil things but fortunelty for us he created a way of dealing with evil so we could be spared hell, which is evil's ultimate consequence.

Actually, that just backs the argument up a step. For one thing, if you presume that all people have free will, then you must also presume that every man could in theory be perfect, whether by blind luck or design; in either case, God's grace is not needed. However, this is not what the very people who set up the free will theodicy (Augustine, technically) say happens with people; in Augustine's view, everyone except Jesus is inherently sinful and necessarily deserves hell.

Secondly, if free will really is the mechanism by which people sin, then you have to ask yourself: exactly how many people deliberately commit evil acts? Very few if any, in my experience. Rather, most people act on what they think is good, but are simply mistaken. If so, then how is it just and merciful on God's part to condemn those who acted in ignorance of the Good?

Third and most fundamentally, your argument to choice ultimately presents God in the light of what would generally be termed a criminally negligent parent. Simply put, there have been several times in history, hell in the last 100 years, where if there were a God, and he were good, there would be no reason not for him to step in. When free will leads you to destroy a third of an entire race, as Nazi Germany did to the Jews, then you have to ask what kind of God wouldn't at that point put his foot down and intercede. There was no good to be had that outweighed such a catastrophic evil, and there was no justification for allowing man to choose it.

I'm not trying to undermine your confidence in God; to be honest, I'm a staunch theist myself. But I do find it impossible to use theodicies to answer the Problem of Evil (which is essentially what all three of those formulations refer to) in light of what happened in the 20th century. Instead, we need to abandon our view of an all-powerful, all-good God (I myself abandon the former tenet).

but I don't think we need this many threads.
Maybe we don't, but you kept this one alive 11 minutes longer by posting. :eek:

Secondly, if free will really is the mechanism by which people sin, then you have to ask yourself: exactly how many people deliberately commit evil acts? Very few if any, in my experience.
The vast majoruty of people sin. It could be as simple as bearing false witness against your neighbour, or stealing something, or as complex as killing someone, or cheating on your spouse.

The vast majoruty of people sin. It could be as simple as bearing false witness against your neighbour, or stealing something, or as complex as killing someone, or cheating on your spouse.

Well, you're close. The truth is, ALL people have sinned and thus fallen short of the Glory of God. The only way to truly learn about God is to read His book (the Bible). That's my source. Because ALL PEOPLE sin, Christ had to come as a sacrifice for us. Believing and trusting in Him and choosing to follow Him is the only way to inherit salvation, it CANNOT be done on our own. And according to the Bible, if you've broken one part of the law you've broken all of it, and even a single sin separates us from God. That's why EVERYONE needs to be saved by Jesus.

The vast majoruty of people sin. It could be as simple as bearing false witness against your neighbour, or stealing something, or as complex as killing someone, or cheating on your spouse.

You misunderstand me. I agree that the vast majority of people sin, but the real question is why? If you were to follow the free will argument to its natural conclusion, then you would have to say that people, having full knowledge of Good and Evil, deliberately choose to do the evil act in spite of their awareness of the Good. I say this because my intuition is that you can't really call it free will if you have anything less than absolute knowledge of what you are doing and then do it.

But the thing is, of course, that very few people deliberately choose to do the evil thing. Rather, they think that what they are doing is the Godly thing. If that's the case, then God in the traditional Christian view is condemning people to hell not for being faithless, but for erring in their understanding of faith, which is unjust. If we all agree that it's immoral to give a retarded man the chair for a crime he didn't understand he was committing, certainly it is even more immoral for God to condemn us to hell for all eternity for crimes we didn't understand we were committing.

You misunderstand me. I agree that the vast majority of people sin, but the real question is why? If you were to follow the free will argument to its natural conclusion, then you would have to say that people, having full knowledge of Good and Evil, deliberately choose to do the evil act in spite of their awareness of the Good. I say this because my intuition is that you can't really call it free will if you have anything less than absolute knowledge of what you are doing and then do it.

But the thing is, of course, that very few people deliberately choose to do the evil thing. Rather, they think that what they are doing is the Godly thing. If that's the case, then God in the traditional Christian view is condemning people to hell not for being faithless, but for erring in their understanding of faith, which is unjust. If we all agree that it's immoral to give a retarded man the chair for a crime he didn't understand he was committing, certainly it is even more immoral for God to condemn us to hell for all eternity for crimes we didn't understand we were committing.
Why is God condemning you to Hell? You look on God as a punishing God and not a forgiving God?

Look to the Lord's Prayer for your answer?

That is because it is extremely difficult if not impossible to prove the absence of something (in this case, god). It is easy to prove something exists, because once you find it, there it is, but to prove something doesn't exist, you'd have to pretty much look in every space of the universe.

Logical arguments against the existance of God are generally not accepted as proof of his non-existance.

Every spot in the universe AT THE SAME TIME. And with perfect observation. And fuck all if the universe turns out to be infinite.

Two words. Free will. Fix that into your equations and you'll see why God allows evil.

God allows evil because if he didnt, it wouldnt be free will. He wants us to have free will because free will gives us the capacity to love. To love him, to love each other etc. God is very sad that we abused this free will to do evil things but fortunelty for us he created a way of dealing with evil so we could be spared hell, which is evil's ultimate consequence.

would that mean god is capible of evil as well, we are his image arnt we? So then...oh wait i`ll stop there im trying to be unopionative.

That's one thing that baffles me about religious beliefs:
If you have faith in the Bible and God without requiring any proof, then why don't you also have faith in invisible pink elephants, and that fairy tales are true?
Sigh.... didn't you hear? the IPE's were killed by the Unseen Purple Crocodiles, who were in turn, banished to the 134th level of Utawa by the Flying Spagetti Monster.


As for proof, God Proves His exsistance to each person individually. now whether you choose to accept that proof, or wheather you choose to even see that proof is up to you. God Proved He is real to me. Unfortunatly, since it is only personal experince, you cannot accept it as proof unless you want to.

Because it's philosophically impossible to prove a negative. That's why we have such ideas as "innocent until proven guilty."

Yes but in civil cases it is "guilty until proven innocent".:)

:headbang: Religous beliefs have nothing to do with facts, they deal with faith, thats the whole point:headbang:

Except in the past, right? I mean, in all of the bible stories there was plenty of proof in the form of miracles. So when did it become about faith? Oh yeah! Right after the point where we can accurately investigate history with science.

:rolleyes: Funny that...

Except in the past, right? I mean, in all of the bible stories there was plenty of proof in the form of miracles. So when did it become about faith? Oh yeah! Right after the point where we can accurately investigate history with science.

:rolleyes: Funny that...

If you can scienficly disprove any of Jesus's miricles without just saying "their impossible" or "you simply cannot do that" I'd be impressed. Read C.S.Lewis's miricles and you'll see how miricles work.

Two words. Free will. Fix that into your equations and you'll see why God allows evil.

God allows evil because if he didnt, it wouldnt be free will. He wants us to have free will because free will gives us the capacity to love. To love him, to love each other etc. God is very sad that we abused this free will to do evil things but fortunelty for us he created a way of dealing with evil so we could be spared hell, which is evil's ultimate consequence.

Except that he doesn't want us to have free will. Remember the garden of Eden? God created Adam so he naturally did the right thing, and kept him in a semi-comatose state wherein he would swallow whatever ideas were crammed down his throat. Remember the fruit (tree) of knowledge? God forbade it right? Why? What didn't god want us to know?

When adam was confronted with eating the fruit the choice was simple; no. No curiousity, no sin. Why? Because big brother says no. SO why did Adam and Eve eat the fruit? Was it their idea? No, they were tricked into it by Satan.
God is not a friend of free-will.

Now, consider this. God is supposed to be omnipotent/omnicient/omnipresent. It is according to these rules that revlations was written. An entire chapter of the bible dedicated to what is yet to come, based on the presence of fate (i.e. God has already determined the course of events). If god truly holds this power, than why did he command satan to rebel? Furthermore, why did he command Adam to eat the fruit? Unless god isn't as powerful as he says...

If you can scienficly disprove any of Jesus's miricles without just saying "their impossible" or "you simply cannot do that" I'd be impressed. Read C.S.Lewis's miricles and you'll see how miricles work.
You seem to have missed the point. I was operating on the premise that the miracles DID happen. In which case there was proof. In which case religion wasn't about faith. The disciples didn't have 'faith' they had knowledge. This is true for most of the Christians of the time. Faith is concept which was invented by the Catholic Church to explain away the sudden abscence of miracles.

Actually, that just backs the argument up a step. For one thing, if you presume that all people have free will, then you must also presume that every man could in theory be perfect, whether by blind luck or design; in either case, God's grace is not needed. However, this is not what the very people who set up the free will theodicy (Augustine, technically) say happens with people; in Augustine's view, everyone except Jesus is inherently sinful and necessarily deserves hell.

If you would look at what it is to be perfect (IE Jesus's life and many other of the Bible's teachings) you would see that it is well nigh impossible for any normal human to follow them to the letter. Even the tinyiest mistake means failure. Its like football. If the ball goes an inch wide and fails to enter the net, the result is the same as if it had gone a foot wide.


Secondly, if free will really is the mechanism by which people sin, then you have to ask yourself: exactly how many people deliberately commit evil acts? Very few if any, in my experience. Rather, most people act on what they think is good, but are simply mistaken. If so, then how is it just and merciful on God's part to condemn those who acted in ignorance of the Good?

People are not in ignorence of what is and isnt sin. People chose things which are sinful and know it all the time. That in some cases is what is seen as the attraction of the thing. The only diffrence is that people often do not commit it with the specific intent being because it is sinful, but because it satisifies some need or desire within them.


Third and most fundamentally, your argument to choice ultimately presents God in the light of what would generally be termed a criminally negligent parent. Simply put, there have been several times in history, hell in the last 100 years, where if there were a God, and he were good, there would be no reason not for him to step in. When free will leads you to destroy a third of an entire race, as Nazi Germany did to the Jews, then you have to ask what kind of God wouldn't at that point put his foot down and intercede. There was no good to be had that outweighed such a catastrophic evil, and there was no justification for allowing man to choose it.


I've yet to see anyone sucessfully prove that it is God's responsability to end all evil in the world. Humans are exceptionally fickle like this. Lets say God prevented all the Hitlers, Pol Pots, Stalins etc to do all the horrible things they did. Then humans would be up in arms about the serial killers, the psycopaths, rapists etc who went around doing their evil. So God stops them. Then burglers, robbers, petty vandals become the worst. So God stops them... can you see where this is going

And I hate to point it out but when God himself, the ultimate Good person came to the world, he got lots of horrible things happening to him

- The legitamacy of his birth was doubted
- He was homeless
- Everything he owned was given to him
- He was given an unfair trial
- He was executed in a particaully grusome way


I'm not trying to undermine your confidence in God; to be honest, I'm a staunch theist myself. But I do find it impossible to use theodicies to answer the Problem of Evil (which is essentially what all three of those formulations refer to) in light of what happened in the 20th century. Instead, we need to abandon our view of an all-powerful, all-good God (I myself abandon the former tenet).

If you want to examine the problem of Evil in greater depth, look at some of the following

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/gr5part1.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/gr5part2.html

(those go on to part 7)

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/natevl.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/evilgod.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/deliver.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/thumbs.html
http://www.carm.org/questions/suffering.htm

Except that he doesn't want us to have free will. Remember the garden of Eden? God created Adam so he naturally did the right thing, and kept him in a semi-comatose state wherein he would swallow whatever ideas were crammed down his throat. Remember the fruit (tree) of knowledge? God forbade it right? Why? What didn't god want us to know?


You want to know what he didnt want us to know. Look around the world now. You can see it with your own eyes. This is what he didnt want us to deal with. A world with suffering and sin.


When adam was confronted with eating the fruit the choice was simple; no. No curiousity, no sin. Why? Because big brother says no. SO why did Adam and Eve eat the fruit? Was it their idea? No, they were tricked into it by Satan.
God is not a friend of free-will.

No. God told them why they shouldnt eat the fruit. If they eat the fruit they will die. He said that to them


Now, consider this. God is supposed to be omnipotent/omnicient/omnipresent. It is according to these rules that revlations was written. An entire chapter of the bible dedicated to what is yet to come, based on the presence of fate (i.e. God has already determined the course of events). If god truly holds this power, than why did he command satan to rebel? Furthermore, why did he command Adam to eat the fruit? Unless god isn't as powerful as he says...

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/gr5part1.html

Your question basicly is "Why didnt God stop it all before it started if he knew how it was going to happen" read that and it will answer you.

Scientists reasoned a 65% chance God exists. I'll go with them. ^^
Where did you see this?

You want to know what he didnt want us to know. Look around the world now. You can see it with your own eyes. This is what he didnt want us to deal with. A world with suffering and sin.

So god does want us to have the freewill to make mistakes or he doesn't? Or did he change his mind?

read that and it will answer you.
"Appeal to authority" = argumentative fallacy. I don't care what christian think tank.com has to say about it. What is YOUR opinion, if it is the same then YOU should say it so I am free to criticise YOUR argument. That was nothing but a cop out and you know it. If you are afraid that you don't have an adequate response, than you have reached a point commonly known as defeat. Nothing to be ashamed of, it just means it is time for a re-evaluation of you stance on the issue. Whipping out a link to a christian philosphy site not only highlights your situation for all to see, it also indicates that you do not properly understand the (very complex) argument found on the site. After all, if you did understand, why didn't you just say it?;)

Has anyone quoted the "Hichhikers guide to the galaxy" yet?

Will ye deny again that there is a God? For behold, I say unto you, I know there is a God.

And now what evidence have ye that there is no God? I say unto you that ye have none, save it be your word only.

But, behold, I have all things as a testimony that these things are true; and ye also have all things as a testimony unto you that they are true; and will ye deny them?

Thou hast had signs enough; will ye tempt your God? Will ye say, Show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of all these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.

Alma, Chapter 30 (shortened for the sake of brevity)

Will ye deny again that there is a God? For behold, I say unto you, I know there is a God.

And now what evidence have ye that there is no God? I say unto you that ye have none, save it be your word only.

But, behold, I have all things as a testimony that these things are true; and ye also have all things as a testimony unto you that they are true; and will ye deny them?

Thou hast had signs enough; will ye tempt your God? Will ye say, Show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of all these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.

Alma, Chapter 30 (shortened for the sake of brevity)

Summary: Yes there is proof but you can't see it.

Well I'm convinced. :p

Has anyone quoted the "Hichhikers guide to the galaxy" yet?

Would it make you happier?

Would it make you happier?

No, I was just wondering if they had quoted the part where man proves Gods' excisance and He dissapears in a puff of logic.

No, I was just wondering if they had quoted the part where man proves Gods' excisance and He dissapears in a puff of logic.

No, but the last message from God, according to "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", was "Sorry for the inconvenience" referring to creating earth, which got in the way of the "galactic highway".:p

So god does want us to have the freewill to make mistakes or he doesn't? Or did he change his mind?

God gave us the ability to make mistakes, that doesnt mean he wanted us to. But if we didnt have free will we could'nt love.


"Appeal to authority" = argumentative fallacy. I don't care what christian think tank.com has to say about it. What is YOUR opinion, if it is the same then YOU should say it so I am free to criticise YOUR argument. That was nothing but a cop out and you know it. If you are afraid that you don't have an adequate response, than you have reached a point commonly known as defeat. Nothing to be ashamed of, it just means it is time for a re-evaluation of you stance on the issue. Whipping out a link to a christian philosphy site not only highlights your situation for all to see, it also indicates that you do not properly understand the (very complex) argument found on the site. After all, if you did understand, why didn't you just say it?;)

I understand the arguement on there, but it does very little me repeating it. Basicly I dont want to have to type out the entirity of what is a very complex arguement when someone else has done it for me and I can refence you to it. Now go and read it, please.

AGENCY:

The ability and privilege God gives people to choose and to act for themselves.

Gen. 2: 16
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:



2 Ne. 2: 15-16
15 And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, after he had created our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created, it must needs be that there was an opposition...

16 Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other.



2 Ne. 2: 27
27 Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.



Hel. 14: 30
30 And now remember, remember, my brethren, that whosoever perisheth, perisheth unto himself; and whosoever doeth iniquity, doeth it unto himself; for behold, ye are free; ye are permitted to act for yourselves; for behold, God hath given unto you a knowledge and he hath made you free.



D&C 29: 36
36 And it came to pass that Adam, being tempted of the devil—for, behold, the devil was before Adam, for he rebelled against me, saying, Give me thine honor, which is my power; and also a third part of the hosts of heaven turned he away from me because of their agency;



D&C 29: 39
39 And it must needs be that the devil should tempt the children of men, or they could not be agents unto themselves; for if they never should have bitter they could not know the sweet—



D&C 37: 4
4 Behold, here is wisdom, and let every man choose for himself until I come. Even so. Amen.



D&C 101: 78
78 That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral aagency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.



Moses 4: 3
3 Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;



Moses 7: 32
32 The Lord said unto Enoch: Behold these thy brethren; they are the workmanship of mine own hands, and I gave unto them their knowledge, in the day I created them; and in the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency;

you know for as many complaits as this got in the beginning it sure has found its way around.

you know for as many complaits as this got in the beginning it sure has found its way around.

It certainly has.

AGENCY:

The ability and privilege God gives people to choose and to act for themselves.

Gen. 2: 16
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:



2 Ne. 2: 15-16
15 And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, after he had created our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created, it must needs be that there was an opposition...

16 Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other.



2 Ne. 2: 27
27 Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.



Hel. 14: 30
30 And now remember, remember, my brethren, that whosoever perisheth, perisheth unto himself; and whosoever doeth iniquity, doeth it unto himself; for behold, ye are free; ye are permitted to act for yourselves; for behold, God hath given unto you a knowledge and he hath made you free.



D&C 29: 36
36 And it came to pass that Adam, being tempted of the devil—for, behold, the devil was before Adam, for he rebelled against me, saying, Give me thine honor, which is my power; and also a third part of the hosts of heaven turned he away from me because of their agency;



D&C 29: 39
39 And it must needs be that the devil should tempt the children of men, or they could not be agents unto themselves; for if they never should have bitter they could not know the sweet—



D&C 37: 4
4 Behold, here is wisdom, and let every man choose for himself until I come. Even so. Amen.



D&C 101: 78
78 That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral aagency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.



Moses 4: 3
3 Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;



Moses 7: 32
32 The Lord said unto Enoch: Behold these thy brethren; they are the workmanship of mine own hands, and I gave unto them their knowledge, in the day I created them; and in the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency;

Hence, the Agency of Man to believe God or not, even though God gave them agency.

Hence, the Agency of Man to believe God or not, even though God gave them agency.

Exactly. God wanted man to choose to believe in him. He didnt want a load of forced robots.

If you would look at what it is to be perfect (IE Jesus's life and many other of the Bible's teachings) you would see that it is well nigh impossible for any normal human to follow them to the letter. Even the tinyiest mistake means failure. Its like football. If the ball goes an inch wide and fails to enter the net, the result is the same as if it had gone a foot wide.


But that's not what Christian theology teaches. It doesn't say that it is so likely that men will sin that in all probability there will never be a virtuous non-sinner; it says that men are inherently sinful. Even if a person lived a perfectly virtuous existence, he would still require the Grace of God to enter the Kingdom of Heaven because of his inherently flawed nature. Now forget for a moment exactly how incompatible with free will that argument is, but instead focus exactly on what falls out of such a theory.

Put very simply, what that proposes is what we would call an inherently flawed system. Why? Well, obviously, because it's unjust. If we were to create a criminal system which penalized men for doing something that they cannot but do by nature, such as say, blinking, the fact that we issue clemency for such a crime does not make up for the fact that you have a fundamentally stupid law on the books, and by prosecuting such a law, you are acting unjustly. The same principle applies to God: if it's true that we cannot but sin by nature, then it is fundamentally unjust to condemn them for it, and the fact that God issues clemency in the form of Grace does little or nothing to change the fact that he's enacted an unjust and irrational law.


People are not in ignorence of what is and isnt sin. People chose things which are sinful and know it all the time. That in some cases is what is seen as the attraction of the thing. The only diffrence is that people often do not commit it with the specific intent being because it is sinful, but because it satisifies some need or desire within them.


You are merely hairsplitting here, because you and I both know that what matters in Christian theology is the intent of the matter. We both realize that even the best intentions can lead to spectacularly bad results, and wicked intents may accidentally yield good results. It is true that good intents are more likely to lead to good results, and that over the long term good intents usually work out of the best, but it's still the case that good intent does not logically yield good result. That being the case, both because we are only morally responsible for what we can control and because God only rewards action out of a proper sense of Christian faith, we are only responsible for whether we act out of proper sense of Christian faith.

On that point, we can and often are confused. If God wants us to be happy (which is true), but we have an improper understanding of happiness, we might reason incorrectly that God wants us to do something He doesn't. If God wants us to be just, but we don't know whether this or that action is just, then we might incorrectly act unjustly. I submit that this is a far, far more common cause of sin than deliberately knowing what is just, Godly, and yields happiness and acting in the opposite. Even Augustine himself, I would argue, acted not from a sense of contravening God so much as a deep-seated belief that by indulging in sexual liscence, he would be happier than if he followed God's dictates; in other words, Augustine acted out of a mistaken judgment about happiness and Godliness.

If that is the case, however, then you ultimately are arguing in favor of a God who condemns people on the basis of ignorance of what is Good. We today rightly condemn such condemnations in our system as inherently unjust, because we rightly understand that if a person doesn't understand the moral framework for a decision, he cannot be held liable for violating it deliberately and with intent.


I've yet to see anyone sucessfully prove that it is God's responsability to end all evil in the world. Humans are exceptionally fickle like this. Lets say God prevented all the Hitlers, Pol Pots, Stalins etc to do all the horrible things they did. Then humans would be up in arms about the serial killers, the psycopaths, rapists etc who went around doing their evil. So God stops them. Then burglers, robbers, petty vandals become the worst. So God stops them... can you see where this is going

And I hate to point it out but when God himself, the ultimate Good person came to the world, he got lots of horrible things happening to him

- The legitamacy of his birth was doubted
- He was homeless
- Everything he owned was given to him
- He was given an unfair trial
- He was executed in a particaully grusome way


This is called a sleight-of-hand fallacy or simple category mistake. I'm not trying, nor did I ever say we should justify something as simple as murder. I well recognize that such a crime could be something that in the larger sense creates a better world or that leads people to better moral agency. I am, however, asking you to justify what kind of God allows people to freely choose to exterminate 10 million people. The fact that I can't say "Well, genocide is when you kill x number of people and no less" does not detract from this, and no amount of slippery-sloping wriggles you clear from this. If it is true that God had a choice to intervene in the Holocaust, had the power to stop it, and did not because he wanted his children to freely choose, especially supposing that he knew full well what choice they would make, then He is a horrible God. In point of fact, he's not a God at all; he's an apathetic Monster. If so, then the free will theodicy fails in its purpose.


If you want to examine the problem of Evil in greater depth, look at some of the following

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/gr5part1.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/gr5part2.html

(those go on to part 7)

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/natevl.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/evilgod.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/deliver.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/thumbs.html
http://www.carm.org/questions/suffering.htm

Looked through them and found that they gave about as good a defense of God as the Book of Job. Which is to say, they did little except brush the problem off. Their critique of the larger problem of Evil, namely the reformulation as an atheistic syllogism against God, amounted to an appeal to authority, and not even a good appeal to authority, as they merely cite Plantiga and a few others without providing any but textual claims for a "consensus" that this does not pose a problem. The critique of the narrower probabilistic argument amounts to reformulation of the Greater Good theodicy by Liebniz: there's no such thing as an evil in my view that doesn't lead to Good, and those crazies can't define what counts as an excessive evil. My rebuttal: obviously you weren't interred at Auschwitz, because otherwise your experiences would be a tad different.