NationStates Jolt Archive

We're dealing with the traditional Judeo-Christian view of God.

1. Evil exists (i.e., the Devil or Hell)
2. God created everything
3. God is omni-benevolent (all-good)
Therefore, an all-good creator made evil, or the all-good creator doesn't exist.

Basically, why I don't believe in God (at least the Christian view). It's not logical unless you believe he/she/it's a prick.

Edit: I've gotten a couple posts from people saying, "Proof against god? Lmao. Ur an idiot. U cant do that." or, as Indri put it, "It's juvenile dipshits like you that make the rest of us atheists look bad." Since they're not reading my other posts, I have to put the disclaimer here: The title is a PUN. It's in the form of a logical proof, a different definition of proof from what you initially think. I had to do it that way, or no one would have read the post.

Oh, and I'm agnostic, btw. Disbelief is the absence of belief, not the belief in the absence.

We're dealing with the traditional Judeo-Christian view of God.

1. Evil exists (i.e., the Devil or Hell)
2. God created everything
3. God is omni-benevolent (all-good)
Therefore, an all-good creator made evil, or the all-good creator doesn't exist.

Basically, why I don't believe in God (at least the Christian view). It's not logical unless you believe he/she/it's a prick.

Not another one...
http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/EMOAYangryA005HL.gif

OMG!


Wow! Ive never heard this before! Im sure none of the Christians here have either!






:rolleyes:

thats wat ive been trying to tell people that for ages

You can't prove a negative.

You either have evidence in favor of a hypothesis or no evidence to support the hypothesis. You can't have evidence against a hypothesis.

You got me there. Let me go buy an atheist bible.

We're dealing with the traditional Judeo-Christian view of God.

1. Evil exists (i.e., the Devil or Hell)
2. God created everything
3. God is omni-benevolent (all-good)
Therefore, an all-good creator made evil, or the all-good creator doesn't exist.

Basically, why I don't believe in God (at least the Christian view). It's not logical unless you believe he/she/it's a prick.


Or

1. Evil exists
2. God created everything
3. God is omni-benevolent (all-good)

Therefore God in its goodness gave mankind free will to do good or ill. Mankind invented evil and God weeps at our foolishness.

Or

1. Evil exists
2. God created everything
3. God is omni-benevolent (all-good)

Therefore God in its goodness gave mankind free will to do good or ill. Mankind invented evil and God weeps at our foolishness.

Or, God created evil for shits and giggles.


Even benevolent, all powerful dieties get bored.

Or

1. Evil exists
2. God created everything
3. God is omni-benevolent (all-good)

Therefore God in its goodness gave mankind free will to do good or ill. Mankind invented evil and God weeps at our foolishness.

Nah, that couldn't be it. :rolleyes:

I have this theory that there is two types of atheist:

1) those we just accept it and don't bother anyone

2) those so far in the closet when it comes to religion that they need to constantly convince themselves with whatever straws they have because saying that you honestly don't know is far too scary a thought

3) those that don't know their numbers :p

We're dealing with the traditional Judeo-Christian view of God.

1. Evil exists (i.e., the Devil or Hell)
2. God created everything
3. God is omni-benevolent (all-good)
Therefore, an all-good creator made evil, or the all-good creator doesn't exist.

Basically, why I don't believe in God (at least the Christian view). It's not logical unless you believe he/she/it's a prick.


Okay. I'm convinced. Buh-bye. Don't let the door hit ya where the Good Lord split ya. .... oops. :p

Not another one...
http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/EMOAYangryA005HL.gif

Hey, I figured, "OMG, there isn't a religion bashing thread on NG! This must be rectified!" I'm just serving the common good. Nothing excites people like ranting the same rant again and again.

Not much more for me to add. Others have stated it better than I could.

The OP is made of Phail.

Or, God created evil for shits and giggles.


Even benevolent, all powerful dieties get bored.

You were that kid who tortured little animals, weren't you? Those guys were the most fun in high school.

Hey, I figured, "OMG, there isn't a religion bashing thread on NG! This must be rectified!" I'm just serving the common good. Nothing excites people like ranting the same rant again and again.

That's good. Not like anyone would like anyone else to just shut up.

We're dealing with the traditional Judeo-Christian view of God.

1. Evil exists (i.e., the Devil or Hell)
2. God created everything
3. God is omni-benevolent (all-good)
Therefore, an all-good creator made evil, or the all-good creator doesn't exist.

Basically, why I don't believe in God (at least the Christian view). It's not logical unless you believe he/she/it's a prick.

1.: Don't even need the devil or hell to justify that one... Evil exists within mankind itself (Hitler, Stalin, Jack the Ripper etc)

2.: Ok fair enough if he did... so what.

3.: God is Ominpitent and Omipresent aswell but does the fact that we cannot see him (or her or even it) prove he/she/it doesn't exist.. nope.

If god exists then an all good creator created beings with the ability to chose for themselves. Good and evil are not linear paths, they are factors brought about by choices made in life and, are always in the eye of the beholder.

Logical.. Religion has never been logical. Its not something that can be defined by logic, its more a means of helping mankind make their way through life.

[Kung Fu]Ahhh, but what is Evil Grasshopper?[/Kung Fu]

Good and Evil are but two sides of the same coin, you cannot have one without knowing the other. God created neither good nor evil, nor is God good or evil, God simply is. The idea of good and evil are concepts of man, not of God.

Edit: Darn it, you beat me to it.

Counter theory. God is a dick.

Congratulations, you proved God is not a mathematican. Or doesn't obey mathematic laws, which were created by man.

The Good Evil thing is more a Zoroastrianistic thing, than a Judeo-Christian. But since there were a big zuroastric influence, at least since the time of babylonian captivity, you cant't divide these two very well. There is actually no mention of a Devil or Hell (only a Realm of the dead) in the bible, that goes back before that time.

You were that kid who tortured little animals, weren't you? Those guys were the most fun in high school.

I was the guy that tortured high school kids with little animals. :D

I have this theory that there is two types of atheist:

1) those we just accept it and don't bother anyone

2) those so far in the closet when it comes to religion that they need to constantly convince themselves with whatever straws they have because saying that you honestly don't know is far too scary a thought

3) those that don't know their numbers :p

Hey, I'm the first to admit I have no clue about whether or not there is a God. I'm just saying that logic doesn't lead me there, and I can't get there through faith, so until new information surfaces, I'll be sitting on the sidelines scratching my head.

Congratulations, you proved God is not a mathematican. Or doesn't obey mathematic laws, which were created by man.


Well, considering in the Bible it says pi is 3, yeah, Id say God is about as good at math as I am ;)

Hey, I'm the first to admit I have no clue about whether or not there is a God. I'm just saying that logic doesn't lead me there, and I can't get there through faith, so until new information surfaces, I'll be sitting on the sidelines scratching my head.

you'll be sitting there till they put you in a box and either burn or bury you then.

Counter theory. God is a dick.

I like it!

1. Evil exists
2. God created everything
3. God is a dick
Therefore, the 2000 and 2004 US presidential elections make total sense.

We're dealing with the traditional Judeo-Christian view of God.

1. Evil exists (i.e., the Devil or Hell)
2. God created everything
3. God is omni-benevolent (all-good)
Therefore, an all-good creator made evil, or the all-good creator doesn't exist.

Basically, why I don't believe in God (at least the Christian view). It's not logical unless you believe he/she/it's a prick.

you dont believe in god because there is evil in the world?

i dont recall the judeo christian version of god promising no evil in this life, only in the next life.

you'll be sitting there till they put you in a box and either burn or bury you then.

Naw, I'll just be out enjoying all the stuff religion says I shouldn't.

Hey, I'm the first to admit I have no clue about whether or not there is a God. I'm just saying that logic doesn't lead me there, and I can't get there through faith, so until new information surfaces, I'll be sitting on the sidelines scratching my head.

Do you understand how logic works?

you dont believe in god because there is evil in the world?

i dont recall the judeo christian version of god promising no evil in this life, only in the next life.

Sort of, but I wonder where that evil came from. If god is all-good, how can he create evil? It's not logical, and that's where my reservations lie. It works if you admit that god might not be entirely good, but do you really want to worship a god that might be partially evil?

Do you understand how logic works?

Did you read the proof?

Hey, I'm the first to admit I have no clue about whether or not there is a God. I'm just saying that logic doesn't lead me there, and I can't get there through faith, so until new information surfaces, I'll be sitting on the sidelines scratching my head.

Logic doesn't solve all the problems. Sometimes one has to ignore logic to do the right thing or come to conclusions. Using logic to help you find God doesn't work. Faith on the other hand does.

You can't prove a negative.

Yes you can, but you have to show that the positive statement would lead to a contradiction. For example, it can be proved that it's impossible to trisect the angle using a straight edge and a pair of compasses because, if it was possible, it would necessarily be true that 3 is even.

You either have evidence in favor of a hypothesis or no evidence to support the hypothesis. You can't have evidence against a hypothesis.

If a hypothesis makes predictions that are contradicted by the evidence then that's evidence against it.

I was the guy that tortured high school kids with little animals. :D

well I just read the little animal part quite wrongly...

I suppose you support PETA on releasing little animals into the wild ;)

Hey, I'm the first to admit I have no clue about whether or not there is a God. I'm just saying that logic doesn't lead me there, and I can't get there through faith, so until new information surfaces, I'll be sitting on the sidelines scratching my head.

so when the question of whether your Gods gift to women comes up you answer "I'm not sure"?

which actually makes you sound rather charming

Sort of, but I wonder where that evil came from. If god is all-good, how can he create evil? It's not logical, and that's where my reservations lie. It works if you admit that god might not be entirely good, but do you really want to worship a god that might be partially evil?

God by definition can be neither good nor evil. God just is

Man defined good and evil. They are merley words though as it is actions that make a person either good or Evil.

As to your other post.. you can't be sitting on the fence if your doing all those sins as you aren't hedging your bets.. you are betting all out God does not exist (dependant on your religious standpoint of which way to heaven is the right one.)

Of course we could all go watch Dogma and have a whale of a time!

1.: Don't even need the devil or hell to justify that one... Evil exists within mankind itself (Hitler, Stalin, Jack the Ripper etc)

2.: Ok fair enough if he did... so what.

3.: God is Ominpitent and Omipresent aswell but does the fact that we cannot see him (or her or even it) prove he/she/it doesn't exist.. nope.

If god exists then an all good creator created beings with the ability to chose for themselves. Good and evil are not linear paths, they are factors brought about by choices made in life and, are always in the eye of the beholder.

Logical.. Religion has never been logical. Its not something that can be defined by logic, its more a means of helping mankind make their way through life.

If god created everything, then he created evil. Even if it was still merely as giving humanity a choice, it still allows evil to occur.

Your final point is spot on. I just don't need the crutch.

1) God is Love

2) Love is blind

3) Stevie Wonder is blind

4) Stevie Wonder is God.

Sort of, but I wonder where that evil came from. If god is all-good, how can he create evil? It's not logical, and that's where my reservations lie. It works if you admit that god might not be entirely good, but do you really want to worship a god that might be partially evil?

most people start with the facts THEN apply logic.

there IS evil in the world, bad things that happen that cannot be blame on humanity as well as incomprehensibly evil acts done by people.

so where would a god fit into that world?

as i said before, christianity doesnt propose a god who disallows evil. it proposes a god who can help you deal with the bad things in this life and bring you to a perfect life afterwards.

well I just read the little animal part quite wrongly...

I suppose you support PETA on releasing little animals into the wild ;)


If by 'wild' you mean PETA members' apartments, then yes. :)

most people start with the facts THEN apply logic.

there IS evil in the world, bad things that happen that cannot be blame on humanity as well as incomprehensibly evil acts done by people.

so where would a god fit into that world?

as i said before, christianity doesnt propose a god disallows evil. it proposes a god that can help you deal with the bad things in this life and bring you to a perfect life afterwards.

We have a winner.

If god created everything, then he created evil. Even if it was still merely as giving humanity a choice, it still allows evil to occur.

Your final point is spot on. I just don't need the crutch.

Wrong Man created Evil. Man defined what is Good and what is Evil. By this statement a Christian could propose that God neither created good nor evil and is himself neither Good or Evil.. He just created. man created Good and Evil.

Hows that?

i would like to say somethings:

1st) You say God is good and evil exists...
What is evil? Evil is the lack of good, therefore no good = no evil
So if:
1. Evil exists
2. God is good
3. Unexistance of evil is the unexistance of good
4. God exists

2nd) If ur coming with the crap of "If god exists then why ppl die... bla bla bla" because if everything was sweet and pink no one would give shit about god...

3rd) Kill yourself, go to hell and ask the devil is there's a God, is there isn't... oh well my bad

Hey, I'm the first to admit I have no clue about whether or not there is a God. I'm just saying that logic doesn't lead me there, and I can't get there through faith, so until new information surfaces, I'll be sitting on the sidelines scratching my head.

Ahhh I love it. To watch and witness backpeddling of the highest order, allow me to refer you to this m'lud!


Basically, why I don't believe in God (at least the Christian view).

Sidelines vs stated non belief, ummmmm?

God by definition can be neither good nor evil. God just is

Man defined good and evil. They are merley words though as it is actions that make a person either good or Evil.

As to your other post.. you can't be sitting on the fence if your doing all those sins as you aren't hedging your bets.. you are betting all out God does not exist (dependant on your religious standpoint of which way to heaven is the right one.)

Of course we could all go watch Dogma and have a whale of a time!

Religion is a human construct as well. Sins aren't really defined all that well beyond the top ten, and being a good person (in the "normal" societal sense) steers you away from them anyway. I meant more of the drinking, having pre-marital sex, and swearing stuff. If I die, walk up to the pearly gates, and St. Peter says, "Sorry, we'd let you in, but you were for gay marriage," so be it.

Cold does not exist
Darkness does not exist
Evil does not exist

3rd) Kill yourself, go to hell and ask the devil is there's a God, is there isn't... oh well my bad

You first.

In an infinite number of universes, the likelihood of one of those universes possessing a being capable of creating our universe approaches one.

:)

Ahhh I love it. To watch and witness backpeddling of the highest order, allow me to refer you to this m'lud!




Sidelines vs stated non belief, ummmmm?

huh? I never said I was an atheist. I'm merely a soft agnostic. I don't believe in God, but I'd change my mind if god suddenly revealed himself or herself or whatever.

Those who are not open minded are not having a discussion, but are merely yelling back and forth.

In an infinite number of universes, the likelihood of one of those universes possessing a being capable of creating our universe approaches one.

:)


Brilliant! :D :)

Religion is a human construct as well. Sins aren't really defined all that well beyond the top ten, and being a good person (in the "normal" societal sense) steers you away from them anyway.

That's not precisely true.

I meant more of the drinking, having pre-marital sex, and swearing stuff. If I die, walk up to the pearly gates, and St. Peter says, "Sorry, we'd let you in, but you were for gay marriage," so be it.

:rolleyes:

In an infinite number of universes, the likelihood of one of those universes possessing a being capable of creating our universe approaches one.

:)

so god is 10 universes over *that* way?

Did you read the proof?
What proof? Your OP didn't involve proof, logic, facts or intelligent thought.
Yes you can, but you have to show that the positive statement would lead to a contradiction.
No, you can't prove a negative.

For example, it can be proved that it's impossible to trisect the angle using a straight edge and a pair of compasses because, if it was possible, it would necessarily be true that 3 is even.
This is not proving a negative.

If a hypothesis makes predictions that are contradicted by the evidence then that's evidence against it.
No.

so when the question of whether your Gods gift to women comes up you answer "I'm not sure"?

which actually makes you sound rather charming

Oh, I'm a total nerd, but some women seem to find that endearing. Maybe it's a confidence thing. I'm the guy in the group who will walk up to the hot girl and start a conversation.

so god is 10 universes over *that* way?

Next to the ice machine. *nod*

Religion is a human construct as well. Sins aren't really defined all that well beyond the top ten, and being a good person (in the "normal" societal sense) steers you away from them anyway. I meant more of the drinking, having pre-marital sex, and swearing stuff. If I die, walk up to the pearly gates, and St. Peter says, "Sorry, we'd let you in, but you were for gay marriage," so be it.

you should try looking up the "10 commandments" in the old testament some time. not even the top 10 are well defined. if you can even decide which ARE the top 10.

In an infinite number of universes, the likelihood of one of those universes possessing a being capable of creating our universe approaches one.

:)

Wouldn't such a being have to be transcendent (i.e. outside of the Universe) and as such incapable of coming into existence within a Universe?

Besides, in an infinite number of Universes there must also be a being capable of and willing to kill the first being, until they're killed by an even greater being who is in turn killed by... :p

Next to the ice machine. *nod*

Which explains why he's so grumpy in the Old Testament. That thing runs all night long.

SNIP

Welcome to my pants
Population: you

If by 'wild' you mean PETA members' apartments, then yes. :)

wear some fur-like panties and have them release it for you ;)

Oh, I'm a total nerd, but some women seem to find that endearing. Maybe it's a confidence thing. I'm the guy in the group who will walk up to the hot girl and start a conversation.

so your God's gift to men?

What proof? Your OP didn't involve proof, logic, facts or intelligent thought.


The logical proof that was my first post. You know, premise, premise, premise, conclusion.

Wow, somebody woke up on the wrong side of the bed today.

huh? I never said I was an atheist. I'm merely a soft agnostic. I don't believe in God, but I'd change my mind if god suddenly revealed himself or herself or whatever.

Those who are not open minded are not having a discussion, but are merely yelling back and forth.

Heheh so which camp do I fall in then, 'open minded
discussionist' or 'closed minded yeller'?

Coz I merely point out the inconsitantsy of the stance you first took, and the way you backtracked. Also I note you have made up yur mind based on the logical inconsistnces of only one view of what God is, not really logical huh.

Wouldn't such a being have to be transcendent (i.e. outside of the Universe) and as such incapable of coming into existence within a Universe?

Why? Maybe he was born, lived and somehow elevated himself to the status of God by discovering how to breach the barrier between universes and add one of his own creation. Maybe he's disappointed with the bugs and is designing Universe 2.0 as we speak. :p

Besides, in an infinite number of Universes there must also be a being capable of and willing to kill the first being, until they're killed by an even greater being who is in turn killed by...

...Chuck Norris. *nod*

Why? Maybe he was born, lived and somehow elevated himself to the status of God by discovering how to breach the barrier between universes and add one of his own creation. Maybe he's disappointed with the bugs and is designing Universe 2.0 as we speak. :p

God's Final Message to His Creation in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: We apologise for the inconvenience. ;)

...Chuck Norris. *nod*

Ah, but can Chuck Norris punch himself so hard that he knocks himself out?

The logical proof that was my first post. You know, premise, premise, premise, conclusion.

Wow, somebody woke up on the wrong side of the bed today.

Um...that's not a logical proof. That's your opinion. Opinion=/=logic

Heheh so which camp do I fall in then, 'open minded
discussionist' or 'closed minded yeller'?

Coz I merely point out the inconsitantsy of the stance you first took, and the way you backtracked. Also I note you have made up yur mind based on the logical inconsistnces of only one view of what God is, not really logical huh.

Well, if you're willing to change your mind on an issue, that makes you open minded. If you're only interested in making your point, and not interested in what the other person has to say, then you're just yelling and will get a job on cnn.

Oh no, I never said that was my sole reason for my disbelief. Like I said in the first post, we're only dealing with the Judeo-Christian view of God. I like the idea of an atman, but I'm not sure I totally understand it. Then again, who does? There's too many conflicting religions out there to pick one and say "I'm right!". I'd probably just be a general Deist were I to move towards spirituality.

Ah, but can Chuck Norris punch himself so hard that he knocks himself out?

Yes, but the resulting shockwave would destroy reality. *nod*

We're dealing with the traditional Judeo-Christian view of God.

1. Evil exists (i.e., the Devil or Hell)
2. God created everything
3. God is omni-benevolent (all-good)
Therefore, an all-good creator made evil, or the all-good creator doesn't exist.

Basically, why I don't believe in God (at least the Christian view). It's not logical unless you believe he/she/it's a prick.

Remember god had the choice to pick ether Jesus or Satan to come down to earth and show us the way to heaven. Satan wanted to force people to be good, but Jesus said we should be able to pick are own path. Gob picked Jesus, so Satan rebeled with a third of his angels. Satan lost the war and was cast down into hell. Plus He is an all good god cause satan is his son and satan created evil. But he also created knoledge in a way

Wow, somebody woke up on the wrong side of the bed today.

What if your bed is round?

Welcome to my pants
Population: you



wear some fur-like panties and have them release it for you ;)



so your God's gift to men?

Heck yeah. I'm like Dwight from last week's Office (American Version), except not quite as big a tool. Almost though.

What if your bed is round?

Somebody woke up on the wrong hemisphere?

Remember god had the choice to pick ether Jesus or Satan to come down to earth and show us the way to heaven. Satan wanted to force people to be good, but Jesus said we should be able to pick are own path. Gob picked Jesus, so Satan rebeled with a third of his angels. Satan lost the war and was cast down into hell. Plus He is an all good god cause satan is his son and satan created evil. But he also created knoledge in a way

So, god didn't know satan would turn on him? That means that God's knowledge is limited, right? Does that mean he's not all powerful too? And he's letting evil continue on in the world simply because he can't do anything about it?

What if your bed is round?

Then you must have back problems.

Then you must have back problems.

Actually...logic would disprove that.

I believe I have come up with a more convincing argument against the existence of God than the OP:

American Idol
Racing Stripes
Keanu Reeves
Kangaroo Jack

So, god didn't know satan would turn on him? That means that God's knowledge is limited, right? Does that mean he's not all powerful too? And he's letting evil continue on in the world simply because he can't do anything about it?

Maybe time flows differently for God. To us, it has been thousands of years but to God, it's monday morning and he hasn't even had his coffee yet. :p

We're dealing with the traditional Judeo-Christian view of God.

1. Evil exists (i.e., the Devil or Hell)
2. God created everything
3. God is omni-benevolent (all-good)
Therefore, an all-good creator made evil, or the all-good creator doesn't exist.

Basically, why I don't believe in God (at least the Christian view). It's not logical unless you believe he/she/it's a prick.

Like all 'proofs' for or against the existence of God, this doesn't really work.

Firstly, even if it is rewritten to be philosophically robust (terms like 'good', 'evil' and 'God', aren't defined in the above argument, which weakens the case), all it proves is that the set of assumptions (technically called a sorites) is inconsistent (i.e. at least one of the assumptions is false).

Secondly, there is the phenomenon of 'emergence'. In a complex system, features often arise from the interaction between the basic rules. An example of this would be colour. There is nothing in the basic rules of physics which says 'colour exists'. Colour emerges from the interaction between photons and atomic nuclei. Neither the photons, nor the nuclei have an intrinsic colour.
The assumptions given above could all be true, and the phenomenon of 'evil' just emerges from the basic laws as an unintended consequence.

Whether you want to believe or disbelieve, you've just got to have faith - there is no proof.

Remember god had the choice to pick ether Jesus or Satan to come down to earth and show us the way to heaven. Satan wanted to force people to be good, but Jesus said we should be able to pick are own path. Gob picked Jesus, so Satan rebeled with a third of his angels. Satan lost the war and was cast down into hell. Plus He is an all good god cause satan is his son and satan created evil. But he also created knoledge in a way

what version of christianity believes this?

Although OP, your formulation of the problem of evil was badly put and too vague, I still feel it is impossible to reconcile a strict or even a not so strict judeo Christian understanding of God with the problem of evil.

Well, if you're willing to change your mind on an issue, that makes you open minded. If you're only interested in making your point, and not interested in what the other person has to say, then you're just yelling and will get a job on cnn.

Oh no, I never said that was my sole reason for my disbelief. Like I said in the first post, we're only dealing with the Judeo-Christian view of God. I like the idea of an atman, but I'm not sure I totally understand it. Then again, who does? There's too many conflicting religions out there to pick one and say "I'm right!". I'd probably just be a general Deist were I to move towards spirituality.

I have changed my mind on plenty of issuses, *shrug* meh it's what happens in life.

As to your disbelife that is the point I was making. In your first post you proclaimed yourself as a non beliver, in your second as a fence sitter, and here agian as a disbeliver.

Not, I'm sure you will agree, logical at all. So which is it, fence sitter or disbeliver?

Maybe time flows differently for God. To us, it has been thousands of years but to God, it's monday morning and he hasn't even had his coffee yet. :p

hey on the 7th day god rested. maybe its still that 7th day and he's at the beach.

We're dealing with the traditional Judeo-Christian view of God.

1. Evil exists (i.e., the Devil or Hell)
2. God created everything
3. God is omni-benevolent (all-good)
Therefore, an all-good creator made evil, or the all-good creator doesn't exist.

Basically, why I don't believe in God (at least the Christian view). It's not logical unless you believe he/she/it's a prick.

So, god didn't know satan would turn on him? That means that God's knowledge is limited, right? Does that mean he's not all powerful too? And he's letting evil continue on in the world simply because he can't do anything about it?

First of all he left one of his sons to take care of earth that doesn't mean he can't do anything he just decides not to. He probably knew satans reaction but since he is his son he gave him a choice and if he did follow his path he was going down he whould cast him down into hell.

hey on the 7th day god rested. maybe its still that 7th day and he's at the beach.

And being as negligent as a psychopath.

So, god didn't know satan would turn on him? That means that God's knowledge is limited, right? Does that mean he's not all powerful too? And he's letting evil continue on in the world simply because he can't do anything about it?

The crux of this one assumes that all people veiw 'what is evil' in the same way, this just isnt true.

Yourself for example, do you belive it is evil to kill another human being?

And being as negligent as a psychopath.

Drinking Mai Tais. *nod*

And being as negligent as a psychopath.

he'll fix it all up when he gets back to the office and sees what a hash jesus made of things while he was resting.

Drinking Mai Tais. *nod*

That God, he's a lucky bastard!

I have this theory that there is two types of atheist:

1) those we just accept it and don't bother anyone

2) those so far in the closet when it comes to religion that they need to constantly convince themselves with whatever straws they have because saying that you honestly don't know is far too scary a thought

3) those that don't know their numbers :p

I prefer to call #2 "anti-theism" rather than atheism.

The crux of this one assumes that all people veiw 'what is evil' in the same way, this just isnt true.

Yourself for example, do you belive it is evil to kill another human being?

Even though in the ten comandments it says "thou shall not kill" i still beleive that some people deserve to die.

Got a response:

Evil is the absence of good. Evil is to good as darkness is to light. One cannot exist without the other.

Got a response:

Evil is the absence of good. Evil is to good as darkness is to light. One cannot exist without the other.

Just reminds me of Satans song in SouthPark: Bigger, Longer and uncut.

"Without evil there can be no good so it must be good to be evil sometimes"

Or, God created evil for shits and giggles.


Even benevolent, all powerful dieties get bored.

That's no excuse, he could've built himself a stripper factory or a Root beer volcano, or the greatest gaming system of all time. If god is omnipotent he could a host of other things to keep himself entertained.

Like all 'proofs' for or against the existence of God, this doesn't really work.

Firstly, even if it is rewritten to be philosophically robust (terms like 'good', 'evil' and 'God', aren't defined in the above argument, which weakens the case), all it proves is that the set of assumptions (technically called a sorites) is inconsistent (i.e. at least one of the assumptions is false).


C'mon, this is NS. I'm not writing a full philosophy paper, just trying to get a discussion going. Besides, I kinda said the Judeo-Christian view of god.


Secondly, there is the phenomenon of 'emergence'. In a complex system, features often arise from the interaction between the basic rules. An example of this would be colour. There is nothing in the basic rules of physics which says 'colour exists'. Colour emerges from the interaction between photons and atomic nuclei. Neither the photons, nor the nuclei have an intrinsic colour.
The assumptions given above could all be true, and the phenomenon of 'evil' just emerges from the basic laws as an unintended consequence.

Whether you want to believe or disbelieve, you've just got to have faith - there is no proof.

What color is is differing wavelengths of light. The photons have an intrinsic wavelength, which gives them color. I can guess what color a light will be by measuring its wavelength.

I have yet to see an instrument that can detect god.

I don't like unintended either. It implies that god is not all-powerful or all-knowing, strongly undermining your argument. I do agree that it all comes down to blind faith. I just can't do that.

Is god will to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent

Is he able, but not willing
Then he is malevolent

Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him god?


-Epicurus

Anyone notice that Bellania is ignoring logical posts?

You might have heard this before but nevermind.

Christians believe that God is (among other things) Omnipotent (all powerful)
and omniscient (all seeing/knowing). However, these two things contradict each other. For example, say that God knew that the world trade centre attacks were going to happen before they did (he is supposedly omniscient, so he should have). For arguments sake, lets say that he wanted to stop them happening (this should be easy if He is omnipotent). But, if he was truly omniscient, he would have seen that he would stop the event with his omnipotence. But that he saw with omniscience would definately happen.

If i've written that correctly, it should present a strange situation.

Explanations etc are welcome.

He might be responding to mine but i got to go now

First of all he left one of his sons to take care of earth that doesn't mean he can't do anything he just decides not to. He probably knew satans reaction but since he is his son he gave him a choice and if he did follow his path he was going down he whould cast him down into hell.

So, if god knows what you are going to do before you do it, is that really free will? Do you really have a choice in anything if it's all predetermined?

So, if god knows what you are going to do before you do it, is that really free will? Do you really have a choice in anything if it's all predetermined?

Fries or Onion Rings?

Is god will to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent

Is he able, but not willing
Then he is malevolent

Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him god?


-Epicurus

uhhhhh
what greek god was benevolent, omnipotent and/or responsible for evil in the world?

Anyone notice that Bellania is ignoring logical posts?

Hah, no, I'm just at work. I can't respond to all 90 posts and still run my HPLC. Speaking of evil, that machine was created by the devil.

I'm going as fast as I can, but my boss will be back in 10 min or so and I have to at least have looked like i was working.

I have changed my mind on plenty of issuses, *shrug* meh it's what happens in life.

As to your disbelife that is the point I was making. In your first post you proclaimed yourself as a non beliver, in your second as a fence sitter, and here agian as a disbeliver.

Not, I'm sure you will agree, logical at all. So which is it, fence sitter or disbeliver?

I don't believe in god. I don't believe there definitively ISN'T a god. Therefore, I am a soft agnostic. Perfectly logical.

I guess that makes me a fence sitter.

We're dealing with the traditional Judeo-Christian view of God.

1. Evil exists (i.e., the Devil or Hell)
2. God created everything
3. God is omni-benevolent (all-good)
Therefore, an all-good creator made evil, or the all-good creator doesn't exist.

Basically, why I don't believe in God (at least the Christian view). It's not logical unless you believe he/she/it's a prick.

so you never herd of free will.-
you have the choice as to whether you will rape that 12yld and God gives peolpe the concius to try and stop you(e.g. prison)

if he wanted a race of robots, he would have made them.
would u rather be a robot?
personaly i wud rather take the bad and the good

he made peolpe- evil is just a way a person acts not a universal force, it is a person with free will choising to do somthing evil.

now u cud say, carnt he make us with free will and yet holey good-
well its not free will if u carnt decide who u will be:p

Got a response:

Evil is the absence of good. Evil is to good as darkness is to light. One cannot exist without the other.

Light can exist without darkness...

The crux of this one assumes that all people veiw 'what is evil' in the same way, this just isnt true.

Yourself for example, do you belive it is evil to kill another human being?

I don't believe anything is evil. I'm merely working within the religious constraints that God is in Heaven and is Good, and the Devil is in Hell and is Evil. The Bible doesn't do a very good job of defining good and evil either. Just look at the variety of religious beliefs that exist within the christian faith.

Personally, I believe you shouldn't kill unless in self defense. Interpret that as you will.

You make a brilliant point. God, as you describe him, does not exist.

I am an odd person in that I believe in God, but I'm not a huge fan of him. It seems to me that those who believe in THAT God are deluded- they do not understand the Bible; they conveniently ignore the clear flaws in God's nature and present hinm as this all-loving, all-powerful guy that he isn't.

There are numerous places in the bible where God says he hates a certain person/nation and mercilessly orders the slaughter of all the women and children, where God seems not to know something and changes his mind, etc.

So, no, God, as you describe him and as most Christians believe him, does not exist.

But I do believe that a much less attractive God does exist.

so you never herd of free will.-
you have the choice as to whether you will rape that 12yld and God gives peolpe the concius to try and stop you(e.g. prison)

if he wanted a race of robots, he would have made them.
would u rather be a robot?
personaly i wud rather take the bad and the good

he made peolpe- evil is just a way a person acts not a universal force, it is a person with free will choising to do somthing evil.

now u cud say, carnt he make us with free will and yet holey good-
well its not free will if u carnt decide who u will be:p

Sorry, I'm having a really difficult time understanding your writing. They do include a spell checker on this thing.

Hah, no, I'm just at work. I can't respond to all 90 posts and still run my HPLC. Speaking of evil, that machine was created by the devil.

I'm going as fast as I can, but my boss will be back in 10 min or so and I have to at least have looked like i was working.

Ok then...

Where in PA are you located?

You make a brilliant point. God, as you describe him, does not exist.

I am an odd person in that I believe in God, but I'm not a huge fan of him. It seems to me that those who believe in THAT God are deluded- they do not understand the Bible; they conveniently ignore the clear flaws in God's nature and present hinm as this all-loving, all-powerful guy that he isn't.

There are numerous places in the bible where God says he hates a certain person/nation and mercilessly orders the slaughter of all the women and children, where God seems not to know something and changes his mind, etc.

So, no, God, as you describe him and as most Christians believe him, does not exist.

But I do believe that a much less attractive God does exist.

Woohoo! I have a fan!

Yeah, I just haven't made that step. I'd rather believe in no god than an imperfect one. It makes me go to the gym, since I know this is probably my only life.

Hah, no, I'm just at work. I can't respond to all 90 posts and still run my HPLC. Speaking of evil, that machine was created by the devil.

Disproving your second assumption (God created everything). :)

OMG!


Wow! Ive never heard this before! Im sure none of the Christians here have either!






:rolleyes:

I'd like to buy you a beer.

We're dealing with the traditional Judeo-Christian view of God.

1. Evil exists (i.e., the Devil or Hell)
2. God created everything
3. God is omni-benevolent (all-good)
Therefore, an all-good creator made evil, or the all-good creator doesn't exist.

Basically, why I don't believe in God (at least the Christian view). It's not logical unless you believe he/she/it's a prick.

1. Needs a better definition.
2. Not precisely accurate
3. True, but oversimplified.

Hey, I figured, "OMG, there isn't a religion bashing thread on NG! This must be rectified!" I'm just serving the common good. Nothing bores people like ranting the same rant again and again.

Fixed.

Ok then...

Where in PA are you located?

Why? Trying to stalk me? Awesome! I always wanted my own personal stalker!

I'm currently residing in the wonderful city of Philadelphia.

Disproving your second assumption (God created everything). :)

Hah! Got me.

Almost, except god created the devil, supposedly

I'm currently residing in the wonderful city of Philadelphia.

Make up your mind...
Are you living in a wonderful city or Philadelphia?

Make up your mind...
Are you living in a wonderful city or Philadelphia?

Ba-Zing! :D

Hah! Got me.

Almost, except god created the devil, supposedly

Yes.. but if the devil created work.. then God did not regardless of wether god created the devil...

You might have heard this before but nevermind.

Christians believe that God is (among other things) Omnipotent (all powerful)
and omniscient (all seeing/knowing). However, these two things contradict each other. For example, say that God knew that the world trade centre attacks were going to happen before they did (he is supposedly omniscient, so he should have). For arguments sake, lets say that he wanted to stop them happening (this should be easy if He is omnipotent). But, if he was truly omniscient, he would have seen that he would stop the event with his omnipotence. But that he saw with omniscience would definately happen.

If i've written that correctly, it should present a strange situation.

Explanations etc are welcome.

Well, you could say that God is really sitting in a lounge chair at the center of the universe watching every event in the universe occur simultaneously. Therefore, time doesn't really apply in the same way for god as it does for us.

But hey, I'm agnostic, so I don't have to worry about that kind of thing.

I wonder if God ever gets pissed about everybody and their dog trying to second guess him.
I think this motivator says it all, really:
http://img234.imageshack.us/img234/9347/memouc0.jpg

Why? Trying to stalk me? Awesome! I always wanted my own personal stalker!

I'm currently residing in the wonderful city of Philadelphia.

Actually no. My fiance is from Northeast Philly and the Best Man at my upcoming wedding is from South Philly.

And I think my fiance would disagree with you on the wonderfulness of Philly.

People whose anti-God arguments depend on His omnipotence/omnipresence/omnibenevolence don't sway me. I'm sure the Bible is chock-full of quotations saying: "God is infinitely this," "God is infinitely that," but the Hebrews could barely count. Infinity to them is basically saying: "A lot." They were essentially a notch or two above cavemen.

God (if there is such a thing) is certainly NOT all powerful, and certainly not all-knowing. Both of them have been proven to be impossible. Haven't you ever hung out with a pothead before? They're always full of great gems of ideas, like this classic: "If God is all-powerful, can he create something that even he can't destroy?" Which is an old and tired point, but a logical one. God can't be all-powerful.

Also, mathematics has shown us that it's impossible to be all-knowing. Look at Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
You can't know exactly where a particle is and exactly how fast it's going at the same time. That German guy proved it.
Furthermore, it's impossible for God to know the future, though He can have a very, very good idea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism#Determinism.2C_quantum_mechanics_and_classical_physics
So that defeats the first argument that anti-religious people like to spout.

Moving on. Let's suppose all people have souls, unless they're Hillary Clinton. Now, this soul is the thing that the author(s) of Genesis were talking about when they said: "God created man in His image." We have the soul. It's the one part of us that's identical to God. It's what separates us from the animals. When people talk about the "Holy Spirit," this is what they mean. It's identical to God.
When you do God's will, that part of you grows stronger. Disobey, and that part diminishes. When you die, what's left of your soul goes back to God. That's called Heaven.
Evil is merely the absence of God on Earth, and Hell is merely the absence of God after death. As for the Devil... gimme a break.

God created everything? Well sure. In a way. We're almost certain that the Big Bang happened, and if we were to look back far enough into anything's history, we could find its origins in the Big Bang. All the matter and energy in the universe came from that point. Things changed form, spun around, cooled off, life formed, life evolved and became more complex... etc. In other words, God didn't say: "Hey, I think this planet could use some deer. *boing* And some trees and grass *boing*. And people *boing*. And now I think I'll go ahead and create evil *boing*."

What we've seen of the world and the universe shows us that things didn't spring into existence out of nowhere. Everything started at a certain point, changed, split off into the numerous different landforms/star types/organisms/types of planet/whetever that we see now. So God kickstarted the universe with the Big Bang, having a pretty good idea of where everything was going, and sat back and watched. He probably knew that evil was going to happen, because that's our imperfect human nature. Maybe He's made a prediction that hasn't occured to us yet. Maybe it was a variable that he didn't expect. Maybe evil is inevitable. We don't know these things (we really don't know what evil is, we can't agree on a definition).

God only knows. God makes his plans. The information's unavailable to the mortal man.

Maybe God did not create evil because evil is not its own presence but a lack of complete goodness.

Well, you could say that God is really sitting in a lounge chair at the center of the universe watching every event in the universe occur simultaneously. Therefore, time doesn't really apply in the same way for god as it does for us.

Like he can't prevent the future, because to him it's already happening?

God (if there is such a thing) is certainly NOT all powerful, and certainly not all-knowing. Both of them have been proven to be impossible. Haven't you ever hung out with a pothead before? They're always full of great gems of ideas, like this classic: "If God is all-powerful, can he create something that even he can't destroy?" Which is an old and tired point, but a logical one. God can't be all-powerful.

Also, mathematics has shown us that it's impossible to be all-knowing. Look at Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
You can't know exactly where a particle is and exactly how fast it's going at the same time. That German guy proved it.
Furthermore, it's impossible for God to know the future, though He can have a very, very good idea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism#Determinism.2C_quantum_mechanics_and_classical_physics
So that defeats the first argument that anti-religious people like to spout.

This shows nothing other than for god to be all-knowing and all-powerful he just doesn't have to follow natural laws.

<snip>

That sir is a brilliant argumentative stance and sums everything up to a tee pretty much.

uhhhhh
what greek god was benevolent, omnipotent and/or responsible for evil in the world?

1st. straw man.
2nd. he was referring to the capitol G concept. which it seems the ancient Greeks did not find logical to exist.

1st. straw man.
2nd. he was referring to the capitol G concept. which it seems the ancient Greeks did not find logical to exist.

what capital G concept did the ancient greeks have?

We're dealing with the traditional Judeo-Christian view of God.

1. Evil exists (i.e., the Devil or Hell)
2. God created everything
3. God is omni-benevolent (all-good)
Therefore, an all-good creator made evil, or the all-good creator doesn't exist.

Basically, why I don't believe in God (at least the Christian view). It's not logical unless you believe he/she/it's a prick.3 has never been claimed by the christian churches.

oh, and please read "Paradise Lost" by Milton

You can't prove the non-existence of God. Don't even try. The concept of God is such that he could theoretically exist even in the face of incontrovertible evidence that he does not (which we don't even have). Everyone knows that all observable phenomena do not require a God, but you can't prove he doesn't exist. Besides, the burden of proof is on the pro-God side anyway because they are (usually) the ones who wish to impose a certain system of morality upon others. The concept of the Judeo-Christian God is absurd, ridiculous and monumentally unlikely, but it cannot be disproven and there's no reason to try except to stir up forum animosity.

Make up your mind...
Are you living in a wonderful city or Philadelphia?

Oh, c'mon. There are nice parts of Philly...like...umm...the bars?

3 has never been claimed by the christian churches.

oh, and please read "Paradise Lost" by Milton

Yes it has, by many churches, or do you mean the early church?

You can't prove the non-existence of God. Don't even try. The concept of God is such that he could theoretically exist even in the face of incontrovertible evidence that he does not (which we don't even have). Everyone knows that all observable phenomena do not require a God, but you can't prove he doesn't exist. Besides, the burden of proof is on the pro-God side anyway because they are (usually) the ones who wish to impose a certain system of morality upon others. The concept of the Judeo-Christian God is absurd, ridiculous and monumentally unlikely, but it cannot be disproven and there's no reason to try except to stir up forum animosity.

So...how long have you been on NS?

I have this theory that there is two types of atheist:

1) those we just accept it and don't bother anyone

2) those so far in the closet when it comes to religion that they need to constantly convince themselves with whatever straws they have because saying that you honestly don't know is far too scary a thought

3) those that don't know their numbers :p

Why is it that some religious people believe that atheists should just stand aside and stay quiet about our beliefs. I am a tolerant atheist- I don't mind people worshipping their own religion. People are always trying to convert us, telling us we're going to hell if we don't believe, whether we are good people or not, so why shouldn't we be able to argue for are beliefs? You can't really accuse us of 'bothering people', I hardly think atheism causing half as much bother to religious groups as religious groups do to atheists and scientific groups for example.

You can't prove the non-existence of God. Don't even try. The concept of God is such that he could theoretically exist even in the face of incontrovertible evidence that he does not (which we don't even have). Everyone knows that all observable phenomena do not require a God, but you can't prove he doesn't exist. Besides, the burden of proof is on the pro-God side anyway because they are (usually) the ones who wish to impose a certain system of morality upon others. The concept of the Judeo-Christian God is absurd, ridiculous and monumentally unlikely, but it cannot be disproven and there's no reason to try except to stir up forum animosity.

If the definitions of the Judeo-Christian God itself are contradictory that would make himself a logical impossibility.

We're dealing with the traditional Judeo-Christian view of God.

1. Evil exists (i.e., the Devil or Hell)
2. God created everything
3. God is omni-benevolent (all-good)
Therefore, an all-good creator made evil, or the all-good creator doesn't exist.

Basically, why I don't believe in God (at least the Christian view). It's not logical unless you believe he/she/it's a prick.


Well you won me over to Atheism! I mean, you probably could have just done the whole "We can't see God, therefore God doesn't exist!" thing and win me over just as easy.


:rolleyes:

I'm willing to accept the free will concept for why evil exists, but why does "god" allow suffering from non human causes? why allow thousands to die in natural disasters? why allow people to die from disease, famine, and drought? you know, if any human being had the power to save another human being but just stood by there idly while the other person died, you know people would shun that person from society. yet, every time thousands die and god seemingly doesn't intervene, we're willing to excuse him from this. that seems absurd to me...

A couple of thoughts have occurred to me while reading this...

1 - Some people seem to be afraid of their NOT being a God and will go to great lengths to justify that existence. What is the problem with there being no God? MY life is no less meaningful. I find that I am not constantly worrying about sucking some sky faerie's mystical dick, or kissing the darkest side of his ass to avoid going to some metaphorical place that most certainly doesn't exist.

Have we ever had any reports confirming the existence of heaven and hell beyond the words of religious scripture? Sure people have claimed to have seen some other world and have out-of-body experiences when they've had strokes and such. Hell, I can repeat that experience with some Salvia Divinorum.

2 - Do you need God or religion to make you a good person? Can't you be good without the carrot stick mentality?

Was religion created then because people couldn't figure out how to treat each other without the threat of some massive repercussions in the after life? Doesn't there come a point when we must grow up and say to ourselves, "I wouldn't hurt another person because I don't want someone doing that to me." It seems to me that people who defend the existence of God and say that it helps with keeping good are just not able to move beyond childish morality and need to be led around by the hand for their entire life.

Early humanity may have needed that guidance because we needed to learn to live in harmony in order to survive, but do we need it now? Hell, do we even need a God? The God seems to really only serve a purpose to prevent people from killing each other and helping people when they're at their wits' end.

A source on which to place blame when something goes wrong.

Early humanity needed an explanation for why the sun came and why it left. Why it rained but then it was dry. They didn't have the tools we did, so they reverted to a simple way of explaining life. We have the tools, so what purpose does a God concept serve other than to be a crutch for those who are afraid of being "godless"?

Well you won me over to Atheism! I mean, you probably could have just done the whole "We can see God, therefore God doesn't exist!" thing and win me over just as easy.


:rolleyes:

It's funny though, even though the op's argument is far too short, simple and vague, I don't think anyone in this thread is able to show that it isn't a logical impossibility for the concept of God that exists on the op's premise to exist.

1 - Some people seem to be afraid of their NOT being a God and will go to great lengths to justify that existence. What is the problem with there being no God? MY life is no less meaningful. I find that I am not constantly worrying about sucking some sky faerie's mystical dick, or kissing the darkest side of his ass to avoid going to some metaphorical place that most certainly doesn't exist.


What meaning can you find? Because I seriously can't find any meaning in my life if we are just flesh and bones (not that I nessecerally have a problem with that).

If the definitions of the Judeo-Christian God itself are contradictory that would make himself a logical impossibility.

If those definitions mean anything, perhaps they don't. If God doesn't conform to the current idea of what God is, then does that negate His existence?

I think my cat talks. Everyone else is pretty sure he doesn't. Now my cat doesn't exist.

If those definitions mean anything, perhaps they don't. If God doesn't conform to the current idea of what God is, then does that negate His existence?

I think my cat talks. Everyone else is pretty sure he doesn't. Now my cat doesn't exist.

What happens if I put your non-existant cat in a box?

If those definitions mean anything, perhaps they don't. If God doesn't conform to the current idea of what God is, then does that negate His existence?

I think my cat talks. Everyone else is pretty sure he doesn't. Now my cat doesn't exist.

You misunderstand, the OP is addressing only one concept of God (Judeo-Christian) and attempting to disprove God, he is not attempting to disprove that any sort of God exists at all, hence him admitting to being agnostic on that issue.

People whose anti-God arguments depend on His omnipotence/omnipresence/omnibenevolence don't sway me. I'm sure the Bible is chock-full of quotations saying: "God is infinitely this," "God is infinitely that," but the Hebrews could barely count. Infinity to them is basically saying: "A lot." They were essentially a notch or two above cavemen.

God (if there is such a thing) is certainly NOT all powerful, and certainly not all-knowing. Both of them have been proven to be impossible. Haven't you ever hung out with a pothead before? They're always full of great gems of ideas, like this classic: "If God is all-powerful, can he create something that even he can't destroy?" Which is an old and tired point, but a logical one. God can't be all-powerful.

Also, mathematics has shown us that it's impossible to be all-knowing. Look at Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
You can't know exactly where a particle is and exactly how fast it's going at the same time. That German guy proved it.
Furthermore, it's impossible for God to know the future, though He can have a very, very good idea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism#Determinism.2C_quantum_mechanics_and_classical_physics
So that defeats the first argument that anti-religious people like to spout.

Moving on. Let's suppose all people have souls, unless they're Hillary Clinton. Now, this soul is the thing that the author(s) of Genesis were talking about when they said: "God created man in His image." We have the soul. It's the one part of us that's identical to God. It's what separates us from the animals. When people talk about the "Holy Spirit," this is what they mean. It's identical to God.
When you do God's will, that part of you grows stronger. Disobey, and that part diminishes. When you die, what's left of your soul goes back to God. That's called Heaven.
Evil is merely the absence of God on Earth, and Hell is merely the absence of God after death. As for the Devil... gimme a break.

God created everything? Well sure. In a way. We're almost certain that the Big Bang happened, and if we were to look back far enough into anything's history, we could find its origins in the Big Bang. All the matter and energy in the universe came from that point. Things changed form, spun around, cooled off, life formed, life evolved and became more complex... etc. In other words, God didn't say: "Hey, I think this planet could use some deer. *boing* And some trees and grass *boing*. And people *boing*. And now I think I'll go ahead and create evil *boing*."

What we've seen of the world and the universe shows us that things didn't spring into existence out of nowhere. Everything started at a certain point, changed, split off into the numerous different landforms/star types/organisms/types of planet/whetever that we see now. So God kickstarted the universe with the Big Bang, having a pretty good idea of where everything was going, and sat back and watched. He probably knew that evil was going to happen, because that's our imperfect human nature. Maybe He's made a prediction that hasn't occured to us yet. Maybe it was a variable that he didn't expect. Maybe evil is inevitable. We don't know these things (we really don't know what evil is, we can't agree on a definition).

God only knows. God makes his plans. The information's unavailable to the mortal man.

God only knows, huh? So, what's the point of worshiping him, again? Following your reasoning leads to an impossibly unknowable god whose intentions are completely beyond human understanding. Why do we have brains that constantly try to reason out the world around us? What's the point, if not to attempt to become closer to understanding of god?

Your argument is the equivalent of throwing your hands up and saying, "Screw it, I don't know. He's gotta have a plan. I believe because I believe, and that's enough for god." I can't do that. I've got to believe we're headed somewhere, and that we have a point. What if our souls are merely toliet paper to god, with which he wipes his holy butt? If god is totally incomprehensible, the absurd becomes possible.

As for creating a rock he can't lift, that's an absurdity of language. Even god falls down when faced with the inane.

1st. straw man.
2nd. he was referring to the capitol G concept. which it seems the ancient Greeks did not find logical to exist.

and besides. how is a freaking question a strawman? i made no logical assertion, how can i be guilty of a logical fallacy?

Basically, I don't believe in God, It's not logical


*burns Bellania at the stake*

DEATH TO HERETICS

What happens if I put your non-existant cat in a box?

You don't really know until you open the box, do you?

What meaning can you find? Because I seriously can't find any meaning in my life if we are just flesh and bones (not that I nessecerally have a problem with that).

There is more than merely the spiritual side.

There are the little things like enjoying a hot shower, being with people who make you laugh; the insipid little things that make us think, 'this isn't so bad'.

I like to torment my cat by putting different human condiments in her wet food to see if she eats it. That has given my life some meaning. She hasn't failed me yet. So far she has eaten her wet food with ketchup, mustard, sugar water, mayonaise... net we're trying Diana Sauce. :)

You misunderstand, the OP is addressing only one concept of God (Judeo-Christian) and attempting to disprove God, he is not attempting to disprove that any sort of God exists at all, hence him admitting to being agnostic on that issue.

The title of the thread is "proof against God" the OP later says he doesn't believe in God because it's not logical.

He bases this unbelief on a very narrow opinion of what God might be. Even within the Judeo-Christian tradition this vision of God is narrow.

There is more than merely the spiritual side.

There are the little things like enjoying a hot shower, being with people who make you laugh; the insipid little things that make us think, 'this isn't so bad'.

I like to torment my cat by putting different human condiments in her wet food to see if she eats it. That has given my life some meaning. She hasn't failed me yet. So far she has eaten her wet food with ketchup, mustard, sugar water, mayonaise... net we're trying Diana Sauce. :)

Oh yeah of course there are things that I enjoy that make me happy, but I wouldn't really call that 'meaning'.

The title of the thread is "proof against God" the OP later says he doesn't believe in God because it's not logical.

He bases this unbelief on a very narrow opinion of what God might be. Even within the Judeo-Christian tradition this vision of God is narrow.

First line of OP: "We're dealing with the traditional Judeo-Christian view of God." I.e. he is only attempting to disprove that version.

I have this theory that there is two types of atheist:

1) those we just accept it and don't bother anyone

2) those so far in the closet when it comes to religion that they need to constantly convince themselves with whatever straws they have because saying that you honestly don't know is far too scary a thought

3) those that don't know their numbers :p

Number 2 would explain why there is always a thread like this from time to time. After all, what better way to convincing yourself than convincing someone else?

While I don't believe in God myself, the original proof doesn't make much sense to proving God doesn't exist - especially since it gives a perfectly nice alternative, that God is a prick. Have you even heard of Old Testament? You can find plenty more examples of God being a prick than just having created evil.

In an infinite number of universes, the likelihood of one of those universes possessing a being capable of creating our universe approaches one.

:)

Excellent.

As for the OP, here's my dollar divided by fifty:

Yes, the Judeo-christian concept of an omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent god that has given us free will is not logical.

There several ways of dealing with this:


We can assume that the Abrahamists got it wrong. God exists, but not in this way.
We can assume that god exists outside of logic in some way. God exists but defies logic.
We can assume that god does not exist.


Because of the nature of the Abrahamic god, it would be impossible for scientists to test these assumptions to find out which is right. So you may as well pick the one you like and believe that.

By the way, the OP is addressing the issue of theodicy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy), for those who wish to read up on it (http://www.religioustolerance.org/reac_ter3.htm).

I have this theory that there is two types of atheist:

1) those we just accept it and don't bother anyone

2) those so far in the closet when it comes to religion that they need to constantly convince themselves with whatever straws they have because saying that you honestly don't know is far too scary a thought

3) those that don't know their numbers :p

Exactly why I changed from atheist to agnostic. I don't know, I have no way of knowing. It doesn't keep me up at night. Aggressive atheists are like radical feminists to me... I get annoyed and embarrassed that people might lump us in the same group.


"And if so, he's a fuckin' weirdo transvestite. I'm much more of an executive transvestite. It's a lot wider group than you think."

First line of OP: "We're dealing with the traditional Judeo-Christian view of God." I.e. he is only attempting to disprove that version.

That version doesn't exist, there are so many variations in the Judeo-Christian tradition that it renders his OP meaningless.

Do you understand how logic works?

That's a pretty loaded question to ask on this board. :p

That version doesn't exist, there are so many variations in the Judeo-Christian tradition that it renders his OP meaningless.

Hardly, the definitions in the OP are incredibly vague, omnipotent and omni-benevolent is hardly specific, it's very inclusive and probably includes the majority of Judeo-Christian interpretations.

Perhaps what is being lost in the whole mess is the fact that logical arguments and proof are not a requirement of having FAITH.

Faith does not need the crutch of supporting scientific evidence that God is real and the attempts to employ logical and scientific methods to do so show a lack of faith.

Faith and the scientific method are two totally different things and neither one proves the existence, or non-existence, of the other. I am quite tired of atheists believing their clever logical constructs are the final word on what God is and is not. I am equally bored of the faithful corrupting science (I am looking at the IDers) in order to prove the existence of the their Lord.

You believe? Fine. You don't? Fine. Neither standpoint makes a person a better human. Their actions do that.

BTW: In case you are wondering, I am an atheist who has no qualms with those who have religion.

Hardly, the definitions in the OP are incredibly vague, omnipotent and omni-benevolent is hardly specific, it's very inclusive and probably includes the majority of Judeo-Christian interpretations.

omni-benevolent is very specific. omnipotent is also very specific.

Even if his "definitions" do cover the "majority" of Judeo-Christian tradition of God, it does not cover them all.

The "majority" of Americans support the death penalty, the "majority" of Americans are pro-choice. To say that because these two things are true that an American that is against the death penalty and also pro-life doesn't exist..........is not logic.

Judeo-Christian? How about Abrahamic? What about Islam?! I'm a Muslim... Anyways, here's my take on it :D

In Islam, there are two main races that have completely freewill - humans and jinns. The Devil (with a capital 'D') is someone from the race of the jinn. The Jinn are invisible creatures made from smokeless fire, while humans are creatures made from clay or Earth.

Other animals and creatures have lower amounts of freewill. Any evil person from the jinn or from the humans is called a devil. The leader of the devils is the "Devil", a jinn, whose name is Iblees (Lucifer in Christianity). He's not an angel, btw, who are intelligent beings made from light, but do not have freewill.

Islam means a peaceful, harmonious submission to the Will of God. The Will of God at a basic level is the natural laws that make up this world. But since some living things have freewill, we can interact on our own terms with other living things as well as the environment in general. In order to ensure harmony, while still allowing freewill, God sets some limits for us, and also guides us. That's the submission.

When you go beyond the set limits and do not obey the guidelines, you destroy the harmony and that results in evil.

Why is it that some religious people believe that atheists should just stand aside and stay quiet about our beliefs. I am a tolerant atheist- I don't mind people worshipping their own religion. People are always trying to convert us, telling us we're going to hell if we don't believe, whether we are good people or not, so why shouldn't we be able to argue for are beliefs? You can't really accuse us of 'bothering people', I hardly think atheism causing half as much bother to religious groups as religious groups do to atheists and scientific groups for example.

Broadly agreed, although I dislike the reference to Atheism as a 'belief': when I say "I'm an Atheist" I'm making a statement about what I don't believe, not what I do.

That said, you're right about the tendency to attack anyone who actively argues for atheism: if somebody started a thread along the lines of "God exists and I can prove it" then lots of people, including me, would tell them they were wrong (unless they had some new arguments which really did work), but I can't imagine anyone accusing them of being intolerant or 'militant' for making the argument.

omni-benevolent is very specific. omnipotent is also very specific.

Even if his "definitions" do cover the "majority" of Judeo-Christian tradition of God, it does not cover them all.

The "majority" of Americans support the death penalty, the "majority" of Americans are pro-choice. To say that because these two things are true that an American that is against the death penalty and also pro-life doesn't exist..........is not logic.

Except that I'm not entirely convinced that the Judeo-Christian concept of God is actually a bunch of lots of varied interpretations, in fact some may go as far to say that the omnipotent, omni-benevolent idea is the very definition of the Judeo-Christian concept of God. However, I would agree that very little Christian theologians hold to these definitions, and that this concept of God is pointless and out of date. Anyway, I think that the problem of evil goes further than making him not seem omni-benevolent, but not even simply benevolent.

omni-benevolent is very specific. omnipotent is also very specific.

Even if his "definitions" do cover the "majority" of Judeo-Christian tradition of God, it does not cover them all.

The "majority" of Americans support the death penalty, the "majority" of Americans are pro-choice. To say that because these two things are true that an American that is against the death penalty and also pro-life doesn't exist..........is not logic.
Indeed, don't forget that the word "God" is empty and meaningless by itself. People give the word meaning, they stick certain properties on the word "God" like "omnipotent" or "good" etc etc. Now I won't say there is proof against "God", there is only proof or there are logical inconsitancies against certain properties certain people stick to the word "God". But ofcourse, those logical inconsistancies don't say it can't exist. Do take 1 thing in mind though, either a being like that exists for all of us or it doesn't, for certain images of "God" it doesn't matter what someone beleives or not (like the "God" that supposedly created everything around us).

Aggressive atheists are like radical feminists to me

Please explain what you mean by both of these terms.

We're dealing with the traditional Judeo-Christian view of God.

1. Evil exists (i.e., the Devil or Hell)
2. God created everything
3. God is omni-benevolent (all-good)
Therefore, an all-good creator made evil, or the all-good creator doesn't exist.

Basically, why I don't believe in God (at least the Christian view). It's not logical unless you believe he/she/it's a prick.

Suppose God is a benign God - a generally kind and good God, but not necessarily one that is all-completely-benevolent.

Suppose God is incredibly, but not infinitely powerful. He is not omniscient, omnipresent or omnipotent, but is so powerful that in our view of Him He may well be, in the way that to an ant, a Blue Whale would look of infinite size, whereas it actually isn't.

Suppose there is no Devil, no one source of all evil in the world.

There may be malevolent demonic forces, however there may not be.

If God is generally benign, kind, loving and powerful, and supposing there was an afterlife, as the physical world we see is not all there is, but that there is a spiritual aspect to our world as well, then 'Heaven' as we know it would be being with God after we die. Suppose there is a final choice after you die whether you want to be with God or not. Choosing to be in isolation from God after your earthly life would essentially be Hell, as you are apart from the greatest force of good (though not necessarily infinitely good) in the world. Being ultrascient (but not necessarily omniscient) He could see whether people had led a generally good life or not, regardless of whether they believed in God when they were on earth.

I know there are many holes in this.

I don't claim to have all the answers. I don't know for sure who or what God is or whether indeed He does exist or if there is anything after death.

But personally I believe there is something more to this world than just the physical, just what we see.

I believe that a spiritual side to life and the universe exists and that God, whoever He is, is a part of that.

There are arguments put forward for the existence of God and against the existence of God, there is no evidence on either side but some firm pointers, for both positions. We will never be able in our earthly lives to prove that He does or does not exist, and the same for the spiritual aspect of life.

I can't put forward evidence, or a cleverly contructed thesis with all questions answered, as I don't think that exists in terms of God arguments, and I don't expect to convince anyone with a clever, all-questions-answered thesis, but I, in my heart, believe that there is something more to this life than just what we can see, hear, touch, smell, taste and imagine.

You misunderstand, the OP is addressing only one concept of God (Judeo-Christian) and attempting to disprove God, he is not attempting to disprove that any sort of God exists at all, hence him admitting to being agnostic on that issue.

Precisely. Thanks for reading my posts.

Precisely. Thanks for reading my posts.
Why don't you believe in God?

The title of the thread is "proof against God" the OP later says he doesn't believe in God because it's not logical.

He bases this unbelief on a very narrow opinion of what God might be. Even within the Judeo-Christian tradition this vision of God is narrow.

Yep, it's admittedly and intentionally narrow. Most people in the US ascribe to some form of Christianity, and I simply wanted to address that. The most vocal portion of that group seems to ascribe to the idea of the god I'm addressing. I wouldn't say that it's narrow within the Judeo-Christian tradition, but it is narrow among all faiths.

But, as I've previously posted, not believing in god is not the same thing as saying THERE IS NO GOD or saying I'll never believe in god. At this point in time, I'm waiting for more information. Fence-sitting, as it were.

But personally I believe there is something more to this world than just the physical, just what we see.

I believe that a spiritual side to life and the universe exists and that God, whoever He is, is a part of that.

There are arguments put forward for the existence of God and against the existence of God, there is no evidence on either side but some firm pointers, for both positions. We will never be able in our earthly lives to prove that He does or does not exist, and the same for the spiritual aspect of life.

I can't put forward evidence, or a cleverly contructed thesis with all questions answered, as I don't think that exists in terms of God arguments, and I don't expect to convince anyone with a clever, all-questions-answered thesis, but I, in my heart, believe that there is something more to this life than just what we can see, hear, touch, smell, taste and imagine.
I often wonder why people think or want to think that there is "more" then what we can see or detect (don't forget about dark matter please) and how they can ever think that there is indeed more, since absolutly nothing points that way.
But indeed, there is no evidence for or against something like that, ofcourse logical inconsitancies can be attacked, but that's it.

While I don't believe in God myself, the original proof doesn't make much sense to proving God doesn't exist - especially since it gives a perfectly nice alternative, that God is a prick. Have you even heard of Old Testament? You can find plenty more examples of God being a prick than just having created evil.

Thanks for making my point. I'm saying the omni-benevolent, omnipotent god is the one that doesn't exist. Sure, he could be a prick, but I'm not worshiping a prick.

So, if god knows what you are going to do before you do it, is that really free will? Do you really have a choice in anything if it's all predetermined?

Yes it still free will hes not forceing us to do anything, he just can predict (like seeing into the future).

Perhaps what is being lost in the whole mess is the fact that logical arguments and proof are not a requirement of having FAITH.

Faith does not need the crutch of supporting scientific evidence that God is real and the attempts to employ logical and scientific methods to do so show a lack of faith.

Faith and the scientific method are two totally different things and neither one proves the existence, or non-existence, of the other. I am quite tired of atheists believing their clever logical constructs are the final word on what God is and is not. I am equally bored of the faithful corrupting science (I am looking at the IDers) in order to prove the existence of the their Lord.

You believe? Fine. You don't? Fine. Neither standpoint makes a person a better human. Their actions do that.

BTW: In case you are wondering, I am an atheist who has no qualms with those who have religion.

This is a debate about attempting to apply human logic to the omnipotent, not a debate about faith. There is nothing logical about faith, as you stated, and as such, faith isn't really an issue in this discussion.

Yep, it's admittedly and intentionally narrow. Most people in the US ascribe to some form of Christianity, and I simply wanted to address that. The most vocal portion of that group seems to ascribe to the idea of the god I'm addressing. I wouldn't say that it's narrow within the Judeo-Christian tradition, but it is narrow among all faiths.

But, as I've previously posted, not believing in god is not the same thing as saying THERE IS NO GOD or saying I'll never believe in god. At this point in time, I'm waiting for more information. Fence-sitting, as it were.
I don't particularly care if you believe in God or not, you are abusing logic though.

*burns Bellania at the stake*

DEATH TO HERETICS

*sniffs* Wow, something smells really good.

I don't particularly care if you believe in God or not, you are abusing logic though.

How, what he has said is consistent (even if the title is misleading and the OP vague).

I don't particularly care if you believe in God or not, you are abusing logic though.

Smunkee, you've spent this entire debate attacking the language of the post, rather than the actual content. This isn't a discussion about how precise the language is or should be, it's more about the idea behind the post. Merely accept that there is a portion of the population (be it one or a million or a billion) that believes in the god I'm talking about and address my argument, rather than dancing around and parsing my statements.

1. Evil exists (i.e., the Devil or Hell)
2. God created everything
3. God is omni-benevolent (all-good)

now if we use the same source of information that the OP uses (His claim of using Judeo-Christian concepts) then let's look closer at those concepts.

the Devil (or the Corruptor, Lucifer, etc...) was an Angel that sought to be greater than God. yet God, with all his power, Did NOT obliterate Lucifer, but cast him away. a form of mercy? someone took the free will God gave all his creation and made his choice to ursup God's position and instead of removing this fallen angel from creation, God just 'demoted' him and basically Fired him.

The Corruptor (evil as the OP says) was free to spread his taint among creation (Adam and Eve) and instead of obliterating Adam and Eve and starting over, God again showed his love by alowing Adam and Eve to live with their wrongdoing as well as allowing the corruptor to walk the Earth.

so why does Evil exist if God is Omni Benevolent?
Why do you allow your children to make bad choices? Don't you love your Children to make all their choices for them since you know better?

or do you allow your children the freedom to make their own choices as well as their own mistakes?

If God truly didn't care for us, he would've obliterated us completly and started over without the free will and the OP wouldn't be asking this kind of question.

now what definition of Omni Benevolent are you using? Good? but Good is a relative concept. A parent can be Good even tho (S)he will harshly punish (but not excessivly so) their child for wrong doing. Is God strict? yes. but that doesn't mean He's not good.

Is God allowing us to live our lives the way we choose to? yes, but that doesn't mean he doesn't care how we live.

How, what he has said is consistent (even if the title is misleading and the OP vague).

Nobody would read it if the title weren't intentionally inflammatory. As I appear to be, thanks to Kirchensittenbach.

Smunkee, you've spent this entire debate attacking the language of the post, rather than the actual content. This isn't a discussion about how precise the language is or should be, it's more about the idea behind the post. Merely accept that there is a portion of the population (be it one or a million or a billion) that believes in the god I'm talking about and address my argument, rather than dancing around and parsing my statements.

Explain your position to me once more.

The Corruptor (evil as the OP says) was free to spread his taint among creation (Adam and Eve)

Where does the Bible say it was Satan who tempted Adam and Eve in the Garden? Genesis is pretty clear in saying that it was a talking snake.

and instead of obliterating Adam and Eve and starting over, God again showed his love by alowing Adam and Eve to live with their wrongdoing as well as allowing the corruptor to walk the Earth.

By this line of argument it would be an act of love to let a paedophile walk freely around a childrens' playground...

The first error is in trying to define an infinite from a finite observation. Granted, the human mind truly cannot think out of the box in this regard.

The second error is that assumption of god creating what the hearts of humanity call evil. Granted, an omnipotent god could certain know that such a concept as evil would emerge (indicating that evil is actually finite, as it has a beginning).

Smunkee, you've spent this entire debate attacking the language of the post, rather than the actual content. This isn't a discussion about how precise the language is or should be, it's more about the idea behind the post. Merely accept that there is a portion of the population (be it one or a million or a billion) that believes in the god I'm talking about and address my argument, rather than dancing around and parsing my statements.

it seems to me that your little logic problem is better put to the notion that certain christians have a poorly thought out understanding of god than that god doesnt exist at all.

some of the ways that christians get around the problem of evil are pathetic in their portrait of god.

so why does Evil exist if God is Omni Benevolent?
Why do you allow your children to make bad choices? Don't you love your Children to make all their choices for them since you know better?

or do you allow your children the freedom to make their own choices as well as their own mistakes?

If God truly didn't care for us, he would've obliterated us completly and started over without the free will and the OP wouldn't be asking this kind of question.

Ah, but we don't have that power, do we? If we did, there wouldn't be very many strippers, and my life wouldn't be nearly as fun. If you had the power to keep you children from using cocaine and going into prostitution, wouldn't you use it? I mean, why put your kids through all that pain and suffering when you can just wave your hand and make it all better? How does letting your daughter be raped teach her a lesson? Couldn't it just be a near-miss? This stuff goes on every day, and I can't figure out why. And saying "God has a plan" is a cop-out that marginalizes the plight of these people.

Maybe god would wipe us out, but he can't find the remote.

what capital G concept did the ancient greeks have?

capitol G The God is a modern term.
that differentiates lower case g god.
so capitol means The one and only God or the High God.
lower case is a god as in one of many or collective gods.

it seems to me that your little logic problem is better put to the notion that certain christians have a poorly thought out understanding of god than that god doesnt exist at all.

some of the ways that christians get around the problem of evil are pathetic in their portrait of god.

True, it would be more exact, but who'd read a post "certain christians have a poorly thought out understanding of god"?

it seems to me that your little logic problem is better put to the notion that certain christians have a poorly thought out understanding of god than that god doesnt exist at all.

some of the ways that christians get around the problem of evil are pathetic in their portrait of god.

It may not be that poorly thought, I mean if God is the source of morality, and God is not perfect, then that presents some serious philosophical problems.

It may not be that poorly thought, I mean if God is the source of morality, and God is not perfect, then that presents some serious philosophical problems.

if your theology doesnt take that into consideration its poorly thought out.

its not like evil is NEW. its had to be theologically dealt with since theology has existed.

The first error is in trying to define an infinite from a finite observation. Granted, the human mind truly cannot think out of the box in this regard.

The second error is that assumption of god creating what the hearts of humanity call evil. Granted, an omnipotent god could certain know that such a concept as evil would emerge (indicating that evil is actually finite, as it has a beginning).

Hey, I'm human, so all I have is finite observations. Space is infinite, so does that mean we can't know anything about it since there's no way we can measure every parsec?

Yep, that's my assertion, and, since you disproved your own point, I've nothing else to add except that if evil is finite, so is good. Now that's a scary concept.

*DEEP BREATH*
Me being a loose Christian, my understanding is that the story goes God made Lucifer as an Angel, so he was initially a good guy. However, Lucifer became jealous of God's power and staged an uprising, which failed. He was sent away from Heaven to Hell, and turned into the devil and created evil all by himself. So, yeah, God didn't, going by the bible, actually make evil.

Plus, if God does exist, he was kinda bi-polar. In the New Testament he's a good guy, but theres a whooole lotta smiting going on in the Old.

Where does the Bible say it was Satan who tempted Adam and Eve in the Garden? Genesis is pretty clear in saying that it was a talking snake. I didn't say Satan. remember, he's talking about an amalgamation of various view of the Judeo-Christian concepts which some clearly combine the serpent, Corrupter, and Lucifer into one amalgamaged being. Some refer to the serpent as the corrupter (the line who's head is crushed by the heel of Adam and Eve's decendant, as declared in Genesis.)

and I never said it was Satan itself, but the corruptor (representing Evil.) do you think I use three different names without some reasoning?

By this line of argument it would be an act of love to let a paedophile walk freely around a childrens' playground...
would it? to give a paedophile the freedom to live free (especially after being punished) and to have an honest chance to turn his/her life around?

or would you consider it to be 'love' to put the Paedophile to death after one wrongdoing to insure he/she won't do it again.

perhaps to string a sign around his/her neck telling the world what he/she did and forcing him/her to wear that sign untill their natural death is what you consider 'love'?

Perhaps all of the above are examples of love. But God allows us our mistakes and Forgives us our trespasses even tho they may number in the legions.

if your theology doesnt take that into consideration its poorly thought out.


I don't understand this statement. Basically, to believe in a God which isn't perfect presents many logical problems for Christians.


its not like evil is NEW. its had to be theologically dealt with since theology has existed.

Yes, and I have had to study many different solutions, none of which have dealt with it without pretty much rejecting Christianity.

This is a debate about attempting to apply human logic to the omnipotent, not a debate about faith. There is nothing logical about faith, as you stated, and as such, faith isn't really an issue in this discussion.

But it is. You are attempting to apply logic to the concept of an omnipotent God. Is that not a question of faith?

God does not fit into human logic. He is all-encompassing and beyond the understanding of the very beings he created. Tell me how you can debate the logic of being omnipotent without it being about faith because that is what this ultimately breaks down to.

Look at the title. Look at what people are writing. I see a great deal of discussion about the nature of God and attempts to puzzle out his qualities through the use of logic. You would have me believe that discussing the nature of God is different than discussing a single quality of God. A very interesting misdirection...

I will restate my first post: using logic to ferret out the qualities of God is as wrong-minded and useless as using faith to prove or disprove scientific theories.

*DEEP BREATH*
Me being a loose Christian, my understanding is that the story goes God made Lucifer as an Angel, so he was initially a good guy. However, Lucifer became jealous of God's power and staged an uprising, which failed. He was sent away from Heaven to Hell, and turned into the devil and created evil all by himself. So, yeah, God didn't, going by the bible, actually make evil.

Out of interest, how much of that story do you think is found in the Bible?

It may not be that poorly thought, I mean if God is the source of morality, and God is not perfect, then that presents some serious philosophical problems.

A more interesting question would be "If God isn't perfect, then what is there to stop a human from being morally superior to Her? Would this mean God had to obtain salvation through the mercy of this human?"

But it is. You are attempting to apply logic to the concept of an omnipotent God. Is that not a question of faith?

God does not fit into human logic. He is all-encompassing and beyond the understanding of the very beings he created. Tell me how you can debate the logic of being omnipotent without it being about faith because that is what this ultimately breaks down to.

Look at the title. Look at what people are writing. I see a great deal of discussion about the nature of God and attempts to puzzle out his qualities through the use of logic. You would have me believe that discussing the nature of God is different than discussing a single quality of God. A very interesting misdirection...

I will restate my first post: using logic to ferret out the qualities of God is as wrong-minded and useless as using faith to prove or disprove scientific theories.

^ this

We're dealing with the traditional Judeo-Christian view of God.

1. Evil exists (i.e., the Devil or Hell)
2. God created everything
3. God is omni-benevolent (all-good)
Therefore, an all-good creator made evil, or the all-good creator doesn't exist.

Basically, why I don't believe in God (at least the Christian view). It's not logical unless you believe he/she/it's a prick.

1. Evil does not exist, nor does good, only views and opinions.
2. God was created by man, and man created most of what we see today, including the current enviroment thanks to climate changes and even God. So by proximity, Man created everything.
3. Referring to the above points, Good does not exist and neither does Evil, and if Man is God, then surely and obviously, no one is omni-benevolent.

With regards,
Kier Sparey

now what definition of Omni Benevolent are you using? Good? but Good is a relative concept. A parent can be Good even tho (S)he will harshly punish (but not excessivly so) their child for wrong doing. Is God strict? yes. but that doesn't mean He's not good.

Is God allowing us to live our lives the way we choose to? yes, but that doesn't mean he doesn't care how we live.

There is an interesting dichotomy to the God you describe. In one sense It (I hate ascribing the idea of an omnipotent being a gender, it just doesn't make sense to me) is like a parent allowing their children to make mistakes on their own, but also "strict", implying the doling out of punishment for doing bad things... Either we are given free-will and suffer the natural consequences of our actions, or we have limited free-will for which we are punished or rewarded appropriately. And yet, as we all know, good things happen to bad people, and bad things happen to good people, 'innocent' children die as infants, mass-murderers live to be 80. Often times this is rebutted with the idea that "God has a plan for all of us", or some varient of this, which logically contradicts the idea that we have free will.

So the question for the believers is: does God interfere? If so, how do you suppose It weighs and balances the (often) contradictory wishes and desires of so many people? If, instead, God does not interfere, allowing our free-will to truly reign, then what difference does it make if your idea of God is some anthropomorphic vision of a supreme being who looks just like us (and for some reason not like any of the other billions of things It created), or if my idea of God is that the vast computational power of the interactions of the almost infinite number of particles in the universe is, collectively, a supreme "consciousness" that could just as easily be called God?

Enjoy.

It may not be that poorly thought, I mean if God is the source of morality, and God is not perfect, then that presents some serious philosophical problems.

Actually, it would resolve many. The one in the OP, for instance.

if your theology doesnt take that into consideration its poorly thought out.

its not like evil is NEW. its had to be theologically dealt with since theology has existed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy

if your theology doesnt take that into consideration its poorly thought out.

its not like evil is NEW. its had to be theologically dealt with since theology has existed.

And yet a-holes like me still post about it on forums.

God does not fit into human logic. He is all-encompassing and beyond the understanding of the very beings he created. Tell me how you can debate the logic of being omnipotent without it being about faith because that is what this ultimately breaks down to.


As Dawkins would say: Massive cop out!


Look at the title. Look at what people are writing. I see a great deal of discussion about the nature of God and attempts to puzzle out his qualities through the use of logic. You would have me believe that discussing the nature of God is different than discussing a single quality of God. A very interesting misdirection...


And you seem to be under the assumption that people are discussing the general idea of God, rather than the specific idea of God mentioned in the OP.


I will restate my first post: using logic to ferret out the qualities of God is as wrong-minded and useless as using faith to prove or disprove scientific theories.

Yet you haven't explained why, you have tenuously linked it to being about faith (we're not discussing whether you can believe in him, but whether it is possible for such a being to exist) and gone on the usual rant about how God is too awesome for logic.

I don't worship God. This does not mean I don't believe in him. I believe that if he exists that he's not worth worshipping.

After all... the Bible supports incest! Adam and Eve? Noah? Anyone remember that according to the bible we're all related?

Furthermore, Christianity proports that Jesus is the Son of God, and is in fact, God himself. Either Jesus is god and he's a pervert because he impregnated his own mother. Or Jesus is a god in his own right and thus God is not the One True God as the most religions seem to want to dictate. Personally, I've always found that I support the Patheons theory. No mightier then thou hypocrite trying to establish how I should live my life. So there's that.

Also. The Bible is the "Word of God" but was written by Man, thus the Bible is in itself a lie.

God, to me, is a fraud or a fool. I don't find either a quality that's particular endearing of worship or praise.

But it is. You are attempting to apply logic to the concept of an omnipotent God. Is that not a question of faith?

God does not fit into human logic. He is all-encompassing and beyond the understanding of the very beings he created. Tell me how you can debate the logic of being omnipotent without it being about faith because that is what this ultimately breaks down to.

Look at the title. Look at what people are writing. I see a great deal of discussion about the nature of God and attempts to puzzle out his qualities through the use of logic. You would have me believe that discussing the nature of God is different than discussing a single quality of God. A very interesting misdirection...

I will restate my first post: using logic to ferret out the qualities of God is as wrong-minded and useless as using faith to prove or disprove scientific theories.
That's a really weak explanation, "We can't understand so don't try.", it's a real discussion-stopper and an easy way out. Also, that presents a logical problem. Because if we're not able to understand God, that immidiatly canceles God's all-powerfullness. Afterall, apperantly He can't explain His ways/means/route to us. If He would be all-powerfull, He could.

For those of you who are arguing that God is always full of peace and love you should read the Old Testament. God was always smitin' this and nukin' that.

One should also consider that the role of Satan/Lucifer was once considered an Adversary, one that tested God's works as a job function. It was later one that the role became known as Evil. It was a common mythological thread that a true master work had to be tested in order to know its true worth. Satan/Lucifer filled that function.

Apparently God had no problem with product testing.

Ah, but we don't have that power, do we? If we did, there wouldn't be very many strippers, and my life wouldn't be nearly as fun. If you had the power to keep you children from using cocaine and going into prostitution, wouldn't you use it? actually, we do. some people call it indoctrination, others Brainwashing, and some call it education.
I mean, why put your kids through all that pain and suffering when you can just wave your hand and make it all better? try it. as soon as your child does something wrong, go ahead and correct it for them, they break a toy, replace it within minutes (possible if you have spare toys on hand) They get hungry, feed them within seconds. you'll soon learn that they won't tie the consequences of their actions to their actions.

How does letting your daughter be raped teach her a lesson???? why is the focus only on the victim? perhaps it's the rapist who needs to be taught a lession. one that he will be taught when he's caught and punished for it (and when he's registered as a sex offender, it's a punishment that would last for a LOOOOOONG time).

Did you warn her about her attacker (Stats say majority of Rapes are committed by people they know) and did she listen?

Did you (as the parent) take time to learn about her friends? know who they are? where she's going and what she's doing?

Why does it have to be the direct victim that has to be 'taught a lession'?

Couldn't it just be a near-miss? how many near misses occured to you? or are you only aware of the obvious near misses?

how many times are people warned about drinking and driving... yet they do so anyway.

How many times people are warned about financial responsiblity... and how many actually heed that warning.

Most times, in fact almost all the time, evil done to us is evil perpetuated by other humans who are exercising their free will.

This stuff goes on every day, and I can't figure out why. And saying "God has a plan" is a cop-out that marginalizes the plight of these people. I agree. Only saying 'God has a plan' is a cop-out. after all, perhaps his plan is for those talkers to get off their duffs and do something about what they hear about. perhaps that's why you have alot of religious-oriented charities (as well as alot of non-religious ones).

Maybe god would wipe us out, but he can't find the remote.God promised he wouldn't. however, nothing saying he won't let US wipe ourselves out.

But it is. You are attempting to apply logic to the concept of an omnipotent God. Is that not a question of faith?

God does not fit into human logic. He is all-encompassing and beyond the understanding of the very beings he created. Tell me how you can debate the logic of being omnipotent without it being about faith because that is what this ultimately breaks down to.

Look at the title. Look at what people are writing. I see a great deal of discussion about the nature of God and attempts to puzzle out his qualities through the use of logic. You would have me believe that discussing the nature of God is different than discussing a single quality of God. A very interesting misdirection...

I will restate my first post: using logic to ferret out the qualities of God is as wrong-minded and useless as using faith to prove or disprove scientific theories.

If you can prove it logically, faith becomes irrelevant. I want people to look at what they believe and go "why do I believe that?" Faith says "believe it because you know that it's right, even if there's no evidence to prove it." You're looking at it from the point of view of somebody who believes already, and for whom god is a matter of Faith. I can't have blind Faith, believing in something I can't see, hear, touch, taste, or smell. I'm not wired like that. Therefore, for me, this discussion has nothing to do with faith. I want something I can grab onto, and faith ain't it.

I often wonder why people think or want to think that there is "more" then what we can see or detect (don't forget about dark matter please) and how they can ever think that there is indeed more, since absolutly nothing points that way.
But indeed, there is no evidence for or against something like that, ofcourse logical inconsitancies can be attacked, but that's it.

Faith and Hope.

I believe and I am optimistic that there is something more to this life than merely what we can detect.

An atheist friend of mine says it is pretty bigheaded to say that just because we can't understand something it means it must be infinite.

Presumably then it's just as bigheaded to think that everything in the universe is within the comprehensive abilities of humanity.

i have a question though, why is god pissed at satan, i know his origin is not very fleshed out in the bible but still, if god created him, than surley he must have known about his rebellion, so why even punish? why not just create something meant to be evil without all the hassle?

That's a really weak explanation, "We can't understand so don't try.", it's a real discussion-stopper and an easy way out. Also, that presents a logical problem. Because if we're not able to understand God, that immidiatly canceles God's all-powerfullness. Afterall, apperantly He can't explain His ways/means/route to us. If He would be all-powerfull, He could.

So a cop out and a really weak explanation.

For those who claim I am just copping out, please discribe for me how you feel about Intelligent Design being taught in science class? Or perhaps your children should be taught various strains of logic that DO prove the existance of God? As an atheist I do not like dogma taught to my children so I tend not to force logic onto their faith. It serves no purpose and nothing constructive ever comes of it.

You have no clue as to what Faith means or what its role in religion is. To say that if God was all-powerful we would all know everything about him is to show a massive misunderstanding of Faith. God's creations, humans, have the capacity to have faith or not to have faith. That is why only the faithful have access to heaven. Faith is a leap beyond logic.

So have a nice day trying to be so very intelligent and logical about something you lack an understanding of.

Faith and Hope.

I believe and I am optimistic that there is something more to this life than merely what we can detect.

An atheist friend of mine says it is pretty bigheaded to say that just because we can't understand something it means it must be infinite.

Presumably then it's just as bigheaded to think that everything in the universe is within the comprehensive abilities of humanity.
Hope isn't the same as faith. I hope reincarnation is reality, but I don't have faith in it since there is a complete lack of logic. What does the "more we can detect" has to do with being optimistic?
I also never sad we're able to understand everything. You cannot say both, we simply don't know if we can or cannot understand everything. It doesn't sound optimistic if you say "Yea sorry we simply can't understand everything.", it doesn't even promote trying to understand, wich is the basics of science (just try). No it certainly does not feel like an optimistic view on things, it's like giving up.
So a cop out and a really weak explanation.

For those who claim I am just copping out, please discribe for me how you feel about Intelligent Design being taught in science class? Or perhaps your children should be taught various strains of logic that DO prove the existance of God? As an atheist I do not like dogma taught to my children so I tend not to force logic onto their faith. It serves no purpose and nothing constructive ever comes of it.

You have no clue as to what Faith means or what its role in religion is. To say that if God was all-powerful we would all know everything about him is to show a massive misunderstanding of Faith. God's creations, humans, have the capacity to have faith or not to have faith. That is why only the faithful have access to heaven. Faith is a leap beyond logic.

So have a nice day trying to be so very intelligent and logical about something you lack an understanding of.
First: Intelligent Design isn't even close of being science, it does not deserve a place in science-class.
Second: That's not what I say, about that we would all know. Saying we cannot understand what God wants would imply certain things:
Either God wants to explain it, but cannot.
Either God can explain it, but won't.
Either God cannot explain it, and does not want to.

The 1st and 3th option would cancel out the all-powerfull ability of God, because apperantly explaining what he wants lies outside his abilities immidiatly meaning he's not all-powerfull. The 2nd option is a bit of a tricky one, because that would raise more questions, like why won't God explain it then? Those questions block me from having such faith. Ofcourse I dó have faith in certain things, because faith comes in various forms.

i have a question though, why is god pissed at satan, i know his origin is not very fleshed out in the bible but still, if god created him, than surley he must have known about his rebellion, so why even punish? why not just create something meant to be evil without all the hassle?

How do you know God hates Satan?

If Satan were to be repentent ask God for Forgiveness, How do you know God won't forgive Satan?

Won't God honor the choices Satan made when all things are said and done? Won't God judge Satan by the choices he made, just like we are to be judged by the choices we make?

actually, we do. some people call it indoctrination, others Brainwashing, and some call it education.
try it. as soon as your child does something wrong, go ahead and correct it for them, they break a toy, replace it within minutes (possible if you have spare toys on hand) They get hungry, feed them within seconds. you'll soon learn that they won't tie the consequences of their actions to their actions.

No, that's called coddling. If I tell my kid that the stove is hot, and he touches the stove and burns his hand, I'm going to laugh at him. He'll learn that there are consequences to your actions, and one of those consequences is that I'm going to make fun of him when he does some minor thing stupid. But if the kid grabs a spoon and runs for an electrical socket, damn right I'm stopping him.

However, when that kid is grown up, I have no power over them beyond a phone call or two. They're on their own in a world where one mistake will ruin your life. Why does it have to be like this? So many people are broken by life that it makes you wonder if it's not the people who are broken, but rather the system.


??? why is the focus only on the victim? perhaps it's the rapist who needs to be taught a lession. one that he will be taught when he's caught and punished for it (and when he's registered as a sex offender, it's a punishment that would last for a LOOOOOONG time).

Did you warn her about her attacker (Stats say majority of Rapes are committed by people they know) and did she listen?

Did you (as the parent) take time to learn about her friends? know who they are? where she's going and what she's doing?


So it's the victim's fault she got raped? That is a dangerous, dangerous road to travel, my friend. My point was more that even when you are lucky enough to make it, you could be grabbed on your way home from work and end up one of the minority that is raped by a stranger. Why do you have to experience that just so a rapist can get his comeuppance? Why is the system set up like this? I don't have an answer.

I will say this. Religion says that Faith exists in the face of Logic. That with astronomical facts against God that you must still have Faith in him. Faith in his design, even in the face of evidence and logic. Believe is a great thing in the absence of logic. But when Faith stands against all logic presented against it.. That is called stupidity.

Please explain what you mean by both of these terms.

What I mean is, atheists who aggressively try to "convert" the religious to their way of thinking and who are invested in proving that they're "right" about the non-existence of God annoy me as much as the religious who prosthelytize and tell me I'm going to hell if I don't accept Jesus as my personal saviour. Similarly, radical feminists of the Dworkin-Firestone type annoy me when they try to tell me that all male-initiated sex is rape, or that I am an ignorant victim of an oppressive patriarchy because I would like to have children someday. For me, atheism and feminism represent a freedom to make my own choices outside of what the "majority" thinks I should or shouldn't do, and I get annoyed when the very ideals that are meant to liberate me--particularly feminism--instead start telling me what to do or think.

So a cop out and a really weak explanation.

For those who claim I am just copping out, please discribe for me how you feel about Intelligent Design being taught in science class? Or perhaps your children should be taught various strains of logic that DO prove the existance of God? As an atheist I do not like dogma taught to my children so I tend not to force logic onto their faith. It serves no purpose and nothing constructive ever comes of it.

You have no clue as to what Faith means or what its role in religion is. To say that if God was all-powerful we would all know everything about him is to show a massive misunderstanding of Faith. God's creations, humans, have the capacity to have faith or not to have faith. That is why only the faithful have access to heaven. Faith is a leap beyond logic.

So have a nice day trying to be so very intelligent and logical about something you lack an understanding of.

Folks, we have our first condescending post! Woohoo! 14 pages in, a new record!

Intelligent design is deism wrapped in pseudo-science pushed by fanatics, and has nothing at all to do with reason. Does that work?

Hope isn't the same as faith. I hope reincarnation is reality, but I don't have faith in it since there is a complete lack of logic.

I am aware that Hope is not the same as Faith.

Read my post and you will see I wrote Faith and Hope, not Faith = Hope.

What does the "more we can detect" has to do with being optimistic?

I am optimistic that there is an afterlife.
We cannot detect if there is an afterlife or not.

I also never sad we're able to understand everything.

I know. It was a little confusing of me, perhaps I should have put it in a different post. I wasn't trying to disprove you by saying that you said that we can understand everything.

You cannot say both, we simply don't know if we can or cannot understand everything.

I was intentionally putting forward two opposing points of view: someone else's and mine.

It doesn't sound optimistic if you say "Yea sorry we simply can't understand everything.", it doesn't even promote trying to understand, wich is the basics of science (just try). No it certainly does not feel like an optimistic view on things, it's like giving up.

You seem to have misunderstood me entirely.

I wasn't trying to use optimism as a means to say that "we can't understand everything thus, what's the point in trying?" That's just a ridiculous conclusion you've somehow drawn from what I said.

I was simply saying that I am optimistic and I have faith that there is a spiritual side to life. And I was also making the point that some people say we can hope to understand everything, while others say that we cannot.

1. The long standing traditional view of (god) has not survived the test of time. so, I ask. What is meant by (god )?

2. Existance, or non existance of god could be considered irrelevent.
Can the human race get by without such a concept?
Are we even ready for that?

I am aware that Hope is not the same as Faith.

Read my post and you will see I wrote Faith and Hope, not Faith = Hope.



I am optimistic that there is an afterlife.
We cannot detect if there is an afterlife or not.



I know. It was a little confusing of me, perhaps I should have put it in a different post. I wasn't trying to disprove you by saying that you said that we can understand everything.



I was intentionally putting forward two opposing points of view: someone else's and mine.



You seem to have misunderstood me entirely.

I wasn't trying to use optimism as a means to say that "we can't understand everything thus, what's the point in trying?" That's just a ridiculous conclusion you've somehow drawn from what I said.

I was simply saying that I am optimistic and I have faith that there is a spiritual side to life. And I was also making the point that some people say we can hope to understand everything, while others say that we cannot.
Ok, glad that's cleared up. So bassicly, you've got hope, or faith, that there is an afterlife. Why would you have that hope/faith? Afterall, it's either there or it's not there regardless of what you hope. Why would I hope there is an afterlife, since I'll know it when I die anyway.
Also, if you say that faith and hope isn't the same, what's the difference then? Or what's your difference?

And yet a-holes like me still post about it on forums.

i would rather have had you respond to the post that hyde responded to that this was in answer to.

my point was, kinda, that if this is your problem with belief maybe you should look into the various solutions to the problem (which hyde has found inadequate) and not just dismiss the idea of the christian god out of hand.

the beauty of christianity is that it can be "self serve" (since the protestant revolution) and you can construct any view of god that is not directly contradicted by the bible.

I will say this. Religion says that Faith exists in the face of Logic. That with astronomical facts against God that you must still have Faith in him. Faith in his design, even in the face of evidence and logic. Believe is a great thing in the absence of logic. But when Faith stands against all logic presented against it.. That is called stupidity.

There are no astronomical facts against the existance of God, just as there are no astronomical facts for His existance.

There is no evidence disproving God, just as there is no evidence proving Him.

All logic is not presented against the existance of God.

Some logic points away from Him, such as say, evil in the world and I'm sure you can give tonnes more; and some points towards Him, such as the ridiculously unlikely coincidence of the amazing variety of life we have forming, like a tornado flying over a scarpyard and leaving behind a perfect Aston Martin: possible, but incredibly unlikely to happen by chance.

No, that's called coddling. If I tell my kid that the stove is hot, and he touches the stove and burns his hand, I'm going to laugh at him. but you didn't prevent him touching the stove. you could've taken steps that he never touches the stove while it's hot. by your logic, you allowing your kid to touch the hot stove shows you don't love him.

He'll learn that there are consequences to your actions, and one of those consequences is that I'm going to make fun of him when he does some minor thing stupid. But if the kid grabs a spoon and runs for an electrical socket, damn right I'm stopping him. the same with God. except he won't make fun of us when we do something wrong. He puts all forms of advisors in our paths, unfortunatly, the corruptor does also, and he lets us choose.

However, when that kid is grown up, I have no power over them beyond a phone call or two. They're on their own in a world where one mistake will ruin your life. Why does it have to be like this? So many people are broken by life that it makes you wonder if it's not the people who are broken, but rather the system. but he's still your child, your flesh and blood. when he's grown you expect the lessions taught him will guide him forwards. same as God. however, God never leaves us alone, he's always with us, waiting for us to ask Him for help.

So it's the victim's fault she got raped? That is a dangerous, dangerous road to travel, my friend. and one that exists only in your mind. you are only focusing on the victim. no where did I say it was the victim's fault. if that's how you interpreted what I said, then it's your thinking, not mine that puts any fault with the victim.
My point was more that even when you are lucky enough to make it, you could be grabbed on your way home from work and end up one of the minority that is raped by a stranger. Why do you have to experience that just so a rapist can get his comeuppance? Why is the system set up like this? I don't have an answer. why does a crime have to be committed before the courts act to punish the criminal?

we have free will. we Choose our actions.

For a rape to occur, there has to be a decision to rape. thus free will comes into play, a concious choice to rape a person and the choice to put those thoughts into action.

So a cop out and a really weak explanation.


It sure is!


For those who claim I am just copping out, please discribe for me how you feel about Intelligent Design being taught in science class?

Badly, but I don't see how that is relevant.


Or perhaps your children should be taught various strains of logic that DO prove the existance of God?

lol wut


As an atheist I do not like dogma taught to my children so I tend not to force logic onto their faith. It serves no purpose and nothing constructive ever comes of it.


You're an atheist!? Because you sure don't sound like one, especially with crap like this: "That is why only the faithful have access to heaven."


You have no clue as to what Faith means or what its role in religion is. To say that if God was all-powerful we would all know everything about him is to show a massive misunderstanding of Faith.

How unfortunate for you that nobody is saying that then.


God's creations, humans, have the capacity to have faith or not to have faith. That is why only the faithful have access to heaven. Faith is a leap beyond logic.


Your point being?


So have a nice day trying to be so very intelligent and logical about something you lack an understanding of.

That's pretty hard since you haven't presented any 'thing' to discuss in any of your posts, except from a bunch of nicely crafted rhetoric.

How do you know God hates Satan?

If Satan were to be repentent ask God for Forgiveness, How do you know God won't forgive Satan?

Won't God honor the choices Satan made when all things are said and done? Won't God judge Satan by the choices he made, just like we are to be judged by the choices we make?

Hate the act, not the person.

Although I suppose it depends on whether you believe Satan in the embodiment, ie, pure, evil or not.

Personally I don't believe in Lucifer or Satan or the Corrupter, but my faith will keep developing throughout my life, I don't expect to have all the answers and I don't expect it to stay the same.

There are no astronomical facts against the existance of God, just as there are no astronomical facts for His existance.

There is no evidence disproving God, just as there is no evidence proving Him.

All logic is not presented against the existance of God.

Some logic points away from Him, such as say, evil in the world and I'm sure you can give tonnes more; and some points towards Him, such as the ridiculously unlikely coincidence of the amazing variety of life we have forming, like a tornado flying over a scarpyard and leaving behind a perfect Aston Martin: possible, but incredibly unlikely to happen by chance.
Please, please, please don't say such things about nature when you don't understand the current scientific explanation (the tornado in a junkyard is the oldest and 1 of the worst strawmans there is).
Anyway, again, it's not about God, it's about wich properties people stick on the word "God" because again, by itself it's an empty word. There are hundreds of thousands of different images of "God", people who stuck different properties on that word. And all have different logical inconsistencies or good points.

No, that's called coddling. If I tell my kid that the stove is hot, and he touches the stove and burns his hand, I'm going to laugh at him. He'll learn that there are consequences to your actions, and one of those consequences is that I'm going to make fun of him when he does some minor thing stupid. But if the kid grabs a spoon and runs for an electrical socket, damn right I'm stopping him.

However, when that kid is grown up, I have no power over them beyond a phone call or two. They're on their own in a world where one mistake will ruin your life. Why does it have to be like this? So many people are broken by life that it makes you wonder if it's not the people who are broken, but rather the system.

So it's the victim's fault she got raped? That is a dangerous, dangerous road to travel, my friend. My point was more that even when you are lucky enough to make it, you could be grabbed on your way home from work and end up one of the minority that is raped by a stranger. Why do you have to experience that just so a rapist can get his comeuppance? Why is the system set up like this? I don't have an answer.

I'm not trying to justify rape in any way, and I'm not trying to ignore or downplay the immense amount of pain caused to the victim in any way. Let's make that clear before I continue this post.

If God saves a young child from being molested in Boston in 1992, He may as well save all the children in America in 1992 from being molested. Come to think of it, He may as well save all the children in the world in 1992 from being- no, how about all the children in the world in all of time from being molested. No wait, why just child molestation? Why doesn't He go ahead and ensure there is no pain whatsoever in the world ever.

Then we have no free will.

You could smile at a passer-by or punch them in the face but they would feel no pain because God would save them.

Thus the outcome of any action is the same and there can be no free will.

Evil, however you define that, and pain must exist in order for good to exist, cf "two sides of the same coin" post early on in this thread.

Final proof against God:

Let x = God

Let G = Gravitational Constant of the Universe

x/G = od

o = zero

0*d = 0

Please, please, please don't say such things about nature when you don't understand the current scientific explanation (the tornado in a junkyard is the oldest and 1 of the worst strawmans there is).
Anyway, again, it's not about God, it's about wich properties people stick on the word "God" because again, by itself it's an empty word. There are hundreds of thousands of different images of "God", people who stuck different properties on that word. And all have different logical inconsistencies or good points.

I was simply mystified at how someone could claim that "astronomical facts", "evidence" and "all-logic" is against the existance of God.

But it is. You are attempting to apply logic to the concept of an omnipotent GIANT INVISIBLE TEAPOT. Is that not a question of faith?

GIANT INVISIBLE TEAPOT does not fit into human logic. He is all-encompassing and beyond the understanding of the very beings he created. Tell me how you can debate the logic of being omnipotent without it being about faith because that is what this ultimately breaks down to.

Look at the title. Look at what people are writing. I see a great deal of discussion about the nature of GIANT INVISIBLE TEAPOT and attempts to puzzle out his qualities through the use of logic. You would have me believe that discussing the nature of GIANT INVISIBLE TEAPOT is different than discussing a single quality of GIANT INVISIBLE TEAPOT. A very interesting misdirection...

I will restate my first post: using logic to ferret out the qualities of GIANT INVISIBLE TEAPOT is as wrong-minded and useless as using faith to prove or disprove scientific theories.

I define the giant invisible teapot as my new deity. Here's how I define it: it is omnipotent and thus you cannot explain it. Therefore, we should worship the giant invisible teapot. You can't argue against its existence, or why it does what it does, because I've already precluded you from doing that with its definition. Therefore, I win! Logic abounds.

Hope isn't the same as faith.

Also, if you say that faith and hope isn't the same, what's the difference then?

Buh?

but you didn't prevent him touching the stove. you could've taken steps that he never touches the stove while it's hot. by your logic, you allowing your kid to touch the hot stove shows you don't love him.

Ok, you ignored the second part of that. A kid burning his hand on a stove is temporary pain that won't kill the kid. He'll learn from the experience. Now, if the stove was running at 1500F, I'm going to grab his arm. Sure, he'll learn that touching the stove is bad, but not at the cost of losing his hand. If god is in control, why can't he turn the stove down a little?


and one that exists only in your mind. you are only focusing on the victim. no where did I say it was the victim's fault. if that's how you interpreted what I said, then it's your thinking, not mine that puts any fault with the victim.
.

You said, and I"m not going back to get it b/c it's the end of the day and this is my last post for a bit, why didn't she know about the dangers of her friends? That sounded an awful lot like blaming the victim.

And why shouldn't I focus on the victim? Why does the crime have to exist in the first place? Couldn't there be an easier crime she could have happen? Why is it in our free will to be able to rape? It's too horrible to conceive.

I was simply mystified at how someone could claim that "astronomical facts", "evidence" and "all-logic" is against the existance of God.
Some facts do indeed speak very clearly against certain properties some people stick to the word "God" like the creation of the earth and stars. Some logical inconstencies (damn how do you spell that?) also speak against certain properties some people stick to the word "God".
It's about properties.

I define the giant invisible teapot as my new deity. Here's how I define it: it is omnipotent and thus you cannot explain it. Therefore, we should worship the giant invisible teapot. You can't argue against its existence, or why it does what it does, because I've already precluded you from doing that with its definition. Therefore, I win! Logic abounds.

If you want to worship a giant teapot, then you have the freedom to do so.

People may give arguments pointing away from the existence of the Giant Teapot, and you may come under fire for your beliefs, but you may believe that if you wish.

NB: We aren't using logic to prove that God exists, that is impossible just as it is impossible to use logic to prove that God does not exist.

I define the giant invisible teapot as my new deity. Here's how I define it: it is omnipotent and thus you cannot explain it. Therefore, we should worship the giant invisible teapot. You can't argue against its existence, or why it does what it does, because I've already precluded you from doing that with its definition. Therefore, I win! Logic abounds.

I'm a little teapot, short and stout
Here is my handle, here is my spout
When I get all steamed up, hear me shout
Tip me over and base your life on my teachings.

Light can exist without darkness...

Well, yes, if you filled every inch of the universe with light, you'd have no darkness. And if you filled every inch of the universe with good, you'd have no evil.

There are no astronomical facts against the existance of God, just as there are no astronomical facts for His existance.

There is no evidence disproving God, just as there is no evidence proving Him.

All logic is not presented against the existance of God.

Some logic points away from Him, such as say, evil in the world and I'm sure you can give tonnes more; and some points towards Him, such as the ridiculously unlikely coincidence of the amazing variety of life we have forming, like a tornado flying over a scarpyard and leaving behind a perfect Aston Martin: possible, but incredibly unlikely to happen by chance.

It's not about stating all logic. It's about the flaw in faith. If Jesus came to earth right this moment and stated to the Christian populace that he was in fact not the Son of God and God did not exist. Every Christian would call him a liar or Satan in disquise or some other thing in face of this definitive evidence. The fact is. Faith, ignores all Logic, even when presented with facts or evidence to the contrary.... Evolution for example. It has been proven and evidence has been fouind in support of it. But religious folk have defiantly held that it does not exist.

Buh?
O, damn, thanks, I just see that. Yea, indeed, stupid, my bad.
So let me rephrase it, if you say hope and faith aren't the same, what's the difference then?

Some facts do indeed speak very clearly against certain properties some people stick to the word "God" like the creation of the earth and stars. Some logical inconstencies (damn how do you spell that?) also speak against certain properties some people stick to the word "God".
It's about properties.

Okay, some properties such as Omnipotence may be logically argued against, but he wasn't talking about properties, he was arguing that Logic, Facts and Evidence prove that there is no God, which is ridiculous.


NB: You did spell 'inconsistencies' correctly.

Okay, some properties such as Omnipotence may be logically argued against, but he wasn't talking about properties, he was arguing that Logic, Facts and Evidence prove that there is no God, which is ridiculous.


NB: You did spell 'inconsistencies' correctly.

Yes, and it's also technically ridiculous to argue against any other assortment of unfalsifiable concepts. I tend to disregard things not based in reality, ie, God, or the invisible pink unicorn, etc etc.

Okay, some properties such as Omnipotence may be logically argued against, but he wasn't talking about properties, he was arguing that Logic, Facts and Evidence prove that there is no God, which is ridiculous.


NB: You did spell 'inconsistencies' correctly.
Indeed, that is ridiculous, because "God" doesn't say anything by itself. It's bound to what people think that word contains, like I sad before the properties people stick on the word "God" are the things that matter. And because the word "God" is empty by itself, there is no way anyone can argue against the existance of the thing ment with the word "God", because that thing is made from those properties people stick on it (this post starts looking wierd :p).
And yay, I spelled it correctly, yay me :D

Okay, some properties such as Omnipotence may be logically argued against, but he wasn't talking about properties, he was arguing that Logic, Facts and Evidence prove that there is no God, which is ridiculous.


NB: You did spell 'inconsistencies' correctly.

I didn't say all logic says there is no God. I'm saying that Faith would have you believe in God even if every fact and piece of evidence contradicted his existence.

It's not about stating all logic. It's about the flaw in faith. If Jesus came to earth right this moment and stated to the Christian populace that he was in fact not the Son of God and God did not exist. Every Christian would call him a liar or Satan in disquise or some other thing in face of this definitive evidence. The fact is. Faith, ignores all Logic, even when presented with facts or evidence to the contrary.... Evolution for example. It has been proven and evidence has been fouind in support of it. But religious folk have defiantly held that it does not exist.

Firstly you ascertained earlier that Facts, Logic and Evidence all disprove God's existence. You are now backtracking.

Secondly SOME Christians believe in Creationism over Evolution. Some Christians however believe in evolution due to the evidence pointing towards evolution, and whose religious beliefs are not so rigid that they declare evolution to be a lie. I do not expect my faith to be rigid and stay the same, as for me faith is about a journey of self-discovery and discovery about the world and spirituality, rather than sticking, shut-eyed to a set of old dogmas and doctrines.

I follow the doctrines I follow because it makes sense to me to follow them. I feel that for me to try and be a vessel of God's love on earth, to do good acts for the sake of doing good acts for the good of humanity and the planet, is beneficial both to me and to others around me. Thus even if what I believe is a lie, people around me and me myself are benefiting from me believing in what I believe.

NB: I am not saying that Atheists have no motive to do good. I'm just saying that my faith helps form part of my motivation to do good.

If I came to the end of my life and found, somehow, that everything I had believed was a lie, and was given the opportunity to go back and tell my former self that it was a lie, and not to be follow in my faith, then I wouldn't, as I believe me and those around me in my life are better off that I believed, whether it was true or not. I do not condemn anyone on the basis of faith or on the basis of anything. I believe human life is sacred and I do not condemn or vindicate anyone simply for not sharing my beliefs.

NB: I know that the above afterlife situation would never happen. It's a hypothetical to illustrate a point.

These are sticky questions, and I'll try to answer as many as I can.

Is god truly omnipotent? I think yes, but not the way you do, apparently. Think about some of the things we KNOW about nature. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can merely be converted. Therefore, God cannot create energy, he can merely manipulate it. Does that mean I think God is not omnipotent? NO. And why, I hear you sneering already. It's called he is omnipotent within what is possible. There is also no such real thing as a paradox, therefore God cannot make one. But what I hear from the atheists is that since he cannot do the impossible he is not omnipotent, and that, my friends, is completely preposterous. He IS capable, however, of doing everything within the realms of possibility. And that brings up another question. How did he do the stuff he did? Isn't that impossible? He did it through manipulation of the known laws, NOT through breaking or making new ones. I don't know how yet, however, so I'll leave it at that.

What about evil? Where did that come from? MUCH harder question to answer, but I'll use my religions beliefs to attempt a coherent explanation.
There was a council in heaven. God put forth the plan of happiness, involving us going to earth to gain experience, knowledge, and wisdom. We could not do that in heaven, because there was no evil, and therefore no way to experience misery or loss, which are required to truly appreciate joy and gain to their full extent. God then called forth volunteers to sacrifice themselves for us. Satan volunteered, saying he would bring back everyone, whether they wanted to or not. THIS WOULD NOT GIVE US THE HERETOFORE MENTIONED BENEFITS! Jesus then stepped forward, proclaiming his plan, to allow everyone a choice, the choice to be happy or miserable, to believe in him or to disdain him. Jesus was given the position of our savior. Satan gathered his supporters and waged a war of ideals against Jesus and his followers. Satan was cast out of heaven for his rebellion, along with his fellow rebels, and the plan proceeded.
Why does God allow evil? Because everything has to have an opposite, and without the trials of sorrow and sin, we would never grow to truly appreciate or use what we had. Does a spoiled brat ever really feel happiness, or mere satisfaction of an instant gratification?

Now for one of the biggest questions. Why does God seem to command evil of his people in the old testament? Because it was for the greater good, and horrid as this sounds, sometimes the end DOES justify the means. Israel was needed, and God gave them the way to prosper, even as a barbaric state. Why was it necessary? Because they were his last true believers, and by far the easiest way, not to mention the way guaranteed to save the most souls, was to have his believers prosper.

In conclusion: God loves us, and he wants us all to come back to him, but if he made us, we would not be nearly as good as he wants us to be. After all, we supported this plan.

I gather my views from what I have learned in my membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Ok, you ignored the second part of that. A kid burning his hand on a stove is temporary pain that won't kill the kid. He'll learn from the experience. Now, if the stove was running at 1500F, I'm going to grab his arm. Sure, he'll learn that touching the stove is bad, but not at the cost of losing his hand. If god is in control, why can't he turn the stove down a little?
yet pain and suffering still occurs, whether the stove is set at 10 degrees or 1500F.


You said, and I"m not going back to get it b/c it's the end of the day and this is my last post for a bit, why didn't she know about the dangers of her friends? That sounded an awful lot like blaming the victim. nope, read it again, I said why didn't YOU as the wiser, more experienced parent know about her friends and who/where they hang out.

Of course, I'm at work, so I might've mistyped it. checking... nope, I typed it right.

Did you warn her about her attacker (Stats say majority of Rapes are committed by people they know) and did she listen?

Did you (as the parent) take time to learn about her friends? know who they are? where she's going and what she's doing?

Why does it have to be the direct victim that has to be 'taught a lession'?

And why shouldn't I focus on the victim?
Because the one who committed the crime is also human despite how we may feel about him/her.
Why does the crime have to exist in the first place? Why is it in our free will to Murder? To steal? to Tell Lies? To do a Combination o things?
Couldn't there be an easier crime she could have happen? I hope you're not saying the victim could choose which crime could be visited upon her...
Why is it in our free will to be able to rape? It's too horrible to conceive.
and God is probably wondering why we would choose do do such things and more to ourselves.

what answer will you give Him when He asks you why did you do all the sins you did?

The Epicurean paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurean_paradox#Epicurus) vastly pre-dates the Internet. It isn't surprising that this thread has gone on for a dozen or so pages, given that the paradox is a couple millenia old.

Augustine tried to resolve the problem by describing nature as a 'textured Good', that is, that evil is a matter of human perception. When we feel pain (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/09/health/main577348.shtml), we tend to describe it as an 'evil,' even though we recognize pain can be used to instruct or even reward (a pleasure put off is all the sweeter).

Of course, this doesn't resolve the paradox; why would a Creator-God give us that sort of intuition, if Its intent was merely a textured good? That in and of itself seems cruel.

Others might say that "evil" is the consequence of allowing free will. Yet it is clearly impossible that anything could happen that an all-knowing, all-powerful god wanted not to happen; people use the term "free will" inconsistently, since it's clear humans are not free in many meaningful senses. We are bound by the laws of physics and biology, for instance; my will alone cannot allow me to survive without water, much less to fly. There is a sort of privelege given to purely mental actions (those of intention) that is used to try and exempt them -- yet it is similarly clear that there is no such thing as a purely mental action. If there were, there would be no application for drugs, which are a chemical (physical) substance that alters the mind.

Some will instead try and define a "normal" or ideal state of the mind during which it operates "freely," and then suppose that any foreign substance hampers this "freedom." I do not understand how one is supposed to tell when one is or is not hampered, since one does not know precisely what one's body is doing (internally) at any given time. I am also prone to pointing out that there are plenty of other alterations to mental states that are imposed by the world, without necessarily being substances -- being sleepy or listening to inspiring music both clearly alter the state of a person's mind.

So "free will" instead must mean simply that we are no greater than our choices, and can be held responsible for them. But this power, granted by God or otherwise, does not mean that there must be evil (just as I cannot decide to make myself smarter as an act of will alone, I do not need to be able to will myself to harm others); and it still seems odd for a deity who is professed to hate pain to create the opportunity for evil merely to allow a greater freedom of action, yet not allow us some of the other freedoms described (like flying).

I don't expect this post to change anyone's mind. I hope that it is read by at least a few, rather, and provides food for thought. Or as someone else once said, "Those that have ears, let them hear."

Well, yes, if you filled every inch of the universe with light, you'd have no darkness. And if you filled every inch of the universe with good, you'd have no evil.

And no free will.

These are sticky questions, and I'll try to answer as many as I can.

Is god truly omnipotent? I think yes, but not the way you do, apparently. Think about some of the things we KNOW about nature. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can merely be converted. Therefore, God cannot create energy, he can merely manipulate it. Does that mean I think God is not omnipotent? NO. And why, I hear you sneering already. It's called he is omnipotent within what is possible. There is also no such real thing as a paradox, therefore God cannot make one. But what I hear from the atheists is that since he cannot do the impossible he is not omnipotent, and that, my friends, is completely preposterous. He IS capable, however, of doing everything within the realms of possibility. And that brings up another question. How did he do the stuff he did? Isn't that impossible? He did it through manipulation of the known laws, NOT through breaking or making new ones. I don't know how yet, however, so I'll leave it at that.
That doesn't make sense at all, what we mean is what is possible for "God". "Possible" isn't fixed, it differs. Something wich is possible for me, isn't possible for some persons and the other way around. Everyone is omnipotent in his realm of possibility, so what's God's realm of possibility?
Why does God seem to command evil of his people in the old testament? Because it was for the greater good, and horrid as this sounds, sometimes the end DOES justify the means. Israel was needed, and God gave them the way to prosper, even as a barbaric state. Why was it necessary? Because they were his last true believers, and by far the easiest way, not to mention the way guaranteed to save the most souls, was to have his believers prosper.
Today we would call that barbaric, apperantly God is not able to do it without raging violence and letting complétly innocent people suffer.

O, damn, thanks, I just see that. Yea, indeed, stupid, my bad.
So let me rephrase it, if you say hope and faith aren't the same, what's the difference then?

If I say Hope and Faith are too different things (which you also do yourself) I would say that the simplified definitions are:

Faith: the belief that something IS there, something that may be good OR bad.

Hope: the belief that something may OR may not be there, something that IS excusively good.

Firstly you ascertained earlier that Facts, Logic and Evidence all disprove God's existence. You are now backtracking.

Secondly SOME Christians believe in Creationism over Evolution. Some Christians however believe in evolution due to the evidence pointing towards evolution, and whose religious beliefs are not so rigid that they declare evolution to be a lie. I do not expect my faith to be rigid and stay the same, as for me faith is about a journey of self-discovery and discovery about the world and spirituality, rather than sticking, shut-eyed to a set of old dogmas and doctrines.

I follow the doctrines I follow because it makes sense to me to follow them. I feel that for me to try and be a vessel of God's love on earth, to do good acts for the sake of doing good acts for the good of humanity and the planet, is beneficial both to me and to others around me. Thus even if what I believe is a lie, people around me and me myself are benefiting from me believing in what I believe.

NB: I am not saying that Atheists have no motive to do good. I'm just saying that my faith helps form part of my motivation to do good.

If I came to the end of my life and found, somehow, that everything I had believed was a lie, and was given the opportunity to go back and tell my former self that it was a lie, and not to be follow in my faith, then I wouldn't, as I believe me and those around me in my life are better off that I believed, whether it was true or not. I do not condemn anyone on the basis of faith or on the basis of anything. I believe human life is sacred and I do not condemn or vindicate anyone simply for not sharing my beliefs.

NB: I know that the above afterlife situation would never happen. It's a hypothetical to illustrate a point.

Actually. In that first statement I said "Even with astronomical facts against the existence of God" that is not an assertion of such facts. It's saying that EVEN if there were such facts Faith would lead us to ignore them. The entire argumentI proposed wasn't against God. But against Faith itself.

I have been in many debates about religion and have made many logical arguments against God as he is illustrated in the Bible. The arguments all end with the other party saying God is beyond us all and any evidence against his existence or failings as illustrated in the bible don't matter.

In fact. If you look back to my first post I state that I don't worship God but not that I don't believe he exists.

Sorry I said that with.. not even. My mistake. But the intention was the same. My fault for poor word selection though

And no free will.

and an even tan. after all, the light has to be totally surrounding as to not create any shadow.

He IS capable, however, of doing everything within the realms of possibility.

That seems a bit like a tautology. What is it that prevents God from violating known laws of physics? You seem to like to toss around the word "impossible," but I don't think I understand what that means. Why is what's impossible for humans impossible for God?

but I'll use my religions beliefs to attempt a coherent explanation.
There was a council in heaven. God put forth the plan of happiness, involving us going to earth to gain experience, knowledge, and wisdom.

Ah! LDS. One of the tricky parts of any religion is when it makes claims about things that are supposed to have happened in the physical world; for instance, when Old Testament books claim that there were specific cities or temples at certain dates, but no remains of these supposedly massive structures exist. Or when a different book -- say, the book of Mormon -- predicts that Christian civilizations existed in South America, and yet no such evidence can be found (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeology_and_the_Book_of_Mormon), despite decades of well-funded searches.

I say this to cast doubt on what you are saying, but not to attack you personally. If the book of your beliefs is inaccurate when describing the physical world of the senses, which is certainly much more comprehensible to a man than the realms of the spiritual and supernatural, why should it be believed on any matter at all?

That doesn't make sense at all, what we mean is what is possible for "God". "Possible" isn't fixed, it differs. Something wich is possible for me, isn't possible for some persons and the other way around. Everyone is omnipotent in his realm of possibility, so what's God's realm of possibility?

Today we would call that barbaric, apperantly God is not able to do it without raging violence and letting complétly innocent people suffer.

I guess I'll have to clarify. When I say possible, I mean possible within the realms of nature and science. Like I already said, some things constitute a paradox. For instance, I cannot be in two places at once. Is that kind of 'possibility' really up to personal opinion?

And as for being barbaric today, that does not mean it was barbaric back then. That may sound like God changes his standards, but it doesn't. Do you really think he could've convinced that nation as a whole to reason with their enemies? And besides, they were never innocents(except in the case of children, but they go to heaven automatically anyways), they were always people far more bloodthirsty than the Israelites ever were.

We're dealing with the traditional Judeo-Christian view of God.

1. Evil exists (i.e., the Devil or Hell)
2. God created everything
3. God is omni-benevolent (all-good)
Therefore, an all-good creator made evil, or the all-good creator doesn't exist.

Basically, why I don't believe in God (at least the Christian view). It's not logical unless you believe he/she/it's a prick.

here's a better question. Does it matter? Honestly does it matter if God exists or not? Why should we care?

I guess I'll have to clarify. When I say possible, I mean possible within the realms of nature and science. Like I already said, some things constitute a paradox. For instance, I cannot be in two places at once. Is that kind of 'possibility' really up to personal opinion?

And as for being barbaric today, that does not mean it was barbaric back then. That may sound like God changes his standards, but it doesn't. Do you really think he could've convinced that nation as a whole to reason with their enemies? And besides, they were never innocents(except in the case of children, but they go to heaven automatically anyways), they were always people far more bloodthirsty than the Israelites ever were.

So...s'okay to order the slaughter of children since they "go to heaven anyways"....doesn't everybody go to one of the three mansions in God's house? Or is Heaven specifically your Celestial Kingdom?

It seems odd to use historical context to excuse the actions of an ostensibly timeless being. If the "God" today is the same God as in the old testament, he's still guilty of ordering the butchery of noncombatants.

Sort of like when "God" wouldn't let blacks into the LDS Priesthood until the late 1970's.....I guess before that he couldn't be expected to "reason" with the civil rights movement prior to then?

But then, LDS leaders have taught that black people were cursed as the descendants of Cain...so...

If you can prove it logically, faith becomes irrelevant. I want people to look at what they believe and go "why do I believe that?" Faith says "believe it because you know that it's right, even if there's no evidence to prove it." You're looking at it from the point of view of somebody who believes already, and for whom god is a matter of Faith. I can't have blind Faith, believing in something I can't see, hear, touch, taste, or smell. I'm not wired like that. Therefore, for me, this discussion has nothing to do with faith. I want something I can grab onto, and faith ain't it.

Then you should feel confident in your ability to use logic and reason to see the world as it is. But you should resolve yourself to the truth that you cannot apply those things to faith. Nor should you bother to do so.

Understanding faith is not understanding that many people possess beliefs and opinions not rooted in facts and figures. They feel that God exists and that he/she/it has certain qualities beyond what you can see, feel, hear, touch, or taste. Certainly your proofs, your logic, and your scientific views have no capacity to change that belief.

What they believe is wrong for you. What you apply logic and reason to is wrong for them.

I feel that atheists that attempt to "educate" the faithful are as bad, if not worse, than the religionists who attempt to convert the unbelievers. Why adopt the tactics of the fevered missionary to spread logic and reason? Let the faithful be faithful.

here's a better question. Does it matter? Honestly does it matter if God exists or not? Why should we care?

Sure it matters...if he exists, you can ask him for cool shit, like one of the new Camaros or to be absolved of all your sin so you don't have to deal with it yourself. Or to make that triple bank eight into the corner.

So...s'okay to order the slaughter of children since they "go to heaven anyways"....doesn't everybody go to one of the three mansions in God's house? Or is Heaven specifically your Celestial Kingdom?

It seems odd to use historical context to excuse the actions of an ostensibly timeless being. If the "God" today is the same God as in the old testament, he's still guilty of ordering the butchery of noncombatants.

Sort of like when "God" wouldn't let blacks into the LDS Priesthood until the late 1970's.....I guess before that he couldn't be expected to "reason" with the civil rights movement prior to then?

But then, LDS leaders have taught that black people were cursed as the descendants of Cain...so...

Yes, I mean the celestial kingdom. And as for the butchery thing, all I can say is sometimes the evil are punished on earth, and those noncombatants WERE killed for a reason....... Just let me say I don't know everything, no more than you do. I just try to explain my faith to others the best I can. And as for the blacks, yes they were "cursed", in that they didn't gain that benefit, but eternally, they have just as much opportunity as we all do. You cannot be denied access to the celestial kingdom based on earthly limits.