NationStates Jolt Archive

You may be interested in this.

http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/193/lolgodgs3.jpg

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

Be honest: you're just upset you didn't come up with this thread.

You may be interested in this.

http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/193/lolgodgs3.jpg

I'd like to add to this poster:
Athiests: Winning since A.D. 33.
Spelling poorly since A.D. 50.

It sure is!

Amusing.

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

Because if you put faith on the same level as logic and reason then you allow one access to the other. I would rather not blur those lines. Faith in church and logic and reason in schools.

lol wut

"wut" indeed. I see you are just another atheist who believes they can spout off about religion and logic without doing any heavy mental lifting.

Educate yourself:

St. Anselm's ontological argument
Gödel's ontological proof

Logic is a tricky thing all by itself. The Proof that started this thread is hardly entering the deep end of the pool. That being said, I believe these guys are on the wrong track as well by trying to logical prove the existence of God. Faith, once again, does not require a Proof if it is truly faith.

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."

Sure I am an atheist. The reason I sound strange is that I am also a tolerant one. Just because a person has faith does not mean they are utter lunatics.

As for the "crap" you cite, please tell me if that statement does not embody what most Muslims and Christians believe. Do they not believe that only the faithful have access to heaven? Perhaps next time to talk to a Christians you should actually take into account what they believe.

How unfortunate for you that nobody is saying that then.

It was said. How unfortunate that you lack basic reading comprehension.

Your point being?

There's that reading comprehension thing again. My point was the utter uselessness of attempting to apply logic to faith and faith to logic. Neither brings you closer to the truth and, in the end, only serves to muddy the much needed line between science and religion.

Two things I would rather keep separate thank you.

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.

With that statement I believe you finally understand. It is pretty hard applying a logical proof to the existence of God. And thank you for the compliment.

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.

Exactly. But you have faith in it anyway. Good for you.

Now what effect does your Giant Invisible Teapot have on me? How does it effect my view of the universe. I am sure people have believed more outlandish things. Perhaps you should examine what you believe in more and less into what others believe.

But you cannot teach that in school because it has no basis in science, logic, or reason. Nor can you force me to believe it. But you can have faith in your Teapot. I will not begrudge you that.

I'd like to add to this poster:
Athiests: Winning since A.D. 33.
Spelling poorly since A.D. 50.

Actually, I don't think English is BLARGistania's first language.

Secondly, Atheists can spell just fine.

Because if you put faith on the same level as logic and reason then you allow one access to the other. I would rather not blur those lines. Faith in church and logic and reason in schools.


Right... still failing to see the relevance.


St. Anselm's ontological argument
Gödel's ontological proof


Oh god... did you just give me the ontological argument. Ahahahahah! You do realise that pretty much every philosopher realises that the ontological argument is complete bullshit, this is the first time I have ever seen anyone take this argument seriously!


Logic is a tricky thing all by itself. The Proof that started this thread is hardly entering the deep end of the pool.

It doesn't need to.


That being said, I believe these guys are on the wrong track as well by trying to logical prove the existence of God. Faith, once again, does not require a Proof if it is truly faith.


I never disputed that faith exists, just because you have faith does not mean that what you have faith in is real.


Sure I am an atheist. The reason I sound strange is that I am also a tolerant one. Just because a person has faith does not mean they are utter lunatics.


I never said they were (you need to stop making strawmen), but you don't just sound like a 'tolerant' atheist, since you keep talking in a context as if it was what you actually believed, as in you don't say 'Christians believe this will happen', you just say 'this will happen'.


As for the "crap" you cite, please tell me if that statement does not embody what most Muslims and Christians believe. Do they not believe that only the faithful have access to heaven? Perhaps next time to talk to a Christians you should actually take into account what they believe.


Perhaps next time you should be more clear on the fact that you don't actually believe this.


It was said. How unfortunate that you lack basic reading comprehension.


Where? Where did anyone say that "we would all know everything about him", that has nothing to do with the argument. We don't need to know everything about him to know that, at least for this particular version of God, his properties are contradictory.


There's that reading comprehension thing again. My point was the utter uselessness of attempting to apply logic to faith and faith to logic. Neither brings you closer to the truth and, in the end, only serves to muddy the much needed line between science and religion.


Oh I agree, faith in this sort of God is completely illogical, I don't remember saying anything to the contrary. Too bad we were never discussing faith.


With that statement I believe you finally understand. It is pretty hard applying a logical proof to the existence of God. And thank you for the compliment.

You're totally confusing me, when did I ever not understand that it was impossible to prove or disprove empirically the existence or non existence of God?

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.

Is this really the best argument you can come up with against God?

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

I don't believe God can violate natural laws- like make square circles, or microwave a corndog so hot he can't eat it.
Some people disagree with me and they're certainly entitled to. I just ask them to consider that these aren't laws we decided on- we didn't one day decide that force equals mass times acceleration, or that something can't come from nothing, or that gravity is the attraction between all bodies of matter. These are laws we observed- that is, the universe already works that way. We didn't make these rules up, they're rules that are already in place.
Everything that exists does so in a way that fits these laws, and I don't see why God should be an exception.

I'd like to add to this poster:
Athiests: Winning since A.D. 33.
Spelling poorly since A.D. 50.


Meh, I didn't make it.


Although my English ability has been steadily going downhill today. But then again, 26 hours of being awake and studying will do that to a person.

You may be interested in this.

http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/193/lolgodgs3.jpg[/img]

youre the second one to post that today but i dont think epicurus ever said it. ive looked around and the epicurean sites dont ever mention him saying it and all the quotes from him sound nothing like this.

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?

You have no idea how many times I said that in my confirmation class. I agree with you completely.
The point I was making wasn't that you should blindly follow God, or that anyone should. I'm just saying that you can't reject God because his actions don't conform to your idea of morality. You can't say he doesn't exist because he doesn't use his power in the same way you would, which is what I read in the OP- God doesn't destroy evil, therefore God doesn't exist.

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.

Seeing as I don't completely believe in God myself, I have to take offense at that. I understand that, having probably heard people say: "Stop thinking, just shut up and go to Sunday school," the way I have for the past fifteen years (not anymore, I just got confirmed!) you probably dismissed my argument as another one belonging to the moronic blind faith sect.

Well I'm not blindly following whatever plan God has, and I don't know what God's plan is. But seeing as I mentioned that:
A) God created the universe with the Big Bang
B) God cannot see the future, but can predict it very well
... you could've caught the obvious implication that God created the universe knowing that we would come into being. Since I also mentioned that:
A) We were created in God's spiritual image
B) We are not the same as other creatures
... you could've caught the other obvious implication, which is that God deliberately created a species capable of understanding Him and being like Him.

You pretty much just took what I already said and regurgitated it as if it was an argument against mine.

However, I will say that you were at least partially right in one area: we don't know what God is thinking. Some people may be more in tune with God than others, but if there is a God then I believe He does have a plan and did create us for a reason other than boredom.
I furthermore believe that God interferes minimally with human affairs (that is, he doesn't catch the plane flying into the World Trade Center, he doesn't stand in the way of the tsunami that hits Indonesia, and he doesn't help the little kid in that e-mail who prayed for his brother to get over cancer. Fuck that kid), and created us to be unique so that we could reach the intended destination by ourselves.
Certain points where I believe God may have stepped in during the evolution of the universe:
1) There's a slim possibility that humanity began as a genetic mutation- with one person. I would consider that to be divine intervention.
2) The coming of Jesus, if Jesus truly was divine.

I'm certainly trying to find out what God's plan is and where humanity's headed- I think that the best way to do that is to look at the gifts God gave us, such as intelligence and compassion, and see what they can be used for.
However, I think that people who say: "God didn't save these people who died on an ocean liner- God must not be real," or similar bullshit are fooling themselves and looking for an easy way out.

And the last line of my post, which said: "God only knows. God makes his plans. The information's unavailable to the mortal man," was more a private Paul Simon reference than one of my actual beliefs ;)

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

Piss off, Schrodinger! *chucks a rock*

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.

A lack of blind, sheepish faith, yes. I don't dislike people who blindly believe- in fact, I'm friends with a lot of them, because their blind belief has made them kinder, more honest, more productive people. And because I'm in the Midwest and I don't have many options.
But I reject the notion that God can't be proven scientifically. There are all sorts of observed phenomenon that could be God. A huge percentage of the universe's energy and matter is unaccounted for and unidentifiable. Could be anything.

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.

You can't disprove the existence of science or faith. They're clearly right here. You can disprove their beliefs, though. Although science tends to be more convincing, since arguments between science and religion are something like this:
FAR-TOO-RELIGIOUS PEOPLE: Why do you believe in evolution?
SCIENTISTS: Because we have enough fossils to almost completely prove it. Why don't you believe in evolution?
FAR-TOO-RELIGIOUS PEOPLE: Because it's written down in this book.

As for logic, how are people supposed to understand the world without it? I may have said this before, but if you allow God to confound logic and science, then if someone says that there are fairies in your small intestine, you're pretty much obligated to believe that, too, right? Or does it only count if it's written in an old book?

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.

Riiiiiiiiight, no one should try to answer spiritual questions with science and logic, we should just rely on superstition and gullibility.

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

A human's prime strength is the ability to rationalize. Humans who ignore reason are ignoring the thing that makes them human. So consider that.

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

I don't think anyone would accuse you of having qualms with religion after what you just said.

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.

Look, I'm an atheist, and I'm going to tell you right now that this isn't "proof against God." It's a set of logical assumptions that point out a small fallacy in a certain specific interpretation of one element of the teachings of a religion that possesses numerous interpretations of its religious texts.

In other words, YOU FAILED!

youre the second one to post that today but i dont think epicurus ever said it. ive looked around and the epicurean sites dont ever mention him saying it and all the quotes from him sound nothing like this.

The quote (as given) is from the Scottish philosopher David Hume (he attributes it to Epicurus).
The argument, in a slightly different form (it was in Latin for one thing) was attributed to Epicurus by the Roman poet Lucretius, in his poem De Rerum Natura.
No surviving writings of Epicurus himself contain the argument.

Actually, I don't think English is BLARGistania's first language.

Secondly, Atheists can spell just fine.

I was kidding. The poster (not the guy posting, the picture) misspells the word "atheist," which I found quite droll.

The quote (as given) is from the Scottish philosopher David Hume (he attributes it to Epicurus).
The argument, in a slightly different form (it was in Latin for one thing) was attributed to Epicurus by the Roman poet Lucretius, in his poem De Rerum Natura.
No surviving writings of Epicurus himself contain the argument.

i dont think he did.

i dont see that the greeks of 300ish BC had that kind of a concept of an overriding god.

but thanks for the info. i could find no link between the saying and the writing of epicurus so i wondered where it had come from.

i dont think he did.

i dont see that the greeks of 300ish BC had that kind of a concept of an overriding god.

It may be like the Oscar Wilde/Dorothy Parker Syndrome, where people come up with something witty but feel even smarter if they attribute it to a more famous wit. Hume (or someone else) came up with a decent quote, but didn't want people to think he had spent time coming up with this decent quote. So he claimed a man who had been dead for over two-thousand years said it.

Lucretius was a follower of Epicureanism, and *may* have had access to writings of Epicurus that haven't survived. What is known, is that Epicurus taught that the gods didn't take an active interest in the affairs of mankind, so the attribution is at least plausible, even if not actually true.

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.
Like, if you have faith in the power of love, you beleive that love has the power to do certain things, as if it was reality even though you have nothing to support it. And if you hope that love has a lot of power, you wánt that statement to be true, and you don't take a stand whereither it's true or not, even though you have nothing to support it.

Anyway, to others:
Please, remember: you cannot prove or disprove "God" because by itself that word means nothing. It's all about the properties and abilities people stick on the word "God". Those properties are the things we can discuss about, are the things wich can be disproven or made unlikely because of logical inconsistencies.

Lucretius was a follower of Epicureanism, and *may* have had access to writings of Epicurus that haven't survived. What is known, is that Epicurus taught that the gods didn't take an active interest in the affairs of mankind, so the attribution is at least plausible, even if not actually true.

epicurus had some interesting things to say about the gods and clearly didnt have perhaps the level of respect that others had. im just thinking that the sentiment attached to the saying--that GOD is all benevolent, all powerful, all knowing isnt a particularly greek concept of that time. there was some thought drifting in the direction of an idea of an over-god of some sort that wasnt represented in the all-too-not-GOD greek pantheon but i dont think it was taken for granted that there was a GOD god who was in control of everything.

so why would epicurus refute an argument that wasnt being made?

I agree. Assuming that Epicurus made the argument in the first place, he would have spoken of 'the gods' rather than 'god'.

I agree. Assuming that Epicurus made the argument in the first place, he would have spoken of 'the gods' rather than 'god'.

do you know what part of De Rerum Natura its taken from? its a pretty long poem and id like to read what was said and how it was said but im afraid ill skip right over it if i dont get pointed to the right area.

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?



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?

I don't believe in evolution either. Call me an ignorant, blind twat(pardon my french), but I think that there is just a small chance that science could be wrong. All I have is my faith, and my knowledge. Knowledge? How could I possibly know such a thing, I hear you ask? I have felt His spirit, and I'm afraid there is nothing you can say to convince me that you are right. The only reason I'm posting here is to try and explain my faith to you. I can see that that is never going to happen. Logic can't explain EVERYTHING!!! And until you realize that, you are stuck in what I consider a weaklings delusion. Scoff all you like, but to me, someone who tries to explain a Supreme Being to whom you are held accountable away, is trying to justify his sins. I at least admit they are sins, and attempt to do right and rectify my errors, but no one is perfect.

By the way, are you aware that without religious beliefs, morality is relative? Think about that.

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.

Between the religion threads, the dating, sex and racist threads we´re going to take NSG to an early demise. Isn´t something else there that we can discuss that doesn´t involve sex, religion, the proverbial god and race?

Between the religion threads, the dating, sex and racist threads we´re going to take NSG to an early demise. Isn´t something else there that we can discuss that doesn´t involve sex, religion, the proverbial god and race?

Yes. PUPPIES!!!!

http://www.taerlin.com/images/puppies%205%20weeks/puppies_playing2.jpg

Yes. PUPPIES!!!!

Or... BUNNIES!!!!

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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hope this helps to answer the question.

A university professor challenged his students with this question. Did God create everything that exists? A student bravely replied, "Yes, he did!"

"God created everything? The professor asked.

"Yes sir", the student replied.

The professor answered, "If God created everything, then God created evil since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are then God is evil". The student became quiet before such an answer.

The professor was quite pleased with himself and boasted to the students that he had proven once more that the Christian faith was a myth.

Another student raised his hand and said, "Can I ask you a question professor?"

"Of course", replied the professor.

The student stood up and asked, "Professor, does cold exist?"

"What kind of question is this? Of course it exists. Have you never been cold?" The students snickered at the young man's question.

The young man replied, "In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero is the total absence of heat; all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat."

The student continued, "Professor, does darkness exist?"

The professor responded, "Of course it does."

The student replied, "Once again you are wrong sir, darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present."

Finally the young man asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?"

Now uncertain, the professor responded, "Of course as I have already said. We see it every day. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil."

To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is not like faith, or love that exist just as does light and heat. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."
The professor sat down.

Okay For free will to exist there has to be a choice to make. either you choose god or you choose to be without God.God did not create evil but He allows it to exist so we can have freewill to choose to love God or not.

Like, if you have faith in the power of love, you beleive that love has the power to do certain things, as if it was reality even though you have nothing to support it. And if you hope that love has a lot of power, you wánt that statement to be true, and you don't take a stand whereither it's true or not, even though you have nothing to support it.

Anyway, to others:
Please, remember: you cannot prove or disprove "God" because by itself that word means nothing. It's all about the properties and abilities people stick on the word "God". Those properties are the things we can discuss about, are the things wich can be disproven or made unlikely because of logical inconsistencies.

The power of love sucks. Heat vision is much better.

Like, if you have faith in the power of
Anyway, to others:
Please, remember: you cannot prove or disprove "God" because by itself that word means nothing. It's all about the properties and abilities people stick on the word "God". Those properties are the things we can discuss about, are the things wich can be disproven or made unlikely because of logical inconsistencies.

So, what is logic? Logic is the process of proper thinking based upon principles that govern the validity of arguments. Logic is used in proofs, refutations, explanations, and even in debates.

Logic has laws. I’ll list three of them.

The first law of logic is the law of identity. It states that something is what it is and is not what it is not. For example, an egg is an egg and not a flashlight.

The second law of logic is the law of non-contradiction. This means that something cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same way. In other words, two contradictory statements cannot both be true.

The third law of logic is the Law of Excluded Middle which says that a statement is either true or false. “We are here” is a true statement. “The planet Mars is in my pocket” is not a true statement.

logical absolutes are conceptual realities that do not depend upon human minds or the physical universe for their existence. Since they are conceptual, absolute, and transcend space and time, there must be an absolute and transcendent mind from which these logical absolutes are derived.
The Laws of logic are concepts -You can talk about them and listen to them being discussed in a debate, but you cannot observe the laws of logic occurring in matter.
the laws of logic are absolute - This means that they don't stop being true if we disagree with them. Otherwise, logic would not be dependable w/ itself
the laws of logic are transcendent.
Logic transcends space and time - This means that if you were to go in any particular direction and reach the end of the physical universe, logical absolutes don’t stop being true because of where you are locate

Is it logical to conclude that if there's a concept, there must also be a mind? This seems reasonable.
Concepts reside in the mind and thoughts reflect the mind. Since we have absolute and transcendent logical truths which are conceptual by nature, there is an absolute and transcendent mind that, for a lack of a better term, has authored the logical absolutes.
your liking or disliking it has no bearing on it being true or false.
So, how do you account for the existence of logic and logical absolutes from your atheistic worldview? I don’t believe you can and I conclude it is because your atheistic worldview does not comport with reality

do you know what part of De Rerum Natura its taken from? its a pretty long poem and id like to read what was said and how it was said but im afraid ill skip right over it if i dont get pointed to the right area.

In short, no. I've been trying to find it myself. It's certainly not given in a form similar to the Hume qiuote.

In short, no. I've been trying to find it myself. It's certainly not given in a form similar to the Hume qiuote.

darn.

ill keep looking and let you know if i find it.

I am officially not taking a stance on the existence or non-existence of God.

Now that that is said, I have a question for those of you who affirm the existence of God...

Is God or truth more important to you in your life? Would you still believe in God if you knew he did not exist?

Also, the difference between belief and truth is rather large. I know that my computer exists, but I don't believe in it. I do, however, believe in the good taste of cheese. I also have proof, to myself, that free will does not exist, but I do not believe that it does not exist. If any of that makes sense.

Listen I understand that people have other views of what happens after we die but really why don't you post it on a forum of your own thoughts such as atheist forums. This is a public site and you are preaching what is wrong. All I have to say is have faith... at least in something...

Between the religion threads, the dating, sex and racist threads we´re going to take NSG to an early demise. Isn´t something else there that we can discuss that doesn´t involve sex, religion, the proverbial god and race?

Sex and religion are definitely worth talking about. I don't know about race, but c'mon... sex and religion are HOLY.

And yes I mean in that order.

Listen I understand that people have other views of what happens after we die but really why don't you post it on a forum of your own thoughts such as atheist forums. This is a public site and you are preaching what is wrong. All I have to say is have faith... at least in something...

I don't know. I think we're getting a better discussion here than we would on an atheist forum - we've got some for, some against and some arguing about the arguments. On an atheist forum it would be a There-Is-No-God lovefest (and the occasional troll). Besides, why shouldn't NSGers take an interest? :)

Sex and religion are definitely worth talking about. I don't know about race, but c'mon... sex and religion are HOLY.

And yes I mean in that order.

I know sex is magnificent. I can do without the Theology arguments. But in this case is just the frequency with which we all constantly touch the same topics over and over again.

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?

First of all, logic doesn't solve everything, nor is it all-mighty. How logical was Hitler's hatred of the Jews? And did not this hatred, this intense emotion, make him famous, give him a platform? I honestly cannot say that I have read more than a few of Hitler's speeches, but there is certainly much more appeal to human emotion, and few will deny that Hitler was very persuasive to the Germans of his time. Ultimately, human emotion can, and probably will for a very long time, trump human logic.

As well, you have a false presumption that religion should be logical. Religion isn't for everyone, some religious books (such as the Quran) even say so. If you can't understand or want to believe in something that doesn't make perfect sense in your perfect mathematical cookie-cutter world, then you don't need faith.

And to the actual theorem proposed:

If you want to be "logical", you have to be "logical" all the way, 100%. 1st of all, define good and evil. Now define God. Define existence. Explain why evil and good are mutually exclusive. Explain why it is necessary not to be hypocritical. There might be other things you need to define, but this comes before we can even begin to evaluate anything.

I know sex is magnificent. I can do without the Theology arguments. But in this case is just the frequency with which we all constantly touch the same topics over and over again.

I made a thread for you. :cool:

Between the religion threads, the dating, sex and racist threads we´re going to take NSG to an early demise. Isn´t something else there that we can discuss that doesn´t involve sex, religion, the proverbial god and race?

like what... POLITICS?!? :p

it's a cycle... let them run it's course and have some fun.

infact, "Should America have nuked Hiroshima/Nagasaki" thread is late... but I blame the US Elections for holding that one back.

Between the religion threads, the dating, sex and racist threads we´re going to take NSG to an early demise. Isn´t something else there that we can discuss that doesn´t involve sex, religion, the proverbial god and race?

it is due to the lack of porn. next month when new porn comes out we will be back to politics.

I know sex is magnificent. I can do without the Theology arguments. But in this case is just the frequency with which we all constantly touch the same topics over and over again.

and what other subject would naturally involve frequent and constant touching?

darn.

ill keep looking and let you know if i find it.

i did a google search of the book and found nothing appropriate under "god" or "evil"

it must be a smart interpretation of an argument rather than being explicitly said by lucretius/epicurus.

I am going to argue this, but cannot prove this empirically, because "good" and "evil" cannot be empirically proven.

But we can empirically prove the existence of heat, and I suggest that the relationship between "good" and "evil" is the same relationship between "cold" and "hot".

"Cold" is actually not an object. There is no such thing as "coldness" - there is only heat. More heat equals hot and less heat equals cold. There is only one factor variable in the relationship between "hot" and "cold".

Similarly, there is only one factor variable in the relationship between "good" and "evil", which I shall label "goodness". "Evilness" does not actually exist. What exists is a "lack of goodness".

In other words, to the limited human mind, when God created heat, He also created a space for "lack of heat". When He created "good", He also created a space for "lack of goodness". That is different from actually created "coldness" or creating "evil".

Of course, this is only a hypothesis.

First of all, logic doesn't solve everything, nor is it all-mighty. How logical was Hitler's hatred of the Jews? And did not this hatred, this intense emotion, make him famous, give him a platform? I honestly cannot say that I have read more than a few of Hitler's speeches, but there is certainly much more appeal to human emotion, and few will deny that Hitler was very persuasive to the Germans of his time. Ultimately, human emotion can, and probably will for a very long time, trump human logic.

As well, you have a false presumption that religion should be logical. Religion isn't for everyone, some religious books (such as the Quran) even say so. If you can't understand or want to believe in something that doesn't make perfect sense in your perfect mathematical cookie-cutter world, then you don't need faith.

Ok...what the heck does this have to do with the tea in China? Because Hitler was a nutjob, my proof is irrelevant?

"My perfect mathematical cookie-cutter world"? Man, you really need to read the rest of my posts, b/c then you'll learn a bit more about me before spouting off this random, boring attack. No, I don't need faith. What I'm looking for is an explanation of evil. If your response is simply that god/faith isn't logical and therefore doesn't need to be examined, well, there is no point in my responding to anything else you have to say. If that is your view, then you have a very shallow faith. It needs questioning and examining to become strong.


And to the actual theorem proposed:

If you want to be "logical", you have to be "logical" all the way, 100%. 1st of all, define good and evil. Now define God. Define existence. Explain why evil and good are mutually exclusive. Explain why it is necessary not to be hypocritical. There might be other things you need to define, but this comes before we can even begin to evaluate anything.

Define existence? Are you kidding me? You first!

As I've previously posted, I'm not going to define every word in my proof because this is an NS message board, not a philosophical review. In the bounds of the proof (Judeo-Christian faith) all those things are already defined for you. It is within those bounds that my argument resides. If you didn't bother to read the first line of the post, that's your problem. I'm not writing 30k words on a forum board to satisfy your anal tendencies.

Anal as in anal retentive, not the orifice.

I am going to argue this, but cannot prove this empirically, because "good" and "evil" cannot be empirically proven.

For the sake of this argument, let's just deal with the Judeo-Christian view of good and evil as being god and the devil.

But we can empirically prove the existence of heat, and I suggest that the relationship between "good" and "evil" is the same relationship between "cold" and "hot".

"Cold" is actually not an object. There is no such thing as "coldness" - there is only heat. More heat equals hot and less heat equals cold. There is only one factor variable in the relationship between "hot" and "cold".

Similarly, there is only one factor variable in the relationship between "good" and "evil", which I shall label "goodness". "Evilness" does not actually exist. What exists is a "lack of goodness".

In other words, to the limited human mind, when God created heat, He also created a space for "lack of heat". When He created "good", He also created a space for "lack of goodness". That is different from actually created "coldness" or creating "evil".

Of course, this is only a hypothesis.

If you are a literalist, then you believe that the Devil is real, and therefore evil is real. If not, then the suffering in the world still needs explaining.
While it may not be evil per se, it still needs to be dealt with. I had a decent post a while back that said something like this:

If my child goes to touch a hot stove, I'm going to warn them about the stove. If they still choose to touch the stove, then I'm going to laugh at them, thus using shame and pain to teach a lesson. However, I'm not going to let them touch a 1500 degree stove and lose their hand to prove my point. It's much easier to give them a lesser pain for the same lesson. Why can't god turn down the stove?

I am going to argue this, but cannot prove this empirically, because "good" and "evil" cannot be empirically proven.

But we can empirically prove the existence of heat, and I suggest that the relationship between "good" and "evil" is the same relationship between "cold" and "hot".

"Cold" is actually not an object. There is no such thing as "coldness" - there is only heat. More heat equals hot and less heat equals cold. There is only one factor variable in the relationship between "hot" and "cold".

Similarly, there is only one factor variable in the relationship between "good" and "evil", which I shall label "goodness". "Evilness" does not actually exist. What exists is a "lack of goodness".

In other words, to the limited human mind, when God created heat, He also created a space for "lack of heat". When He created "good", He also created a space for "lack of goodness". That is different from actually created "coldness" or creating "evil".

Of course, this is only a hypothesis.

that doesnt really help since god could have had us living in miami instead of ottawa. its still his fault that the world is weighted towards evil.

*snip*

That's basically just Plato's argument for the Forms. Basically, the realm of ideas (logic, love, honor, etc.) sit in the most real realm, and the less "real" materialistic world we live in obscures them. This has been beaten to death, even more than the problem of god. Wikipedia it up.

Evil does not exist in and of itself. Evil is absence of good, like dark is absence of light. It isn't a yin/ yang phenomenon. Remember that all shadows point to the light.

You cannot have good without evil otherwise there is nothing to compare the good to to actually make it good. And God created everyone with free choice, He did not create evil he gave us the right and the ability to choose whether or not to do good or to do evil it's our choice and He did not create us to be evil we choose it.

Evil does not exist in and of itself. Evil is absence of good, like dark is absence of light. It isn't a yin/ yang phenomenon. Remember that all shadows point to the light.

and that is supposed to make us believe in god? couldnt he have made it just a bit brighter around here?

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.

Lmao, "proof against god."

Perhaps you are correct, but unfortunately, that only deals with one of the myriad views about the nature of god. Maybe, just maybe that proves that the Judeo-Christian god is not all they say he is (though, it really just proves that one of the traits attributed to him is incorrect; just as if someone said I had blue eyes, brown hair, and brown eyes, just one of the statements about my eyes would necessarily be incorrect, as I do have brown hair).

However, it does nothing to disprove Odin, Zeus, Thor, Danu, Freya, Baldur, Poseidon, Aphrodite, Isis, Ra, Cernunnos, the Morrigan, Ganesh, Shiva, Osiris, Kali, Frey, Hod, Hermod, Skadi, Sif, Bacchus, Ares, Athena, Mimir, the Norns, Nuada, etc. ad infinitum.

And this is why these kinds of threads are pointless.

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?

but as far as i know humans were the only ones created with free will, unlike the angels whom are supposed to serve god by their existence.

im sorry but i dont have a quote from the bible to back this up though

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.......

Its that precise mentality that makes you a terrifying person. All killers claim to have their reasons.


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.

Ah, but according to your religion, you need the Melchizedek Priesthood to receive full blessings of the celestial Kingdom, and blacks were denied entry to that priesthood for over a century, because of their "curse".

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.
It's juvenile dipshits like you that make the rest of us atheists look bad. Respect people for their faith and they'll be more inclined to respect us for our lack of it.

Besides, you're doing it wrong. It's supposed to go like this:
http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/5690/1192384437393xy5.jpg

I am going to argue this, but cannot prove this empirically, because "good" and "evil" cannot be empirically proven.

But we can empirically prove the existence of heat, and I suggest that the relationship between "good" and "evil" is the same relationship between "cold" and "hot".

"Cold" is actually not an object. There is no such thing as "coldness" - there is only heat. More heat equals hot and less heat equals cold. There is only one factor variable in the relationship between "hot" and "cold".

Similarly, there is only one factor variable in the relationship between "good" and "evil", which I shall label "goodness". "Evilness" does not actually exist. What exists is a "lack of goodness".

In other words, to the limited human mind, when God created heat, He also created a space for "lack of heat". When He created "good", He also created a space for "lack of goodness". That is different from actually created "coldness" or creating "evil".

Of course, this is only a hypothesis.

I like your analogy of hot and cold for goodness and evil, but you need to take it one step further. Hot and cold are relative. A glass of water is hot when compared to an ice cube, but cold when compared to molten lead. Evil and good are the same way, they are relative to each other.

Of course there is a flaw in my argument which I will leave for someone to find...

... Respect people for their faith ...Why? How does faith deserve respect?

Why? How does faith deserve respect?

Because it can turn vampires.

Why? How does faith deserve respect?

Why does it not deserve respect? Isn't faith and religion a part of someone's culture? Is it okay to bash someone's culture? Are we to go around to other cultures and say 'Hey, your culture is stupid and full of superstition. I will save you poor backwards people with my own culture which is vastly superior.'

Hmm... somehow, I see that as slightly imperialistic.

Why? How does faith deserve respect?
Everyone is entitled to believe what they want. Just because I don't believe in God doesn't mean that I'm going to be an ass and try to force everyone else to fall in lock-step with my beliefs. Don't be a bigot.

Why does it not deserve respect? Isn't faith and religion a part of someone's culture? Is it okay to bash someone's culture? Are we to go around to other cultures and say 'Hey, your culture is stupid and full of superstition. I will save you poor backwards people with my own culture which is vastly superior.'

Hmm... somehow, I see that as slightly imperialistic.How is it imperialistic when I tell a Mormon he's a moron? Or a Scientologist, a Jew, any abrahamic religionist, or any other fatuous retard? Why does made-up theology/ideology with no basis in reality deserve my respect?
Everyone is entitled to believe what they want.Only if they keep those beliefs to themselves.

If you are a literalist, then you believe that the Devil is real, and therefore evil is real.

I didn't say evil isn't real. I said "evilness" as an object doesn't exist, the same is feeling cold is real but feeling "coldness" is not, because all you are feeling is a lack of heat. There is a subtle difference.


If not, then the suffering in the world still needs explaining.
While it may not be evil per se, it still needs to be dealt with.
Because of sin. You may find that a single instance of evilness has no cause but everything that happens today has a root in something that happened yesterday and will bear fruit in something that will happen tomorrow.


I had a decent post a while back that said something like this:

If my child goes to touch a hot stove, I'm going to warn them about the stove. If they still choose to touch the stove, then I'm going to laugh at them, thus using shame and pain to teach a lesson. However, I'm not going to let them touch a 1500 degree stove and lose their hand to prove my point. It's much easier to give them a lesser pain for the same lesson. Why can't god turn down the stove?
The age of shame and pain is long gone. What Christianity actually advocates is that God has come into the kitchen itself and wrapped Himself around the kettle to stop anybody from touching it.

Therefore the choice is now yours. The choice has always been yours: whether you want to obey, or whether you actually want to push God away and continue touching the kettle.

that doesnt really help since god could have had us living in miami instead of ottawa. its still his fault that the world is weighted towards evil.

So where does the responsibility of humankind come in?

Everyone is entitled to believe what they want. Just because I don't believe in God doesn't mean that I'm going to be an ass and try to force everyone else to fall in lock-step with my beliefs. Don't be a bigot.

Innate in all religion is the belief that you can't just keep it personal, that you have to force it on others for their own good.

<snip>

What the fuck is /B/?

Innate in all religion is the belief that you can't just keep it personal, that you have to force it on others for their own good.

Haha. That applies to about anything else humans come up with. Think capitalism. Or democracy.

And you speak it as if it's something bad. If I encounter something I believe is good it is charity to spread it around.

Now I don't advocate violent force-feeding - I am defending peaceful and respectful missionary activities.

Haha. That applies to about anything else humans come up with. Think capitalism. Or democracy.

And you speak it as if it's something bad. If I encounter something I believe is good it is charity to spread it around.

Now I don't advocate violent force-feeding - I am defending peaceful and respectful missionary activities.

Haha, yeah notice how 'missionary activities' only ever target those stupid enough to believe the trash you feed them? The economically desperate, the very young, where illiteracy, superstition and poverty are rife. People like you are parasites and opportunists, you'd never try to convert an education well-knowledgeable person because you would fail. Maybe you mean 'great' missionaries like 'Mother Theresa' telling the downtrodden people of Bengal that suffering in poverty and disease (without medication or pain relief) is good for the soul because it brings you closer to the suffering of Jesus. Maybe it's other 'missionaries' like the Archbishop of Canterbury saying the floods in Wales were because of homosexual activity, how about the Pope refusing to condemn the death order of the Ayatollah on Salman Rushtie for writing a book, these aren't extremists these are the mainstream religious figures saying these disgusting things.

Religion is dangerous and despicable.

Old topic is old (meme is old)

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.

Heh but he did create the greatest gaming system of all time. Welcome Player.

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. .

Then if you don't actualy belive in the definitions of the lables that you use in your 'logical proof' then what good is it? You have in fact come here with a non argument, you cannot even argue because you don't even belive in the terms that you have used, nor the way you have used them.

Carrying on regardless though, you say 'Interpret that as you will' and that is really where the first premsis of you 'proof' falls right over.

If it is up to us to define that which is evil and that which is not, how does God have any control over that? Who is to say what is objectivly evil(even so that God would declare it so) and what is not? If what is evil is subjective then the statement 'evil exists' is at least ill defined, if not totaly irrelevant.

I think you need to have a total rethink.

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.


Heh anybody that belives in God at all is delusional.

Haha, yeah notice how 'missionary activities' only ever target those stupid enough to believe the trash you feed them? The economically desperate, the very young, where illiteracy, superstition and poverty are rife. People like you are parasites and opportunists, you'd never try to convert an education well-knowledgeable person because you would fail. Maybe you mean 'great' missionaries like 'Mother Theresa' telling the downtrodden people of Bengal that suffering in poverty and disease (without medication or pain relief) is good for the soul because it brings you closer to the suffering of Jesus. Maybe it's other 'missionaries' like the Archbishop of Canterbury saying the floods in Wales were because of homosexual activity, how about the Pope refusing to condemn the death order of the Ayatollah on Salman Rushtie for writing a book, these aren't extremists these are the mainstream religious figures saying these disgusting things.

Religion is dangerous and despicable.

Exactly. I can't say for all religions, but Christianity was originally catered for those marginalised by mainstream society: the weak, the poor, the sick, those that the "educated, well-knowledgeable" people in power forgot about. The Church is still a powerful force in many countries to pushing towards greater social welfare for the downtrodden, funding schools, hospitals, orphanages etc.

The examples you mention are all issues about the line between politics and religion, which understandably is never clear and will always be subject to criticism (politics always is). However, the social work done by the Church is outstanding and undeniable.

And before you go the "only ignorant people are religious" route, I myself am on the verge of graduating from one of the most accomplished universities in terms of social science. Therefore I consider myself quite highly-educated. In fact, if you forget, most agree that European civilisation, even in its most rudimentary forms, was kept alive by the Church during the Dark Ages. To say that the Church is against knowledge is simply erronous.

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.


Please tell me that you just posted this in an attempt to piss people off? Theological mudslinging only makes you look like a fool.

I'm not a Theist or an Atheist. I'm an "I don't give a flying fuck"-ist. Because in the span of a person's life, it really doesn't matter.

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.

Ohhh and not forgetting has since changed his mind to declare that he doesn't know wether or not God exists, which sorta calls into question the motives for his post.

Then if you don't actualy belive in the definitions of the lables that you use in your 'logical proof' then what good is it? You have in fact come here with a non argument, you cannot even argue because you don't even belive in the terms that you have used, nor the way you have used them.

Carrying on regardless though, you say 'Interpret that as you will' and that is really where the first premsis of you 'proof' falls right over.

If it is up to us to define that which is evil and that which is not, how does God have any control over that? Who is to say what is objectivly evil(even so that God would declare it so) and what is not? If what is evil is subjective then the statement 'evil exists' is at least ill defined, if not totaly irrelevant.

I think you need to have a total rethink.Since when do "we" define what is evil and what is not? The same shitty book that defines god for "us" also defines "evil" in context of that god.

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.

I think, yes I do , I like you. Thats the very first time I have heard of scientific evidance being reffered to as a crutch, and by an atheist, fuckin' great.

I'm with you 100%.

Exactly. I can't say for all religions, but Christianity was originally catered for those marginalised by mainstream society: the weak, the poor, the sick, those that the "educated, well-knowledgeable" people in power forgot about. The Church is still a powerful force in many countries to pushing towards greater social welfare for the downtrodden, funding schools, hospitals, orphanages etc.

The examples you mention are all issues about the line between politics and religion, which understandably is never clear and will always be subject to criticism (politics always is). However, the social work done by the Church is outstanding and undeniable.

And before you go the "only ignorant people are religious" route, I myself am on the verge of graduating from one of the most accomplished universities in terms of social science. Therefore I consider myself quite highly-educated. In fact, if you forget, most agree that civilisation, even in its most rudimentary forms, was kept alive by the Church during the European Dark Ages. To say that the Church is against knowledge is simply erroneous.

Those who are educated and 'believe' do not believe in the the way others would, and I have noticed this quite a bit. Western educated religious people treat their 'faith' like a bit of a trivial matter, and if ever confronted will gladly water it down and say Genesis was 'symbolic' or whatever, Catholics are even biggest hypocrits, most Christians have no idea what they believe.

'Missionaries' and the like treat Christianity like it's a bit of 'white mans magic' to be given to the savages, those in the 'third' or 'developing' world. Their is a markedly different religious attitude between those pampered Westerns who whom religion is a racket and those illiterate impoverished people who's economic desperation and lack of knowledge is a perfect target for the racket that Christianity has become.

People like you are the educated pampered Westerner trying to bring religion to the downtrodden - but in reality who target the downtrodden and illiterate because they are the only people who would buy your trash. You are taking advantage of people because given access to scientific etc knowledge they would rightfully reject your dried up dead credo.

And please, don't bring up the social services argument, it fails on every level. Does Hamas give social services to the people of Gaza, does Hezbollah pay for medical care for it's Shia constituency? That isn't an argument for religion and it never has been.

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.

Bwahahahah we, ummphh we gahgahnng don't have the power to raise our kids not to take certian actions? Are you sure about that?

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.

Faith is highly relevant. We all exihibit faith based thoughts and feelings, all of us everyday. Any time we make a morality based decision, it boils down to faith, as we have already found the concept of good and evil is subjective, so when you perform what you feel is a good act, what external objective evidance do you use to ensure that it is objectivly good, what measure of morality do you use to verify your conclusions? I suggest faith, it feels right and so to you it is so.

Faith is highly relevant. We all exihibit faith based thoughts and feelings, all of us everyday. Any time we make a morality based decision, it boils down to faith, as we have already found the concept of good and evil is subjective, so when you perform what you feel is a good act, what external objective evidance do you use to ensure that it is objectivly good, what measure of morality do you use to verify your conclusions? I suggest faith, it feels right and so to you it is so.
What a load of crap, morality is a social product based on things humans know are good and bad and thus come from the social products of us as a species, we live to survive so we think murder is bad etc. I suppose your just another wacko trying to tell people that the Hebrews thought murder was a good thing before they got the 10 commandments.

I take the opposite view, I think religion is inherently immoral, because it's only religion that makes people do things which they would never do without religion. Who would mutilate the genitalia of children if religion didn't sanction it? Who would blow themselves up if they didn't think that eternal paradise awaited them? You want to justification for slavery, for the subjugation of women, for antisemitism, for war and genocide, look no further than religion.

Religion degrades humanity to an abject state of servitude and degrades human life to nothing, we are 'made of dust' as the Bible says, or 'of a clot of blood' as the Koran says.

Answer me this question: Name me a moral action that couldn't have been performed by a non-believer?
Secondly, tell me an immoral action that only a religious person could commit?

I rest my case.

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.

That's a rather strange statement to make. Surely all that we can concive is based in our reality?

Do you have the definative definition of 'reality', you are aware for example that all that you percive to be real is in your head.

Those who are educated and 'believe' do not believe in the the way others would, and I have noticed this quite a bit. Western educated religious people treat their 'faith' like a bit of a trivial matter, and if ever confronted will gladly water it down and say Genesis was 'symbolic' or whatever, Catholics are even biggest hypocrits, most Christians have no idea what they believe.
You didn't mention there were two types of "believing" beforehand. But now that you mention it, only part of religion is believing in certain facts and how the world works. The other bigger part of religion should be a philosophical guide on how one should conduct their lives. People like you and your counterparts blow the Genesis story completely out of proportion. But that shouldn't be the focus.


'Missionaries' and the like treat Christianity like it's a bit of 'white mans magic' to be given to the savages, those in the 'third' or 'developing' world. Their is a markedly different religious attitude between those pampered Westerns who whom religion is a racket and those illiterate impoverished people who's economic desperation and lack of knowledge is a perfect target for the racket that Christianity has become.
That was how Christianity evolved into: a semi-racist, exploitative justification. It is not what Christianity originally was. Even during the height of Western imperialism we see missionaries truly caring for people, not because they were white but because they were Christian. And they often pass on the missionary work to locals.


People like you are the educated pampered Westerner trying to bring religion to the downtrodden - but in reality who target the downtrodden and illiterate because they are the only people who would buy your trash. You are taking advantage of people because given access to scientific etc knowledge they would rightfully reject your dried up dead credo.
For your information I am ethnically and culturally Chinese. As I said, indeed Christianity tries to "target" the downtrodden and illiterate, and it is only your opinion that it is "trash". In fact, nobody wants to sell them anything else. Christians come from all walks of life, including scientists. Trying to paint science and religion as mutually exclusive is flogging a dead horse. Most accept that they are mutually compatible.


And please, don't bring up the social services argument, it fails on every level. Does Hamas give social services to the people of Gaza, does Hezbollah pay for medical care for it's Shia constituency? That isn't an argument for religion and it never has been.
Hamas and Hezbollah are half-political organisations, half-religious organisations, and are not fair or adequate representatives in depicting Islam as a religion.

And, on a side note, yes, indeed. Hamas and Hezbollah do provide good public services to the Gazans and the Lebanons, something which neither Fatah, Israel, nor the legitimate government of Lebanon were able to do.

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.

Quite wrong in fact. Faith helps you belive even though there is a lack of evidance.

I don't believe God can violate natural laws- like make square circles, or microwave a corndog so hot he can't eat it.
Some people disagree with me and they're certainly entitled to. I just ask them to consider that these aren't laws we decided on- we didn't one day decide that force equals mass times acceleration, or that something can't come from nothing, or that gravity is the attraction between all bodies of matter. These are laws we observed- that is, the universe already works that way. We didn't make these rules up, they're rules that are already in place.
Everything that exists does so in a way that fits these laws, and I don't see why God should be an exception.

Umm because God is the maker? Would it not be impossible for the maker to build in a way that he can watch his creation whilst still being outside of it?

Everyone is entitled to believe what they want. Just because I don't believe in God doesn't mean that I'm going to be an ass and try to force everyone else to fall in lock-step with my beliefs. Don't be a bigot.

But if he is entitled to belive what he wants, why can't he be a bigot?

You haven't answered my question Peep.

Since when do "we" define what is evil and what is not? The same shitty book that defines god for "us" also defines "evil" in context of that god.

Since forever. And which shitty book are you talking about, there are shitloads of them?

Since forever. And which shitty book are you talking about, there are shitloads of them?

I think he's referring to the Bible, America's Favorite Theatrical Prop. *nod*

Lmao, "proof against god."

Perhaps you are correct, but unfortunately, that only deals with one of the myriad views about the nature of god. Maybe, just maybe that proves that the Judeo-Christian god is not all they say he is (though, it really just proves that one of the traits attributed to him is incorrect; just as if someone said I had blue eyes, brown hair, and brown eyes, just one of the statements about my eyes would necessarily be incorrect, as I do have brown hair).

However, it does nothing to disprove Odin, Zeus, Thor, Danu, Freya, Baldur, Poseidon, Aphrodite, Isis, Ra, Cernunnos, the Morrigan, Ganesh, Shiva, Osiris, Kali, Frey, Hod, Hermod, Skadi, Sif, Bacchus, Ares, Athena, Mimir, the Norns, Nuada, etc. ad infinitum.

And this is why these kinds of threads are pointless.

You see, what I did with the title was a PUN. It is a logical proof. :)

Yep, it does nothing about those myriad other gods. But then again, I never said that I was trying to disprove them, did I? There are simply too many different views of god to discuss them all in one post, so I just dealt with the most common view held in the US. Sue me.

What a load of crap, morality is a social product based on things humans know are good and bad and thus come from the social products of us as a species, we live to survive so we think murder is bad etc. I suppose your just another wacko trying to tell people that the Hebrews thought murder was a good thing before they got the 10 commandments.

No I'm not that kind of a bloke, sorry. So morality is based on sociaty yes? Yep I agree with that, but do you say here that all of humanity shares the same moral code?

Lets take your example of murder, it is telling that you say 'so we think that murder is bad', when my point he is that this kind of morality is faith based. What causes us to think that murder is bad, why do we not know for sure that murder is bad?


I take the opposite view, I think religion is inherently immoral, because it's only religion that makes people do things which they would never do without religion.

Now that is truely a load of crap, proof please, and by that I don't mean point me to the man who origanly said it. I mean show me the evidance that convinced the man who originaly said it that it is actualy true, and not some cool sounding soundbite. Otherwise just admit that it is a case of you beliving what you have been told, taking it merely on faith because in line with your other belifes, it just seems to make sense.

Who would mutilate the genitalia of children if religion didn't sanction it?

Well I hade my foreskin removed for medical reasons, so I guess umm doctors.


Who would blow themselves up if they didn't think that eternal paradise awaited them?

Ohhh ohh how about kamakarsi pilots?

You want to justification for slavery, for the subjugation of women, for antisemitism, for war and genocide, look no further than religion.

Religion degrades humanity to an abject state of servitude and degrades human life to nothing, we are 'made of dust' as the Bible says, or 'of a clot of blood' as the Koran says.

Really I have never denied that much ill has been cuased in the name of religon, so lets just drop that one, seeing as the post to which you replyed here was just talking about how irrational belifes(faith) are part and parcell of all of our lives, that we all have some(pssst even if it is hard for us to admit to it).

Answer me this question: Name me a moral action that couldn't have been performed by a non-believer?
Secondly, tell me an immoral action that only a religious person could commit?

I rest my case.

Umm witnessing to the unbeliver.
killing in the name of God.

Whats does that then poove? What case are you talking about?

Everyone is entitled to believe what they want. Just because I don't believe in God doesn't mean that I'm going to be an ass and try to force everyone else to fall in lock-step with my beliefs. Don't be a bigot.

Hey Indri, before you start calling people "juvenile dipshits", very mature, by the way, you should take five minutes and read the rest of my posts. I'm not trying to get anybody to change to agnosticism; rather, I was stating my own belief. Hence, the whole "basically, why I don't believe in god." So, if you think I don't have a right to state that I'm agnostic, feel free to move straight to hypocrisy land.

I was going to use a different word, but then I realized I was better than that.

I think he's referring to the Bible, America's Favorite Theatrical Prop. *nod*

Ahhh of course the Bible, the opnly known book in existance that deals with God, Gods plan for us and how we should deal with God! *nods*:eek:

Ahhh of course the Bible, the opnly known book in existance that deals with God, Gods plan for us and how we should deal with God! *nods*:eek:

Well, there was also Dianetics, but that reads like stereo instructions. ;)

The age of shame and pain is long gone. What Christianity actually advocates is that God has come into the kitchen itself and wrapped Himself around the kettle to stop anybody from touching it.

Therefore the choice is now yours. The choice has always been yours: whether you want to obey, or whether you actually want to push God away and continue touching the kettle.

You didn't address my point. God has control over the kettle. He's wrapped around it, but why does he need his tea hot enough to melt my hands? Can't he just use the microwave?

Well, there was also Dianetics, but that reads like stereo instructions. ;)

Aha and as we all know 'real men' don't need instructions!

You didn't address my point. God has control over the kettle. He's wrapped around it, but why does he need his tea hot enough to melt my hands? Can't he just use the microwave?

What futile questions. You have lost direction here, too many metaphores, I'm drowning in a lake misdirection!

Bwahahah shit I crack meself up.:D

Old topic is old (meme is old)

Pointless post is pointless. Hamilay is spamming

What futile questions. You have lost direction here, too many metaphores, I'm drowning in a lake misdirection!

Bwahahah shit I crack meself up.:D

Thanks, Yoda.

Aha and as we all know 'real men' don't need instructions!

Instruction are what real men read in their spare time on the can or waiting for the pressure to stop the bleeding. *nod*

Thanks, Yoda.

My pleasure.

Instruction are what real men read in their spare time on the can or waiting for the pressure to stop the bleeding. *nod*

No I think thats' graphic novels? Sorry the Bible, I meant the Bible!

You didn't address my point. God has control over the kettle. He's wrapped around it, but why does he need his tea hot enough to melt my hands? Can't he just use the microwave?

Uh...you will now have to define your allegorical terms please.

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're using a very strange definition of the word hypothesis. A hypothesis has a null hypothesis as its opposite (in the case of "God exists", this would be "God does not exist, and any evidence of God existing is caused by random chance").

To test this statistical null hypothesis, you might pray for God to change the outcome of some random event (the roll of a die), and then find if the outcomes are still distributed randomly.

Ermarian;13653477']You're using a very strange definition of the word hypothesis. A hypothesis has a null hypothesis as its opposite (in the case of "God exists", this would be "God does not exist, and any evidence of God existing is caused by random chance").

To test this statistical null hypothesis, you might pray for God to change the outcome of some random event (the roll of a die), and then find if the outcomes are still distributed randomly.

Which does rather assume that you praying will or will not have any effect.

Hey Indri, before you start calling people "juvenile dipshits", very mature, by the way, you should take five minutes and read the rest of my posts. I'm not trying to get anybody to change to agnosticism; rather, I was stating my own belief. Hence, the whole "basically, why I don't believe in god." So, if you think I don't have a right to state that I'm agnostic, feel free to move straight to hypocrisy land.

I was going to use a different word, but then I realized I was better than that.

Why don't you believe in any of the other Gods? You take a very narrow view that someone has of God and think it's contradictory, and then you suddenly don't believe in any Gods?

Ermarian;13653477']You're using a very strange definition of the word hypothesis. A hypothesis has a null hypothesis as its opposite (in the case of "God exists", this would be "God does not exist, and any evidence of God existing is caused by random chance").

To test this statistical null hypothesis, you might pray for God to change the outcome of some random event (the roll of a die), and then find if the outcomes are still distributed randomly.
Yes, and when having a null hypothesis, you have found evidence that doesn't support the hypothesis, which is what I said. You either find evidence that supports your hypothesis or you find that the evidence does not support your hypothesis. You don't find evidence "against" your hypothesis. Even a null hypothesis can be rejected in light of new evidence. You can't prove a negative, you can only prove a positive. You can't find evidence against a hypothesis only evidence that doesn't support it.

Do you understand what I am saying?

Why don't you believe in any of the other Gods? You take a very narrow view that someone has of God and think it's contradictory, and then you suddenly don't believe in any Gods?

Read the rest of my posts. I don't believe in god because there is too much suffering in the world for me to accept the idea of some all-powerful deity sitting up there somewhere watching it all. Of course, the god or gods could be asshats, just playing with us, but I'm not going to believe that or worship that. Or, they could not be powerful enough to do anything about it, but why worship that either?

There are too many different views for me to explain here, but they all have similar problems as stated above. I don't care if you have faith, just don't mistake my creating a single, narrow, logical argument against the most prevalent theology where I live as being the entire extent of my theological beliefs. I don't presume to know the extent of your beliefs, don't pretend to know anything about mine.

Uh...you will now have to define your allegorical terms please.

Ok. God is the parent, who turned on the stove to make tea, or whatever. The stove or pot or whatever burning is punishment for poor decisions. My argument is that the heat of the pot is set so high that the penalty for the wrong decision of touching it permanently scars and disfigures the offender, it just seems waaay too powerful of a penalty. Why do the penalties for poor decisions have to be so severe?

I don't care if you have faith, just don't mistake my creating a single, narrow, logical argument against the most prevalent theology where I live as being the entire extent of my theological beliefs. I don't presume to know the extent of your beliefs, don't pretend to know anything about mine.

There's the thing though, you have not yet provided a logical argument that is sound.

For the sake of this argument, let's just deal with the Judeo-Christian view of good and evil as being god and the devil.

You're limiting yourself to a very narrow group (not just with the quoted statement above, but with others). You're trying to prove wrong the people who believe in Satan, people who think God is all-powerful and all-knowing, and, since most of these ideas come from the Bible, I'm assuming you're arguing against people who take the Bible to be an almost literal account of the truth.
These people will never admit to being wrong, or at least they won't admit being wrong because of a thread on a forum. And the rest of us already KNOW these people are wrong.
I consider myself to be at least somewhat Christian. I don't believe in the Devil. I interpret some parts of the Bible, and some parts I cast out altogether. I clearly don't believe in the all-powerful, all-knowing God that the OP seemed to be referring to.
"Judeo-Christian" as you are using it doesn't describe the theology of all Jews or all Christians.

If you are a literalist, then you believe that the Devil is real, and therefore evil is real. If not, then the suffering in the world still needs explaining.

Whoa. I think the suffering in the world can exist without the help of some nasty, scheming fallen angel.

If my child goes to touch a hot stove, I'm going to warn them about the stove. If they still choose to touch the stove, then I'm going to laugh at them, thus using shame and pain to teach a lesson. However, I'm not going to let them touch a 1500 degree stove and lose their hand to prove my point. It's much easier to give them a lesser pain for the same lesson. Why can't god turn down the stove?

1) You're assuming that the amount of suffering in the world right now is akin to the 1500 degree stove. But for all we know, God is turning down the stove, and this is what the effects feel like. I'm sure we could all think of creative ways in which the world could be worse.

2) That said, I don't think God is trying to prove a point. I think that God wants us to be able to survive on our own. Whatever goal is in mind, I think it involves going a long way through suffering and evil (whatever evil means). I don't think that God specifically planned horrific events like the Holocaust or World Trade Center attacks, and I don't think that God encouraged them to happen in any way. They happened on their own, and God, not the type to intervene, let nature take its course.

What a load of crap, morality is a social product based on things humans know are good and bad and thus come from the social products of us as a species, we live to survive so we think murder is bad etc. I suppose your just another wacko trying to tell people that the Hebrews thought murder was a good thing before they got the 10 commandments.

I take the opposite view, I think religion is inherently immoral, because it's only religion that makes people do things which they would never do without religion. Who would mutilate the genitalia of children if religion didn't sanction it? Who would blow themselves up if they didn't think that eternal paradise awaited them? You want to justification for slavery, for the subjugation of women, for antisemitism, for war and genocide, look no further than religion.

Religion degrades humanity to an abject state of servitude and degrades human life to nothing, we are 'made of dust' as the Bible says, or 'of a clot of blood' as the Koran says.

Answer me this question: Name me a moral action that couldn't have been performed by a non-believer?
Secondly, tell me an immoral action that only a religious person could commit?

I rest my case.
Speaking of loads of crap, this ranks right up there. Human beings do not need religion to commit atrocities to other humans. All the "immoral" things that people have done in the name of religion were actually done because of our inherent xenophobia. We humans fear anything that is different from us and what he fear, we hate and try to destroy. Just because humans have used religion as an excuse to commit atrocities, doesn't mean that religion is the reason. China's "cultural revolution" committed many of the same immoral acts as a religious crusade, but without a religion. All it took was a fear of something different.

As for your question of an immoral action that only a religious person could commit, I can't think of any. Why don't you give us some examples?

That said, I don't think God is trying to prove a point. I think that God wants us to be able to survive on our own. Whatever goal is in mind, I think it involves going a long way through suffering and evil (whatever evil means). I don't think that God specifically planned horrific events like the Holocaust or World Trade Center attacks, and I don't think that God encouraged them to happen in any way. They happened on their own, and God, not the type to intervene, let nature take its course.

So God never intervenes? Does that mean that God ignores the prayers of the faithful or does God only answer them in the afterlife?

Those who are educated and 'believe' do not believe in the the way others would, and I have noticed this quite a bit. Western educated religious people treat their 'faith' like a bit of a trivial matter, and if ever confronted will gladly water it down and say Genesis was 'symbolic' or whatever, Catholics are even biggest hypocrits, most Christians have no idea what they believe.

So now, not believing a story that was clearly symbolic is "watering down"? How about "not being an idiot"? I don't understand you people who say that since we don't believe in everything in the Bible, we're really just Atheists in disguise. Wake the fuck up.

'Missionaries' and the like treat Christianity like it's a bit of 'white mans magic' to be given to the savages, those in the 'third' or 'developing' world.

I don't know these missionaries. You must.

Their is a markedly different religious attitude between those pampered Westerns who whom religion is a racket and those illiterate impoverished people who's economic desperation and lack of knowledge is a perfect target for the racket that Christianity has become.

Of course, Christianity is a racket... because the only reason anyone who's not an idiot would follow Christ is because there's MONEY in it, right?
I think we're learning a lot about your mindset.

People like you are the educated pampered Westerner trying to bring religion to the downtrodden - but in reality who target the downtrodden and illiterate because they are the only people who would buy your trash.

They're the only people who haven't heard our trash. The poor and the downtrodden are the ones without Internet or TV, remember? Why the hell would we send missionaries to London, when we assume most people in London have already heard our message? Why would we send missionaries to Tokyo- we assume most Japanese people have at least heard of Christianity, and clearly have not tried to convert.
But people in parts of Africa, who have not heard the word and probably never will without missionaries- well, wouldn't you know it, they're the ones we go to.
Now if you thought that everyone in the world would go to hell if you didn't prevent it, you would have a sort of obligation to spread your message, wouldn't you? Whether you were right or wrong, this is what you believe, and if you really believe it, then you would want other people to know it. Not for your own sake, but for theirs.

You are taking advantage of people because given access to scientific etc knowledge they would rightfully reject your dried up dead credo.

... yet we live in the most scientific, educated, wealthy part of the world, and we have an abundance of Christians.
Fail fail fail fail fail fail fail.

And please, don't bring up the social services argument, it fails on every level. Does Hamas give social services to the people of Gaza, does Hezbollah pay for medical care for it's Shia constituency? That isn't an argument for religion and it never has been.

You're saying that Christians are extorting these poor people, and at the same time you overlook the fact that:
A) These people have very little of value worth taking for our "racket"
B) We build many good things for them, like the schools already mentioned

You can't focus only on the bad aspects of Christian missions (most of which seem to be in your head) and then say that the good aspects are off-limits.

So God never intervenes? Does that mean that God ignores the prayers of the faithful or does God only answer them in the afterlife?

I think God clearly doesn't answer the prayers of the faithful. Unless none of the people I know are faithful, which is a definite possibility.
I don't know if God takes it into account if He's been hearing the same prayer for years and years, or from huge groups of people. You kind of have to look at the world around you and see if anything looks like divine intervention. Some people claim to see it all the time. I don't.

I think God clearly doesn't answer the prayers of the faithful. Unless none of the people I know are faithful, which is a definite possibility.
I don't know if God takes it into account if He's been hearing the same prayer for years and years, or from huge groups of people. You kind of have to look at the world around you and see if anything looks like divine intervention. Some people claim to see it all the time. I don't.

That's a fair enough answer.

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

:D

If your god exits he can never play football because if he's omnipresent then he'd always be offside! :p

It is possibe that a all good god could create evil. If you had a child and could make it so your child never had to suffer any kind of difficulty and had everything he/she wanted with ease, would you do so? Probably not scince a ceirtan amount of hardship builds character. This world would be pretty boreing if there was no hardship/evil in it. If anyone tells you that god diddin't create evil then tell them about leviathen that" twisted serpent" he creates before man.

Only if they keep those beliefs to themselves.
The by your logic because you have stated you beliefs you are no longer entitled to an opinion on the matter.

Read the rest of my posts. I don't believe in god because there is too much suffering in the world for me to accept the idea of some all-powerful deity sitting up there somewhere watching it all. Of course, the god or gods could be asshats, just playing with us, but I'm not going to believe that or worship that. Or, they could not be powerful enough to do anything about it, but why worship that either?

There are too many different views for me to explain here, but they all have similar problems as stated above. I don't care if you have faith, just don't mistake my creating a single, narrow, logical argument against the most prevalent theology where I live as being the entire extent of my theological beliefs. I don't presume to know the extent of your beliefs, don't pretend to know anything about mine.

I was asking questions. How do you know there's not a semi-powerful God out there uninterested in what you are doing? It seems to me that suffering on Earth is pretty inconsequential in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't seem to be precluding a God who doesn't care or isn't omnipotent or omnipresent or benevolent, of which there are many theorized.

morality is a social product based on things humans know are good and bad
Um?

I was asking questions. How do you know there's not a semi-powerful God out there uninterested in what you are doing? It seems to me that suffering on Earth is pretty inconsequential in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't seem to be precluding a God who doesn't care or isn't omnipotent or omnipresent or benevolent, of which there are many theorized.

Why bother worrying about the existence of god then, when we can just make up our own definitions of him/her/it?

Ok. God is the parent, who turned on the stove to make tea, or whatever. The stove or pot or whatever burning is punishment for poor decisions. My argument is that the heat of the pot is set so high that the penalty for the wrong decision of touching it permanently scars and disfigures the offender, it just seems waaay too powerful of a penalty. Why do the penalties for poor decisions have to be so severe?

This analogy is not a completely correct one in terms of Christian theology, but I get your point.

If God is God, then no matter how badly you damage or disfigure yourself on the kettle He's able to restore you to full health.

The penalty is so severe perhaps to match the rewards which are so glorious.

Why bother worrying about the existence of god then, when we can just make up our own definitions of him/her/it?

That's what I meant. This whole thing is pretty stupid. To pick a very narrow version of "God" and "debunk" it and then claim the "logical superiority" because you made your own definition and proved it stupid.

It's like my daughter trying to explain to me why I was stupid for having green be my favorite color when pink is obviously the only color that is worthy of being anyone's favorite.......out of the mouth of my then two year old comes this "Pink is best because pink rhymes with sink and sink starts with s and so does sausage and sausage is made of pig and pig starts with p and so does pink so pink is the best color"

It's nonsense.

I was asking questions. How do you know there's not a semi-powerful God out there uninterested in what you are doing? It seems to me that suffering on Earth is pretty inconsequential in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't seem to be precluding a God who doesn't care or isn't omnipotent or omnipresent or benevolent, of which there are many theorized.

That is quite a statement. Inteligent and well phrased. I applaud you. Personally I think God is like the fat kid with the magnifying glass burning the ants in the backyard.. and we're the ants.

Also I hear a lot of arguments that we can not apply our morality to God? And why not? Why is God beyond morality? Because he/she/it is God? Because God is above us? But we have to confirm to God's idea of morality?

God is a Dictator. He kills his people mercillessly, punishes them severly for little acts, and condemns us to hell for speaking up against him. Yet, people treat him/her/it like they are the kindest person in existence. Tell me one kind or Good(based in the view of society) thing God has done and I will show you 10 cruel and Evil(based on the view of society) things he has done to contradict it.

1. Evil exists (i.e., the Devil or Hell)
Correct. Well, in reality, Hell in of itself isn't 'evil' per se, since it is a place (a place can be holy, or sacred, etc, and the reverse can be true as well, but it is people and living things that are evil. Hell is merely the adobe of the Devil, the fallen angels, and can be considered the complete absence of God.) But yes, the Devil is evil.

2. God created everything
Well, in the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth. Directly, He created the Universe, indirectly, He created all of us. However, we have free will over things that are beneath God's domain, such as personal possessions, relationships with friends, etc, but with things like Faith and such, that is God's decision. But that is a subject for another time. Anyway, let me put it this way: God created the Universe, and (possibly) guided evolution for the creation of Humanity. Humans, as well as all thinking species, are given free will (animals more limited than most due to their lack of rationality, but yes, animals do have a measure of choice in their lives, but how can we really know?) to live their lives outside of the spiritual realm. For example, I created the oatmeal I ate for breakfast- God merely created the Universal laws that indirectly allowed the oats to be made, the materials out of which the harvester was made that harvested the oats, etc, etc, until it came to my hands stirring the pot. God did not have a direct hand in it.

As well, angels have been given free will, which explains why angels would choose to fight God.

I think you should read some Luther. He illustrates this point much better than I can.

3. God is omni-benevolent (all-good)
By His standards, yes.

Therefore, an all-good creator made evil, or the all-good creator doesn't exist.
Incorrect.

Your premises are narrow and do not encompass all of the Christian theology about the subject of God, and Evil, and you also notably neglect the issue of free will and God's responsibility of our actions.

If God were held accountable for our actions, and the Devil's actions, then yes, your conclusion would be true. However, this is false. God gave us the capacity to disobey Him, a showing of free will, and free decision over the course of our lives, as was shown by Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, with the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. And remember, before that, it was Lucifer's decision to fight God. Was God held accountable for Lucifer's attempt to usurp His throne? No! In fact, God banished Lucifer and his army of fallen angels out of Heaven, a showing that the punishment was on Lucifer's part. If God were held accountable for all Evil in the World, then God would have punished Himself.

Back to the Tree, it was then Lucifer, in the form of the snake, who tempted Eve and Adam to eat the Fruit, and directly disobey God and thus allow Humanity to fall from God's graces, bond their free will in sin (again, please read Luther) and live their lives in Sin. God did not force them to do this; he merely provided them their choice, and has no responsibility for their choices. Again, if He had the responsibility, then He would have punished Himself; not Adam and Eve, banishing them from Eden, and ripping the legs off of the Snake, and all of the other punishments. (Remember, I am staying within your premise of the all-good, all-powerful God. Part of God's identity are His punishments and wrath for sinners.)

A simple look in the Bible shows your second premise quite false, since God is not held accountable for choices made through free will.

Really, you should go to your local public library after school and maybe look up some theology, or flip through your Bible. Your ignorance of Christian theology is quite astounding.

Edit: Oh, and with all that said and done, I'm not a Christian. I'm a skeptical agnostic. I just find theology to be one of the most fascinating parts of Human culture and history. ;)

God is a Dictator. He kills his people mercillessly, punishes them severly for little acts, and condemns us to hell for speaking up against him. Yet, people treat him/her/it like they are the kindest person in existence. Tell me one kind or Good(based in the view of society) thing God has done and I will show you 10 cruel and Evil(based on the view of society) things he has done to contradict it.

I want to play this game.

God gave you life and the capacity to enjoy it.

That's what I meant. This whole thing is pretty stupid. To pick a very narrow version of "God" and "debunk" it and then claim the "logical superiority" because you made your own definition and proved it stupid.

It's like my daughter trying to explain to me why I was stupid for having green be my favorite color when pink is obviously the only color that is worthy of being anyone's favorite.......out of the mouth of my then two year old comes this "Pink is best because pink rhymes with sink and sink starts with s and so does sausage and sausage is made of pig and pig starts with p and so does pink so pink is the best color"

It's nonsense.

Reply: "Oh yeah? Well green is the color of the stuff that mommy uses to pay for everthing you need and want. Without green, there'd be no sink, sausage nor pigs." :)

:eek: I never would have seen this sort of thing on THE INTERNETS!!!

This system of tubes needs Roto-Rooter lol....

I want to play this game.

God gave you life and the capacity to enjoy it.

God murdered the entire world except Noah and his family after giving the free will to choose how to live because he didn't like what people chose.

God sent his own son to Earth to DIE. Regardless of the reasoning that's still a pretty messed up thing to do.

God impregnated Mary without her consent.. generally we call that rape.

God never gave me a pony, no matter how hard I prayed.

God gave me life.

God knows the Anti-Christ will make his people suffer for thousands of years but is willing to allow it to happen.

God(possibly, according to some religious beliefs) condemns unbaptized babies to hell.

God allows Jehova's Witnesses to come to my door without striking them dead.

God allows Mormons to come to my door without striking them dead.

God once broke my favorite red truck and blamed it on the dog.

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.

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

Although the urban legend is false, I believe it has an interesting argument for you:

http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp

but as far as i know humans were the only ones created with free will, unlike the angels whom are supposed to serve god by their existence.

im sorry but i dont have a quote from the bible to back this up though

ever wonder why daemons and Devils are referred to as "Fallen Angels"?

ever wonder why daemons and Devils are referred to as "Fallen Angels"?

Cause their too Drunk to stand up?

Cause their too Drunk to stand up?

and they got drunk because of their CHOICE to get drunk. See... Free Will! :p

and they got drunk because of their CHOICE to get drunk. See... Free Will! :p

Bl-bla..um..Blb...BLASPHEME!!!

Bl-bla..um..Blb...BLASPHEME!!!

how is that blaspheme?

If you're going to do the Problem from Evil, then at least do it correctly.

how is that blaspheme?

It was a joke friend :rolleyes:

I thought it was obvious i wasnt taking this seriously from the Drunk post, lol...

Talking Religion on an Anonymous Internet Forum, is a pointless Debacle...

Heh but he did create the greatest gaming system of all time. Welcome Player.

Then why can't I save, load or start a new game...aww screw this...

*resets*

So where does the responsibility of humankind come in?

if we had a "warmer" world we would be less inclined to choose evil. the world we have been given is quite cold and i dont see that it is reasonable to expect that we behave as if it isnt. if we had been given a better deal, we would have a better chance at success.

it is as if we are all special olympic athletes being expected to compete in the regular olympics. why are we being punished for failing?

ever wonder why daemons and Devils are referred to as "Fallen Angels"?

Because of a series of successively more ridiculous mistranslations coupled with a misunderstanding of ancient Hebrew mythology?

You can't prove a negative

not only can you, we do, all the time.

also, its sort of fundamental to logic. i mean, the law of non-contradiction is a negative, and i have personally done the proof. even worse, thanks to the magic of double negation, everything can be expressed as a negative, therefore every proof of a positive is also proof of a negative. and then, of course, you have modus tollens

if a then b.
not b.
therefore not a.

proving a negative is fun and easy.

Incidentally, the correct version of the Problem From Evil is roughly as follows, and only applies to one version of a deity.

Assumption 1: God is omnipotent, or all-powerful.
Assumption 2: God is omnibenevolent, or all-good.

Statement 1: There is suffering in the world.
Corollary to Statement 1: This suffering stems from natural occurrences, and not from the actions of humans. (Examples would be natural disasters, many diseases, and many birth defects.)

Therefore:
1. If God is all-good, He would desire to prevent this suffering.
2. If God is all-powerful, He would be able to prevent this suffering.

Reiteration of Statement 1: There is suffering in the world.

Conclusion: An omnipotent and omnibenevolent God creates a logical contradiction.

Eh, either way it's God's fault. He may have given us all free will, but he knows ahead of time what each and every one of us is going to do in our lives before we're even born. So in the long run, what, exactly, is the point of an existence on Earth? We're not proving anything he doesn't already know, after all. Why not just skip it and go straight to the "Heaven or Hell" phase?

if a then b.
not b.
therefore not a.

proving a negative is fun and easy.

Yes, but by saying its not 'a', you admit that 'a' exists...

Proving a Negative, means proving the Non-Existence of something...

Yes, but by saying its not 'a', you admit that 'a' exists...


...What?

...What?

Exactly...

Yes, but by saying its not 'a', you admit that 'a' exists...

Proving a Negative, means proving the Non-Existence of something...

not a = a exists?
wtf?

not a = a exists?
wtf?

By admitting that there is an 'a' to 'not be' then you admit that there has to be or have been an 'a'...

Its like trying to find evidence there is no Big Foot...if there is evidence, then there is a Big Foot...therefore you cannot ever prove through evidence that there is no Big Foot...

It was a joke friend :rolleyes:

I thought it was obvious i wasnt taking this seriously from the Drunk post, lol...

Talking Religion on an Anonymous Internet Forum, is a pointless Debacle...

I know. I just wanted to see how far we could've carried this... you know.

"you suggested that angels became devils by partaking of spirits" or somesuch. :D

Eh, either way it's God's fault. He may have given us all free will, but he knows ahead of time what each and every one of us is going to do in our lives before we're even born. So in the long run, what, exactly, is the point of an existence on Earth? We're not proving anything he doesn't already know, after all. Why not just skip it and go straight to the "Heaven or Hell" phase?

There is that theory that He knows the future only in terms of possibilities. You may still make choices and thus change the outcome. That would still be knowing all, since He knows all that exists, and all that exists before I make a choice is only the previous choices and the choice at hand, the future does not already exist.

Edit: He also knows the outcome of choices, get it?

But.. isn't this idea of presumably sensible adults believing in god/gods or anything of that kind a bit pathetic?
I mean, it is not any more plausible than fairies in your back garden, or the easter bunny.

But.. isn't this idea of presumably sensible adults believing in god/gods or anything of that kind a bit pathetic?
I mean, it is not any more plausible than fairies in your back garden, or the easter bunny.

It's more plausible because those other things are said to exist in a physical dimension, not God.

Incidentally, the correct version of the Problem From Evil is roughly as follows, and only applies to one version of a deity.


There is no correct version of the problem of evil, there are many versions, the best ones I believe are the ones that tackle the problems of free will and pre-destination.

It's more plausible because those other things are said to exist in a physical dimension, not God.

Eh? How does that make it more plausible???

Eh? How does that make it more plausible???

Because you can verify there is, indeed, no fairies or easter bunny.

You cannot verify there is no God, because you are limited to physical dimensions.

Edit: So one is false for sure, and the other one, we don't know.

But.. isn't this idea of presumably sensible adults believing in god/gods or anything of that kind a bit pathetic?
I mean, it is not any more plausible than fairies in your back garden, or the easter bunny.
I think it seems ridiculous (and in the popular Western religious sense generally is ridiculous) because the idea of gods has been equated to the idea of God; the belief that the mythological figures and the universal entity are one and the same.

The thing that Abrahamics worship is a god (small g), but they believe it to be God (capital G), because they believe that as well as maintaining an entity in and of itself it is also the cosmic universal power. Buddhists, Hindus and Pagans, conversely, worship God directly as that universal power (calling it other names), though they often have cute fairytales about gods as mythological characters to describe a point.

Because you can verify there is, indeed, no fairies or easter bunny.

You cannot verify there is no God, because you are limited to physical dimensions.

Edit: So one is false for sure, and the other one, we don't know.

Believe it or not, there are well-functioning people who honestly DO believe in fairies.. and who says they are physical anyway?

But if I were to say there are indeed fairies in my back garden.. how will you proof to me that there are none?
You can at best proof that you cannot spot them.
Which goes for god also.
And for the easter bunny.
Who I happen to have spoken to only yesterday. He promised to bring us ostrich eggs next year.

But, as someoen already typed in the beginnign of this topic:

You can't prove a negative.

whether it be god(s), fairies, feaster bunnies or ninja turtles.

You can't prove a negative.
You can't prove an unqualified negative. You can prove a specific negative, though, simply by disproving the positive. That is, you can't prove "There is no God", because God might simply exist in some unconsidered context, but you can prove "The God as outlined below cannot exist" by positing that there is such a God and revealing logical contradiction.

The question is, of course, what qualities we choose to assign to the concept of divinity.

You can't prove a negative.

yes, you can. very very very easily, in lots and lots of instances.

folk wisdom about logic is not a good source of beliefs.

if we had a "warmer" world we would be less inclined to choose evil. the world we have been given is quite cold and i dont see that it is reasonable to expect that we behave as if it isnt. if we had been given a better deal, we would have a better chance at success.

it is as if we are all special olympic athletes being expected to compete in the regular olympics. why are we being punished for failing?

Lol! In a few words you wiped your hands clean from any and all responsibility humankind might have for their current condition! Honestly, how realistic is that?

That's why it takes courageous people to believe and live the faith. We are all born into a bad world, and when some faith somewhere tries to advocate goodness, it is shouted down.

Lol! In a few words you wiped your hands clean from any and all responsibility humankind might have for their current condition! Honestly, how realistic is that?

That's why it takes courageous people to believe and live the faith. We are all born into a bad world, and when some faith somewhere tries to advocate goodness, it is shouted down.

yeah well im looking at billions of people born into horrible circumstances and thinking that your warm/cold analogy isnt very useful for them

yeah well im looking at billions of people born into horrible circumstances and thinking that your warm/cold analogy isnt very useful for them

The warm/cold analogy wasn't supposed to answer that question. Hence of course it isn't very useful for them. :headbang:

The warm/cold analogy wasn't supposed to answer that question. Hence of course it isn't very useful for them. :headbang:

oh really? then what is it in answer to?

my comments are only about your analogy.

oh really? then what is it in answer to?

my comments are only about your analogy.

It was an answer to the question: Did God create evil and if He did, how can He be all-good?

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

Wow. Best logic about the matter I've ever seen. It's incredible, but the only sad part is that it depends entirely on the idea of at least partially objective morality.

Still pretty good though.

It was an answer to the question: Did God create evil and if He did, how can He be all-good?

so your answer is that he is NOT all good. he is all-everything.

It was an answer to the question: Did God create evil and if He did, how can He be all-good?

Christians (as I've seen) suppose that God actually exists outside of morality altogether, and is therefore not subject to moral denunciation. We can look through the Bible, and find many cases of God doing what He seemingly commands people not to do. Inconsistent behaviour? By no means, indeed, it supports the idea that God is outside, and above morality altogether, and that the moral scale does not apply to Him, who is perfect.

An argument to support it: If a mom sets her ten-year-olds bedtime at 8 O'clock (PM, of course), and then does not go to bed herself until 11, is that inconsistent? No, she is outside, and above the bedtime that she laid down for others, and she has that authority. Obviously this example is more trivial than, but nonetheless similar to, the initial attempt to judge a Christian God by standards that Christians don't apply to Him. (then, assumably He doesn't apply to Himself)

so your answer is that he is NOT all good. he is all-everything.

He is who He is. What else can I really say? He is more than I can ever fathom.

There is no correct version of the problem of evil, there are many versions, the best ones I believe are the ones that tackle the problems of free will and pre-destination.

Those are the only ones that are not logically flawed, and hence should be considered correct.

Then why can't I save, load or start a new game...aww screw this...

*resets*

Sources tell me that little niggle will be fixed in version 3.1a, or you can download the patch. It's a big patch though and is likely to take 3 millenia to download, and lets not talk about the install time!

if we had a "warmer" world we would be less inclined to choose evil. the world we have been given is quite cold and i dont see that it is reasonable to expect that we behave as if it isnt. if we had been given a better deal, we would have a better chance at success.

it is as if we are all special olympic athletes being expected to compete in the regular olympics. why are we being punished for failing?

Hehe thats quite funny, wrong but funny. The state of the world is as we have made it, the choices humanity has made has a direct correlation to the present day, and the choices we make now or in the future will do the same for those who come after us.

Your like the teenage kid who blames all except his own choices for the way his life is.

God will stop me from posting this.



LOLOLOL i totally disproved god.



:rolleyes:

Incidentally, the correct version of the Problem From Evil is roughly as follows, and only applies to one version of a deity.

Assumption 1: God is omnipotent, or all-powerful.
Assumption 2: God is omnibenevolent, or all-good.

Statement 1: There is suffering in the world.
Corollary to Statement 1: This suffering stems from natural occurrences, and not from the actions of humans. (Examples would be natural disasters, many diseases, and many birth defects.)

Therefore:
1. If God is all-good, He would desire to prevent this suffering.
2. If God is all-powerful, He would be able to prevent this suffering.

Reiteration of Statement 1: There is suffering in the world.

Conclusion: An omnipotent and omnibenevolent God creates a logical contradiction.

The thing with that of course, and I have put it to the OP who strangely refuse to answer to it, is that it assume a morality for God that is akin to that of humanity.

Our differant laws show that morality is subjective, and changeble dependant on locaction, time and socialogical factors.

Do you know for example what God deems to be moraly correct? Until you do, then the conclusion is flawed.

Eh, either way it's God's fault. He may have given us all free will, but he knows ahead of time what each and every one of us is going to do in our lives before we're even born. So in the long run, what, exactly, is the point of an existence on Earth? We're not proving anything he doesn't already know, after all. Why not just skip it and go straight to the "Heaven or Hell" phase?

There are many hypothesis for that particular question.

Try this one on for size.

God created the creation, and of course has all knowledge of what will be, knowledge though is not equal to experiance, pehraps then the whole of existance is nowt more than God wanting to experiance.

Well, when I die if I appear before God, I will just have to say (puts on British accent) 'I am sorry Lord, but you didn't provide enough evidence'.

not a = a exists?
wtf?

Yeah thats easy. By saying that something is not A, then it admits that something called A exists, not A means this is not A, but something somewhere is A.

Not Cup, then Plate, assumes that if this is not a Cup it is a Plate, but admits that such a thing as a Cup exists.

Well, when I die if I appear before God, I will just have to say (puts on British accent) 'I am sorry Lord, but you didn't provide enough evidence'.

I can already kind of guess what God's response will be.

But I shan't spoil the surprise. :rolleyes:

But.. isn't this idea of presumably sensible adults believing in god/gods or anything of that kind a bit pathetic?
I mean, it is not any more plausible than fairies in your back garden, or the easter bunny.

Pathetic not at all, delusional, yes of course.

I can already kind of guess what God's response will be.

But I shan't spoil the surprise. :rolleyes:

that makes 2 of us.

I can already kind of guess what God's response will be.

But I shan't spoil the surprise. :rolleyes:
The fact that he would have to reply implies that he is not omniscient.

The fact that he would have to reply implies that he is not omniscient.

Um....yea :rolleyes:

Um....yea :rolleyes:
What, God is humoring me? He would after all already know what I was going to say. The fact that he would answer the questions of such a lowly mortal indicates that he himself as God is not omniscient.

If your God is as all-benevolent as you claim him to be, then why doesn't he have room in his obviously capacious heart for someone who simply can't bring themselves to believe? If not then he's certainly not a God I want to be praising for the rest of eternity.

I am guessing you simply started this topic to cause trouble?

Why do people who are apparently so confident and happy with there beliefs have to fight againts what other people have faith in?

It like the Homophobs who tease Gays because in the end, they are insecure with there sexuality.

If you really want to prove how great your idea's are, let the people come too you.

What, God is humoring me? He would after all already know what I was going to say. The fact that he would answer the questions of such a lowly mortal indicates that he himself as God is not omniscient.

Actually...that is illogical.

If your God is as all-benevolent as you claim him to be, then why doesn't he have room in his obviously capacious heart for someone who simply can't bring themselves to believe? If not then he's certainly not a God I want to be praising for the rest of eternity.

That is your choice. We all have to make this same choice.

That is your choice. We all have to make this same choice.
Notice how you didn't answer the question? I'll take it then that you are accepting that your God is not all-benevolent?

Notice how you didn't answer the question? I'll take it then that you are accepting that your God is not all-benevolent?

Actually...I did answer your question. I said that you have made your choice. Unless of course you are going to tell me otherwise.

You can't prove an unqualified negative. You can prove a specific negative, though, simply by disproving the positive. That is, you can't prove "There is no God", because God might simply exist in some unconsidered context, but you can prove "The God as outlined below cannot exist" by positing that there is such a God and revealing logical contradiction.

The question is, of course, what qualities we choose to assign to the concept of divinity.

Quite honestly, I am not completely certain what you mean. Too confusing for a feeble minded old lady. Please explain again, in very simple language with clearly outlined points?

Yet, if you mean what I think you mean, I probably don't agree with you.
I don't think disproving the existence of anything through logic is possible. You can prove that it is extremely unlikely, almost impossible that anything exists, but absolute proof?
How?
There is always the possibility that you missed a certain aspect, that there is something you do not know, some place you did not look.

What, God is humoring me? He would after all already know what I was going to say. The fact that he would answer the questions of such a lowly mortal indicates that he himself as God is not omniscient.

If your God is as all-benevolent as you claim him to be, then why doesn't he have room in his obviously capacious heart for someone who simply can't bring themselves to believe? If not then he's certainly not a God I want to be praising for the rest of eternity.

Heh and thats the thing, he does. God does not reject those who reject God.

Heh and thats the thing, he does. God does not reject those who reject God.

Indeed. He wants us all to come unto Him.

yes, you can. very very very easily, in lots and lots of instances.

folk wisdom about logic is not a good source of beliefs.

What is 'folk wisdom about logic'? Never heard that expression before... Did I use 'folk wisdom about logic' or were you responding to someone else?

Anyway.. 'disproving a negative' was not quite the right way to say what i meant, I just thought it sounded nice. But it was wrong.. I admit it.

What I mean is how can you prove something does not exist?
I don't think you can.
Not with the same amount of certainty that you can prove that something does exist.

Indeed. He wants us all to come unto Him.

ewww...

Which god are we talking about here? For a humanity that has had so much divine inspiration, we have an awful lot of contrasting gods don't we? :headbang:

The authors original 3 points were totally valid. Anyone who says "erm, but the evil exists wifin mankind innit !!!11" is ignoring the fact that god created mankind. As he can theoretically do anything, then he would have given us free will WITHOUT evil. To say ANYTHING ELSE is to believe that there are some things that god cannot do.

Have people addressed this point yet (I can't be bothered to trawl through 30 pages of nutters making the same illogical points. Either you all are living in cloud-cuckoo land or you are all 13): Can god create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?

Another point: why do you worship so much?

1) You assume that God needs something (surely an omnipotent being has no needs)
2) You assume that God can fail to get what he needs (or he'd have it himself by now)
3) You assume that God needs to get it from humans (arrogant idiots)
4) You assume that God will be angry if he doesn't get it (how can be being of pure love get angry?)

The very concept of god is anathema to reality. As was originally said, If god does exist then he's a prick who does things for shits and giggles.

If religous nuts would actually read, internalise and think about what is written, rather than just defending religion immediately regardless of the argument, then you would arrive at the same conclusion.

Heck, who am I kidding. You believe in something with as much justification as a 5 year old believing in the tooth fairy because he's read a book about it, all his friends believe in it, and those he looks up to (his parents) tell him its true. Put it in perspective people.

Tools.

ewww...

I don't remember any bukkake in the Bible...or perhaps God is a biscuit.

What, God is humoring me? He would after all already know what I was going to say. The fact that he would answer the questions of such a lowly mortal indicates that he himself as God is not omniscient.

...? With all my powers of English and logical reasoning I fail to understand this bit.


If your God is as all-benevolent as you claim him to be, then why doesn't he have room in his obviously capacious heart for someone who simply can't bring themselves to believe? If not then he's certainly not a God I want to be praising for the rest of eternity.

What does "all-benevolent" mean to you?

God? In my threads?

What does "all-benevolent" mean to you?
Oh get over yourself, if your God's best try at the salvation of humanity is making his son come to Bronze-age Palestine for a few decades and then die, only for the rest of the world to wait thousands of years before they hear about this 'salvation', then your cannot truly be omniscient. He is obviously quite selective then.

I reject God because the evidence for his existance does not exist, and their is as much likelihood of the giant spaghetti existing as, yet why not believe also in the spaghetti God, or maybe Odin, Osiris etc - the myriad amounts of contradicting creeds and religions if anything proves that God omniscient - or if he is he must be schizophrenic.

If your God thinks eternal praise is 'heaven' and blind faith is a virtue, then your heaven must be something close to Nazi Germany - only difference being you could die and leave Nazi Germany.

Oh get over yourself, if your God's best try at the salvation of humanity is making his son come to Bronze-age Palestine for a few decades and then die, only for the rest of the world to wait thousands of years before they hear about this 'salvation', then your cannot truly be omniscient. He is obviously quite selective then.
Whether an event happens is independent from whether the rest of the world hears about it. Whether the rest of the world hears about it is in turn independent from God's plan for salvation. The way God planned salvation is in turn independent from whether He is omniscient or not.


I reject God because the evidence for his existance does not exist, and their is as much likelihood of the giant spaghetti existing as, yet why not believe also in the spaghetti God, or maybe Odin, Osiris etc - the myriad amounts of contradicting creeds and religions if anything proves that God omniscient - or if he is he must be schizophrenic.

No. It provides evidence that perhaps religion is an innate human condition.


If your God thinks eternal praise is 'heaven' and blind faith is a virtue, then your heaven must be something close to Nazi Germany - only difference being you could die and leave Nazi Germany.
Unsubstantiated opinion.

What is 'folk wisdom about logic'? Never heard that expression before...

folk wisdom is things like "you can't prove a negative" or "what goes up must come down", etc. common beliefs which may or may not actually pan out. in the particular case of proving negatives, it is easily shown to be false.

What I mean is how can you prove something does not exist?
I don't think you can.
Not with the same amount of certainty that you can prove that something does exist.

no, in so far as you have hit a problem here, it applies exactly as well to proving that something does exist as to non-existence. it is really just a complaint about induction itself, which is fundamentally incapable of proving things at all. but given certain premises we can easily deductively prove that something doesn't exist.

if bigfoot existed, there would be evidence in the fossil record.
there is no such evidence.
therefore bigfoot doesn't exist.

now, of course, you could say that i need to prove my premises. and i should argue for them if questioned. but all arguments have this feature, and therefore, unless we take some premises as granted, all arguments would be susceptible to an infinite regress.

and, of course, descartes famously ran into some problems trying to prove much of anything existed, problems so great that he needed to cheat. this might all be a dream, or we might be brains in vats, or we might be hooked up to the matrix. i can grant you that i can be absolutely certain that in some sense i exist, though what exactly that existence constitutes is far far less certain. but after that it all gets a bit murky.

The thing with that of course, and I have put it to the OP who strangely refuse to answer to it, is that it assume a morality for God that is akin to that of humanity.

Our differant laws show that morality is subjective, and changeble dependant on locaction, time and socialogical factors.

Do you know for example what God deems to be moraly correct? Until you do, then the conclusion is flawed.

your claim is that omnibenevolence is compatible with wanting people to suffer? do you know what benevolence means?

your claim is that omnibenevolence is compatible with wanting people to suffer? do you know what benevolence means?

That is not my claim at all. What makes you think it is?

Yeah thats easy. By saying that something is not A, then it admits that something called A exists, not A means this is not A, but something somewhere is A.

naming something does not cause it to exist

'not a' means 'there is no a'.

naming something does not cause it to exist

'not a' means 'there is no a'.

In the context of deciding if a thing is either A or B, then both A and B must exist.

That is not my claim at all. What makes you think it is?

because that is what you must be saying for your counterargument to even address the issue.

if you are just saying that god isn't omnibenevolent, then you have agreed that the problem of evil implies that a particular god doesn't exist, but moved on to a different god altogether. the problem of evil doesn't disprove every god. just ones that allegedly don't like evil/suffering and have the power to prevent it.

In the context of deciding if a thing is either A or B, then both A and B must exist.

firstly, that wasn't the context. secondly, no they don't. that's silly.

this is either a clydesdale or a unicorn.

because that is what you must be saying for your counterargument to even address the issue.

if you are just saying that god isn't omnibenevolent, then you have agreed that the problem of evil implies that a particular god doesn't exist, but moved on to a different god altogether.

Nope not at all. I said that morality is subjective, and unless you can show that what we consider evil is considered evil by God then the conclusion as written in the post I was replying to is flawed.

firstly, that wasn't the context. secondly, no they don't. that's silly.

this is either a clydesdale or a unicorn.

Okay fair point, but we must have some knowledge of a unicorn to have a label for it. We must therefor know what one looks like to have it to compare to a clydesdale, other wise saying either A or B becomes meaningless.

Nope not at all. I said that morality is subjective, and unless you can show that what we consider evil is considered evil by God then the conclusion as written in the post I was replying to is flawed.

then you are saying that wanting there to be suffering is compatible with omnibenevolence. of course, by definition to be omnibenevolent one must not want there to be suffering. that's just what words mean. your new argument - that god might not dislike suffering - is merely saying that god is not omnibenevolent.

if bigfoot existed, there would be evidence in the fossil record.
there is no such evidence.
therefore bigfoot doesn't exist.


May not be exactly Bigfoot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantopithecus_blacki), but...

Okay fair point, but we must have some knowledge of a unicorn to have a label for it. We must therefor know what one looks like to have it to compare to a clydesdale, other wise saying either A or B becomes meaningless.

well yeah, we must always specify in some way what we are even talking about, all the time. i mean, if i use a non-standard definition for a unicorn that exactly coincides with 'being a clydesdale', then my horse might actually be a 'unicorn'. but given the standard meaning of the words, there aren't any unicorns. likewise, given the meanings of the words in the problem of evil, the god it is talking about doesn't exist.

If you really want to prove how great your idea's are, let the people come too you.

the proper way to get people to 'come to you' is to convince them to do so through good arguments

then you are saying that wanting there to be suffering is compatible with omnibenevolence. of course, by definition to be omnibenevolent one must not want there to be suffering. that's just what words mean. your new argument - that god might not dislike suffering - is merely saying that god is not omnibenevolent.

You'll have to explain that one, coz I just don't see the connection?

My argument, not new but the one I have always stuck with, is that what we call suffering God may not see it as such.

Now how exactly do you get from that, God wants us to suffer, or that God is non omibenevolent?

Suffering, what do you mean by that?

Does my child suffer when I say no to him? He would say yes, I though with my greater lifes experiance and knowledge know that such suffering is in his head and short lived, and so is not suffering at all. Am I not benevolent when I say no to him, or am I benevolent for I know the reason why I deny him?

Back to the Tree, it was then Lucifer, in the form of the snake, who tempted Eve and Adam to eat the Fruit, and directly disobey God and thus allow Humanity to fall from God's graces, bond their free will in sin (again, please read Luther) and live their lives in Sin. God did not force them to do this; he merely provided them their choice, and has no responsibility for their choices. Again, if He had the responsibility, then He would have punished Himself; not Adam and Eve, banishing them from Eden, and ripping the legs off of the Snake, and all of the other punishments. (Remember, I am staying within your premise of the all-good, all-powerful God. Part of God's identity are His punishments and wrath for sinners.)

Since snakes are obviously so good at tempting people to do things they really shouldn't, it's surprising you don't see more snakes working as time-share salesmen, telemarketers and army recruitment officers. All the snakes I've ever seen are usually in glass cages, curled up in a ball, flicking their tongues in and out and hissing. It's really a huge waste of obvious talent.

My argument, not new but the one I have always stuck with, is that what we call suffering God may not see it as such.

that's stupid. suffering is a matter of physical and mental facts in entities that can suffer. my refusing to recognize that you are suffering does not mean that your suffering doesn't exist.

that's stupid. suffering is a matter of physical and mental facts in entities that can suffer. my refusing to recognize that you are suffering does not mean that your suffering doesn't exist.

Why is it stupid? Define for me, suffering.

that's stupid. suffering is a matter of physical and mental facts in entities that can suffer. my refusing to recognize that you are suffering does not mean that your suffering doesn't exist.

I agree with you here, though from a Christian perspective. God made humans aware of what suffering is.

Why is it stupid? Define for me, suffering.

suffering is pain/distress/anguish, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffering

I am guessing you simply started this topic to cause trouble?

Why do people who are apparently so confident and happy with there beliefs have to fight againts what other people have faith in?

It like the Homophobs who tease Gays because in the end, they are insecure with there sexuality.

If you really want to prove how great your idea's are, let the people come too you.

That's a fantastic idea!

I know! He could find a website where people discuss and debate their views, and he could create a small area on that site where he could state his arguments and let people read them or not as they like.

Hang on a moment...

suffering is pain/distress/anguish, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffering

Hah wiki definition huh! Now how would you define suffering?

Taking my example of my child again. If I say 'no son, you can't have that chocolate bar'. Then by the definition that you have provided via wiki, he is suffering because of his anguish.

Whats more I have caused his suffering. What though, if I say no because of his diabetes, by causing him angiush I have actualy saved him from suffering, so has he suffered or not?

Or is this kind of suffering relative?

ever wonder why daemons and Devils are referred to as "Fallen Angels"?

Because most people don't know the Bible half as well as they think they do: they read what they expect to see on the page, rather than what's really there.

How?
Why?

There are 32 pages of stuff in this here thread.

I thought this was an old tired debate that's been around since God created Mankind?

Hah wiki definition huh! Now how would you define suffering?

Taking my example of my child again. If I say 'no son, you can't have that chocolate bar'. Then by the definition that you have provided via wiki, he is suffering because of his anguish.

Whats more I have caused his suffering. What though, if I say no because of his diabetes, by causing him angiush I have actualy saved him from suffering, so has he suffered or not?

Or is this kind of suffering relative?

there are two different things leading to two different types of suffering in your example. but the only way this helps you is if you can demonstrate that thousands of children starving to death is for the best. that tens of thousands of people dying in an earthquake is better for them than not. that being born into a life of incredible and unending pain is good.

btw, have you noticed that you seem to be unable to keep your claims straight? seriously, you are explicitly making the claim that you denied you were making just a few posts ago.

As well, angels have been given free will, which explains why angels would choose to fight God.

I think you should read some Luther. He illustrates this point much better than I can.


By His standards, yes.


Incorrect.

Your premises are narrow and do not encompass all of the Christian theology about the subject of God, and Evil, and you also notably neglect the issue of free will and God's responsibility of our actions.

If God were held accountable for our actions, and the Devil's actions, then yes, your conclusion would be true. However, this is false. God gave us the capacity to disobey Him, a showing of free will, and free decision over the course of our lives, as was shown by Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, with the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. And remember, before that, it was Lucifer's decision to fight God. Was God held accountable for Lucifer's attempt to usurp His throne? No! In fact, God banished Lucifer and his army of fallen angels out of Heaven, a showing that the punishment was on Lucifer's part. If God were held accountable for all Evil in the World, then God would have punished Himself.

Back to the Tree, it was then Lucifer, in the form of the snake, who tempted Eve and Adam to eat the Fruit, and directly disobey God and thus allow Humanity to fall from God's graces, bond their free will in sin (again, please read Luther) and live their lives in Sin. God did not force them to do this; he merely provided them their choice, and has no responsibility for their choices. Again, if He had the responsibility, then He would have punished Himself; not Adam and Eve, banishing them from Eden, and ripping the legs off of the Snake, and all of the other punishments. (Remember, I am staying within your premise of the all-good, all-powerful God. Part of God's identity are His punishments and wrath for sinners.)

A simple look in the Bible shows your second premise quite false, since God is not held accountable for choices made through free will.

Really, you should go to your local public library after school and maybe look up some theology, or flip through your Bible. Your ignorance of Christian theology is quite astounding.

Edit: Oh, and with all that said and done, I'm not a Christian. I'm a skeptical agnostic. I just find theology to be one of the most fascinating parts of Human culture and history. ;)

For someone who's so quick to accuse others of ignorance of the Bible you don't seem to know it very well yourself:

1. Nowhere in the Bible is there reference to a War in Heaven.

2. The only vague reference to 'fallen angels' is found in Genesis 6:1-4

When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years."

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

^^That's it...

3. Genesis is remarkably clear on the subject of who tempted Adam and Eve: it was the snake, there's no mention of outside interference from evil entities. The whole 'devil' thing doesn't even make sense: why would snakes be punished for something they didn't do, and why would the author of that part of Genesis make the point of describing the snake as the craftiest of creatures if it wasn't the snake doing the tempting?

I've yet to see anything interesting come out of theology.

Oh get over yourself, if your God's best try at the salvation of humanity is making his son come to Bronze-age Palestine for a few decades and then die, only for the rest of the world to wait thousands of years before they hear about this 'salvation', then your cannot truly be omniscient. He is obviously quite selective then.
Thousands of years afterward? Perhaps it's best not to speak in generalizations on the histories of things you obviously aren't fully informed of.

As is recorded by Acts (and as is noted in history) the Christianity movement occurred within a few years of Jesus' death. Paul, Peter, and their followers spread the news. As the story goes (whether you believe it or not), Paul came upon the revelation that Jews and Gentiles (other peoples) should hear the gospel and began a massive missionary movement from Rome to Macedonia to numerous other lands.

The Christianity movement is one of the most infectious worldwide movements we've seen in history, which is surprising, considering the kind of people that engineered it.

I don't see much point in stabbing at the "timing" of the thing, because it happened then, and any other wonderings as to a time period that would've been better suited for such an event is useless speculation that has no place here.

Regarding the omniscience comment, I think if He is omniscient, that it's completely reasonable that he works in ways that we don't truly understand (unless you want to plead your own omniscience, which is a lost cause). The fact that He didn't bring salvation with trumpets blaring for the whole world to see is no way of disproving his omniscience. Sure, you can jab at the issue and say, "He certainly could've done this better!" but we really have no way of knowing that. This plan, in theory, has ultimate results and ultimate consequences that will only finish when the world has come to an end.

Since the end of the world has yet to come, we can criticize his mechanism, but I see little use in doing it since we really don't have the big picture yet.

I reject God because the evidence for his existance does not exist, and their is as much likelihood of the giant spaghetti existing as, yet why not believe also in the spaghetti God, or maybe Odin, Osiris etc - the myriad amounts of contradicting creeds and religions if anything proves that God omniscient - or if he is he must be schizophrenic.
Living in an age where "everyone must be correct because we must be tolerant of all" may give us the notion that all these religions must coincide with one another, but really, there's no purpose for that at all.

If God creates a religion, is it all too unreasonable to assume that man will want to follow suit in his competitive desire to best God?

The dividing point of most of these religions is the person of Jesus, who made it clear in his own sermons that he was the savior of the world and that, only through him, could people be saved.

Christianity, as a whole, has more corroborating and archaelogical evidence than any other religion. The gospels, despite popular belief, do have a more than reasonable amount of credibility. I see no need to elaborate on that now unless a challenge is raised, in which case I'll be more than happy to oblige.

As far as we can tell, Jesus did exist, he did face a horrible (quite arguably the most horrible) form of death ever designed by mankind (the word excrutiating derives from the word crucifiction and was invented by the Romans specifically for the purpose of describing the sort of suffering a cross death entailed, since there was no term for pain in Greek that truly capture its essence), and, according to eyewitnesses, he did rise from the dead.

Now, you can investigate that yourself, but that person of Jesus clinches it for me, and I have yet to see a compelling argument that denounces him.

If your God thinks eternal praise is 'heaven' and blind faith is a virtue, then your heaven must be something close to Nazi Germany - only difference being you could die and leave Nazi Germany.
You have an obvious lapse in logic here, and that is that you put God's reign on the same scale as a man's reign. God and man are not equals, and therefore cannot be compared in terms of how they "rule" their domains.

To compare God with man is to obviously set up God with flaws, because man is flawed to begin with. That is, in fact, what separates us from the deity of God.

Besides, heaven is not hard to access. God doesn't ask for you to sacrifice your third son or to cut off your right hand. He asks for you to confess and believe. There are no prerequisites or other requirements.

Now, if that's to be comparable with Nazi Germany, I'd love to hear your parallel.

then you are saying that wanting there to be suffering is compatible with omnibenevolence. of course, by definition to be omnibenevolent one must not want there to be suffering. that's just what words mean. your new argument - that god might not dislike suffering - is merely saying that god is not omnibenevolent.
First of all, where do you get off saying that all suffering is ultimately and fully bad? Those aren't your exact words, but that's definitely your implication.

Yes, suffering is painful, but that does not make it bad (for instance, a shot is painful, but the fluids that are put in your bloodstream help your body). I know suffering can bring people together, can make people stronger, and can teach many life lessons.

A life without suffering is a life that lacks much of life's essential lessons. Does that mean the suffering doesn't hurt? No, of course not, but it does have benefits in the ultimate end.

If God is as ultimate as we all perceive him to be, it's reasonable enough to assume that he allows suffering for our ultimate good.

Also, don't dismiss the fact that, regardless of how we suffer in this life, we all have the opportunity to go to heaven. If that doesn't overrule that suffering, I don't know what does.

Keep in mind, too, that in the Christian belief, Jesus suffered for us. It makes enough adequate sense for us to suffer for Him.

Why is it that way? There could be any number of reasons, and all we can really do to try and understand it is to jab at omniscience with our finite minds.


Those are just my thoughts.

That's a fantastic idea!

I know! He could find a website where people discuss and debate their views, and he could create a small area on that site where he could state his arguments and let people read them or not as they like.

Hang on a moment...

no no no, that will never work

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.

Oh god not this crap again.

I honestly don't see how anyone can claim that standing on a street corner, screaming "You deserve to be tortured eternally!" at passersby is comparable to starting a thread on a public forum where you lay out an argument for atheism.

We're not going door to door, we're not shouting at people in public places, we're not demanding the right to discriminate against other people and we're certainly not demanding that the state privileges atheism and indoctrinates children into naturalism. All we're doing is proposing arguments (some good, some bad) and trying to have a discussion, but still people shriek "aggressive", "angry", "intolerant" or "militant". It's infuriating.

I've yet to see anything interesting come out of theology.

Music. *nod*

Hehe thats quite funny, wrong but funny. The state of the world is as we have made it, the choices humanity has made has a direct correlation to the present day, and the choices we make now or in the future will do the same for those who come after us.

Your like the teenage kid who blames all except his own choices for the way his life is.

all im saying is that the analogy is crappy.

good and evil are like warm and cold. if thats the case then its still god's fault for putting us in a cold world.

its just a comment on the analogy.

all im saying is that the analogy is crappy.

good and evil are like warm and cold. if thats the case then its still god's fault for putting us in a cold world.

its just a comment on the analogy.

Ok, so if you live your whole life in a "cold" bath, how do you know it's really cold? How do you know it's not a lot warmer than it could be? How do you even know that if it was only up to us, we would not be all dead from our own "cold"?

I've yet to see anything interesting come out of theology.

new and interesting excuses for beating up that guy over there. i mean, honestly, i would have settled for his insulting of my mother, but they surely get points for creativity.

Ok, so if you live your whole life in a "cold" bath, how do you know it's really cold? How do you know it's not a lot warmer than it could be? How do you even know that if it was only up to us, we would not be all dead from our own "cold"?

Shrinkage. *nod*

Ok, so if you live your whole life in a "cold" bath, how do you know it's really cold? How do you know it's not a lot warmer than it could be? How do you even know that if it was only up to us, we would not be all dead from our own "cold"?

why does the water have to be so cold? god decided the temperature. if he had made it a nice-but-cool 75 degrees instead of an intolerable 45 degrees we would still know warm and cold but we wouldnt freeze to death in the water.

no no no, that will never work

You're right: you have to encourage people to come to you through the quality of your arguments, but until they've come to you you're not allowed to make any arguments.

Sounds completely reasonable to me: why, only the other day a guy came up to me on the street and said "From the look on your face I'd say you've got an innovative philosophical critique of religion on pragmatic-empiricist grounds, probably influenced by Hume and Russell. Please tell me all about it."

"It's funny you should say that..." I replied.

Music. *nod*

Heh, I did say 'theology' rather than 'religion'. ;) The Ode to Transubstantiation and the Perpetual Virginity of the Mary, Mother of God never really caught on, kinda like the Systematic Theology March. :p

why does the water have to be so cold? god decided the temperature. if he had made it a nice-but-cool 75 degrees instead of an intolerable 45 degrees we would still know warm and cold but we wouldnt freeze to death in the water.

The planet seems like it was nice before humans arrived. I think if it's cold, it's our fault, not anyone else's, be there a God or not. We have all the power to make it what we want, but guess what? We want a shitty world.

The planet seems like it was nice before humans arrived. I think if it's cold, it's our fault, not anyone else's, be there a God or not. We have all the power to make it what we want, but guess what? We want a shitty world.

It does seem that way. Despite being totally a-theistic, and anti-religion, they did get one thing right...its man's greed that'll end it all.

1. Nowhere in the Bible is there reference to a War in Heaven.

2. The only vague reference to 'fallen angels' is found in Genesis 6:1-4
Revelations 12:7-9 "And there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon and the dragon and his angels fought back. But he was not strong enough and they lost their place in heaven. The great dragon was hurled down -- that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him."

You, good sir, are incorrect. There is an extremely explicit reference to the war in Heaven, AND fallen angels. As well, it also implies that Satan had fallen before (although not exactly when) because it also says, in verse 11: "They overcame him/by the blood of the Lamb/and by the word of their testimony;"

But, this is another discussion for another time.

As well, in Job, Satan is quite explicit in his being wandering and roaming the Earth: (Job 1:7-8 The Lord said to Satan, "Where have you come from?" Satan answered the Lord, "From roaming through the earth and going and back and forth in it.") This is also implicit that Satan had fallen before what is described in Revelations.

Jesus also says "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven." In Luke 10:8. Note that Jesus says this before his crucifixion and therefore before Satan had fallen in Revelations.

Jude 1:6 "And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home -- these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day."
Again, explicit about fallen angels and strongly implicit about a great leaving of angels from heaven (home of the angels.)

Now, just a note: being raised with a Lutheran mindset on Christian Theology, I only perceive a verse as literal unless I have substantial evidence to show that a verse is symbolic, and even then I am very careful as to how the verse is symbolic and what it is symbolizing. It is sadly too common for people to merely symbolize their way out of a verse than to fully understand the deeper more literal implications of it. After all, according to Christian Theology, the Bible is the Word of God; when reading the word of God, one must be humble and very very careful.


3. Genesis is remarkably clear on the subject of who tempted Adam and Eve: it was the snake, there's no mention of outside interference from evil entities. The whole 'devil' thing doesn't even make sense: why would snakes be punished for something they didn't do, and why would the author of that part of Genesis make the point of describing the snake as the craftiest of creatures if it wasn't the snake doing the tempting?
It is strongly implicit throughout scripture that the serpent is the Devil. However, there is no explicit verse.

I hope that made things clearer.

I've yet to see anything interesting come out of theology.
Then you're missing out on one of the coolest aspects of Human culture.

Revelations 12:7-9 "And there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon and the dragon and his angels fought back. But he was not strong enough and they lost their place in heaven. The great dragon was hurled down -- that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him."

You, good sir, are incorrect. There is an extremely explicit reference to the war in Heaven, AND fallen angels.

Context? This is a 'prophecy' of a future event. What's more, this isn't about 'the dragon' as an evil being, it's much closer to the original Hebrew haSatan, a divine prosecutor of sorts. Notice that he's carrying out his tempting and accusations from Heaven which completely is incompatible with a rebellion and fall before the first temptation of man. This is emphasised by verse 10:

Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say:
"Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God,
and the authority of his Christ.
For the accuser of our brothers,
who accuses them before our God day and night,
has been hurled down.

So this 'fall' can't have occured before the coming of Jesus.

As well, it also implies that Satan had fallen before (although not exactly when) because it also says, in verse 11: "They overcame him/by the blood of the Lamb/and by the word of their testimony;"

And how does that imply a previous fall?

But, this is another discussion for another time.

As well, in Job, Satan is quite explicit in his being wandering and roaming the Earth: (Job 1:7-8 The Lord said to Satan, "Where have you come from?" Satan answered the Lord, "From roaming through the earth and going and back and forth in it.") This is also implicit that Satan had fallen before what is described in Revelations.

For someone who accuses others of being ignorant of theology you don't seem to know much about Jewish beliefs: the Satan of the Tanach is a servant of God doing an unpopular job. He may be harsh, but he's not fallen and he's not a renegade. He's not even a distinct entity all the time, the word's often used more as a job description for any angel doing God's work by opposing or accusing mortals. If you want an example take Numbers 22:22, the NIV translates it as:

But God was very angry when he went, and the angel of the LORD stood in the road to oppose him. Balaam was riding on his donkey, and his two servants were with him.

But if you transliterate the Hebrew you'll see that 'the angel of the LORD' is 'satan'. Now why would Satan be doing God's work if he's a fallen angel? It's hard to spot this sleight of hand in Christian translations because they usually choose to translate the word as either 'Satan' or 'an angel of the LORD' to fit in with their preconceived beliefs.

Jesus also says "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven." In Luke 10:8. Note that Jesus says this before his crucifixion and therefore before Satan had fallen in Revelations.

When you enter a town and are welcomed, eat what is set before you.

???

Jude 1:6 "And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home -- these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day."
Again, explicit about fallen angels and strongly implicit about a great leaving of angels from heaven (home of the angels.)

Fallen I'll grant, but not in the sense you mean (cast out of Heaven after a failed rebellion). They're 'fallen' in the sense of the Genesis verse I mentioned earlier, having left Heaven of their own free will (not thrown out) to do their own thing. There's no mention of rebellion here. To borrow a phrase from Terry Pratchett, they "did not so much Fall as Saunter Vaguely Downwards".

It is strongly implicit throughout scripture that the serpent is the Devil. However, there is no explicit verse.

This makes no sense whatsoever in the context of Genesis: there's no mention of Satan at all in the book, and if it was a demon then why was the snake punished? This is a classic example of the worthlessness of theology: trying to crowbar in ideas which are not only unsupported by the text, they're flat out contradicted by it. It'd be rather like trying to rewrite Paley to make it look as if he was arguing for Neo-Darwinian Evolution...

All of the verses you quote seem to contradict the whole War in Heaven story. Funny that.

Then you're missing out on one of the coolest aspects of Human culture.

Theology is a vapid field: it has nothing comparable to the great works of science, philosophy, art and literature.

Which god are we talking about here? For a humanity that has had so much divine inspiration, we have an awful lot of contrasting gods don't we? :headbang:

If that's the narrow view you have. I've noticed that my views on the Bible are very similar to Hindu views- we all contain part of God within us, and when we die, it returns to the creator. Hindus believe in reincarnation, which I doubt, but... still. Also, the Hindu faith is not technically polytheistic- they believe that all their numerous gods are aspects of one god.
So the three greatest faiths of the world: Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism, are all compatible on some level. They don't conflict much more with each other than they do with themselves- Christian texts can be self-contradictory at times, as I assume Islamic and Hindu texts can be.

The authors original 3 points were totally valid. Anyone who says "erm, but the evil exists wifin mankind innit !!!11" is ignoring the fact that god created mankind.

Note: Misquoting people who disagree with you by making them sound like "Internet retards" does not make you smarter.
God created mankind with free will.

As he can theoretically do anything, then he would have given us free will WITHOUT evil.

Except that this isn't actually free will.

To say ANYTHING ELSE is to believe that there are some things that god cannot do.

Yeah. There are some things God cannot do. Congrats. You are not the first to solve this puzzle, and I'm sure you won't be the last. Know why? Cuz there's one born every minute ;)
The thoughts you are expressing are not revolutionary, nor are mine. This entire discussion has been repeated again and again for years (maybe centuries), and there probably isn't a single point made in this thread that wasn't made thirty years ago or a hundred years ago.

Have people addressed this point yet (I can't be bothered to trawl through 30 pages of nutters making the same illogical points. Either you all are living in cloud-cuckoo land or you are all 13): Can god create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?

Yes, I did. I understand that trawling through 30 pages of opinions that differ with your own may be painful, as it may require thought. I have nothing against Atheists, in fact for a few years I considered myself one.
I do, however, have a problem with people who feel that they need to be condescending dicks to anyone who disagrees with them. Ahem. You.

Another point: why do you worship so much?

1) You assume that God needs something (surely an omnipotent being has no needs)
2) You assume that God can fail to get what he needs (or he'd have it himself by now)
3) You assume that God needs to get it from humans (arrogant idiots)
4) You assume that God will be angry if he doesn't get it (how can be being of pure love get angry?)

The first sentence was actually very interesting. The next four points kind of lost me.
1) I just want to say that God is definitely not omnipotent. I don't know if God has needs or not, and if God did have needs, I don't know what they would be.
2) I want to say that the statement in parentheses at the end of your first point makes your second point redundant.
3) Who says God will be angry if we don't give him whatever it is that he needs?
4) What exactly are we giving God by worship?
I think that if God created everything, or kickstarted the universe or whatever, and if He was willing to send Jesus down to us, then a certain amount of gratitude should be lent heavanward. Yeah. Seems fair.
Another form of praise I see every day is praise for people. Coaches praise good athletes. Teachers praise good students. People praise each other for their positive qualities. God being higher than all other things, I think praise is deserved.
More important than both of these (and I think, unfortunately, a fading aspect of Church services) is trying to be more in tune with God. I'm no longer talking so much about praise as I am about trying to discern what God intends for us to do as a people.

The very concept of god is anathema to reality. As was originally said, If god does exist then he's a prick who does things for shits and giggles.

If religous nuts would actually read, internalise and think about what is written, rather than just defending religion immediately regardless of the argument, then you would arrive at the same conclusion.

You seem to think that all Christians have a narrow perception of Atheists- I actually think you have a narrow perception of us.
I spent years questioning my faith, and because I didn't arrive at the same conclusion as you have, you insist I did it the wrong way.
Maybe it would help you to ask some more questions yourself: Am I guilty of prejudice? Am I scared of something? Am I behaving like a condescending twat?

Heck, who am I kidding. You believe in something with as much justification as a 5 year old believing in the tooth fairy because he's read a book about it, all his friends believe in it, and those he looks up to (his parents) tell him its true. Put it in perspective people.

Tools.

Nevermind. All questions answered.

why does the water have to be so cold? god decided the temperature. if he had made it a nice-but-cool 75 degrees instead of an intolerable 45 degrees we would still know warm and cold but we wouldnt freeze to death in the water.

Do you realize that you're pretty much repeating the same argument that was just addressed, you're just haggling over degree?

I hope I don't come off as harsh, because that's not my intention. I'm just asking if you realize that we're pretty much just scaling down the "1500 degree burner" argument posted earlier.

You seem to view death as the line that God can't cross without making Himself too extreme. But if we're still operating within even vague religious boundaries, then there is some kind of afterlife, making death rather inconsequential in the big scheme of things. I know, I know, there's suffering in the world, but with no greater or lesser suffering to compare it to, we don't know how bad we have it (or how good we have it... before you guys jump in and say "There's no such thing as 'bad!'" I get it. Don't worry.)

The planet seems like it was nice before humans arrived. I think if it's cold, it's our fault, not anyone else's, be there a God or not. We have all the power to make it what we want, but guess what? We want a shitty world.

the natural world is a horrorshow of sudden death, starvation, natural disaster and disease. we havent made it worse.

the natural world is a horrorshow of sudden death, starvation, natural disaster and disease.

True.

we havent made it worse.

Er... clarify, please.

Do you realize that you're pretty much repeating the same argument that was just addressed, you're just haggling over degree?

I hope I don't come off as harsh, because that's not my intention. I'm just asking if you realize that we're pretty much just scaling down the "1500 degree burner" argument posted earlier.

You seem to view death as the line that God can't cross without making Himself too extreme. But if we're still operating within even vague religious boundaries, then there is some kind of afterlife, making death rather inconsequential in the big scheme of things. I know, I know, there's suffering in the world, but with no greater or lesser suffering to compare it to, we don't know how bad we have it (or how good we have it... before you guys jump in and say "There's no such thing as 'bad!'" I get it. Don't worry.)

no. im saying that the warm/cold explanation of evil is not a good one.

it only seems good to us because we dont have it so bad. if we lived in subsaharan africa we would wonder why god hates us so much that we have to live in the cold all the time.

True.



Er... clarify, please.

its not worse to kill each other with bullets than it was in the past to kill each other with sharp sticks

I don't belive in god. Why? It just doesn't add up to me.

However, i've been questioning it. Maybe there is a god. But he hates me.


Either way. it's MY belief, i'll voice my opinion but i'll never ram it down someone's throat.

God isn't worth getting all angry and pissed off over, no matter how powerful he's meant to be. If there is a god, i'm dredful sorry i didn't heed the warnings but i'll accept my punishment (eternal damnation).

Notice that he's carrying out his tempting and accusations from Heaven which completely is incompatible with a rebellion and fall before the first temptation of man.
Then explain Luke 10:18 (there was a typo in my last post) where Jesus tells the seventy two that he has seen "Satan fall like lightning from heaven."

This is not at all incompatible with this because Jesus Himself sees Satan fall from from Heaven. Now, taken literally, this means Satan had fallen from Heaven previously.

Since what is described in Revelations 12 is prophecy, then it cannot be the only fall of Satan like you say since Jesus describes the fall of Satan even before the crucifixion.

And how does that imply a previous fall?
They overcame Him by the Blood of the Lamb means the white robes cleansed by Jesus' blood (see Revelations 7:14). This means that the fall prophesied in Revelations 12 is when Jesus was crucified, or more likely, after.

For someone who accuses others of being ignorant of theology you don't seem to know much about Jewish beliefs: the Satan of the Tanach is a servant of God doing an unpopular job. He may be harsh, but he's not fallen and he's not a renegade.
Accuser, I will grant you that.
Not renegade? In Zechariah 3:1-2 one of the Angels of the Lord rebukes Satan.

"Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right side to accuse him. The Lord said to Satan, 'The Lord rebuke you, Satan! The Lord, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebuke you! Is not this man a burning stick snatched from the fire?'"

In Peter 1, 5:8, elder and young men are told to be alert for the devil who prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.

But if you transliterate the Hebrew you'll see that 'the angel of the LORD' is 'satan'. Now why would Satan be doing God's work if he's a fallen angel? It's hard to spot this sleight of hand in Christian translations because they usually choose to translate the word as either 'Satan' or 'an angel of the LORD' to fit in with their preconceived beliefs.

I'm not too familiar with Hebrew or the translations of numbers, so could you perhaps provide the Hebrew version of Numbers 22:22, and the direct translations of the Angel of the Lord and the Satan, and etc, then I will have to think about that.

Fallen I'll grant, but not in the sense you mean (cast out of Heaven after a failed rebellion). They're 'fallen' in the sense of the Genesis verse I mentioned earlier, having left Heaven of their own free will (not thrown out) to do their own thing. There's no mention of rebellion here. To borrow a phrase from Terry Pratchett, they "did not so much Fall as Saunter Vaguely Downwards".
Hmm, perhaps this is true. It is also entirely possible that the angels left instead of being thrown out. We'll never know, though, since there isn't a verse that directly says.

This makes no sense whatsoever in the context of Genesis: there's no mention of Satan at all in the book, and if it was a demon then why was the snake punished?
God has His own sense of justice and punishment that Humans cannot comprehend according to Christian theology. This is one of the big reasons I left Christianity: I like to know why I'm living my life the Christian way, not just taking some big invisible dude up in the sky's word.

All of the verses you quote seem to contradict the whole War in Heaven story. Funny that.
No, I made a typo on the verse that was one of the most important parts of my arguments. Silly I.

Theology is a vapid field: it has nothing comparable to the great works of science, philosophy, art and literature.
And the Bible is not literature? Leonardo Davinci's The Last Supper is not art? Is not theology the basis of great philosophy? Did you know that for a long time it was the Church that funded scientific advancements?

Edit: Anyway, I think I'm getting sidetracked from my main point. This seems to happen a lot in debates: Someone makes a point, then someone challenges not the main point, but another part, and the argument gets diverted. Oh well.

Is not theology the basis of great philosophy?

no

no. im saying that the warm/cold explanation of evil is not a good one.

it only seems good to us because we dont have it so bad. if we lived in subsaharan africa we would wonder why god hates us so much that we have to live in the cold all the time.

Is it really that cold in sub-Saharan Africa?
Doesn't matter.
Our situation clearly doesn't seem so "good" to us or else the author of this thread would not be so loudly protesting it. I was trying to say that we have no external suffering to compare our suffering to, and are certainly in no place to judge God because we find the world to be unsatisfactory.

The suffering on this Earth that is caused by humans is suffering that could not be eliminated without throwing out free will.

As for natural disasters- well I find it peculiar that the author of this thread would ask me why God gave us minds capable of questioning Him if He did not want to be questioned. I find it peculiar because of this question: Why would God give us minds capable of building dams if He did not want us to keep our cities from flooding? Why would He give us minds capable of devising earthquake-proof buildings if not to survive earthquakes?

I believe that humanity as a species is headed somewhere, and God has a plan for us. Clearly, the ends of that plan cannot be met by coddling us and keeping us safe from everything bad in the world- God intends for us to stand on our own two feet. I don't know what purpose this is for.

I don't belive in god. Why? It just doesn't add up to me.

However, i've been questioning it. Maybe there is a god. But he hates me.


Either way. it's MY belief, i'll voice my opinion but i'll never ram it down someone's throat.

God isn't worth getting all angry and pissed off over, no matter how powerful he's meant to be. If there is a god, i'm dredful sorry i didn't heed the warnings but i'll accept my punishment (eternal damnation).

That's awfully bleak. Hope you feel better soon.