Religions > Atheism > common misconceptions [was: "The Christian God is impossible"]
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Dianelos Georgoudis" |
| Date: |
18 Sep 2005 11:01:17 PM |
| Object: |
common misconceptions [was: "The Christian God is impossible"] |
A recent post with the subject "The Christian God is impossible" by
Bary OGrady mentions most of the common misconceptions about
Christianity which many atheists and also many theists have (according
to my judgment of course). Therefore I would like to use this post to
discuss these points.
Christians consider the existence of their God to be an obvious
truth.
Not true. In fact most Christians struggle with their faith. It's not
easy to become aware of God and it is even harder to come closer to
God. But the amazing thing is that it can be done.
This assumption is false, not only because evidence for the
existence of this presumably ubiquitous yet invisible God is lacking,
but because the very nature Christians attribute to this God is self
contradictory.
There are many things that individual Christians or even individual
Christian churches say. Of course not all of it can be true.
Concerning the description of God, the best one is that God is the
perfect being. Almost all Christians, and in fact almost all believers
of the three great monotheistic religions, will agree with it. I think
that this is the one description of God that atheists should care to
think about, because any other description is in comparison a strawman.
Many Christians, as well as atheists, claim that it is impossible
to prove a universal negative.
Indeed many people believe this, even though it is false. For example
it is easy enough to convincingly argue that there does not exist a
second moon made of pure gold orbiting the earth. Or that no nuclear
bomb has exploded over New York on 9/15/2005.
For example, while we may not have evidence that unicorns or dragons
exist, we cannot prove that they do not exist. Unless we have a
complete knowledge of the universe, we must admit the possibility
that somewhere in the universe, there might be such creatures.
Proofs have a specific meaning within the context of logic and math.
Outside of these fields one should rather speak about sufficient
reason. For example I cannot prove that George W. Bush is a human being
(and not, say, an extraterrestrial or the Antichrist); nevertheless I
can explain what for me constitutes sufficient reason for believing
that George W. Bush is a human being. In the same way I cannot prove
that astronauts did walk on the moon, but I can explain what for me
constitutes sufficient reason for believing that they did in fact walk
on the moon.
We should not be discussing proofs but good arguments.
These attributes of God are related by the Bible, which Christians
believe to be the perfect and true Word of God.
Not all Christians believe that. In fact people who believe that the
Bible is the perfect and literal word of God should be called
Bibliolaters - not Christians. Anyway it's a waste of time to attack
a strawman. An atheist should examine what she considers the most
powerful idea of God is and attack that idea only.
God is supposed to be perfect. If something is perfect, it is
complete -- it needs nothing else. We humans engage in activities
because we are pursuing the elusive perfection, because there
is disequilibrium caused by a difference between what we are and
what we want to be. If God is perfect, there can be no
disequilibrium. There is nothing he needs, nothing he desires,
and nothing he must or will do. A God who is perfect does nothing
except exist. A perfect creator God is impossible.
That's a very good argument, but if one thinks it through one arrives
at the opposite conclusion:
Perfection is a matter of judgment. If we judge B to be better than A
then surely A cannot be perfect. So let's imagine two different gods,
one infinitely good in all aspects but incapable of improving; the
other infinitely good in all aspects but capable of improving even
more. The former is clearly less than the later, therefore the former
is not perfect. A static being cannot be perfect, because a dynamic
being is better. Therefore we conclude that the statement "a perfect
creator God is impossible" is false, and that on the contrary a perfect
God must be a creator.
In other words the perfection of God implies creation. And it sounds
very reasonable, doesn't it? Wouldn't a perfect consciousness of pure
love create other consciousness capable of receiving and returning that
love?
But, for the sake of argument, let's continue. Let us suppose
that this perfect God did create the universe. Humans were
the crown of his creation, since they were created in God's
image and had the ability to make decisions. However, these
humans spoiled the original perfection by choosing to disobey God.
The Freewill Argument
The Christians' objection to this argument [that no imperfection
can come from perfection] involves freewill. They say that a being
must have freewill to be happy. The omnibenevolent God did not
wish to create robots, so he gave humans freewill to enable them
to experience love and happiness. But the humans used this
freewill to choose evil, and introduced imperfection into God's
originally perfect universe. God had no control over this decision,
so the blame for our imperfect universe is on the humans, not God.
Here is why the argument is weak. First, if God is omnipotent,
then the assumption that freewill is necessary for happiness is
false. If God could make it a rule that only beings with freewill
may experience happiness, then he could just as easily have made
it a rule that only robots may experience happiness. The latter
option is clearly superior, since perfect robots will never make
decisions which could render them or their creator unhappy, whereas
beings with freewill could. A perfect and omnipotent God who creates
beings capable of ruining their own happiness is impossible.
This is a very common error that hinges on what omnipotency means.
First of all observe that omnipotency is implied in God's perfection
and should be understood within that context. Therefore omnipotency
does not mean that God has the power to do whatever anybody would
suggest God should do. Omnipotency means that God has the power to do
what God in her perfect goodness wishes to do. The greatest gift of
love that God can give to her children is the opportunity to reach for
perfection themselves. You see, goodness (not happiness, understood as
continuous enjoyment) is the ultimate good. This, by the way, was known
to philosophers for a long time. And goodness is not something one can
receive ready-made, but it is something one must earn. In order to earn
goodness one needs freedom and effort.
Speaking for myself, if I had to choose between this creation and an
alternative creation in which I would spend eternity in pure static
pleasure, with a zombie like smile on my face - then I choose this one
where in my imperfect humanity, through much effort and pain, I gain
goodness little by little and earn an ever clearer view of my perfectly
beautiful creator and an ever closer place to her perfect love.
The point remains: the presence of imperfections in the universe
disproves the supposed perfection of its creator.
A perfect thing is not something that you can cut into pieces each of
which must be perfect too. Perfection lies in the whole, and the
universe as a whole is perfect indeed. That's one of the great joys one
has when one becomes aware of God: one sees that the whole of creation
is perfect too.
All good God knowingly creates future suffering
God is omniscient. When he created the universe, he saw the
sufferings which humans would endure as a result of the sin of
those original humans. He heard the screams of the damned. Surely
he would have known that it would have been better for those
humans to never have been born (in fact, the Bible says this very
thing), and surely this all compassionate deity would have foregone
the creation of a universe destined to imperfection in which many
of the humans were doomed to eternal suffering. A perfectly
compassionate being who creates beings which he knows are doomed
to suffer is impossible.
Right. So here you are giving sufficient to reason for believing that
hell does not exist.
Infinite punishment for finite sins
God is perfectly just, and yet he sentences the imperfect humans
he created to infinite suffering in hell for finite sins. Clearly,
a limited offence does not warrant unlimited punishment. God's
sentencing of the imperfect humans to an eternity in hell for a
mere mortal lifetime of sin is infinitely unjust. The absurdity of
this infinite punishment appears even greater when we consider that
the ultimate source of the human's imperfection is the God who
created them. A perfectly just God who sentences his imperfect
creation to infinite punishment for finite sins is impossible.
Right. Another good reason why hell does not exist. By the way, many
Christians do not believe in hell. There is an excellent book "If Grace
is True" written by two Christian pastors, which the reader might want
to read.
Belief more important than action
Consider all of the people who live in the remote regions of
the world who have never even heard the "gospel" of Jesus Christ.
Consider the people who have naturally adhered to the religion
of their parents and nation as they had been taught to do since
birth. If we are to believe the Christians, all of these people
will perish in the eternal fire for not believing in Jesus. It
does not matter how just, kind, and generous they have been with
their fellow humans during their lifetime: if they do not accept
the gospel of Jesus, they are condemned. No just God would ever
judge a man by his beliefs rather than his actions.
Good thinking again. God's judgment means that we are to take with us
into the next life the good things we did here - what in the gospels is
called the treasure in the heavens. Also observe that belief does not
mean to loudly declare something, nor to hold a particular theological
position. Belief means to be aware of the presence of God.
Now, it is true that belief is more important than action for the
simple reason that belief will result in good works anyway. Belief (but
not only belief) makes goodness in us grow, and goodness spills over
into good works. On the other hand if one does good works for all the
wrong reasons (as insurance in case there is life after death, to buy
oneself entrance into heaven, to impress others or for social reasons,
etc.) then nothing is gained.
By the way, good works are at the very center of Christianity. In the
gospels Jesus again and again hammers away at how we should live: Love
our enemies, not return evil but turn the other cheek, give away our
money to the poor, be piece makers, forgive others, be humble, trust
God and not worry about tomorrow, love our fellow human beings as
ourselves, pray, follow Christ, and so on. Jesus according to the
gospels said "Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and do not as I say"? He
couldn't be more concise than that.
Perfection's imperfect revelation
The Bible is supposedly God's perfect Word. It contains instructions
to humankind for avoiding the eternal fires of hell. How wonderful
and kind of this God to provide us with this means for overcoming
the problems for which he is ultimately responsible! The all powerful
God could have, by a mere act of will, eliminated all of the problems
we humans must endure, but instead, in his infinite wisdom, he has
opted to offer this indecipherable amalgam of books called the Bible
as a means for avoiding the hell which he has prepared for us. The
perfect God has decided to reveal his wishes in this imperfect work,
written in the imperfect language of imperfect man, translated,
copied, interpreted, voted on, and related by imperfect man. No two
men will ever agree what this perfect word of God is supposed to mean,
since much of it is either self- contradictory, or obscured by enigma.
And yet the perfect God expects the imperfect humans to understand
this paradoxical riddle using the imperfect minds with which he has
equipped us. Surely the all wise and all powerful God would have known
that it would have been better to reveal his perfect will directly to
each of us, rather than to allow it to be debased and perverted by the
imperfect language and botched interpretations of man.
Right. And here you are giving sufficient reason why if a perfect God
exists then the Bible cannot be a literal representation of her word.
I snip several your arguments about contradictory justice,
contradictory history, and unfulfilled prophecy, because they all
redundantly show that the Bible cannot be God's word. The living and
present spirit of Christ is the word of God. After all, it even says so
in the gospel of John.
The Omniscient changes the future
A God who knows the future is powerless to change it. An omniscient
God who is all powerful and free willed is impossible.
Again, omniscience does not mean that God knows everything. It means
that God knows what God in her perfection wishes to know.
The question about whether God today knows what I shall freely choose
to do tomorrow is meaningless, because God does not exist within
physical time as we do. Physical existence including the whole of space
and time are created for us - as an opportunity to earn goodness. We
live inside this space, not God. Rather physical existence is grounded
in God.
Anyway, as it is difficult to visualize a being living outside physical
time, there is no harm in thinking that God does not know today what we
shall freely choose to do tomorrow. Theists sometimes go at great
lengths to defend God's "omni" attributes, but this serves no useful
purpose.
The Omniscient is surprised
There is no contradiction between the two. I think that God, like any
one of us, loves good surprises. God enjoys when we do good things. If
you like, imagine that God lives, grows, learns, and is surprised in
spiritual time. Let the idea of perfection lead you, not the idea of
quantity. God is omniscient, but God even forgets (in spiritual time)!
For example, what good is there for God to remember for all eternity
all the bad things we have done? All of evil, and therefore even the
memory of evil, will be utterly destroyed in God's kingdom. (Maybe it
was this idea of the destruction of evil which somehow morphed into the
idea of hell, who knows?)
The conclusion of the matter
I have offered arguments for the impossibility, and thus the
non- existence, of the Christian God Yahweh.
Not really, but you did a good job in pointing out contradictions in
what many Christians believe. Some of your arguments though are based
on misunderstandings. Many Christians are aware and struggle with these
contradictions, but sadly they are afraid to let go of the Bible and of
Church dogma, and follow their heart and reason. It's weakness of faith
that makes it important for them to hold on to something visible and
unchanging like a book or to something authoritative like dogma, even
when their heart and their reason tells them that some particulars
can't be right.
No reasonable and free thinking individual can accept the existence
of a being whose nature is as contradictory as that of Yahweh, the
"perfect" creator of our imperfect universe. The existence of Yahweh
is as impossible as the existence of cubic spheres or invisible pink
unicorns.
I would say that no reasonable and free thinking individual can accept
the *description* of God as given in some parts of the Bible or by many
Christians, because that description contradicts the existence of a
perfect creator. God is one and is perfect - but there are many
descriptions of God and all are of course imperfect. After all, all
descriptions are made by humans, and humans are fallible.
Still, you should not throw away the baby with the bathwater. Take the
example of science. Science grew out of alchemy, which is full of
contradictions and unjustified beliefs. The fact that one rejects
alchemy (including its belief that there is a stone that converts base
metals into gold, etc) does not mean that one must reject science too.
Similarly, I think that religion will continue to evolve in human
history and will leave behind its current state of spiritual truth
adulterated with mythology and dogmatism.
In any case, I find it very positive when somebody takes the time to
prepare a list of one's reasoning against the existence of God.
Whatever one may ultimately decide about God's existence, it is
important to think about this matter.
While believers may find comfort in being faithful to impossibilities,
there is no greater satisfaction than a clear mind. You may choose to
serve an impossible God. I will choose reality.
To choose reality and value clear thinking is exactly what everybody
should do. Truth is a wonderful thing, and the search for truth a
worthwhile investment of one's time, as well as fun.
.
|
|
| User: "Vivapadrepios personal Cthulhu" |
|
| Title: Re: common misconceptions [was: "The Christian God is impossible"] |
20 Sep 2005 01:00:14 AM |
|
|
Cometh the hour, cometh "Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com>
who, with imperceptibly subtle footwork in alt.atheism, gave us this:
A recent post with the subject "The Christian God is impossible" by
Bary OGrady mentions most of the common misconceptions about
Christianity which many atheists and also many theists have (according
to my judgment of course). Therefore I would like to use this post to
discuss these points.
Christians consider the existence of their God to be an obvious
truth.
Not true. In fact most Christians struggle with their faith. It's not
easy to become aware of God and it is even harder to come closer to
God. But the amazing thing is that it can be done.
It isn't amazing at all. People's capacity for dealing dishonestly
with reality knows no bounds. What makes it difficult for anybody is
having to pass the fruits of their imagination off to others as
reality. Lying makes us uncomfortable, but the more often we do it,
the easier it becomes and eventually, like any addiction, the
difficult thing becomes stopping.
alt.atheism is here to help.
------------------------------------------------
"The real dichotomy in today's world is between reason and religion.
The future of civilisation rests upon how many people realise that and do something about it."
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: common misconceptions [was: "The Christian God is impossible"] |
19 Sep 2005 08:17:19 AM |
|
|
Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
A recent post with the subject "The Christian God is
impossible" by Bary OGrady mentions most of the common
misconceptions about Christianity which many atheists and also
many theists have (according to my judgment of course).
Therefore I would like to use this post to discuss these
points.
Christians consider the existence of their God to be an
obvious truth.
Not true. In fact most Christians struggle with their faith.
It's not easy to become aware of God and it is even harder to
come closer to God. But the amazing thing is that it can be
done.
Basically it is true. Asked for hard evidence god exists, we see
here in AA that nobody even tries to do that.
So if its not based on evidence, what is belief in god based on?
Faith without evidence. So its faith. Obviously they believe
that god is true, that is 'obvious'.
This assumption is false, not only because evidence for the
existence of this presumably ubiquitous yet invisible God is
lacking, but because the very nature Christians attribute to
this God is self contradictory.
There are many things that individual Christians or even
individual Christian churches say. Of course not all of it can
be true.
Concerning the description of God, the best one is that God is
the perfect being. Almost all Christians, and in fact almost
all believers of the three great monotheistic religions, will
agree with it. I think that this is the one description of God
that atheists should care to think about, because any other
description is in comparison a strawman.
Where do you get the claim god is perfect? Perfection here is
actually an old Greek philosophical idea. From perfection, one
can derive ideas such as omnipotence, which allow one to derive
things like omniscience and omnibenevolence. Stanley Clark,
whome Newton considered the best philosopher in Englabd at the
time wrote two books deriving god's attributes starting with
claims of god's perfection. These books were combined, and were
basic English theology texts in universities for two centuries.
The problem is, it is surmise with to assertions, one god exists,
2 god is perfect. Both arguable.
Part of the problem is one derives sub-attributes. Omniscience.
If you abandon omniscience, you also abandon omnipotence, and
thus perfection.
God is alos claimed to be creator of all.
Creatorhood and omniscience combine to doom all possibility of
man having free will.
because god creating anything will know the future and must then
decide on that future or to choose another creation.
Thus if a man named John Smith is to exist some billions of
years later after god creates a world, god will know that. And if
Smith is good or evil, god will know that. And if he knows, he
must chose to create a world with a good Smith or an evil Smith.
Thus all free will disappears. Every act of Smith is knowingly
and purposefully scripted by god.
The idea then of punishing puppets who can do only
what god scripted them to do is nonsensical and stupid.
Which takes out the bible. Which said bible is the ONLY reason
you are arguing any of this anyway.
Many Christians, as well as atheists, claim that it is
impossible to prove a universal negative.
Indeed many people believe this, even though it is false. For
example it is easy enough to convincingly argue that there does
not exist a second moon made of pure gold orbiting the earth.
Or that no nuclear bomb has exploded over New York on
9/15/2005.
Its easy, as above, to show that claims for god create impossible
foolishness such that god cannot exist as described.
1. God is personal, god has conciousness and will
2. God is intelligent
3. God has free will
4. God created all
5. God is omnipotent
6. God is omniscient
7. God is omnibenevolent
8. God is that which is so great, nothing greater
can be imagined.
These basic claims doom god as an entire class of gods, not
merely a given god, allah, Yahweh or The Christian god almighty.
*****************
We should not be discussing proofs but good arguments.
Start then, with proving god is perfect.
What I can do though is take that claim and
show it forces one to make further claims that
create impossible problems for the very concept of god.
If god is creator of al as claimed, and perfect, therefore
omnipotent, which implies omniscience, free will is impossible.
If god is perfect, he must then be omnibenevolent, so he must do
no evil, but since man has no free will, nor is free will
possible even in principle, all evil must then be god's doing.
But god creating evil contradicts with claims on omnibenevolence.
So we see that the counter-proofs based
on simple claims debunk god and its almost trivial to do so.
These attributes of God are related by the Bible, which
Christians believe to be the perfect and true Word of God.
Not all Christians believe that. In fact people who believe
that the Bible is the perfect and literal word of God should be
called Bibliolaters - not Christians. Anyway it's a waste of
time to attack a strawman. An atheist should examine what she
considers the most powerful idea of God is and attack that idea
only.
Proof texts for god's attributes are found in the bible and are
the only reason people argue for god and his attributes.
If you ignore the bible you are back to natural religion, which
starts with arbitrary a priori claims. God is perfect, there is
but one god, and other claims.
Which still get you into trouble.
God is supposed to be perfect. If something is perfect, it is
complete -- it needs nothing else. We humans engage in
activities because we are pursuing the elusive perfection,
because there is disequilibrium caused by a difference between
what we are and what we want to be. If God is perfect, there
can be no disequilibrium. There is nothing he needs, nothing
he desires, and nothing he must or will do. A God who is
perfect does nothing except exist. A perfect creator God is
impossible.
That's a very good argument, but if one thinks it through one
arrives at the opposite conclusion:
Its an old Greek argument that has never really been answered.
If god is perfect, he needs nothing, then why did he create the
world? Perfection implies immutibility.
Perfection is a matter of judgment. If we judge B to be better
than A then surely A cannot be perfect. So let's imagine two
different gods, one infinitely good in all aspects but
incapable of improving; the other infinitely good in all
aspects but capable of improving even more. The former is
clearly less than the later, therefore the former is not
perfect. A static being cannot be perfect, because a dynamic
being is better. Therefore we conclude that the statement "a
perfect creator God is impossible" is false, and that on the
contrary a perfect God must be a creator.
If a god is infinitely good he cannot change for the better.
If a god is good, but can change, either he changes for the
worse, or he is not perfect because he can change for the
better.
A god that is infinitely good is better then a agod who is not,
but a god who is infinitely good and can change for the worse is
lesser than a god who is infinitely good and cannot change for
the worse because his nature is perfection.
But that god is now imperfect because that god lacks omnipotence,
there is something he cannot do, evil.
Thus a perfect god is impossible.
Anslem and others messed around with these concepts 1000 years
ago and ended up mostly sweeping things under the rug. Various
thinkers who had read Averroes and other Aristotlarian Islamic
thinkers also dabbled with such concepts until the inquisition
started cracking down on things like this. This also bolstered
religious thinkers who claimed on revelation, the bible,
could be trusted.
In other words the perfection of God implies creation. And it
sounds very reasonable, doesn't it? Wouldn't a perfect
consciousness of pure love create other consciousness capable
of receiving and returning that love?
No, since omniscience and creation can only lead to mechanical
puppets with no free will.
Consider this, god has free will and is omnibenevolent.
He has a free will and a good nature and because he is all love
he never does moral evil. Does he have real free will then?
Yes because he could potentially do evil, it is simply he does
not because of his good nature. (See Aquinas).
So free will and a good nature are not in any way incompatible.
So why does not god make man with a god like free will and a god
like good naturue incapable of moral evil? In fact if god
was indeed omnibenevolent, he is duty bound to give
man a god like free will and a god like good nature.
Moral evil could not exist in a wprld with such a god. But we
see moral evil and know no god created such a world where we
have god like free will and good nature.
Thus god must be non-existant, not perfect, or good,
of very limited in ability.
But, for the sake of argument, let's continue. Let us suppose
that this perfect God did create the universe. Humans were
the crown of his creation, since they were created in God's
image and had the ability to make decisions. However, these
humans spoiled the original perfection by choosing to disobey
God.
The Freewill Argument
The Christians' objection to this argument [that no
imperfection can come from perfection] involves freewill. They
say that a being must have freewill to be happy. The
omnibenevolent God did not wish to create robots, so he gave
humans freewill to enable them to experience love and
happiness. But the humans used this freewill to choose evil,
and introduced imperfection into God's originally perfect
universe. God had no control over this decision, so the blame
for our imperfect universe is on the humans, not God.
Here is why the argument is weak. First, if God is omnipotent,
then the assumption that freewill is necessary for happiness
is false. If God could make it a rule that only beings with
freewill may experience happiness,
See above, if god has free will and a good nature,
he must likewise create man with such. God has free will yet
freely chooses only to do good because of his good nature.
And omniscience and creatorhood of god make free will
imossible any way. Since free will is not obtainable,
god might as well make a world where all men are good,
do not moral evil, and all men are happy. Since free will
is impossible, its all the same, there is nothing to gain from
evil.
Now consider the following. In the future, science has found the
part of the brain that creates the emotion happiness. And has
found a way to rewire the human mind with a series of vaccine
shots. If you are always happy, do you lose free will?
then he could just as
easily have made it a rule that only robots may experience
happiness. The latter option is clearly superior, since
perfect robots will never make decisions which could render
them or their creator unhappy, whereas beings with freewill
could. A perfect and omnipotent God who creates beings capable
of ruining their own happiness is impossible.
This is a very common error that hinges on what omnipotency
means. First of all observe that omnipotency is implied in
God's perfection and should be understood within that context.
Therefore omnipotency does not mean that God has the power to
do whatever anybody would suggest God should do. Omnipotency
means that God has the power to do what God in her perfect
goodness wishes to do. The greatest gift of love that God can
give to her children is the opportunity to reach for perfection
themselves. You see, goodness (not happiness, understood as
continuous enjoyment) is the ultimate good. This, by the way,
was known to philosophers for a long time. And goodness is not
something one can receive ready-made, but it is something one
must earn. In order to earn goodness one needs freedom and
effort.
If god is perfect, god is omnipotent. if god is omnipotent, as
part of that omnipotency, he must be omniscient. And
omnibenevolent. Since omniscience and creatorhood of god means
free will cannot exist in principle, there is no need for evil.
Free will is the answer theists give for existance of evil.
But in a world where god creates all, and is omnscient, free will
is impossible so evil is not an answer to free wil or anything
else.
Indeed its then a problems for claims of omnibenevolence.
If free will does not exist, and omnibenevolent god cannot, by
duty imposed bu omnibenevolence, allow evil.
Or if god has a good nature and free will, he must likewise give
that to man also.
Either way, evil cannot be an excuse for free will.
Ultimate good is only achieved by giving man a god like
free will and a god like good nature free of moral evil.
So either free will does not exist and is no bar to
banning evil, or free will exists and is no bar to
god giving us free will and a good nature.
A God who knows the future is powerless to change it. An
omniscient God who is all powerful and free willed is
impossible.
Again, omniscience does not mean that God knows everything. It
means that God knows what God in her perfection wishes to know.
No, it means everything. Every fact that is is known to god,
every part of the future. And it is part and parcel of
omnipotence. If god is perfect and thus omnipotent, he is also
omniscient.
If he cannot know the future, he is not omniscient.
if he is not omniscient, he is not omnipotent.
And thus not operfect.
Sorry, but once you saddle up perfection, you must ride
it to to final logical conclusion.
The question about whether God today knows what I shall freely
choose to do tomorrow is meaningless, because God does not
exist within physical time as we do.
Evidence?
This is a bad idea going back to Boethius.
If there is no time as we see it, if god is outside
of time, if time is only an illusion, it means all is one Big
Now.
Every point of time and space exists now. God can see all
as he is outside it, but then, every point of space and time in
the Big Now also includes all the interactions of god with that
pioint of space and time.
All god's actions are Now.
So nothing can happen, all is static, unchanging, frozen
in one Big Now like a fly in amber.
We have no free will and neither does god.
All is, always unchanging.
But since there was no before, no long ago, god cannot have
created this. Creation must have before existance and after
existance was created. The Big Now must be eternal.
This simply doesn't not work.
Free wil is imposible and its hard to see how such a state of
affairs came about that even god is static, unchanging and
lacking free will forever.
People simply fail to run things out to their logical conclusion.
Physical existence
including the whole of space and time are created for us - as
an opportunity to earn goodness. We live inside this space, not
God. Rather physical existence is grounded in God.
You cannot earn goodness in a Universe where free will cannot
exist and all choices are made by god, not you.
***************
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dianelos Georgoudis" |
|
| Title: Re: common misconceptions [was: "The Christian God is impossible"] |
20 Sep 2005 11:26:15 PM |
|
|
wbarwell wrote:
[snip]
Basically it is true. Asked for hard evidence god exists, we see
here in AA that nobody even tries to do that.
Hmm, mathematicians have no doubt that the number pi exists, but no
mathematician would even try to give you "hard evidence" for that.
God exists in a similar way that beauty in a Beethoven sonata exists.
Those who see this beauty have no doubt of its existence, even though
they can give no "hard evidence" to "prove" it exists. Some people hear
the same sonata but do not see the beauty in it - which is a pity.
Similarly, some see God in the whole of their experience, but can give
no "hard evidence" for it. Sadly other people fail to see God in the
whole of their experience. Others do see God but call her something
else.
[snip]
Concerning the description of God, the best one is that God is
the perfect being. Almost all Christians, and in fact almost
all believers of the three great monotheistic religions, will
agree with it. I think that this is the one description of God
that atheists should care to think about, because any other
description is in comparison a strawman.
Where do you get the claim god is perfect?
It's not a claim, it's the description I choose to specify what I mean
by God: the perfect being. As you know there are many descriptions of
God, and that's why many atheists often ask "Which god do you mean?"
What I do claim is that this God exists.
[snip]
Perfection is a matter of judgment. If we judge B to be better
than A then surely A cannot be perfect. So let's imagine two
different gods, one infinitely good in all aspects but
incapable of improving; the other infinitely good in all
aspects but capable of improving even more. The former is
clearly less than the later, therefore the former is not
perfect. A static being cannot be perfect, because a dynamic
being is better. Therefore we conclude that the statement "a
perfect creator God is impossible" is false, and that on the
contrary a perfect God must be a creator.
If a god is infinitely good he cannot change for the better.
The infinite is not a constant value. For example in math, there are
infinite numbers that are much larger (in fact infinitely larger) than
other infinite numbers.
If a god is good, but can change, either he changes for the
worse, or he is not perfect because he can change for the
better.
I understand what you mean. The idea that true perfection implies the
power to improve even more is somehow counterintuitive. But it is not
really difficult to grasp if you think about it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: common misconceptions [was: "The Christian God is impossible"] |
21 Sep 2005 01:31:32 PM |
|
|
Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
[snip]
Basically it is true. Asked for hard evidence god exists, we
see here in AA that nobody even tries to do that.
Hmm, mathematicians have no doubt that the number pi exists,
but no mathematician would even try to give you "hard evidence"
for that.
Hard evidence =/= mathematical proof.
Hard evidence means good, hard, sound evidence.
Not empty assertions, argument by defintion, debunked old and
hoary 'proofs' dead in the time of Kant, evidence, sound, good,
objective evidence.
Again, we have a bad case here of christian weasel-worditis.
You have nothing for us ,expet weaselly word games.
We all know what hard evidence means, colloquially.
It means objective, sound, logically impeccable,
evidence that can pass inspection. That does the job.
Why did you blabber on about pi and mathematical proof?
Hard evidence has nothing to do with mathematics, does it?
We keep having people wander into AA and yarbling on about how
there is evidence that god exists, but when asked "where is this
evidence you keep saying you have?", people wander out or play
word games.
I have shown the basic, lowest common denominator claims about
god easily can be shown to self destruct rather spectaularly.
People won't deal with that honestly either.
All I ever see is evasions, bad logic, word games and nonsense.
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: common misconceptions [was: "The Christian God is impossible"] |
22 Sep 2005 11:43:48 AM |
|
|
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11j38umkrrj8001@corp.supernews.com...
Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
[snip]
Basically it is true. Asked for hard evidence god exists, we
see here in AA that nobody even tries to do that.
Hmm, mathematicians have no doubt that the number pi exists,
but no mathematician would even try to give you "hard evidence"
for that.
Hard evidence =/= mathematical proof.
Hard evidence means good, hard, sound evidence.
Not empty assertions, argument by defintion, debunked old and
hoary 'proofs' dead in the time of Kant, evidence, sound, good,
objective evidence.
Again, we have a bad case here of christian weasel-worditis.
You have nothing for us ,expet weaselly word games.
We all know what hard evidence means, colloquially.
It means objective, sound, logically impeccable,
evidence that can pass inspection. That does the job.
Why did you blabber on about pi and mathematical proof?
Hard evidence has nothing to do with mathematics, does it?
We keep having people wander into AA and yarbling on about how
there is evidence that god exists, but when asked "where is this
evidence you keep saying you have?", people wander out or play
word games.
I have shown the basic, lowest common denominator claims about
god easily can be shown to self destruct rather spectaularly.
People won't deal with that honestly either.
All I ever see is evasions, bad logic, word games and nonsense.
So true. I have frequently challenged the God believers to offer objective
verifiable replicabnle evidence for the existence of any Gods and always get
back very subjective opinions ( not evidence ) that would not even stand up
in traffic court.
It is quite obvious that no trulu objective verifiable and replicable
evidence exists.
It is equally obvious that God did not create man but quite the contrary,
that man created Gods!
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dianelos Georgoudis" |
|
| Title: Re: common misconceptions [was: "The Christian God is impossible"] |
22 Sep 2005 09:05:31 PM |
|
|
wbarwell wrote:
Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
[snip]
Basically it is true. Asked for hard evidence god exists, we
see here in AA that nobody even tries to do that.
Hmm, mathematicians have no doubt that the number pi exists,
but no mathematician would even try to give you "hard evidence"
for that.
Hard evidence =/= mathematical proof.
Hard evidence means good, hard, sound evidence.
Not empty assertions, argument by defintion, debunked old and
hoary 'proofs' dead in the time of Kant, evidence, sound, good,
objective evidence.
Again, we have a bad case here of christian weasel-worditis.
You have nothing for us ,expet weaselly word games.
We all know what hard evidence means, colloquially.
It means objective, sound, logically impeccable,
evidence that can pass inspection. That does the job.
Why did you blabber on about pi and mathematical proof?
Hard evidence has nothing to do with mathematics, does it?
No. Then why do you think that hard evidence has something to do with
God?
We keep having people wander into AA and yarbling on about how
there is evidence that god exists, but when asked "where is this
evidence you keep saying you have?", people wander out or play
word games.
I speak only for myself, not for other people.
I have shown the basic, lowest common denominator claims about
god easily can be shown to self destruct rather spectaularly.
People won't deal with that honestly either.
All I ever see is evasions, bad logic, word games and nonsense.
OK, I think we agree that hard evidence is not required for many
existents such as the number pi, or the beauty of music. Still it
appears you think that hard evidence is required to justify the
existence of God. Maybe you have the misconception that God's existence
is supposed to be physical like stones or trees (or at least have some
physical effect) for which hard evidence can be given. If so, the God
you have in mind is a very weak strawman indeed.
Incidentally, even in the context of physical existence you can give
hard evidence only in the most superficial cases (such as stones,
trees, etc). For example, what hard evidence can you give me that
curved space exists? You may answer that there are a lot of experiments
that justify Einstein's general relativity which posits curved space.
But this is not really *hard* evidence, as some physicist in the future
may discover a more precise theory that will supplant Einstein's curved
space, the same way that curved space supplanted Newton's gravitational
force field. What is even more noteworthy is that for decades now the
most cutting edge fundamental physics (the string theory) advances
without *any* hard evidence at all, but based only on mathematical
congruence.
I hope I showed that a) it is wrong that existence must be justified by
hard evidence in all cases, and b) it is wrong that even physical
existence must be justified by hard evidence, except in the most
trivial cases. I suppose these are two more of the common
misconceptions that impede a fruitful discussion about God.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: common misconceptions [was: "The Christian God is impossible"] |
22 Sep 2005 10:12:11 PM |
|
|
"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote in
news:1127441131.083496.262010@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
wbarwell wrote:
Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
[snip]
Basically it is true. Asked for hard evidence god exists, we
see here in AA that nobody even tries to do that.
Hmm, mathematicians have no doubt that the number pi exists,
but no mathematician would even try to give you "hard evidence"
for that.
Hard evidence =/= mathematical proof.
Hard evidence means good, hard, sound evidence.
Not empty assertions, argument by defintion, debunked old and
hoary 'proofs' dead in the time of Kant, evidence, sound, good,
objective evidence.
Again, we have a bad case here of christian weasel-worditis.
You have nothing for us ,expet weaselly word games.
We all know what hard evidence means, colloquially.
It means objective, sound, logically impeccable,
evidence that can pass inspection. That does the job.
Why did you blabber on about pi and mathematical proof?
Hard evidence has nothing to do with mathematics, does it?
No. Then why do you think that hard evidence has something to do with
God?
We keep having people wander into AA and yarbling on about how
there is evidence that god exists, but when asked "where is this
evidence you keep saying you have?", people wander out or play
word games.
I speak only for myself, not for other people.
I have shown the basic, lowest common denominator claims about
god easily can be shown to self destruct rather spectaularly.
People won't deal with that honestly either.
All I ever see is evasions, bad logic, word games and nonsense.
OK, I think we agree that hard evidence is not required for many
existents such as the number pi, or the beauty of music. Still it
appears you think that hard evidence is required to justify the
existence of God. Maybe you have the misconception that God's
existence is supposed to be physical like stones or trees (or at least
have some physical effect) for which hard evidence can be given. If
so, the God you have in mind is a very weak strawman indeed.
If you want to assert that God is an abstract concept like pi or the
beauty of music, go right ahead. I'll agree with you, and we can get
this over with real quick.
Incidentally, even in the context of physical existence you can give
hard evidence only in the most superficial cases (such as stones,
trees, etc). For example, what hard evidence can you give me that
curved space exists? You may answer that there are a lot of
experiments that justify Einstein's general relativity which posits
curved space. But this is not really *hard* evidence, as some
physicist in the future may discover a more precise theory that will
supplant Einstein's curved space, the same way that curved space
supplanted Newton's gravitational force field. What is even more
noteworthy is that for decades now the most cutting edge fundamental
physics (the string theory) advances without *any* hard evidence at
all, but based only on mathematical congruence.
Umm, yes, that *is* hard evidence. Einstein's theory doesn't supplant
Newton's, it *extends* it.
And if you want to assert that God is a tentative hypothesis that
remains open to future revision, well, I might just agree with you there
too.
I hope I showed that a) it is wrong that existence must be justified
by hard evidence in all cases, and b) it is wrong that even physical
existence must be justified by hard evidence, except in the most
trivial cases. I suppose these are two more of the common
misconceptions that impede a fruitful discussion about God.
Well, I think we've cleared up quite a lot. God is an abstract concept
or a tentative hypothesis that is open to future revision.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"This city, for the first time that I can remember,
is drug-free and violence-free.
And we plan to keep it that way." - Mayor Ray Nagin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dianelos Georgoudis" |
|
| Title: Re: common misconceptions [was: "The Christian God is impossible"] |
25 Sep 2005 03:40:22 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote in
news:1127441131.083496.262010@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
[snip]
OK, I think we agree that hard evidence is not required for many
existents such as the number pi, or the beauty of music. Still it
appears you think that hard evidence is required to justify the
existence of God. Maybe you have the misconception that God's
existence is supposed to be physical like stones or trees (or at least
have some physical effect) for which hard evidence can be given. If
so, the God you have in mind is a very weak strawman indeed.
If you want to assert that God is an abstract concept like pi or the
beauty of music, go right ahead. I'll agree with you, and we can get
this over with real quick.
No problem. Everything we know comes from pattern recognition. We
detect a pattern in our visual field and say "This is an apple". Newton
detected a pattern in the way apples fall and also (amazingly) in the
way planets move in the sky and called that pattern gravitation. The
more superficial patterns are the ones that everybody sees and agrees
upon - they are called "objective". There are many kinds of patterns.
Mathematicians discovered pi and its properties in their study of
circles in the sand. Music lovers become aware of the beauty in the
sounds of music. But if you prefer to call deeper patterns that not
everybody sees or agrees upon abstract or subjective or existing only
in one's mind, that's ok with me. If you think about it, all knowledge
is abstract, subjective and exists only in one's mind.
This thread is about misconceptions. Well, using the above labels, God
is not an objective thing, like apples, stones, or the moon. On the
contrary it is the deepest possible pattern, and therefore the most
abstract concept of all.
Interestingly enough, even stones (as people who thought really hard
about them have found out in Quantum Mechanics) turn out to exist as a
fuzzy instantiation of probabilities. Objective existence is not what
it used to be :-)
Incidentally, even in the context of physical existence you can give
hard evidence only in the most superficial cases (such as stones,
trees, etc). For example, what hard evidence can you give me that
curved space exists? You may answer that there are a lot of
experiments that justify Einstein's general relativity which posits
curved space. But this is not really *hard* evidence, as some
physicist in the future may discover a more precise theory that will
supplant Einstein's curved space, the same way that curved space
supplanted Newton's gravitational force field. What is even more
noteworthy is that for decades now the most cutting edge fundamental
physics (the string theory) advances without *any* hard evidence at
all, but based only on mathematical congruence.
Umm, yes, that *is* hard evidence. Einstein's theory doesn't supplant
Newton's, it *extends* it.
Actually Einstein's theory only extended Newton's results, but
completely supplanted Newton's description of physical space. And
that's exactly my point. We all agree that there is one reality, but
there are many contradictory descriptions of it depending on the depth
of one's understanding of it. It's not a question of theism versus
atheism, but about the best possible understanding of reality.
And if you want to assert that God is a tentative hypothesis that
remains open to future revision, well, I might just agree with you there
too.
I am 100% ok with this too. God (or the existence of an overaching
explanation of the whole of one's experience) is a tentative hypothesis
and remains for ever open to future revision.
I hope I showed that a) it is wrong that existence must be justified
by hard evidence in all cases, and b) it is wrong that even physical
existence must be justified by hard evidence, except in the most
trivial cases. I suppose these are two more of the common
misconceptions that impede a fruitful discussion about God.
Well, I think we've cleared up quite a lot. God is an abstract concept
or a tentative hypothesis that is open to future revision.
Right. Like gravity. Or like any other non-trivial piece of knowledge
about reality we have.
So, now that indeed a lot of misconceptions have been cleared up, what
do you think about the possibility of explaining the whole of our
experience? Not only what we are conscious about (i.e. the physical
universe) but also the most momentous fact of all: that we are
consciousness and live in a space of conscious sensations and
interactions?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: common misconceptions [was: "The Christian God is impossible"] |
21 Sep 2005 03:22:19 AM |
|
|
On 20 Sep 2005 21:26:15 -0700, "Dianelos Georgoudis"
<dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
[snip]
Basically it is true. Asked for hard evidence god exists, we see
here in AA that nobody even tries to do that.
Hmm, mathematicians have no doubt that the number pi exists, but no
mathematician would even try to give you "hard evidence" for that.
The standard dishonest bait'n'switch from the disputed and unevidenced
to the ordinary and evidenced.
Pi is a conclusion, not a belief.
Why are you assholes so dishonest?
Where is the conclusion that God exists outside the deluded
imagination of its believers?
God exists in a similar way that beauty in a Beethoven sonata exists.
A stupid baseless assertion.
Either put up or preferably shut up.
Those who see this beauty have no doubt of its existence, even though
they can give no "hard evidence" to "prove" it exists. Some people hear
the same sonata but do not see the beauty in it - which is a pity.
Similarly, some see God in the whole of their experience, but can give
Stupid *****.
All the other words are labels for something - even if it is an
emotional feeling.
God is a brainwashed, pre-existing belief, not a label given to
something.
You start from it and try to rationalise it.
Which is the wrong way round.
You morons have to start from the real world, point it out and then
label it.
But instead you're dishonestly starting from a meaningless three
letter word and telling us it exists.
Which is just plain stupid and fools nobody but yourself.
no "hard evidence" for it. Sadly other people fail to see God in the
whole of their experience. Others do see God but call her something
else.
WHAT THE ***** IS "GOD", MORON?
You're starting from it instead of deriving it.
[snip]
Concerning the description of God, the best one is that God is
the perfect being. Almost all Christians, and in fact almost
all believers of the three great monotheistic religions, will
agree with it. I think that this is the one description of God
that atheists should care to think about, because any other
description is in comparison a strawman.
Where do you get the claim god is perfect?
It's not a claim, it's the description I choose to specify what I mean
by God: the perfect being. As you know there are many descriptions of
God, and that's why many atheists often ask "Which god do you mean?"
What I do claim is that this God exists.
[snip]
Perfection is a matter of judgment. If we judge B to be better
than A then surely A cannot be perfect. So let's imagine two
different gods, one infinitely good in all aspects but
incapable of improving; the other infinitely good in all
aspects but capable of improving even more. The former is
clearly less than the later, therefore the former is not
perfect. A static being cannot be perfect, because a dynamic
being is better. Therefore we conclude that the statement "a
perfect creator God is impossible" is false, and that on the
contrary a perfect God must be a creator.
If a god is infinitely good he cannot change for the better.
The infinite is not a constant value. For example in math, there are
infinite numbers that are much larger (in fact infinitely larger) than
other infinite numbers.
If a god is good, but can change, either he changes for the
worse, or he is not perfect because he can change for the
better.
I understand what you mean. The idea that true perfection implies the
power to improve even more is somehow counterintuitive. But it is not
really difficult to grasp if you think about it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Richardson" |
|
| Title: Re: common misconceptions [was: "The Christian God is impossible"] |
21 Sep 2005 08:47:39 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 04:22:19 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On 20 Sep 2005 21:26:15 -0700, "Dianelos Georgoudis"
<dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
[snip]
Basically it is true. Asked for hard evidence god exists, we see
here in AA that nobody even tries to do that.
Hmm, mathematicians have no doubt that the number pi exists, but no
mathematician would even try to give you "hard evidence" for that.
The standard dishonest bait'n'switch from the disputed and unevidenced
to the ordinary and evidenced.
Pi is a conclusion, not a belief.
I thought pi was a transcedental number!
Why are you assholes so dishonest?
For Loki's sake Chris do you always have to be so agressive and
offensive?
Chill out man!
Mark.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: common misconceptions [was: "The Christian God is impossible"] |
19 Sep 2005 12:50:46 PM |
|
|
Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
A recent post with the subject "The Christian God is impossible" by
Bary OGrady mentions most of the common misconceptions about
Christianity which many atheists and also many theists have (according
to my judgment of course). Therefore I would like to use this post to
discuss these points.
One of the common misconceptions that believers have is that
appeal to authority will be convincing to non-believers. For
example you say that "Bary OGrady mentions most of the
common misconceptions about Christianity." How do you know
they are misconceptions? You say "according to my judgment of
course" which is a commendable qualification of what follows.
Yet you still think that your unsupported "judgment" will somehow
be persuasive--or should be persuasive--on some level. No doubt
when it isn't, you will find reason to blame atheists for not
accepting your claims based on your say-so.
The reason, I suspect, that you do this is because you see "truth"
as something revealed by authorities--church authorities, etc.-
-whereas rational atheists do not. We want evidence, we want reasons
to accept claims. Reasons that go beyond "take my word for it."
If you want to convince rational atheists you will have to offer
argument, not merely assertions, or assertions that are based on
other assertions that your audience doesn't necessarily accept. For
example:
"I think that this is the one description of God that atheists should
care to
think about, because any other description is in comparison a
strawman."
What is this conclusion based on? It is based on other assertions
you make:
"the best one is that God is the perfect being. Almost all Christians,
and in fact almost all believers of the three great monotheistic
religions,
will agree with it."
Realize that if I don't accept this claim then I am not going to
accept whatever claims you make that are based on it either.
So how do you know your above claim is true? I realize that you
believe it, but why should I believe it? You may get frustrated
at this point and say you can't "prove" this to me. But I am not
asking you to "prove" it. I am asking you, what evidence did
you go by to determine that it is true? What convinced you that
it was? This is what you need to provide. I'm saying don't _tell_
me what is true, SHOW ME what is true. Give me the evidence
and let _me_ decide the same way you decided. Let me see if the
same evidence is as convincng to me as it is to you.
The rule is that when you make a claim, provide reasons
why you think I should accept that claim (aka: an argument).
No, I am not saying that every single claim come with reasons
attached. _That_ would be unreasonable. What I am saying is that
key claims should come with reasons attached up front, and
that you should *be ready to support lesser claims* if they are
challenged. If you can't do this with some particular claim then
you need to qualify that claim as opinion whenever you make it.
As I noted you did qualify your statements up front, but what
followed seemed to undercut that qualification by turning into
unqualified assertions: "....because any other description is in
comparison a strawman."
Yes, it is much harder to offer reasons for claims, or to be prepared
to do so, than to just make those claims with an air of absolute
certainty about them as your only "evidence." But if you hope to
persuade rational atheists, this is what you must do. If you choose
not to, please don't blame us for being "blind" to the "truth." A word
to the wise and thanks in advance.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pramod Subramanyan" |
|
| Title: Re: common misconceptions [was: "The Christian God is impossible"] |
19 Sep 2005 07:10:52 AM |
|
|
Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
lots of stuff <<
Nice post.
What is your view about other religions? What about atheists - I mean
since there is no hell for us to be thrown into, what becomes of us?
Why should god care about us? Why also should we care about god? What
about physical laws - since the universe pretty much runs itself, why
should we assume that the existence or non-existence of god makes a
difference?
And about the always improving argument - an inanimate thing such as a
stone has no real scope for improvement. It seems that god is unfair
to his creations, you and me get to enjoy all this and the stone well
remains a stone lying around to be kicked.
PS: I am NOT trying to be sarcastic. I really want your opinion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dianelos Georgoudis" |
|
| Title: Re: common misconceptions [was: "The Christian God is impossible"] |
20 Sep 2005 02:16:58 AM |
|
|
Pramod Subramanyan wrote:
Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
lots of stuff <<
Nice post.
What is your view about other religions?
Religions are the attempt to systematize in an intellectual model the
experience of God. Religions are today in the same state as alchemy in
the middle ages: a mixture of truth with nonsense. The problem is to
separate the two. Nevertheless, significantly, all great religions are
about goodness and meaning.
What about atheists - I mean
since there is no hell for us to be thrown into, what becomes of us?
Oh, we all go to heaven :-) Each one is to carry the good things one
did in this life, so in heaven many atheists will be better off than
many theists. Some people will be mightily surprised.
Actually truth is even more beautiful than that.
Why should god care about us?
Because God loves everybody, and especially likes free thinkers.
Why also should we care about god?
Well if God exists the answer is obvious isn't it? You should care
about God because it is the most profound experience of discovery and
learning you can have.
What
about physical laws - since the universe pretty much runs itself, why
should we assume that the existence or non-existence of god makes a
difference?
It makes no difference to the universe. It makes a lot difference to
the way we experience the universe, how meaningful and beautiful it
becomes.
And about the always improving argument - an inanimate thing such as a
stone has no real scope for improvement. It seems that god is unfair
to his creations, you and me get to enjoy all this and the stone well
remains a stone lying around to be kicked.
Well, you are not like stones. You are what watches stones.
God's creation is us, aware of a kind of orderly potpourri of
sensations, which we call the physical universe.
PS: I am NOT trying to be sarcastic. I really want your opinion.
My pleasure. I enjoy answering questions. I am not sure I will convince
anybody, but that's ok. I can gloat when we meet in heaven :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: common misconceptions [was: "The Christian God is impossible"] |
20 Sep 2005 08:40:38 PM |
|
|
Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
Pramod Subramanyan wrote:
What is your view about other religions?
Religions are the attempt to systematize in an intellectual model the
experience of God. Religions are today in the same state as alchemy in
the middle ages: a mixture of truth with nonsense. The problem is to
separate the two.
Perhaps religion is less like chemistry and more like
alchemy. As alchemy eventually was discarded on the
way to chemistry, religion might well be discarded on
the way to...what?
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dianelos Georgoudis" |
|
| Title: Re: common misconceptions [was: "The Christian God is impossible"] |
22 Sep 2005 07:33:04 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
Pramod Subramanyan wrote:
What is your view about other religions?
Religions are the attempt to systematize in an intellectual model the
experience of God. Religions are today in the same state as alchemy in
the middle ages: a mixture of truth with nonsense. The problem is to
separate the two.
Perhaps religion is less like chemistry and more like
alchemy. As alchemy eventually was discarded on the
way to chemistry, religion might well be discarded on
the way to...what?
My understanding is that alchemy was not discarded whole, but rather
what was nonsense in it was discarded. A lot of facts recorded by
alchemists were kept and used by science. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alchemy
I think the same will happen with religion: what is true in it (and
much is true) will be kept, and the superstitious, unreasonable, and
ugly bits will be discarded. I think that atheists today unfortunately
throw away the baby with the bathwater. They fixate so much on the
bathwater it does not even occur to many of them that there may be a
baby in there :-(
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Richardson" |
|
| Title: Re: common misconceptions [was: "The Christian God is impossible"] |
19 Sep 2005 01:53:00 AM |
|
|
On 18 Sep 2005 21:01:17 -0700, "Dianelos Georgoudis"
<dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote:
<snip - lots of reasonable comments>
I would say that no reasonable and free thinking individual can accept
the *description* of God as given in some parts of the Bible or by many
Christians, because that description contradicts the existence of a
perfect creator. God is one and is perfect - but there are many
descriptions of God and all are of course imperfect. After all, all
descriptions are made by humans, and humans are fallible.
For me the telling thing is this:
We have trees - we also have opinions /theories and thoughts /
feelings about trees.
Same with rocks, water, the sky etc
With God (and faries, unicorns etc) we have stories, ideas, thoughts
and feelings about God.
If I disagree with someones opinion about a tree - I can go and look
at the tree - I can photograph the tree , measure it - contemplate it.
With "God" I can READ the stories, Read the opinions, Listen to the
opinions about God.
EVERYTHING I "know" about God I have learned from reading/hearing
about the opinions/beliefs of others.
EVERYTHING I "know" about Loki I have learned from reading /hearing
about the opinions/beliefs of others.
I cant look at God (or Thor or Loki or ...) and make up my own mind -
it isnt that I am obstinately refusing to do so - I **cannot** examine
God and make up my own mind.
I have to believe you - that God is Good or perfect - or whatever - I
cannot discover any of that for myself.
I can believe you or I can disbelieve you but I CANNOT find out for
myself.
Still, you should not throw away the baby with the bathwater. Take the
example of science. Science grew out of alchemy, which is full of
contradictions and unjustified beliefs. The fact that one rejects
alchemy (including its belief that there is a stone that converts base
metals into gold, etc) does not mean that one must reject science too.
Similarly, I think that religion will continue to evolve in human
history and will leave behind its current state of spiritual truth
adulterated with mythology and dogmatism.
Take away the mythology and dogma and what remains?
The world, people, rocks, trees, the sky...
No gods.
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: common misconceptions [was: "The Christian God is impossible"] |
19 Sep 2005 08:26:47 AM |
|
|
Mark Richardson wrote:
On 18 Sep 2005 21:01:17 -0700, "Dianelos Georgoudis"
<dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote:
<snip - lots of reasonable comments>
I would say that no reasonable and free thinking individual can
accept the *description* of God as given in some parts of the
Bible or by many Christians, because that description
contradicts the existence of a perfect creator. God is one and
is perfect - but there are many descriptions of God and all are
of course imperfect. After all, all descriptions are made by
humans, and humans are fallible.
For me the telling thing is this:
We have trees - we also have opinions /theories and thoughts /
feelings about trees.
Same with rocks, water, the sky etc
With God (and faries, unicorns etc) we have stories, ideas,
thoughts and feelings about God.
If I disagree with someones opinion about a tree - I can go and
look at the tree - I can photograph the tree , measure it -
contemplate it. With "God" I can READ the stories, Read the
opinions, Listen to the opinions about God.
EVERYTHING I "know" about God I have learned from
reading/hearing about the opinions/beliefs of others.
EVERYTHING I "know" about Loki I have learned from reading
/hearing about the opinions/beliefs of others.
I cant look at God (or Thor or Loki or ...) and make up my own
mind - it isnt that I am obstinately refusing to do so - I
**cannot** examine God and make up my own mind.
I have to believe you - that God is Good or perfect - or
whatever - I cannot discover any of that for myself.
I can believe you or I can disbelieve you but I CANNOT find out
for myself.
Still, you should not throw away the baby with the bathwater.
Take the example of science. Science grew out of alchemy, which
is full of contradictions and unjustified beliefs. The fact
that one rejects alchemy (including its belief that there is a
stone that converts base metals into gold, etc) does not mean
that one must reject science too. Similarly, I think that
religion will continue to evolve in human history and will
leave behind its current state of spiritual truth adulterated
with mythology and dogmatism.
Take away the mythology and dogma and what remains?
The world, people, rocks, trees, the sky...
No gods.
Mark.
God has a peculiar quality. Claims made for god self destruct so
easily.
God is omniscient and created all?
A god that forsees all, as he makes teh world will see what his
creation generates. If a man names John Smith exists, god wil
know that. If he is good or evil god knows that. God must
decide, do I create a good Smith or an evil Smith?
QAl decisions are gods. No free will can exist. If god
allows an evil Smith, evil is god's doing, not Smith's,
Smith only acts out what god decrees Smith will do.
Evil is usualy said to exist to allow for free will.
That does not work.
What if man does have free will?
God has free will and never does evil because he has
a good naturem, he's omnibenevlent.
He potentially could do evil but does not in actuality
because of his good nature.
If so, God, because he is omnibenevolent, must give man
god like free will and god like good nature.
Either way you go, free will or not, things are not as
they should be given claims about god.
There are more considerations like this. So obviously,
god cannot exist, and not just a specific god, but the entire
class of gods who are omni-everything and creators of all.
Nor does abandoning a given attribute help, the problems begin to
mount when you try that.
This makes god as a concept disproven and impossible and
unlikely. Trees and rocks are of course real.
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: common misconceptions [was: "The Christian God is impossible"] |
19 Sep 2005 09:22:40 PM |
|
|
wbarwell wrote:
Mark Richardson wrote:
On 18 Sep 2005 21:01:17 -0700, "Dianelos Georgoudis"
<dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote:
<snip - lots of reasonable comments>
I would say that no reasonable and free thinking individual can
accept the *description* of God as given in some parts of the
Bible or by many Christians, because that description
contradicts the existence of a perfect creator. God is one and
is perfect - but there are many descriptions of God and all are
of course imperfect. After all, all descriptions are made by
humans, and humans are fallible.
For me the telling thing is this:
We have trees - we also have opinions /theories and thoughts /
feelings about trees.
Same with rocks, water, the sky etc
With God (and faries, unicorns etc) we have stories, ideas,
thoughts and feelings about God.
If I disagree with someones opinion about a tree - I can go and
look at the tree - I can photograph the tree , measure it -
contemplate it. With "God" I can READ the stories, Read the
opinions, Listen to the opinions about God.
EVERYTHING I "know" about God I have learned from
reading/hearing about the opinions/beliefs of others.
EVERYTHING I "know" about Loki I have learned from reading
/hearing about the opinions/beliefs of others.
I cant look at God (or Thor or Loki or ...) and make up my own
mind - it isnt that I am obstinately refusing to do so - I
**cannot** examine God and make up my own mind.
I have to believe you - that God is Good or perfect - or
whatever - I cannot discover any of that for myself.
I can believe you or I can disbelieve you but I CANNOT find out
for myself.
Still, you should not throw away the baby with the bathwater.
Take the example of science. Science grew out of alchemy, which
is full of contradictions and unjustified beliefs. The fact
that one rejects alchemy (including its belief that there is a
stone that converts base metals into gold, etc) does not mean
that one must reject science too. Similarly, I think that
religion will continue to evolve in human history and will
leave behind its current state of spiritual truth adulterated
with mythology and dogmatism.
Take away the mythology and dogma and what remains?
The world, people, rocks, trees, the sky...
No gods.
Mark.
God has a peculiar quality. Claims made for god self destruct so
easily.
Yeah - I am familiar with the arguments.
I am just not as interested/impressed in them as you are.
8-)
God is omniscient and created all?
Let's say - for the sake of argument that the universe is created- by
G.
I dont know if this is possible or impossible - I dont think anyone
does - but lets assume it is possible and lets assume that *something*
actually has the property "created the universe".
Is G == "God"?
I dont think that would be likely - "God" is a character in a lot of
old stories - in fact there seem to be many different characters called
"God" - they cannot all be the same thing.
Furthermore it is possible that *none* of the things (mental images in
peoples heads) that get called God actually correspond with G.
Sometimes "God" is said to be omniscient - so this means that G has the
property "omniscient"?
No - of course not.
A things nature is not determined by what *name* you give it - its
nature is inherent in its own existence.
What can we know about G?
Aparently nothing.
Can we call G (whatever it is) "God" and worship it?
Sure! Anybody can worship anything they choose.
Is it wise? Will it make you a better person?
No.
Anybody can make anything (even non - existent "things") into their god
- and they can call it "God" or by any name they fancy.
Does it effect the truth of existence in any way?
No - except for the tiny fraction of reality that resides inside their
skull.
<snip omniscience vs free will>
You have *assumed* that omniscience and free will are incompatible.
That sounds reasonable to *me* - I cant think of any way they could be
compatible.
That isnt a proof that they are actually incompatible - its just a
(perfectly reasonable) belief we have.
There are more considerations like this. So obviously,
god cannot exist, and not just a specific god, but the entire
class of gods who are omni-everything and creators of all.
So If I choose to worship a "creator of all" that *isnt* omniscient and
omnipotent - then you would be happy with that?
You only quibble with the alledged properties of particular kinds of
gods - you don't have any objections to worshiping idols and stuff in
general?
See, I have a completely differnt motivation - I don't give a toss
whether or not Thor wore a bronze helmet or a silver one - I dont
believe in the *existence* of Thor and dont think worshiping gods is a
wise thing in any event.
I dont care whether or not God could be omniscient - I dont believe it
exists and I and dont think worshiping gods is a wise thing in any
event.
You are like a man that thinks he is really clever "proving" that Thors
helmet *could not* possibly be made of silver - I don't get the point
of the whole exercise.
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dianelos Georgoudis" |
|
| Title: Re: common misconceptions [was: "The Christian God is impossible"] |
20 Sep 2005 11:50:17 PM |
|
|
wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
Mark Richardson wrote:
On 18 Sep 2005 21:01:17 -0700, "Dianelos Georgoudis"
<dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote:
<snip - lots of reasonable comments>
I would say that no reasonable and free thinking individual can
accept th
wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
[big snip]
There are more considerations like this. So obviously,
god cannot exist, and not just a specific god, but the entire
class of gods who are omni-everything and creators of all.
So If I choose to worship a "creator of all" that *isnt* omniscient and
omnipotent - then you would be happy with that?
You only quibble with the alledged properties of particular kinds of
gods - you don't have any objections to worshiping idols and stuff in
general?
See, I have a completely differnt motivation - I don't give a toss
whether or not Thor wore a bronze helmet or a silver one - I dont
believe in the *existence* of Thor and dont think worshiping gods is a
wise thing in any event.
I dont care whether or not God could be omniscient - I dont believe it
exists
What exactly is it you don't believe exists?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: common misconceptions [was: "The Christian God is impossible"] |
21 Sep 2005 02:16:11 AM |
|
|
Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
m.richardson@utas.edu.au wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
Mark Richardson wrote:
On 18 Sep 2005 21:01:17 -0700, "Dianelos Georgoudis"
<dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote:
<snip - lots of reasonable comments>
I would say that no reasonable and free thinking individual can
accept th
m.richardson@utas.edu.au wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
[big snip]
There are more considerations like this. So obviously,
god cannot exist, and not just a specific god, but the entire
class of gods who are omni-everything and creators of all.
So If I choose to worship a "creator of all" that *isnt* omniscient and
omnipotent - then you would be happy with that?
You only quibble with the alledged properties of particular kinds of
gods - you don't have any objections to worshiping idols and stuff in
general?
See, I have a completely differnt motivation - I don't give a toss
whether or not Thor wore a bronze helmet or a silver one - I dont
believe in the *existence* of Thor and dont think worshiping gods is a
wise thing in any event.
I dont care whether or not God could be omniscient - I dont believe it
exists
What exactly is it you don't believe exists?
I doubt that I can be *exact* - so I will not make any promises I cant
keep.
What I could do is give a specific example of a "God" I dont believe in
-( Or if you give me the exact details of your version I would be most
happy in future to disbelieve in *that* one when anyone asks. 8-) )
Although I think that is of limited value.
There are an infinite number of variations on the theme - which is why
I think it is unreasonble to ask *me* to be exact!
God is supposedly a spirit being - A kind of free floating mind and
personality.
I don't believe in the existence of dissembodied minds.
So it follows logically I dont believe in universal, singular, eternal
ones.
If somehow a mind/spirit can exist free of material (If my belief is
wrong) Then - I dont believe a singular, unique, eternal "being" would
have a mind and a personality.
That is, if an eternal "mind" existed it couldnt feel love or anger or
desire justice - or in fact desire anything at all - we are moved to do
things BECAUSE we are limited, finite, corporeal beings - we have
desires and drives and wants and can be hurt - we are children and we
have mothers and fathers - an eternal immortal being doesnt seek food
or shelter or warmth or run from enemies or fear harm or death. An
eternal mind that "wills" things to happen is an absurdity.
Now a "force" ( like Gravity?) - that *didnt* have a mind or a
personality or a will - could have caused the universe to come into
existence but it would NOT qualify as a "God" in my opinion - I would
not be moved to believe or dissbelieve in it - in any religious sense.
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dianelos Georgoudis" |
|
| Title: Re: common misconceptions [was: "The Christian God is impossible"] |
25 Sep 2005 02:55:56 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
Mark Richardson wrote:
On 18 Sep 2005 21:01:17 -0700, "Dianelos Georgoudis"
<dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote:
<snip - lots of reasonable comments>
I would say that no reasonable and free thinking individual can
accept th
wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
[big snip]
There are more considerations like this. So obviously,
god cannot exist, and not just a specific god, but the entire
class of gods who are omni-everything and creators of all.
So If I choose to worship a "creator of all" that *isnt* omniscient and
omnipotent - then you would be happy with that?
You only quibble with the alledged properties of particular kinds of
gods - you don't have any objections to worshiping idols and stuff in
general?
See, I have a completely differnt motivation - I don't give a toss
whether or not Thor wore a bronze helmet or a silver one - I dont
believe in the *existence* of Thor and dont think worshiping gods is a
wise thing in any event.
I dont care whether or not God could be omniscient - I dont | | | | | | |
