| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"uri" |
| Date: |
11 Sep 2007 09:30:26 AM |
| Object: |
Re: The Bible is the word of God? |
God doesn't exist. If he does exist then why is there so much
suffering, oppression, tyranny and poverty? Given unlimited powers any
one of us could make a much better job of it.
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible is the word of God? |
13 Sep 2007 12:56:56 PM |
|
|
On 11 sep, 16:30, uri <dann...@bezeqint.net> wrote:
God doesn't exist. If he does exist then why is there so much
suffering, oppression, tyranny and poverty? Given unlimited powers any
one of us could make a much better job of it.
Why?
read the old testament thoroughly
and you might find out,
about a hatefull jealous genocidal maniac:)
If he'd really existed,
things might have been worse):
.
|
|
|
| User: "Empty" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible is the word of God? |
20 Sep 2007 04:14:51 PM |
|
|
On Sep 13, 6:56 pm, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl>
wrote:
On 11 sep, 16:30, uri <dann...@bezeqint.net> wrote:
God doesn't exist. If he does exist then why is there so much
suffering, oppression, tyranny and poverty? Given unlimited powers any
one of us could make a much better job of it.
Why?
read the old testament thoroughly
and you might find out,
about a hatefull jealous genocidal maniac:)
If he'd really existed,
things might have been worse):
True, imagine to give endless power to someone like or Christian god..
sheesh..there goes all the homo's and darn.. make sure you don't have
sex before marriage or he'll cut your ***** off... (notice the sarcasm,
meaning I wasn't serious)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible is the word of God? |
28 Sep 2007 12:20:19 PM |
|
|
On 20 sep, 23:14, Empty <perfect.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 13, 6:56 pm, "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl>
wrote:
On 11 sep, 16:30, uri <dann...@bezeqint.net> wrote:
God doesn't exist. If he does exist then why is there so much
suffering, oppression, tyranny and poverty? Given unlimited powers any
one of us could make a much better job of it.
Why?
read the old testament thoroughly
and you might find out,
about a hatefull jealous genocidal maniac:)
If he'd really existed,
things might have been worse):
True, imagine to give endless power to someone like or Christian god..
sheesh..there goes all the homo's and darn.. make sure you don't have
sex before marriage or he'll cut your ***** off... (notice the sarcasm,
meaning I wasn't serious)
No no, my wife will only cut of my ***** if I practice adultery DURING
our marriage.
Peter van Velzen Daengprasert
September 2007
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Davej" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible is the word of God? |
11 Sep 2007 11:02:42 AM |
|
|
On Sep 11, 9:30 am, uri <dann...@bezeqint.net> wrote:
God doesn't exist. If he does exist then why is there so much
suffering, oppression, tyranny and poverty?
Why do you think they call it Apologetics?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible is the word of God? |
12 Sep 2007 02:52:51 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:02:42 -0700, Davej <galt_57@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 11, 9:30 am, uri <dann...@bezeqint.net> wrote:
God doesn't exist. If he does exist then why is there so much
suffering, oppression, tyranny and poverty?
Why do you think they call it Apologetics?
Because it's so lame that people who believe it SHOULD apologize - to
their parents for throwing away the intelligence they were born with.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Whence then comes evil?
-Epicurus, 3rd c. BCE
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible is the word of God? |
11 Sep 2007 09:56:43 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 07:30:26 -0700, uri <danny99@bezeqint.net> wrote:
God doesn't exist. If he does exist then why is there so much
suffering, oppression, tyranny and poverty? Given unlimited powers any
one of us could make a much better job of it.
Try Manichaeism. It may be a herasy, but it does answer this question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeism
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible is the word of God? |
12 Sep 2007 02:49:08 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 10:56:43 -0400, Matt Silberstein
<matts2removethis@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 07:30:26 -0700, uri <danny99@bezeqint.net> wrote:
God doesn't exist. If he does exist then why is there so much
suffering, oppression, tyranny and poverty? Given unlimited powers any
one of us could make a much better job of it.
Try Manichaeism. It may be a herasy, but it does answer this question.
Not the question of how evil can flourish in the presence of an
omnipotent power, just how evil can exist assuming there is no
omnipotent power.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Whence then comes evil?
-Epicurus, 3rd c. BCE
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible is the word of God? |
13 Sep 2007 12:13:28 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:49:08 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 10:56:43 -0400, Matt Silberstein
<matts2removethis@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 07:30:26 -0700, uri <danny99@bezeqint.net> wrote:
God doesn't exist. If he does exist then why is there so much
suffering, oppression, tyranny and poverty? Given unlimited powers any
one of us could make a much better job of it.
Try Manichaeism. It may be a herasy, but it does answer this question.
Not the question of how evil can flourish in the presence of an
omnipotent power, just how evil can exist assuming there is no
omnipotent power.
But it does say how evil can exist while God exists.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible is the word of God? |
13 Sep 2007 09:16:58 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 01:13:28 -0400, Matt Silberstein
<matts2removethis@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:49:08 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 10:56:43 -0400, Matt Silberstein
<matts2removethis@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 07:30:26 -0700, uri <danny99@bezeqint.net> wrote:
God doesn't exist. If he does exist then why is there so much
suffering, oppression, tyranny and poverty? Given unlimited powers any
one of us could make a much better job of it.
Try Manichaeism. It may be a herasy, but it does answer this question.
Not the question of how evil can flourish in the presence of an
omnipotent power, just how evil can exist assuming there is no
omnipotent power.
But it does say how evil can exist while God exists.
As long as God isn't omnipotent, which isn't the case (even though the
case is fictional).
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Whence then comes evil?
-Epicurus, 3rd c. BCE
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible is the word of God? |
14 Sep 2007 09:42:03 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 10:16:58 -0400, in alt.atheism , Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> in <uhhie3d1a2k0heb99t62sss3un3gco16fk@4ax.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 01:13:28 -0400, Matt Silberstein
<matts2removethis@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:49:08 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 10:56:43 -0400, Matt Silberstein
<matts2removethis@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 07:30:26 -0700, uri <danny99@bezeqint.net> wrote:
God doesn't exist. If he does exist then why is there so much
suffering, oppression, tyranny and poverty? Given unlimited powers any
one of us could make a much better job of it.
Try Manichaeism. It may be a herasy, but it does answer this question.
Not the question of how evil can flourish in the presence of an
omnipotent power, just how evil can exist assuming there is no
omnipotent power.
But it does say how evil can exist while God exists.
As long as God isn't omnipotent, which isn't the case (even though the
case is fictional).
I have never understood why people here make such a big deal about the
omnipotent part. Sure, being able to make/destroy universes on a whim
does not mean *omni*potent, but it is sure powerful enough for me to
take notice.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "uri" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible is the word of God? |
11 Sep 2007 11:16:56 AM |
|
|
Science (especially physics) contradicts the bible. According to
science there are 4 fundamental forces in nature: Gravitation,
electromagnetics, the weak force, and the strong force. All observed
physical phenomena can be explained by this 4 forces. Thus far,
physicists have been able to merge electromagnetics and the weak
nuclear force into the electroweak force, and work is being done to
merge electroweak and quantum chromodynamics into a QCD-electroweak
interaction sometimes called the electrostrong force.
Only gravity is not explained by the standard model of particle
physics. Gravitation is the universal force of attraction acting
between all matter. It is by far the weakest known force in nature and
thus plays no role in determining the internal properties of everyday
matter. On the other hand, through its long reach and universal
action, it controls the trajectories of bodies in the solar system and
elsewhere in the universe and the structures and evolution of stars,
galaxies, and the whole cosmos.
Scientists are currently working on a theory of quantum gravity which
will combine quantum mechanics with Einstein's general relativity.
Superstring theory is an attempt to explain all of the particles and
fundamental forces of nature in one theory by modeling them as
vibrations of tiny supersymmetric strings. It is considered one of the
most promising candidate theories of quantum gravity.
http://superstringtheory.com/
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible is the word of God? |
11 Sep 2007 10:50:50 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 07:30:26 -0700, uri wrote:
God doesn't exist. If he does exist then why is there so much
suffering, oppression, tyranny and poverty? Given unlimited powers any
one of us could make a much better job of it.
Perhaps he is incompetent, apathetic, busy doing other things, or wants us
to have suffering, oppression, etc. Personally, I don't believe He
exists, but the existence of suffering, etc, is not evidence of his
non-existence.
--
MarkA
(My OTHER sig line is clever)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rob Brown" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible is the word of God? |
11 Sep 2007 01:58:09 PM |
|
|
"MarkA" <toor@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.09.11.15.50.48.634804@nowhere.com...
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 07:30:26 -0700, uri wrote:
God doesn't exist. If he does exist then why is there so much
suffering, oppression, tyranny and poverty? Given unlimited powers any
one of us could make a much better job of it.
Perhaps he is incompetent, apathetic, busy doing other things, or wants us
to have suffering, oppression, etc. Personally, I don't believe He
exists, but the existence of suffering, etc, is not evidence of his
non-existence.
--
MarkA
(My OTHER sig line is clever)
I'd like to expand on the suggestions above.
He's busy
1) All his time is tied up trying to straighten out the mess he and the
idiot he advises in the Whitehouse made of Iraq?
2) It's football season and he's focused on helping make winning plays?
3) He's really, really busy trying to fill orders for the 17 to 1 virgin
award?
4) The incessant groveling of religious fundamentalists takes up all his
time?
He might actually want us to suffer
1) Fred Phelps is right?
2) Mother Theresa was right?
3) He is what the Old Testament describes him to be.
He's Incompetent.
1) He hires the wrong proxy reps. like Jim Jones, Ted Haggard, Jim Baker,
Fred Phelps, Catholic pedophile clergy and all the Islamic nut religious
leaders?
2) He gets way too much "Lambs Bread" and is too high to pay attention?
Just a few possibilities. I'm open to more suggestions.
Rob Brown
.
|
|
|
| User: "J.H.Boersema" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible is the word of God? |
12 Sep 2007 08:38:45 AM |
|
|
"Rob Brown" <bbrown@csmflorida.com> wrote:
"MarkA" <toor@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.09.11.15.50.48.634804@nowhere.com...
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 07:30:26 -0700, uri wrote:
God doesn't exist. If he does exist then why is there so much
suffering, oppression, tyranny and poverty? Given unlimited powers any
one of us could make a much better job of it.
Perhaps he is incompetent, apathetic, busy doing other things, or wants us
to have suffering, oppression, etc. Personally, I don't believe He
exists, but the existence of suffering, etc, is not evidence of his
non-existence.
I'd like to expand on the suggestions above.
He's busy
1) All his time is tied up trying to straighten out the mess he and the
idiot he advises in the Whitehouse made of Iraq?
2) It's football season and he's focused on helping make winning plays?
3) He's really, really busy trying to fill orders for the 17 to 1 virgin
award?
4) The incessant groveling of religious fundamentalists takes up all his
time?
He might actually want us to suffer
1) Fred Phelps is right?
2) Mother Theresa was right?
3) He is what the Old Testament describes him to be.
He's Incompetent.
1) He hires the wrong proxy reps. like Jim Jones, Ted Haggard, Jim Baker,
Fred Phelps, Catholic pedophile clergy and all the Islamic nut religious
leaders?
2) He gets way too much "Lambs Bread" and is too high to pay attention?
Just a few possibilities. I'm open to more suggestions.
We want to suffer, we want to solve our own problems and not be little
cry babies.
Look at the set-up of the Universe: all kinds of small balls, you can
live on them if you evolved on one, or you can fly around between them,
if you solved the problems on how to do that. Check early evolution:
plants evolve, animals evolve, but animals are dumb at first, sleepy.
So they want some excitement, look at many dumbfucks in this world,
they typically crave excitement through danger - if they feel no danger
they are just plants / dead. Danger you get if animals start eating
each other, so G.d allows the animals to eat each other, for the
excitement of the hunt and fight.
But maybe the Universe was set up with this in mind, hence the
little balls. When things get a bit aggressive (excited), that only
affects one ball, not everything. So the aggressive are confined to
their ball, and if they want to get off and elsewhere, spread, they
need technology. When a species becomes technological, it needs to be
smart, that is, be conscious. If you are conscious enough for that, you
don't need brute force excitement to wake up. Excitement like getting
your arms ripped off by a crocodile, or see your children eaten by
a hippo. The excitement of chasing the last chance of a meal in a
desert, or the excitement of being bitten by a poisonous sea snake.
You don't need or even want that if you are already conscious, right ?
Most people don't, it has been shown that danger-freaks tend to have
low consciousness; they want to wake up and be alive, hence the need
for danger.
Then you are already conscious, and you may start to think all this
violence is a little too much excitement for you. Fine, then start
using your headiness and build technology. With that technology, you
can defeat all the animals, and then you'd be safe. Safe, and
conscious, isn't that cute ... sounds like progress ? With consciousness,
you can experience more pleasure, that fits with a kind G.d.
However, if you are still looking for excitement ... you can still
make it: start wars, start exploiting other humans, press chips
in their arms, rape and pillage ... the excitement can become quite
extreme when you start throwing atomic bombs on cities, when you
start epidemics that could wipe out humanity. So we got all the
toys we want: if it is ultimately excitement we want, all we need
to do is start WW3 and wipe ourselves out, then the Earth is back
with simple animal life, and we could enjoy the excitement of a
massive war between hornets and bees, a spider and a centipede. We'd
be the playing actors, it is our paradise in heaven. Once dead, we
are born next year again (if you allow re-incarnation).
Many modern computer games mimic quite closely the kind of battles
insects have with each other. But when we want peace forever,
economic prosperity, absolute technical power, go to the stars, we
could choose peace instead. The problem isn't G.d, we got all the
tools we need to achieve whatever we want. The problem is that
humanity doesn't know what it wants: excitement or peace. G.d seems
present in the make-up of the Universe. If you want to interpret
it like that, which is admittedly a bit crazy, because I really don't
know whether/why the Universe is created or who did it. Given the
size and scope of the Universe, and how it is all already solved,
G.d (if) most certainly does not *need* to come here to set some detail
right - everything is already right by virtue of the way it is
(apparently/perhaps) set up. All our problems were already solved for
us, before the Sun was born. We live in our own solutions, we can't
escape them if we wanted to. However, if we want two conflicting
things, the excitement of violence and exploitation war and peace
forever, some kind of blend of two wills, I guess that's when we get
the war between good and evil ! Whether we create destruction or
build, it is both the solution we apparently are seeking. G.d may
just zap occasionally to channel Earth, and laugh ``aha, so this is
what they want!'
Seen `Men In Black ?' It's like that little people in the locker,
that's us. G.d may very well think of us as cute but a little stupid,
worms with potential, but slow in the head. ``Who knows what they'll do,
on their ball. -- oh wait, I'm busy creating a different dimension
which is unimaginable for you, back in a hurry... hum... let me push
the pause button on this dimension (in which Earth is as small as a
molecule on the Earth). And then all life in this dimension freezes
for untold eternities - perhaps archived and later retrieved; nobody
knows that this happened, our minds/souls were freezed with it.'' That's
how I imagine it. Maybe we can even crawl out of our locker, or maybe
we just get to the next level once we achieve peace on Earth, and that
is as far as any of us is going to go for now. Maybe our entire
Universe is just one test-tube. Or maybe we live on the outer edges of
G.ds own existence, and have our heads in nothingness, which bottom
up create the Universe with molecules and then suns and planets and
all this more or less as an ongoing work of art, but without much of
a real design to it (G.d coming from below and not above).
In any case: we get what we want, and apparently we want misery because
there isn't anything that is stopping us from creating peace and justice
but our own lacking will to that end.
By the way, talking about existence itself is always a bit crazy,
as our minds are trying to eat ourselves with it, as we are in the
Universe. The mind can not determine what it itself is, because it
is that which becomes consious of something, becoming consious of
something that becomes consious of something, becoming consious
of something that is becoming consious of something that becomes
consious of something, etc. This self-absorbing is like looking into
two mirrors, which yields nothing but an endless void. I figure that
is a problem with determining the entirety of everything, because we
for ourselves are such a major part of it, each for itself.
G.d is not the problem, the Universe is the solution. In that sense
there is no problem to begin with, because we have both good and bad
in the world, peace and excitement, according to our wish which
is apparent in that we do not strive enough for peace to make it win,
and hence we want evil/violence/suffering to continue, for the
excitement it brings. Maybe we're just crazy worms.
--
http://www.xs4all.nl/~joshb
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible is the word of God? |
12 Sep 2007 02:51:56 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 14:58:09 -0400, "Rob Brown"
<bbrown@csmflorida.com> wrote:
I'd like to expand on the suggestions above.
He's busy
1) All his time is tied up trying to straighten out the mess he and the
idiot he advises in the Whitehouse made of Iraq?
2) It's football season and he's focused on helping make winning plays?
He's really just tied up making sure that my wife wins the football
pool EVERY week this year.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Whence then comes evil?
-Epicurus, 3rd c. BCE
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible is the word of God? |
12 Sep 2007 02:50:30 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 11:50:50 -0400, MarkA <toor@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 07:30:26 -0700, uri wrote:
God doesn't exist. If he does exist then why is there so much
suffering, oppression, tyranny and poverty? Given unlimited powers any
one of us could make a much better job of it.
Perhaps he is incompetent, apathetic, busy doing other things, or wants us
to have suffering, oppression, etc. Personally, I don't believe He
exists, but the existence of suffering, etc, is not evidence of his
non-existence.
The existence of suffering is proof that an omnibenevolent, omnipotent
creator of the universe doesn't exist. God is one such entity, so it
can't exist.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Whence then comes evil?
-Epicurus, 3rd c. BCE
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible is the word of God? |
13 Sep 2007 09:49:19 AM |
|
|
On Sep 12, 3:50 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 11:50:50 -0400, MarkA <t...@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 07:30:26 -0700, uri wrote:
God doesn't exist. If he does exist then why is there so much
suffering, oppression, tyranny and poverty? Given unlimited powers any
one of us could make a much better job of it.
Perhaps he is incompetent, apathetic, busy doing other things, or wants us
to have suffering, oppression, etc. Personally, I don't believe He
exists, but the existence of suffering, etc, is not evidence of his
non-existence.
The existence of suffering is proof that an omnibenevolent, omnipotent
creator of the universe doesn't exist. God is one such entity, so it
can't exist.
How do you figure that? In order for what you've said to be true you
must suppose that God would end suffering if He could. And you have
now way of knowing that. You have no proof that God couldn't exist
and simply choose not to interfere.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hatter" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible is the word of God? |
13 Sep 2007 11:22:35 AM |
|
|
On Sep 13, 10:49 am, wrote:
On Sep 12, 3:50 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 11:50:50 -0400, MarkA <t...@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 07:30:26 -0700, uri wrote:
God doesn't exist. If he does exist then why is there so much
suffering, oppression, tyranny and poverty? Given unlimited powers any
one of us could make a much better job of it.
Perhaps he is incompetent, apathetic, busy doing other things, or wants us
to have suffering, oppression, etc. Personally, I don't believe He
exists, but the existence of suffering, etc, is not evidence of his
non-existence.
The existence of suffering is proof that an omnibenevolent, omnipotent
creator of the universe doesn't exist. God is one such entity, so it
can't exist.
How do you figure that? In order for what you've said to be true you
must suppose that God would end suffering if He could. And you have
now way of knowing that. You have no proof that God couldn't exist
and simply choose not to interfere.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yes, in that case, God would be immoral, and therefore undeserving of
being used as a moral authority, or of being loved. Or, alternatively
God would be amoral, and unconcerned with worship or love, as it/he
does not pay attention to what people do, and appeals to such a being
are completely fruitless.
Of course the most logical answer, using an Occams razor, is that God
does not exist.
In any case "the problem of evil" does mean Christianity, Judiasm, and
Islam are completely wrong. But it does not preclude an indeffernt,
evil, or non-allpowerful god, but that sort of god is not the "God" of
abrahamic relgions.
Hatter
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible is the word of God? |
13 Sep 2007 03:02:19 PM |
|
|
On Sep 13, 12:22 pm, Hatter <Hatte...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 13, 10:49 am, wrote:
On Sep 12, 3:50 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 11:50:50 -0400, MarkA <t...@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 07:30:26 -0700, uri wrote:
God doesn't exist. If he does exist then why is there so much
suffering, oppression, tyranny and poverty? Given unlimited powers any
one of us could make a much better job of it.
Perhaps he is incompetent, apathetic, busy doing other things, or wants us
to have suffering, oppression, etc. Personally, I don't believe He
exists, but the existence of suffering, etc, is not evidence of his
non-existence.
The existence of suffering is proof that an omnibenevolent, omnipotent
creator of the universe doesn't exist. God is one such entity, so it
can't exist.
How do you figure that? In order for what you've said to be true you
must suppose that God would end suffering if He could. And you have
now way of knowing that. You have no proof that God couldn't exist
and simply choose not to interfere.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yes, in that case, God would be immoral, and therefore undeserving of
being used as a moral authority, or of being loved.
That's purely a value judgment on your part that depends upon God
being subject to your moral code.
Or, alternatively
God would be amoral, and unconcerned with worship or love, as it/he
does not pay attention to what people do, and appeals to such a being
are completely fruitless.
This makes more sense.
Of course the most logical answer, using an Occams razor, is that God
does not exist.
I don't agree. God doesn't care, God is evil, God doesn't exist, the
ubiquitous "God has a plan we don't understand", etc are all equally
simple answers.
In any case "the problem of evil" does mean Christianity, Judiasm, and
Islam are completely wrong. But it does not preclude an indeffernt,
evil, or non-allpowerful god, but that sort of god is not the "God" of
abrahamic relgions.
Actually the God of Judaism is fairly evil by our standards. It is
the New Testament that softens Him up.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hatter" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible is the word of God? |
13 Sep 2007 03:19:01 PM |
|
|
On Sep 13, 4:02 pm, wrote:
On Sep 13, 12:22 pm, Hatter <Hatte...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 13, 10:49 am, wrote:
On Sep 12, 3:50 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 11:50:50 -0400, MarkA <t...@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 07:30:26 -0700, uri wrote:
God doesn't exist. If he does exist then why is there so much
suffering, oppression, tyranny and poverty? Given unlimited powers any
one of us could make a much better job of it.
Perhaps he is incompetent, apathetic, busy doing other things, or wants us
to have suffering, oppression, etc. Personally, I don't believe He
exists, but the existence of suffering, etc, is not evidence of his
non-existence.
The existence of suffering is proof that an omnibenevolent, omnipotent
creator of the universe doesn't exist. God is one such entity, so it
can't exist.
How do you figure that? In order for what you've said to be true you
must suppose that God would end suffering if He could. And you have
now way of knowing that. You have no proof that God couldn't exist
and simply choose not to interfere.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yes, in that case, God would be immoral, and therefore undeserving of
being used as a moral authority, or of being loved.
That's purely a value judgment on your part that depends upon God
being subject to your moral code.
On Morality, there is nothing but subjectivity. The judgement of
anyone, anything, and any action, must be subject to the moral code of
the observer.
Or, alternatively
God would be amoral, and unconcerned with worship or love, as it/he
does not pay attention to what people do, and appeals to such a being
are completely fruitless.
This makes more sense.
Of course the most logical answer, using an Occams razor, is that God
does not exist.
I don't agree. God doesn't care, God is evil, God doesn't exist, the
ubiquitous "God has a plan we don't understand", etc are all equally
simple answers.
I disagree by removing God from the equation...that means one less
presupposition for the equation. Remember Occam's Razor was not
invented for this argument.
In any case "the problem of evil" does mean Christianity, Judiasm, and
Islam are completely wrong. But it does not preclude an indeffernt,
evil, or non-allpowerful god, but that sort of god is not the "God" of
abrahamic relgions.
Actually the God of Judaism is fairly evil by our standards. It is
the New Testament that softens Him up.- Hide quoted text -
Which puts us into the logical problem of inconsistent behavior from a
being that is supposedly consistent and eternal. And I'm not sure the
concept of "eternal hellfire" being added is actually softening him
up.
Hatter
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible is the word of God? |
18 Sep 2007 08:28:55 AM |
|
|
On Sep 13, 4:19 pm, Hatter <Hatte...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 13, 4:02 pm, wrote:
On Sep 13, 12:22 pm, Hatter <Hatte...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 13, 10:49 am, wrote:
On Sep 12, 3:50 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 11:50:50 -0400, MarkA <t...@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 07:30:26 -0700, uri wrote:
God doesn't exist. If he does exist then why is there so much
suffering, oppression, tyranny and poverty? Given unlimited powers any
one of us could make a much better job of it.
Perhaps he is incompetent, apathetic, busy doing other things, or wants us
to have suffering, oppression, etc. Personally, I don't believe He
exists, but the existence of suffering, etc, is not evidence of his
non-existence.
The existence of suffering is proof that an omnibenevolent, omnipotent
creator of the universe doesn't exist. God is one such entity, so it
can't exist.
How do you figure that? In order for what you've said to be true you
must suppose that God would end suffering if He could. And you have
now way of knowing that. You have no proof that God couldn't exist
and simply choose not to interfere.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yes, in that case, God would be immoral, and therefore undeserving of
being used as a moral authority, or of being loved.
That's purely a value judgment on your part that depends upon God
being subject to your moral code.
On Morality, there is nothing but subjectivity. The judgement of
anyone, anything, and any action, must be subject to the moral code of
the observer.
Okay, and thus no objective or universal conclusions can be reached.
All that a person can do is make a personal judgment. Whether you say
God is not subject to a person's moral judgement or whether you say
God is subject to a person's moral judgement but must then reach the
conclusion that the person's moral judgement is of no consequence to
anyone but that person, is immaterial don't you think?
Or, alternatively
God would be amoral, and unconcerned with worship or love, as it/he
does not pay attention to what people do, and appeals to such a being
are completely fruitless.
This makes more sense.
Of course the most logical answer, using an Occams razor, is that God
does not exist.
I don't agree. God doesn't care, God is evil, God doesn't exist, the
ubiquitous "God has a plan we don't understand", etc are all equally
simple answers.
I disagree by removing God from the equation...that means one less
presupposition for the equation. Remember Occam's Razor was not
invented for this argument.
I would agree with you were God not the entire focus of the argument.
As it is, you can't remove remove the presupposition of God from an
equation whose conclusion is the nonexistence of God. In order to
prove that God cannot exist you must first start with a supposition
that He does exist and then prove it wrong. Otherwise you are
assuming your conclusion, which is a logical fallacy. You can
certainly use Occam's Razor here, but you have to confine its use to
the conclusion. Given that, "God does not exist" and "God does not
care" are equally valid answers for why there is suffering.
In any case "the problem of evil" does mean Christianity, Judiasm, and
Islam are completely wrong. But it does not preclude an indeffernt,
evil, or non-allpowerful god, but that sort of god is not the "God" of
abrahamic relgions.
Actually the God of Judaism is fairly evil by our standards. It is
the New Testament that softens Him up.
Which puts us into the logical problem of inconsistent behavior from a
being that is supposedly consistent and eternal.
Well, there is an explanation for that. The pre-messiah and post-
messiah worlds are different. Jesus ushered in a new era. We are in
the age of grace right now. At its conclusion the rules will change
again.
And I'm not sure the
concept of "eternal hellfire" being added is actually softening him
up.
That concept also includes the idea that nobody actually goes into
that fire unless it is of their own choosing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hatter" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible is the word of God? |
19 Sep 2007 02:52:13 PM |
|
|
On Sep 18, 9:28 am, wrote:
On Morality, there is nothing but subjectivity. The judgement of
anyone, anything, and any action, must be subject to the moral code of
the observer.
Okay, and thus no objective or universal conclusions can be reached.
All that a person can do is make a personal judgment.
When it comes to morality...yes.
Whether you say
God is not subject to a person's moral judgement or whether you say
God is subject to a person's moral judgement but must then reach the
conclusion that the person's moral judgement is of no consequence to
anyone but that person, is immaterial don't you think?
NO it is very important to distinguish whether or not mority is the
fabric of (a) you, the observer and not (b) the universe itself.
Because if it is (a) you can be a bit more understanding of
others...and understand that you could be wrong, However if it is (b)
there is no need to think, no need to evaluate the situation
Or, alternatively
God would be amoral, and unconcerned with worship or love, as it/he
does not pay attention to what people do, and appeals to such a being
are completely fruitless.
This makes more sense.
Of course the most logical answer, using an Occams razor, is that God
does not exist.
I don't agree. God doesn't care, God is evil, God doesn't exist, the
ubiquitous "God has a plan we don't understand", etc are all equally
simple answers.
I disagree by removing God from the equation...that means one less
presupposition for the equation. Remember Occam's Razor was not
invented for this argument.
I would agree with you were God not the entire focus of the argument.
As it is, you can't remove remove the presupposition of God from an
equation whose conclusion is the nonexistence of God.
But the whole presupposition of God is what creates the problem of
evil. This is the reason occams razor works. For year people were
trying to overcome the oxidization reation of luminence of wires in
order to create artificial light. The kept stumbling over the problem
that the wire burned out within a minute or so. It was the concept of
the light bulb, creating a vacuum, thereby eliminating an element of
the equation, that was instrumental to the invention of electic light.
Similarly we by eliminating "god" from the equation...we have no need
to come up with a solution at all.
Which puts us into the logical problem of inconsistent behavior from a
being that is supposedly consistent and eternal.
Well, there is an explanation for that. The pre-messiah and post-
messiah worlds are different. Jesus ushered in a new era. We are in
the age of grace right now. At its conclusion the rules will change
again.
But that still begs the question, that if God is perfect eternal, why
the sudden change. If general societal attitudes had changed
sufficiently to require an update in their myth stucture is a much
more logical answer.
And I'm not sure the
concept of "eternal hellfire" being added is actually softening him
up.
That concept also includes the idea that nobody actually goes into
that fire unless it is of their own choosing.- Hide quoted text -
Wrong. First of all you know upbringing and events affect people
attitudes, viewpoints, and behavior. The way it is stated in the
Bible, some Jew who was brought up in a conservative Jewish household,
afraid of agitating, and possible leathally so, his aged mother by
running off with that new "Christ" heresey, therefore would earn an
eternity of hellfire. That's an incredibly sick worldview, and far
from soft.
Hatter
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible is the word of God? |
18 Sep 2007 10:06:03 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 06:28:55 -0700,
patrick.barnes@standardregister.com wrote:
On Sep 13, 4:19 pm, Hatter <Hatte...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 13, 4:02 pm, wrote:
On Morality, there is nothing but subjectivity. The judgement of
anyone, anything, and any action, must be subject to the moral code of
the observer.
Okay, and thus no objective or universal conclusions can be reached.
About opinion (which is what "morality" is to most people)? Of course
not. Your "morality" is what you believe your god claims it is.
Others believe that morality is what they believe their interpretation
of their god's wishes are.
And your god's wishes are no more absolute than your own wishes.
Didn't the definition of "morality" change between the Old Testament
and the New Testament? Then again with the Koran? Then again with
the Mormons? Yet it's all supposed to be the morality of the same
god.
And your "morality" is your choice. You could just as soon choose to
worship Kali - would that make murdering people moral - because you
CHOSE to believe it does?
All that a person can do is make a personal judgment. Whether you say
God is not subject to a person's moral judgement or whether you say
God is subject to a person's moral judgement but must then reach the
conclusion that the person's moral judgement is of no consequence to
anyone but that person, is immaterial don't you think?
To what? Morality is the same in all people who have morals. To
those who don't - the majority of the population - it's something you
can only guess at, as you do so badly above. You choose to believe in
what you choose to believe in - there's nothing absolute about that.
The fact that some book says "X is good, but Y is bad" doesn't MAKE X
good and Y bad - it's just what's written in a book that you CHOOSE to
believe is the absolute word of the god you CHOOSE to believe in.
Do you REALLY think that YOU'RE *SO* important that your beliefs
constitute reality?
I disagree by removing God from the equation...that means one less
presupposition for the equation. Remember Occam's Razor was not
invented for this argument.
I would agree with you were God not the entire focus of the argument.
The focus of the argument is your ASSERTION that your god exists
objectively. Since you can't provide any objective evidence of this
objective existence, Occam's Razor says that you're multiplying
entities beyond necessity.
As it is, you can't remove remove the presupposition of God from an
equation whose conclusion is the nonexistence of God.
There's nothing TO remove until you present objective evidence that
there objectively is a god. Since you make the existentially positive
claim, the burden of proof is yours.
In order to prove that God cannot exist
Sorry, Chuckles, the burden of proof is YOURS. Unless you want to
prove that Leprechauns and Kobolds, and anything anyone else asserts
exists, can't exist.
you must first start with a supposition
that He does exist and then prove it wrong. Otherwise you are
assuming your conclusion, which is a logical fallacy. You can
certainly use Occam's Razor here, but you have to confine its use to
the conclusion. Given that, "God does not exist" and "God does not
care" are equally valid answers for why there is suffering.
Here's your grade in the Logic 101 class you SHOULD HAVE taken:
Zero.
It's the existentially POSITIVE assertion (yours, in this case) that
requires proof. No one bears the burden of disproving your assertion.
Actually the God of Judaism is fairly evil by our standards. It is
the New Testament that softens Him up.
Which puts us into the logical problem of inconsistent behavior from a
being that is supposedly consistent and eternal.
Well, there is an explanation for that. The pre-messiah and post-
messiah worlds are different. Jesus ushered in a new era. We are in
the age of grace right now. At its conclusion the rules will change
again.
Has nothing to do with a god that's not subject to man's laws. If
he's consistent, he'd maintain consistency regardless of what happens
in OUR world.
God, having created the universe (which is a singularity) is outside
the universe. (If he were inside it he'd have had to be created with
it, since nothing can be both within and without a singularity - which
is one of the reasons it's called a singularity.) Since time is a
property of space ("the universe"), God is (being outside the
universe), of necessity, atemporal, so nothing "changes" for him, so
the argument is incompetent.
(This has nothing to do with anyone being subject to anyone's rules -
it has to do with the nature of reality, which even a real god is
subject to.)
And I'm not sure the
concept of "eternal hellfire" being added is actually softening him
up.
That concept also includes the idea that nobody actually goes into
that fire unless it is of their own choosing.
It's not "of their own choosing", since no one would actually choose
to go to hell. It's HIS choosing, based on your actions. He could
just as easily choose to send everyone to heaven regardless of how
they lived.
Christianity's "arguments" are ALL totally incompetent, since they're
ALL totally made up. Real-world arguments (those outside your
religion) don't usually have that problem since, dealing with real
things, they're at least somewhat consistent from one sentence to the
next. No one claims that, for instance, gravity, being a repulsive
force ... That would be blatantly stupid. Claiming things about a
made up god is easy - until the next claim makes the first one
ridiculous.
"God is subject to his own laws. Except for those he chooses not to
be subject to."
"Morality comes from God. But that's not a claim that those who
accept God's morality are more moral than those who don't."
"An omni-good God CHOSE to create beings with free will KNOWING that
they would sin. Then he CHOSE to hold their descendants - for all
time - responsible for that sin."
You can't expect sane adults to accept your contradictory nonsense,
any more than a parent accepts the claim of a child caught with his
hand in the cookie jar that he wasn't trying to take a cookie out of
it. It's mildly amusing, but not something to be taken seriously.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible is the word of God? |
19 Sep 2007 11:01:55 AM |
|
|
On Sep 18, 11:06 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 06:28:55 -0700,
wrote:
On Sep 13, 4:19 pm, Hatter <Hatte...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 13, 4:02 pm, wrote:
On Morality, there is nothing but subjectivity. The judgement of
anyone, anything, and any action, must be subject to the moral code of
the observer.
Okay, and thus no objective or universal conclusions can be reached.
About opinion (which is what "morality" is to most people)? Of course
not. Your "morality" is what you believe your god claims it is.
Others believe that morality is what they believe their interpretation
of their god's wishes are.
And your god's wishes are no more absolute than your own wishes.
Didn't the definition of "morality" change between the Old Testament
and the New Testament? Then again with the Koran? Then again with
the Mormons? Yet it's all supposed to be the morality of the same
god.
And your "morality" is your choice. You could just as soon choose to
worship Kali - would that make murdering people moral - because you
CHOSE to believe it does?
I agree with all of what you've said, however it is a digression from
the point.
All that a person can do is make a personal judgment. Whether you say
God is not subject to a person's moral judgement or whether you say
God is subject to a person's moral judgement but must then reach the
conclusion that the person's moral judgement is of no consequence to
anyone but that person, is immaterial don't you think?
To what?
To an argument that God is immoral.
Morality is the same in all people who have morals.
That is unsupported supposition.
To
those who don't - the majority of the population - it's something you
can only guess at, as you do so badly above. You choose to believe in
what you choose to believe in - there's nothing absolute about that.
The fact that some book says "X is good, but Y is bad" doesn't MAKE X
good and Y bad - it's just what's written in a book that you CHOOSE to
believe is the absolute word of the god you CHOOSE to believe in.
Yes, that is exactly my point. You're basically restating my position
and calling it a rebuttal. Maybe my original comments weren't clear.
Do you REALLY think that YOU'RE *SO* important that your beliefs
constitute reality?
Nope. But apparently, per your comment about morality being the same
in all people who have morals, you do.
I disagree by removing God from the equation...that means one less
presupposition for the equation. Remember Occam's Razor was not
invented for this argument.
I would agree with you were God not the entire focus of the argument.
The focus of the argument is your ASSERTION that your god exists
objectively.
What assertion? I have never made any such assertion.
Since you can't provide any objective evidence of this
objective existence, Occam's Razor says that you're multiplying
entities beyond necessity.
Sure, that's a valid use of Occam's Razor. It is not, however, the
use to which Hatter put it in the post I was responding to.
As it is, you can't remove remove the presupposition of God from an
equation whose conclusion is the nonexistence of God.
There's nothing TO remove until you present objective evidence that
there objectively is a god. Since you make the existentially positive
claim, the burden of proof is yours.
Not in this case it isn't. His existence is assumed in the original
premise. You can certainly use Occam's Razor to prove there is no God
but the argument has to be constructed to handle it, and in this case
it is not. The original argument is that God can't exist because
suffering exists and God is supposedly moral but allowing suffering to
go on is immoral. The proof for God not existing is the contradiction
there. Occam's Razor cannot be used in that instance to remove God
from the equation as God is the equation to begin with. There would
be no contradiction, no reason for the argument in the first place, if
God did not exist. You may conclude that God does not exist, however
you must first presuppose His existence in order to begin the argument
at all.
There are any number of arguments that attempt to poke holes in
Christianity by pointing out inconsistencies. One thing every such
argument has in common is the implicit "If God exists..." component to
them. As soon as this happens, you are precluded from using Occam's
Razor. Any such use constitutes the logical fallacy of assuming your
conclusion.
Using Occam's Razor is fine, and using theological inconsistences and
contradictions is fine, but the two of them do not work together. In
short, "does God exist" and "if God exists, why is there suffering in
the world" are not the same question and Occam's Razor does not
necessarily lead to the same answer.
In order to prove that God cannot exist
Sorry, Chuckles, the burden of proof is YOURS. Unless you want to
prove that Leprechauns and Kobolds, and anything anyone else asserts
exists, can't exist.
The burden of proof is not mine *in this conversation.* Sure, in
general, the burden of proof is mine if I wish to claim that God
exists. However, that is not what is going on right now. Right now,
someone else is claiming God *cannot* exist. And that puts the burden
of proof on him.
you must first start with a supposition
that He does exist and then prove it wrong. Otherwise you are
assuming your conclusion, which is a logical fallacy. You can
certainly use Occam's Razor here, but you have to confine its use to
the conclusion. Given that, "God does not exist" and "God does not
care" are equally valid answers for why there is suffering.
Here's your grade in the Logic 101 class you SHOULD HAVE taken:
Zero.
It's the existentially POSITIVE assertion (yours, in this case) that
requires proof. No one bears the burden of disproving your assertion.
Here's your grade in the Reading Comprehension class you SHOULD HAVE
taken:
Zero.
I have made no assertion. You can go ahead and read all of my posts
in this thread and you will see not one positive assertion made.
Hatter is the one making the assertion here, that a moral God cannot
exist as long as there is suffering in the world.
Next time, try to follow the actual conversation instead of making
assumptions based on preconceived stereotypes. Just because I am in
the position of the theist, does not mean I am attempting to prove God
exists.
Actually the God of Judaism is fairly evil by our standards. It is
the New Testament that softens Him up.
Which puts us into the logical problem of inconsistent behavior from a
being that is supposedly consistent and eternal.
Well, there is an explanation for that. The pre-messiah and post-
messiah worlds are different. Jesus ushered in a new era. We are in
the age of grace right now. At its conclusion the rules will change
again.
Has nothing to do with a god that's not subject to man's laws.
It is God's law, not man's law. Did man create Jesus? No. God did.
If
he's consistent, he'd maintain consistency regardless of what happens
in OUR world.
No He wouldn't. You're looking at it the wrong way. God was not
*reacting* to what happened in our world, God was *causing* what
happened in our world.
God, having created the universe (which is a singularity) is outside
the universe. (If he were inside it he'd have had to be created with
it, since nothing can be both within and without a singularity - which
is one of the reasons it's called a singularity.) Since time is a
property of space ("the universe"), God is (being outside the
universe), of necessity, atemporal, so nothing "changes" for him, so
the argument is incompetent.
No. We are not God. God interacts with us based on our limited
capacity. God isn't the one who is bound by time, we are. So, just
as you did before, you aren't looking at things from the proper
perspective.
(This has nothing to do with anyone being subject to anyone's rules -
it has to do with the nature of reality, which even a real god is
subject to.)
No, He isn't.
And I'm not sure the
concept of "eternal hellfire" being added is actually softening him
up.
That concept also includes the idea that nobody actually goes into
that fire unless it is of their own choosing.
It's not "of their own choosing", since no one would actually choose
to go to hell. It's HIS choosing, based on your actions. He could
just as easily choose to send everyone to heaven regardless of how
they lived.
No, He couldn't. Man has free will. If a man uses that free will to
reject God, then that man has made a choice. God respects that choice
and does not force Himself on unwilling people.
Christianity's "arguments" are ALL totally incompetent, since they're
ALL totally made up. Real-world arguments (those outside your
religion) don't usually have that problem since, dealing with real
things, they're at least somewhat consistent from one sentence to the
next. No one claims that, for instance, gravity, being a repulsive
force ... That would be blatantly stupid. Claiming things about a
made up god is easy - until the next claim makes the first one
ridiculous.
"God is subject to his own laws. Except for those he chooses not to
be subject to."
Yes, exactly. Same as you. If you decide to go on a diet you are
restricted in what you can eat, but the only restriction is one you
put on yourself. You can choose to break it anytime you want.
"Morality comes from God. But that's not a claim that those who
accept God's morality are more moral than those who don't."
No it isn't. There is no connection betweeen the two. The only
connection there is one put there by atheists as a strawman so they
can then knock it down. In reality, free will dictates that some
people will choose to be moral regardless of whether or not they
choose to accept Christ. That has no bearing upon the idea that moral
concepts exist, as all other things exist, because God created them.
"An omni-good God CHOSE to create beings with free will KNOWING that
they would sin. Then he CHOSE to hold their descendants - for all
time - responsible for that sin."
Far as I know, if you manage to live without sin you are free to enter
Heaven. For the rest of us, we need a way to get rid of that sin.
And knowing they would sin and causing them to sin are two different
things.
You can't expect sane adults to accept your contradictory nonsense,
any more than a parent accepts the claim of a child caught with his
hand in the cookie jar that he wasn't trying to take a cookie out of
it. It's mildly amusing, but not something to be taken seriously.
And you can't expect a sane theist to be swayed by your pedantic
logical arguments against God. You're just like a fundamentalist
zealot, except from the opposite perspective. But both of you try to
take the Bible absolutely literally.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible is the word of God? |
19 Sep 2007 01:53:48 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 09:01:55 -0700,
patrick.barnes@standardregister.com wrote:
On Sep 18, 11:06 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 06:28:55 -0700,
All that a person can do is make a personal judgment. Whether you say
God is not subject to a person's moral judgement or whether you say
God is subject to a person's moral judgement but must then reach the
conclusion that the person's moral judgement is of no consequence to
anyone but that person, is immaterial don't you think?
To what?
To an argument that God is immoral.
Non-existent things aren't in the class that allows morality. (You're
assuming that God objectively exists.)
Morality is the same in all people who have morals.
That is unsupported supposition.
Only to amoral people. Moral people know it's as true as the
"unsupported supposition" (to someone who's blind) that grass isn't
the same color as the sky.
Do you REALLY think that YOU'RE *SO* important that your beliefs
constitute reality?
Nope. But apparently, per your comment about morality being the same
in all people who have morals, you do.
No more than my telling a blind person that I can see colors would be.
The focus of the argument is your ASSERTION that your god exists
objectively.
What assertion? I have never made any such assertion.
You're claiming, then, that your god is a figment of your imagination?
(Do you know what "objectively exists" means?)
As it is, you can't remove remove the presupposition of God from an
equation whose conclusion is the nonexistence of God.
There's nothing TO remove until you present objective evidence that
there objectively is a god. Since you make the existentially positive
claim, the burden of proof is yours.
Not in this case it isn't.
It is.
His existence is assumed
By you - not by anyone reading your post in alt.atheism, which is one
of the places you posted it. "If God existed" is not assuming that he
actually does exist, any more than "if beggars were kings" assumes
that beggars are kings.
You can certainly use Occam's Razor to prove there is no God
but the argument has to be constructed to handle it, and in this case
it is not.
The "argument" is that you haven't presented any objective evidence
that your god objectively exists. By making the assertion that it
does, you've voluntarily (knowingly or unknowingly) assumed the burden
of proof. WE aren't assuming that God exists, YOU are.
The original argument is that God can't exist because
suffering exists and God is supposedly moral but allowing suffering to
go on is immoral. The proof for God not existing is the contradiction
there.
God is defined in the Bible. That god - *as defined in the Bible* -
can not exist if suffering exists.
If you want to define a different god, go ahead, but that's not the
god being discussed.
Occam's Razor cannot be used in that instance to remove God
from the equation as God is the equation to begin with.
Where? "If the god defined in the Bible were to exist" assumes that
it does? It doesn't.
There would
be no contradiction, no reason for the argument in the first place, if
God did not exist.
And the argument shows that God, the god that Christianity defines as
the omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent creator of the universe,
CAN NOT exist if suffering exists.
You may conclude that God does not exist, however
you must first presuppose His existence in order to begin the argument
at all.
You can't possibly have ever passed a book store in which there was a
copy of a logic text. Doing so, you would have absorbed more
knowledge of logic than this sentence shows.
You must assume that existence of X in order to argue that X can't
exist? Which universe do you live in? Not this one.
"If wishes were horses" would be a particularly stupid saying, if that
were true, wouldn't it? We have to assume that wishes ARE horses to
show that they aren't?
There are any number of arguments that attempt to poke holes in
Christianity by pointing out inconsistencies. One thing every such
argument has in common is the implicit "If God exists..."
Sorry, no. It's "If God actually exist*E*D* ..." - that's not an
assumption that he does.
As soon as this happens, you are precluded from using Occam's
Razor.
By what convoluted logic? The assumption is that God DOESN'T exist,
so assuming his existence is precluded - by Occam as well as for other
reasons.
Any such use constitutes the logical fallacy of assuming your
conclusion.
The initial assumption is that, barring evidence, God doesn't exist.
Always. Not only for God, but for any existentially positive
assertion.
Using Occam's Razor is fine, and using theological inconsistences and
contradictions is fine, but the two of them do not work together. In
short, "does God exist" and "if God exists, why is there suffering in
the world" are not the same question and Occam's Razor does not
necessarily lead to the same answer.
Nice little straw fire, but "If God exists" doesn't assume that he
does.
In order to prove that God cannot exist
Sorry, Chuckles, the burden of proof is YOURS. Unless you want to
prove that Leprechauns and Kobolds, and anything anyone else asserts
exists, can't exist.
The burden of proof is not mine *in this conversation.*
Sure it is - it's the existentially POSITIVE assertion that bears the
burden of proof. Regardless of the conversation, YOURS is the
assertion that God objectively exists.
Sure, in general, the burden of proof is mine if I wish to claim that God
exists. However, that is not what is going on right now. Right now,
someone else is claiming God *cannot* exist.
That a very specifically defined god can not objectively exist under
very specifically defined conditions. The god that you claim does
objectively exist.
And that puts the burden of proof on him.
And it was proved, despite the fact that you tried to redefine the god
to disprove the proof.
I have made no assertion. You can go ahead and read all of my posts
in this thread and you will see not one positive assertion made.
You're assuming the objective existence of a god - that's a positive
assertion by implication, but it's a positive assertion nonetheless.
Hatter is the one making the assertion here, that a moral God cannot
exist as long as there is suffering in the world.
No, that the SPECIFIC moral god that Christianity defines can't.
Next time, try to follow the actual conversation
I'd suggest that you do the same - your "not limited by the laws of
man" god isn't the one he was discussing.
Just because I am in the position of the theist, does not mean I am attempting to prove God
exists.
Nevertheless, your assumption that God objectively exists assumes the
burden of proof.
Well, there is an explanation for that. The pre-messiah and post-
messiah worlds are different. Jesus ushered in a new era. We are in
the age of grace right now. At its conclusion the rules will change
again.
Has nothing to do with a god that's not subject to man's laws.
It is God's law
Assuming an objectively real god.
God did.
If he did anything objectively real, he has to objectively exist -
your burden of proof.
If
he's consistent, he'd maintain consistency regardless of what happens
in OUR world.
No He wouldn't. You're looking at it the wrong way. God was not
*reacting* to what happened in our world, God was *causing* what
happened in our world.
Christianity defines him as omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent,
so you have to accept that definition. So is he incapable of
eliminating suffering, unwilling to eliminate it or both?
God, having created the universe (which is a singularity) is outside
the universe. (If he were inside it he'd have had to be created with
it, since nothing can be both within and without a singularity - which
is one of the reasons it's called a singularity.) Since time is a
property of space ("the universe"), God is (being outside the
universe), of necessity, atemporal, so nothing "changes" for him, so
the argument is incompetent.
No. We are not God. God interacts with us based on our limited
capacity.
That would mean that he's inside the universe, so he can't have
created it.
God isn't the one who is bound by time, we are.
Again - then he has to be inside the universe, so he can't have
created it.
So, just as you did before, you aren't looking at things from the proper
perspective.
I'm just taking your claims to their conclusions - conclusions you
can't, or won't, look at.
(This has nothing to do with anyone being subject to anyone's rules -
it has to do with the nature of reality, which even a real god is
subject to.)
No, He isn't.
Then he isn't real. Real things are subject to reality (by
definition).
And I'm not sure the
concept of "eternal hellfire" being added is actually softening him
up.
That concept also includes the idea that nobody actually goes into
that fire unless it is of their own choosing.
It's not "of their own choosing", since no one would actually choose
to go to hell. It's HIS choosing, based on your actions. He could
just as easily choose to send everyone to heaven regardless of how
they lived.
No, He couldn't. Man has free will.
Then God can't be omniscient, since he can't know what we WILL choose,
only what we CAN choose.
If a man uses that free will to
reject God, then that man has made a choice. God respects that choice
and does not force Himself on unwilling people.
Irrelevant to the discussion.
You either have a god that's omnibenevolent and omnipotent, or you
have a god that's limited (whether the limitation is self-imposed or
not is irrelevant). You can't have a limited unlimited god in any
human language.
"God is subject to his own laws. Except for those he chooses not to
be subject to."
Yes, exactly.
Exactly your god is incoherent? (The sentence was deliberately
constructed so as to be completely incoherent.)
If you decide to go on a diet you are
restricted in what you can eat, but the only restriction is one you
put on yourself.
And, therefore, you ARE restricted. You CAN NOT eat something not on
your diet AND stay on that diet. That's the nature of reality.
Your god CAN NOT choose to limit himself AND continue to be unlimited.
You can choose to break it anytime you want.
Then you're NOT on the diet. You CAN NOT choose both to be on the
diet and to break it. Any more than your god can choose to be limited
and unlimited.
"Morality comes from God. But that's not a claim that those who
accept God's morality are more moral than those who don't."
No it isn't.
Again - the sentence was constructed to be completely incoherent.
Get back to me when you've learned logic. And English.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible is the word of God? |
26 Sep 2007 12:37:01 PM |
|
|
On Sep 19, 2:53 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 09:01:55 -0700,
patrick.bar...@standardregister.com wrote:
On Sep 18, 11:06 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 06:28:55 -0700,
All that a person can do is make a personal judgment. Whether you say
God is not subject to a person's moral judgement or whether you say
God is subject to a person's moral judgement but must then reach the
conclusion that the person's moral judgement is of no consequence to
anyone but that person, is immaterial don't you think?
To what?
To an argument that God is immoral.
Non-existent things aren't in the class that allows morality.
So Clarice Starling wasn't a good character and Hannibal Lector wasn't
an evil character?
(You're
assuming that God objectively exists.)
No, it's a discussion in purely hypothetical terms.
I'm not quite sure why you and Christopher Lee seem to have this
obsession with wringing an admission from me that God objectively
exists. I have no proof that He does. I do not claim there is any
such proof. Sorry. My belief is just my belief, I do not claim it as
objectively observable reality.
Morality is the same in all people who have morals.
That is unsupported supposition.
Only to amoral people.
Circular reasoning.
Moral people know it's as true as the
"unsupported supposition" (to someone who's blind) that grass isn't
the same color as the sky.
Do you REALLY think that YOU'RE *SO* important that your beliefs
constitute reality?
Nope. But apparently, per your comment about morality being the same
in all people who have morals, you do.
No more than my telling a blind person that I can see colors would be.
Nonresponsive. You've simply restated the same thing you said
before. That does not demonstrate that morals are objective.
The focus of the argument is your ASSERTION that your god exists
objectively.
What assertion? I have never made any such assertion.
You're claiming, then, that your god is a figment of your imagination?
No, I'm claiming that I have made no assertions about God's objective
existence in this thread one way or the other.
(Do you know what "objectively exists" means?)
Yes. I know what it means well enough to know that it is possible to
have a theoretical discussion about God without claiming that God
exists objectively. Which is, in fact, what I have been doing, your
protests to the contrary.
As it is, you can't remove remove the presupposition of God from an
equation whose conclusion is the nonexistence of God.
There's nothing TO remove until you present objective evidence that
there objectively is a god. Since you make the existentially positive
claim, the burden of proof is yours.
Not in this case it isn't.
It is.
I have no burden of proof regarding God's existence in the real
universe when I'm not claiming God exists in the real universe. It's
a conversation. It is not reality.
His existence is assumed
By you - not by anyone reading your post in alt.atheism, which is one
of the places you posted it.
Yes, it is assumed by everyone who participates in a conversation
about God that God is in the conversation. If God were not in the
conversation about God, then the conversation would not be about God
at all. It's really very elementary. So much so that I can hardly
believe a thread lasting this long has come out of such an axiomatic
concept.
"If God existed" is not assuming that he
actually does exist, any more than "if beggars were kings" assumes
that beggars are kings.
It does not assume beggars are kings in reality, but it does assume
that the conversation will be comparing beggars and kings for some
reason, and therefore Occam's Razor cannot be used to remove either
beggars or kings from the conversation as being unnecessary entities.
Both beggars and kings are integral to the conversation.
And you should take this concept you've just written here and go back
and apply it earlier, wherein you are insisting my claims that God
cannot be taken out of the conversation constitute some sort of claim
that God objectively exists.
You can certainly use Occam's Razor to prove there is no God
but the argument has to be constructed to handle it, and in this case
it is not.
The "argument" is that you haven't presented any objective evidence
that your god objectively exists.
That may be what you'd like the argument to be in your straw man, but
that isn't what it is.
The actual argument was Hatter's contention that the existence of a
moral God is inconsisent with a world containing suffering. And that
was the argument I was responding to, not your straw man wherein I
positively asserted God's existence in the real world.
By making the assertion that it
does, you've voluntarily (knowingly or unknowingly) assumed the burden
of proof. WE aren't assuming that God exists, YOU are.
You would be correct, if had made any such assertion. I did not.
The original argument is that God can't exist because
suffering exists and God is supposedly moral but allowing suffering to
go on is immoral. The proof for God not existing is the contradiction
there.
God is defined in the Bible. That god - *as defined in the Bible* -
can not exist if suffering exists.
If you want to define a different god, go ahead, but that's not the
god being discussed.
At least finally you're addressing the actual topic instead of trying
to shove some assertion of God's existence straw man on me.
Occam's Razor cannot be used in that instance to remove God
from the equation as God is the equation to begin with.
Where? "If the god defined in the Bible were to exist" assumes that
it does? It doesn't.
It assumes the god defined in the Bible is germaine to the
conversation topic at hand, and thus cannot be eliminated with Occam's
Razor as being an unnecessary entity. God is necessary to the
conversation in order to have the conversation about God.
There would
be no contradiction, no reason for the argument in the first place, if
God did not exist.
| | | | | | | | | | | |
