God (Part 1): Anti-God Reasoning Blunders

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Religion
Email this Topic • Print this Page

[SIZE="4"]This is a three part "God" series (i.e., posted in three different threads here in the Religion Sub-Forum).

For "God (Part 1): Anti-God Reasoning Blunders," in this thread I will point out what I see as seven major reasoning flaws atheists and agnostics often make in reasoning against the possibility of God. My objective in Part 1 is to identify deficient conclusions and premises, and set up concepts for Part 2 & 3 of the series. (Just so it is clear, I am not religious, I am not going to argue that there is a God, and by the term "God" I don't necessarily mean anything described by religions.)

The next thread in the series is where I suggest there is a very long history of individuals pursuing another way to know God (whatever that is) in "God (Part 2): God Epistemology," found here: http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/philosophy-religion/3632-god-part-2-god-epistemology.html

Finally the last segment in the series, "God (Part 3): God As Self-evolution of Consciousness," I suggest the people who practice and work to learn the so-called "God epistemology" are really developing a relatively little-known consciousness potential, and so it is time to disassociate that specific effort from the practices of religion, found here: http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/philosophy-religion/3633-god-part-3-self-evolution-consciousness.html

So here we go, starting with . . .

ANTI-GOD REASONING BLUNDERS

Reasoning Blunder #1: Religious Concepts, Beliefs, and Practices are synonymous with the existence of God.

Religion and God are two completely different subjects; God's existence is not disproved if the religious are deluded, if the religious harbor ridiculous beliefs, if religious practice nonsense, or if the religious fail to prove God exists. This fallacy is commonly seen in the atheistic improbability arguments against religious concepts like supernaturalism, OT portrayals of God, the omniscience-omnipotent character of God, the trinity, and other such traits that aren't necessary to a plausible creator-consciousness model, but which atheists treat as defining the entire issue.

The possibility the universe, as a whole, is conscious somehow (and that some have managed to detect it and called that consciousness "God") is not decided by what the religious are, believe or do.

Reasoning Blunder #2: Religion causes people to do bad/stupid things.

Unreserved religion-hater Richard Dawkins has said, "The achievements of religion in past history --- bloody crusades, torturing inquisitions, mass-murdering conquistadors, culture-destroying missionaries, legally enforced resistance to each new piece of scientific truth . . . [has] all been in aid of . . . absolutely nothing at all."

Mr. Dawkins' mistake is one many atheists/agnostics make, the fallacy of equating correlation with causation. If an earthquake occurs while I'm sleeping, should I conclude sleeping caused the earthquake? Many find religion insufferable, but if humanity weren't religious would we be any less violent or selfish, or is it that humans are already like that and it shows up in religion just like it shows up in politics and business and marriage and everything else we do?

Bloody crusades, torture, mass murder and culture destroying are not proven caused by religion simply because some people do them in the name of religion. Human beings have been doing such things since our beginnings in the "name of" glory, political ideology, moral grounds, revenge, racial superiority, and, yes Mr. Dawkins, even science.

The Nazi Dr. Josef Mengele collected about 1,500 sets of twins for scientific research where one twin served as a control while the other endured some horrible experiment, and that was followed up by lethal injections of chloroform into their hearts to ready them for post-mortem dissection. Atheists Stalin and Mao killed or caused the deaths of millions. Were science and atheism the evils in those instances?

Reasoning Blunder #3: God can be logically confirmed or refuted.

To try to prove or disprove God through reason alone is the height of folly, yet every discussion forum I've visited still has people beating their heads against the wall arguing one side of the debate or the other.

Why is it futile? Because the standard of proof today is experience, and therefore no rational argument alone proves anything unobserved. That kind of rationalism, thankfully, is dead (it's just that some diehard philosophers still refuse to accept it). And of course, it is utterly hopeless endeavoring to disprove God since we can't possibly look everywhere to check if he/she/it is tucked away somewhere that's hard to get at.

Reasoning Blunder #4: Entangling the mind in a false dilemma over being unable to "believe" in God.

Isn't belief without relevant supporting experience a delusion? So if one hasn't experienced God, why should the inexperienced feel obliged to decide the issue? The "false dilemma," then, is to feel compelled to decide there is not a God because one hasn't enough experience to believe there is one. Personally, I think refusing to believe fully or have strong opinions about what one hasn't experienced is a sign of intelligence.

Reasoning Blunder #5: Egocentric opinions.

While it may be a sign of intelligence to resist believing what one hasn't personally experienced, it is incorrect to conclude that what one hasn't experienced does not exist or is not true. What if, in the God's existence question, one lacks the specific experiential skills necessary to experience God? It is always a mistake to use one's own abilities as the standard for judging what is possible (or impossible) for the rest of humanity; objective truths of reality do not revolve around what one individual knows, believes, values, or is capable of.

Reasoning Blunder #6: Ethnocentric learning filters.

The priorities of the culture we are born into begin at birth relentlessly shaping our personal priorities, views, and what we wish for; that in turn determines what we learn in order to achieve our priorities, sustain our cherished views, and attain what we wish for.

In Western culture we are exposed very early to at least two major influences that are now intertwined. The first is a set of mental skills, skills if learned will create a logical mind oriented toward understanding the physical world. The heritage that gave us this learning priority can be traced back to the Greeks, and now seems to have culminated in scientific expertise. One might argue that our second huge cultural influence, free market capitalism, was a good fit to a democracy, also Greek-inspired.

The basic techniques of science and capitalism are applied in most professional walks of life. What are those techniques? Use your senses to observe how reality works, and use your intellect to figure out ways to manipulate reality so that it has market value (I realize there is "pure" science too).

Because success in life and social acceptance are so tied to these priorities, we assume the priorities of our lifelong environment: to prepare for successfully participating in our culture entails accepting the epistemology required to "know" how to participate.

The end result is that Western culture produces a strong predilection for understanding the physical world; and because the type of knowing needed for that relies on sense experience and the intellect, we tend on the one hand to approach all subjects determined to "know" them with senses and intellect, and on the other to "filter" out any claims to knowing that are not verifiable by the senses and intellect. This in turn often leads to the last blunder . . .

Reasoning Blunder #7: Replacing blind faith in religion with blind faith in physicalism.

As Michael Shermer wrote in his column Skeptic for Scientific American magazine some years back, "being the Age of Science, it is scientism's shamans who command our veneration." The inside track to universal ontology offers even more status to a group who is already powerful because scientific discoveries are applied to technology, and technology is now counted on for everything from healthcare, transportation, household comfort, entertainment, business and construction to ecology, national defense, education, computer science and more.

It is a physicalistic god we are encouraged to believe in by accomplished mechanic priests who, after having been born into the deeply-organized situation of our universe, pronounce their god responsible for its creativity. Yet observation fails to support the theory of mechanistic creativity, which instead at every turn is witnessed as dry, ordinary, and repetitive. Likewise, science thinking hasn't shown itself to be wisdom, it has only demonstrated it is advantageous to physical understanding and mechanical know-how. That's it, nothing more (or less, of course-there is no question about the impressive physical accomplishments of science).

So those scientism devotees using society's openness to, interest in, and dependence on science as a bully pulpit to push their belief in a mechanistic god are hawking blind faith. Their faith in a physical creator cannot yet stem from actual experience, but it may be born from religious distaste, an eagerness to claim understanding of the foundation of existence, and a desire for the prescriptive rights that come with that understanding.

What does all that have to do with God? Well, what if senses and intellect so useful to science and everyday survival aren't part of the epistemology that produces God knowledge? Thus we've arrived at Part 2 of this series, to be continued as "God (Part 2): God Epistemology" here: http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/philosophy-religion/3632-god-part-2-god-epistemology.html[/SIZE]

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 3,068 • Replies: 46

No top replies

@LWSleeth,

Damn, very excellent post! I look forward to your other posts!

P.S. #3 is Kierkegaard's argument in a nutshell! hehe

Edit: Lol, you hade 2 and 3 already!

1 Reply

@Victor Eremita,

Victor Eremita;48735 wrote:

Damn, very excellent post! I look forward to your other posts!

P.S. #3 is Kierkegaard's argument in a nutshell!

Thanks. I think blunder #2 is almost as prevalent as #3. Check out the "Adult Atheist" thread and the insistence by the thread author to indulge in the fallacy of correlation (i.e., to assume events that happen together have a causal link). Any philosopher with a ounce of honesty would acknowledge it's at best improper logic, and at worst hate mongering.

It isn't atheists that I'm pointing at you know, it is illogical and sophist debating. I've seen Christians use exactly the same argument against atheists by claiming the murderous nature of Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao (or at least Mao's indifference to the starvation of millions) was caused by atheism. A typical rant: Atheism path for godless ideology leading to mass murder | News-Leader.com | Springfield News-Leader

A simple test for the proposition that religion has "caused" evil is to go back before we had serious religion. Were ancient civilizations less evil, less murderous, less likely to rape, more humane? Or should we blame the "gods" for all the evils of that period. It seems to me that Rome became more humane after adopting Christianity, yet I wouldn't leap to the conclusion that religion "caused" that improvement.

No, it's the state of human consciousness that's at the root of the problems. The person wanting to be good may find help from religious inspiration, or he may find some morality in naturalism, etc., but the deciding factor isn't the philosophy one adopts to help, but rather it is the desire that arises in someone to change for the better. And of course, the opposite is true too, neither religion nor atheism (nor any other discipline) will prevent someone intent on evil from going forward.

In my opinion, the continuing "blame" game by apologists for their chosen belief is both raw stupidity and often an attempt to intellectualize some justification for hatred.

1 Reply

@LWSleeth,

:perplexed: LW Sleeth,

It is not really the thing to do to talk negatively about another associate to yet another associate in another thread, it really does not make a difference if you are correct or incorrect.:nonooo: You must be from San Francisco!!

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie;48836 wrote:

:perplexed:
It is not really the thing to do to talk negatively about another associate to yet another associate in another thread, it really does not make a difference if you are correct or not in your statements.:nonooo:

I'm talking about the correctness of your arguments; and I did address them over there, without response from you. If that thread isn't a hate thread, then I don't know what is. I can't understand why it is even allowed because to make your argument you have to persist in known logic fallacies, at a philosophy forum no less! I think it is beneath your aspirations as a philosopher to do so.

However, I will repost in your thread and give you a chance to justify your assertions.

1 Reply

@LWSleeth,

LWSleeth wrote:

I'm talking about the correctness of your arguments; and I did address them over there, without response from you. If that thread isn't a hate thread, then I don't know what is. I can't understand why it is even allowed because to make your argument you have to persist in known logic fallacies, at a philosophy forum no less! I think it is beneath your aspirations as a philosopher to do so.

However, I will repost in your thread and give you a chance to justify your assertions.

LWSleeth,

The gist of my argument is, that everything is a metaphor referancing the ultimate mystery of being, and if your god is not transparent to that mystery then he/she/it is in your way. As Carl Jung stated religion is a defense against a religious/spiritual experience. That religion is a problem is self-evident just watch the news. The fact that you were perhaps frustrated in not getting a response or not getting the response you wish for in another thread does not give you licence to spread disrespect/ hatred elsewhere, imagine what this place would look like if that indeed was the norm.:thats-enough:

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie;48838 wrote:

The gist of my argument is, that everything is a metaphor referancing the ultimate mystery of being, and if your god is not transparent to that mystery then he/she/it is in your way.:

Fine, if that is your point, then stick to it. However, you also say this:

boagie;48838 wrote:

That religion is a problem is self-evident just watch the news.

This is 100% logic fallacy. It is NOT self-evident. The exact same reason you claim is the "cause" of problems can be made against atheism (and often is). How do you know that if you took religion away, people wouldn't be just as ignorant, violent, etc. as with religion? You have no credible evidence of a causal link between bad/stupid behavior and religion (or atheism); you have no reason to assume that without religion, people would miraculously turn intellectual. I've addressed this in your thread.

boagie;48838 wrote:

The fact that you were perhaps frustrated in not getting a response or not getting the response you wish for in another thread does not give you licence to spread disrespect/ hatred elsewhere, imagine what this place would look like if that indeed was the norm.

I don't want hate going on toward anyone (I do tend to get angry Surprised

), I want you to stop the prejudicial BS and make your case according to the rules of evidence and logic. But if posting here instead of in your thread was inappropriate, I apologize.

However, I'm not the slightest bit repentant at taking aim at your dubious reasoning tactics.

1 Reply

@LWSleeth,

We will see just how logical your god thread is----illusions of grandeur are not that unusual on philosophy forums.

0 Replies

@LWSleeth,

LWSleeth wrote:

Reasoning Blunder #1: Religious Concepts, Beliefs, and Practices are synonymous with the existence of God.

I find this to evidence a commonly used, misleading wording which as such would be extremely self-imploding in nature. I would strongly suggest removing the capitalization on the word god--otherwise we'd have to acquiesce to the following, would we not:

[indent]Religious Concepts, Beliefs, and Practices are synonymous with the existence of YHWH[/indent]

(which is not a blunder of reason--as far as I can see)

1 Reply

@LWSleeth,

Using your "reasoning" per #3, we could argue:

Proof for 2 + 2 = 4 is not possible for today's standard of proof is experience. And since we cannot look at every instance whether 2 + 2 = 4, it cannot be proven. So those advanced math courses like abstract algebra that purports to prove such things are mistaken.

1 Reply

@Sleepy phil,

Sleepy;50342 wrote:

Using your "reasoning" per #3, we could argue:

Proof for 2 + 2 = 4 is not possible for today's standard of proof is experience. And since we cannot look at every instance whether 2 + 2 = 4, it cannot be proven. So those advanced math courses like abstract algebra that purports to prove such things are mistaken.

Well, you are mixing up two ideas. A science proof is a different beast than a math proof.

A "proof" about the nature of reality is not what correct math proves. Correct math is a tautology, and only proves it has obeyed its own rules to reach a conclusion.

So while correctly-done math may give us clues for where to look, for science it doesn't relieve us of the requirement to observe what we hypothesize, mathematically or otherwise, is so.

1 Reply

@KaseiJin,

KaseiJin;50336 wrote:

I find this to evidence a commonly used, misleading wording which as such would be extremely self-imploding in nature. I would strongly suggest removing the capitalization on the word god--otherwise we'd have to acquiesce to the following, would we not:

[indent]Religious Concepts, Beliefs, and Practices are synonymous with the existence of YHWH[/indent]

(which is not a blunder of reason--as far as I can see)

? I'm sorry, but I haven't a clue what you mean.

I know what I meant, and that is often when someone gives their reasons for denying the existence of God, they cite concepts of religion.

I am saying, what religion does and believes is one thing, and the issue of if there is or isn't a God is another.

0 Replies

@LWSleeth,

Thanks for your response. I will admit that I didn't do a real good job of presenting that, and am glad you have questioned it and have provided further detail on what you had meant.

"God" is YHWH-- as usage has made it to be. And YHWH is a very specific god-model described/prescribed in the various documents (especially the Palestinian canon) of the Jewish belief-system. In that way, I argue that to say, ' Religious Concepts, Beliefs, and Practices are synonymous with the existence of God.,' would not really be a blunder--unless we were to decaptialize the word to god. YHWH is very much synonymous in existence with the existence of the database which describes/prescribes that model. That is what I had been getting at; in short, using the word 'god' would have been best.

2 Replies

@KaseiJin,

KaseiJin;50517 wrote:

"God" is YHWH-- as usage has made it to be. And YHWH is a very specific god-model described/prescribed in the various documents (especially the Palestinian canon) of the Jewish belief-system. In that way, I argue that to say, ' Religious Concepts, Beliefs, and Practices are synonymous with the existence of God.,' would not really be a blunder--unless we were to decaptialize the word to god. YHWH is very much synonymous in existence with the existence of the database which describes/prescribes that model. That is what I had been getting at; in short, using the word 'god' would have been best.

I am quite familiar with the concept YHWH, but that's is merely the Jewish take on the subject. Surely you wouldn't suggest God models must restricted to Judeo-Christian views? If you read the rest of this three-part series, you will see I make a case that many people from different cultures learned to experience something they called God (not gods). If you study their reports of their experience, there are great similarities . . . it is only in the concepts about "what it all means" where you find the huge disagreements.

So, I am saying that the concepts, philosophies, theologies, prescriptions for behaviors, rituals, beliefs, moralities, etc. of religion are different from the objective question of whether or not God exists. If there is a God, he/she/it was around before religion.

0 Replies

@KaseiJin,

KaseiJin wrote:

"God" is YHWH-- as usage has made it to be. And YHWH is a very specific god-model described/prescribed in the various documents (especially the Palestinian canon) of the Jewish belief-system. In that way, I argue that to say, ' Religious Concepts, Beliefs, and Practices are synonymous with the existence of God.,' would not really be a blunder--unless we were to decaptialize the word to god. YHWH is very much synonymous in existence with the existence of the database which describes/prescribes that model. That is what I had been getting at; in short, using the word 'god' would have been best.

I don't think we can use the form 'god' for a monotheistic deity. As 'god' is not a name, it would need to be preceded by the word 'a' or 'the'; but that would imply a less than all-powerful being. In any case, I agree with LWSleeth that 'God' does not necessarily imply YHWH.

2 Replies

@ACB,

LWSleeth, thanks for the interesting post; I agree with nearly everything and my objections are simple quibbles: not worth getting into.

But I am a bit surprised that you have not brought up the notion of God's aseity. So many arguments against God overlook this quality, and are, therefore, straw men.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

[SIZE="4"]

Didymos Thomas;50610 wrote:

LWSleeth, thanks for the interesting post

Hi DT, nice to hear from you. I partially created this thread because some time ago you mentioned (if I remember correctly) wanting to hear more about the history of union.

Didymos Thomas;50610 wrote:

But I am a bit surprised that you have not brought up the notion of God's aseity. So many arguments against God overlook this quality, and are, therefore, straw men.

I am not sure how/why to bring up aseity. Do you mean because it is assumed by the religious and found objectionable by atheists?

To tell you the truth, I can't make sense of the concept myself. I've been working on a "plausible creator" model for some 30 years . . . I like to call the creative aspect of our existence "creationary" to help keep the idea a little more neutral. You will probably recognize my model type as panpsychic; specifically, that consciousness developed, as a sort of general field, prior to our universe, and then helped with high-level organizational aspects of creation.

Anyway, aseity seems to make it impossible to account for why, if God has existed for eternity, creation isn't perfect. Viruses, mosquitos, tsunamis, deformed babies, etc. plus hundreds of millions of years of experimentation before deciding on the human body type (mammal, upright primate) makes it seem like the creationary force is learning. If it learns, then there must have been a point when it was less learned, and following that back there must have been a stage when it was unlearned altogether (sort of like how we infer the Big Bang).

One solution is to have something more basic than a creator, which is where neutral substance monism fits in nicely. In that concept, the eternally-existing thing is not the creator, but rather an infinite ocean of uncreated, indestructible substance. It is neither mind nor physical, but under specific conditions, can become either.

The dynamics of the neutral substance ocean must allow for consciousness to spontaneously, and naturally, develop. But then, because the essence of this creationary dynamic is eternal, it could evolve eternally forward. So while it hasn't always existed, it might forever exist forwardly. With eternity to evolve, it has plenty of time to evolve creationary abilities.

The other cool thing about neutral substance monism as the starting point is that it solves the physicalist complaint of duality in mind body issues. If some sort of uncreated substance is the basis of everything -- God, physicalness, consciousness -- then mind-physical body duality is a non issue. Consciousness can then be modeled as drawn from the "general" creationary field, individuated and held in place by the physical CNS. The brain is not "creating" consciousness (in this model), it is just helping to structure it for individualization from the general field we call "God."

Didymos Thomas;50610 wrote:

I agree with nearly everything and my objections are simple quibbles: not worth getting into.

Well, friendly objections are part of the fun of debating (plus it tests my ability to sustain a creationary model). So please feel free to bring them up.[/SIZE]

1 Reply

@LWSleeth,

LWSleeth wrote:

I am not sure how/why to bring up aseity. Do you mean because it is assumed by the religious and found objectionable by atheists?

I bring it up because aseity tends to be an important concept regarding God in most theology. Most atheists appear to be ignorant of the concept because they often try to argue that "God does not exist" which, according to the concept of aseity, is a nonsensical question about God.

So, when they make arguments to support the conclusion that "God does not exist", they are ignoring the fact that God is thought of as that which cannot but exist.

It may sound as if aseity is just some nasty trick so as to make atheism impossible, but this is not the case. God exists, that is evident: the atheist will find that making a case for God's irrelevence is the more fruitful path, which is what Neitzsche worked toward.

Notice: to say "I do not believe in God" is not necessarily the same as "I do not believe God exists", it could instead mean "I have no faith in God". One might lack faith in God, yet still believe God exists.

[/SIZE][/SIZE]

LWSleeth wrote:

Anyway, aseity seems to make it impossible to account for why, if God has existed for eternity, creation isn't perfect. Viruses, mosquitos, tsunamis, deformed babies, etc. plus hundreds of millions of years of experimentation before deciding on the human body type (mammal, upright primate) makes it seem like the creationary force is learning. If it learns, then there must have been a point when it was less learned, and following that back there must have been a stage when it was unlearned altogether (sort of like how we infer the Big Bang).

Be careful not to mix science and religion.

But who is to say that this reality is not perfect? We imagine that, were we to change this and that, things would be better: but I'm not so convinced. For there to be no tsunami's, or viruses, or mosquitos the very, most essential, laws of nature would have to be changed. How would that effect our human nature; would humans even exist?

This reality is perfect if it offers humanity the perfect opportunity to be saintly. That's it. As everyone everywhere at every moment has the opportunity to act saintly, this reality is perfect. Because that is, after all, the goal: to be a saint. Not for ourselves, but for the sake of everyone. For everyone to be a saint would, indeed, be more perfect than the current state: but God cannot force us to be saintly, that is our human burden.

2 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

[SIZE="4"]Even though we both believe there is something more to existence than physicalness/mechanics, I'm going to disagree with you quite a bit. Why? I think a great deal of God concepts don't make sense, and that is a big reason why thinking people disbelieve.

My position is that reality makes sense, and God as part of reality, must make sense too (I suspect you'd say God is reality).

Didymos Thomas;50622 wrote:

Most atheists appear to be ignorant of the concept because they often try to argue that "God does not exist" which, according to the concept of aseity, is a nonsensical question about God.

I still don't quite see that. Because one claims God has always existed doesn't mean God has.

Didymos Thomas;50622 wrote:

So, when they make arguments to support the conclusion that "God does not exist", they are ignoring the fact that God is thought of as that which cannot but exist.

But, non-believers are not required to submit to how believers see things. If an objective discussion is the goal, we can't force participants to accept our premises unless we can support them with evidence.

Didymos Thomas;50622 wrote:

God exists, that is evident

Evident to whom? To you and I, yes; to the atheist, no.

I believe it is on those who think God is evident to make their case; but not with an argument from the theist belief system, but with evidence of actual experience of what's claimed to be true.

Didymos Thomas;50622 wrote:

the atheist will find that making a case for God's irrelevence is the more fruitful path, which is what Neitzsche worked toward.

Okay, but that atheist argument is normally dependent on showing how physicalness can create itself. That, in fact, is the physicalist claim, exaggerated to the hilt in terms of the self-organizing ability of physicalness or (in E-theory) the creative ability of adaption to bring a single cell along to human consciousness.

Didymos Thomas;50622 wrote:

Be careful not to mix science and religion.

Why? Aren't we after the nature of reality? Whatever helps reveal that is relevant to discovering truth.

My major point is (which you'll find if you read all three parts of this thread series), the epistemology for knowing physicalness is very different from the epistemology for knowing God.

Both are part of the ONE reality, it's just that each requires a different approach to discovering them.

Didymos Thomas;50622 wrote:

But who is to say that this reality is not perfect? We imagine that, were we to change this and that, things would be better: but I'm not so convinced. For there to be no tsunami's, or viruses, or mosquitos the very, most essential, laws of nature would have to be changed. How would that effect our human nature; would humans even exist?

If I were an all powerful, all knowing God, I would have done it better. Why is it a problem if God doesn't know all and isn't omnipotent?

Didymos Thomas;50622 wrote:

This reality is perfect if it offers humanity the perfect opportunity to be saintly. That's it. As everyone everywhere at every moment has the opportunity to act saintly, this reality is perfect.

One day this reality may very well be perfected. Kids will be born into families totally clear what life's purpose is. Right now, relatively few people understand that. How is that "perfect."

Yet, why does God deserve less faith, less devotion, less love if he/she/it is imperfect??? I've never understood that. This creator still spent 11-13 billion years evolving a creation to help us come into being as individuals. Perfection may be a few hundred years away, but then maybe we are part of the perfecting process.

Didymos Thomas;50622 wrote:

Because that is, after all, the goal: to be a saint. Not for ourselves, but for the sake of everyone. For everyone to be a saint would, indeed, be more perfect than the current state: but God cannot force us to be saintly, that is our human burden.

How do you know this? Maybe the goal is to be conscious and happy, and when a person is truly conscious and deeply happy, they automatically turn into a saint.

If that is the progression, then trying to be a "saint" before attaining enlightened consciousness and self-reliant bliss is like trying to be healthy without first eating right and exercising properly.[/SIZE]

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

So, when they make arguments to support the conclusion that "God does not exist", they are ignoring the fact that God is thought of as that which cannot but exist.

We can indeed form the concept of God as 'that which cannot but exist'; but that concept could be wrong. There may be nothing that actually fits that description. To conclude that God must exist begs the question. (In the same way, we can conceive of something that 'cannot but be the present King of France'; but that does not prove that there is a present King of France.)

Quote:

This reality is perfect if it offers humanity the perfect opportunity to be saintly.

Even if it does, you do not appear to have considered the possibility that other possible set-ups could also offer us a perfect opportunity to be saintly. There is no logical rule that says perfection has to be unique.

Quote:

As everyone everywhere at every moment has the opportunity to act saintly, this reality is perfect.

But they clearly do not! Even if saintliness is taken to include thoughts as well as deeds, how can a person act saintly if he/she is asleep, or in a coma, or insane?

Furthermore, this reality does not seem to be an obvious candidate to provide equal opportunity for saintliness, given the huge inequalities in different people's circumstances.

0 Replies

God (Part 1): Anti-God Reasoning Blunders

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know