Another "God" question

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;174427 wrote:

OK then - why is this true? How does the oil spill prove God's non-existence? What is your reasoning?

The oil spill and the earthquake in haiti prove that God does not exist, because God would not allow them by the definition of God. I didn't arrive at the definition of God by reasoning. Are you asking what my reasoning is for saying that words are defined by their usage? I think that's the issue, because the standard response is "that's not what god is, god is something else".

1 Reply

@Jebediah,

Jebediah;174436 wrote:

The oil spill and the earthquake in haiti prove that God does not exist, because God would not allow them by the definition of God..

Whose definition? Where in philosophy, or in the Bible, is God defined as 'a being who does not let disasters happen?'

2 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;174440 wrote:

Whose definition? Where in philosophy, or in the Bible, is God defined as 'a being who does not let disasters happen?'

I answered that question:

jeb wrote:

Are you asking what my reasoning is for saying that words are defined by their usage?

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

Hi Guys,
I don't want to keep saying this, but Isaiah 45:7 says God "created both GOOD and EVIL"
And is the Author of ALL things.

Anyway, have a great day, gentlemen.
Mark...

0 Replies

@Wozz,

Interesting exchanges, in ways (and I have enjoyed the reading). It does really look as though further thought might benefit the flow; as it appears we have several god-models being referred to here and there . . . as though there were a number of floors in the building, and no elevator nor stairs to move amongst them, and posts being made to this central location from those several floors, based on the circumstances of each individual floor, yet all without reference from the perspective of any other floor. (at least that's kind of the image that came to mind, on having read especially the last four pages...and to some degree, reason that it is correct to see it that way)

Carry on.

0 Replies

@Jebediah,

Jebediah;174444 wrote:

I answered that question:

I'm afraid not. I don't think Jebediah has the privileges to create definitions on an ad hoc basis, especially not for philosophically significant terms such as 'God'.

In point of fact, you can never logically prove that God exists, or does not exist.

But you might derive some private comfort from feeling as though you have.

3 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;174449 wrote:

In point of fact, you can never logically prove that God exists, or does not exist.

jeeprs, jeeprs, my dear posting fellow, do you mean to use the capitalized "God," as in YHWH (as that turns out to more specifically be), or do you wish to simply mean some deity, or god-model, whatever description/prescription may be used to individualize that particular model?

It might be good to exactly clarify that, because, in the event you might wish to be pointing towards YHWH, I think we can very, very clearly, and most logically demonstrate the non-existence of such a supposed being.

I do tend to think however, that that is not the model you are pointing towards, though....so further clarification may prove to be good; please.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;174449 wrote:

I'm afraid not. I don't think Jebediah has the privileges to create definitions on an ad hoc basis, especially not for philosophically significant terms such as 'God'.

In point of fact, you can never logically prove that God exists, or does not exist.

But you might derive some private comfort from feeling as though you have.

I have created nothing :perplexed:

Santa claus is defined as the person who delivers presents on christmas, is fat, jolly, has a white beard, comes down the chimney, and has a sleigh with reindeer. Do you see why he is defined that way? Would you argue that the real santa claus has a different definition? That he created the tradition of Christmas and then left? No, that would be immensely confusing and wrong.

When we talk about God in english, we are talking in the monotheistic judeo-christian sense, creator of the universe, supremely good, omniscient, omnipotent, jesus was his son who was resurrected, the ten commandments come from god, you pray to him and he sometimes listens, bible comes from him, heaven and hell, sin and morality. Does it make any sense to say that god (given all of the mental associations we have with that word) is just some being that started the big bang? Why do you think the teaching of evolution was and is resisted by christians?

It's like the trick magicians do when they say "now watch this hand...". A logical argument is made such as one the arguments about how the universe must have come from being. The conclusion of the argument is that God exists. The argument said nothing at all about supremely good, omniscient, omnipotent, etc etc, but we still think it. Nothing has been really asserted, but countless conclusions are drawn from the meaningless assertion, because it plays switchem with the word God.

"Something caused the universe" is the actual logical conclusion of those cosmological type arguments. So why do they convince people to go to church on Sunday?

The fact that people have debated the nature of God does not mean that they should have done so.

0 Replies

@KaseiJin,

KaseiJin;174451 wrote:

It might be good to exactly clarify that, because, in the event you might wish to be pointing towards YHWH, I think we can very, very clearly, and most logically demonstrate the non-existence of such a supposed being.

How, pray tell? I still predict you will only be able to logically demonstrate what you believe.

(A paranthetical comment: the term YHWH was originally derived as a cypher to indicate 'that which cannot be spoken of' or 'that which is too holy to voice'.)

---------- Post added 06-08-2010 at 12:21 PM ----------

Jebediah;174455 wrote:

I have created nothing.

Nor have you explained anything.

2 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;174456 wrote:

Nor have you explained anything.

I was explaining why it is better to use words in philosophy as the are used in ordinary language, and the problems that arise when you don't do that. For example, people are often confused about "laws" because as the word is ordinarily used it is prescriptive. But the laws of nature are not prescriptive, they are descriptive. And this is, I think, unavoidable due to the way in which our brains store words physically. The associations happen automatically.

Why do you disagree?

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;174449 wrote:

In point of fact, you can never logically prove that God exists, or does not exist.

Maybe not logically, but science could possibly discover God eventually?
Of course not to satisfy everyones definition of God. But if God were to have any one attribute that would be universally accepted could it be "creator"? Another popular attribute for God is "omnipresent". God is everywhere, but you cant see it. There are a couple fundamental forces that have this in common with God. So might it be possible that God could be a sort of "living" force, or energy field? If so, this is the sort of thing science could arrive at.

1 Reply

@mark noble,

mark noble;174347 wrote:

Hi Dr Seuss,
Brilliant, I like talking to you. Are you saying that God didn't know that satan was going to turn out evil? because if He didn't He's not very omniscient, is He? And if He did - He thus created him do be so - Hence, satan is only doing (as a henchman) as prescribed - Therefore, there is no need for satan unless God is incapable of carrying out His own acts, don't you think?

Wonderful, I hope you enjoyed your shortbread. I dont have all the answers like no one else does, life is a quest for answers to questions that we dont know. If it wasn't that there are things we dont know we would not have what we do know.Having said that, I think he did not know at the time he created him but he knew what his intentions were later. Just as with the creation of mankind. Why would he create something that he knew would fail him? It would not make much sense for a being so high as the Almighty Creator. Im not God so it would be illogical for me to answer for him. I can only tell you what I have read in the Bible. You want answers go read his Word. After all who am I?

mark noble;174347 wrote:

If I allow my child to murder his friend - how am I vindicating my name? I am an accessory to the fact.

That would be the case under our human law and order.
However, we are in a world that is not ours.
Allowing also implies that you did not try to stop him. God encouraged him to turn back to Him and he rebelled against God and forming an alliance with other angels who shared the same thought. (Demons)

God knew there were angels that supported Satan, but it would not be very just of him to just wipe out and kill all those creatures. In fact he gave them the opportunity to test and see what will benefit them more. To stay with Him or being ruled by the devil.

mark noble;174347 wrote:

Why don't you capitalise in reference to God (Him), (He), for example - and why do you capitalise (Satan)?

That's an easy one. Mistakes. xD

mark noble;174347 wrote:

Free-will? What free-will is there when the plot MUST turn out as MUST? No single outcome can prevail if the preceding cause is variable. Can I die before the time that God has preselected that I do so? No...So if I do slit my throat - It was predeemed that I slit my throat at that precise moment to coincide with God's requirement.

It will turn out because God predicted it to happen. What are prophesies if not predictions that something might happen in the future?

Since God has a perfect and accurate sense of analyzing and predicting all his predictions has turned out to be, making it seem like He is behind it since he 'knows everything'. Its like a profiler for the FBI. They are able to predict behavior from a pattern. Who else better than God that made us understand out patterns?

But that doesnt mean the FBI is behind it.

You slitting your thought wont affect Gods purpose in anyway since how is that going to affect the re-establishment of his kingdom on earth?

mark noble;174347 wrote:

God doesn't need to prove anything, It is all about faith, not proof, isn't it? Faith is pretty pointless once God is proven, don't you think?

You are wrong, faith without acts is dead. James 2:26 "Indeed, as the body without spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead."

1 Reply

@Neil D,

Jebediah;174461 wrote:

I was explaining why it is better to use words in philosophy as the are used in ordinary language, and the problems that arise when you don't do that. For example, people are often confused about "laws" because as the word is ordinarily used it is prescriptive. But the laws of nature are not prescriptive, they are descriptive. And this is, I think, unavoidable due to the way in which our brains store words physically. The associations happen automatically.

Why do you disagree?

Because I don't understand your oil spill argument. Oil spill occured, God should have stopped it, therefore he doesn't exist. That was it, wasn't it? As I said before, I don't think it is a valid argument, and I don't think you have provided any justfication as to why it might be.

Neil;174474 wrote:

Maybe not logically, but science could possibly discover God eventually?

All I can do is refer to one of my favourite quotes:

"Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And it is because in the last analysis we are part of the mystery we are trying to solve." Max Planck.

---------- Post added 06-08-2010 at 01:43 PM ----------

Neil;174474 wrote:

So might it be possible that God could be a sort of "living" force, or energy field? If so, this is the sort of thing science could arrive at.

There are people that beleive the quantum vacuum is 'god'. I don't really understand them, but I can't rule it out. Have a look on Amazon at The God Theory by Bernard Haisch. I didn't really like it much, but you might. (I'll sell you my copy:bigsmile:).

---------- Post added 06-08-2010 at 02:11 PM ----------

Jebediah;174436 wrote:

The oil spill and the earthquake in haiti prove that God does not exist, because God would not allow them by the definition of God. .

I will come back to this point, because I feel it represents a misunderstanding.

If these two particular incidents 'prove that God does not exist', then why stop there? Doesn't the same principle apply to other earthquakes and oil spills? What about the Hindenberg disaster? 9/11? Chernobyl? If anything bad happens - a car accident even - then by the same reasoning you could say 'something bad has happened, this proves God does not exist'.

2 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;174479 wrote:

Because I don't understand your oil spill argument. Oil spill occured, God should have stopped it, therefore he doesn't exist. That was it, wasn't it? As I said before, I don't think it is a valid argument, and I don't think you have provided any justfication as to why it might be.

:listening:

If god exists, he would not let oil spill in the gulf
Oil has spilled in the gulf
Therefore, god does not exist

The argument is perfectly valid--the 3rd premise has to be true if the premises are true. I don't think the 2nd is under dispute.

Quote:

God is supremely good and all powerful and has the ability to work around the laws of nature (he created them in fact). So the existence of terrible things that a good being could have and would have prevented if he existed, is proof that he does not exist.

The question is, what kind of events would god prevent if he existed? Would he prevent the oil spill? It doesn't seem like a huge deal to me, but one could argue it. The earthquake in haiti? Why not? <--I think we were at this point on the last page, how did we end up back here?

0 Replies

@Wozz,

Where do you draw the line, though? If you say 'the oil spill' then why not every other accident or bad thing that happens? Why does any suffering exist at all?

What is God supposed to do, anyway? Come down and put overalls on and take over the drilling operation. I can see all the other guys on the rig - 'Stand aside, commander in chief is here!'

Do you see what I am driving at? I think that what you think God is, is actually Stephen Speilberg, the guy behind the camera, calling the shots.

2 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;174488 wrote:

Where do you draw the line, though? If you say 'the oil spill' then why not every other accident or bad thing that happens? Why does any suffering exist at all?

What is God supposed to do, anyway? Come down and put overalls on and take over the drilling operation. I can see all the other guys on the rig - 'Stand aside, commander in chief is here!'

Do you see what I am driving at? I think that what you think God is, is actually Stephen Speilberg, the guy behind the camera, calling the shots.

But jeeprs. You are presupposing god:

God exists
There is suffering
Therefore, god exists in a way that is not contradictory with the existence of suffering

Is generally what you seem to be arguing.

1 Reply

@Wozz,

I have only asked you to justify your argument. My argument has been negative - I have asserted nothing at all about whether I think God exists. I am saying that the argument from the oil rig disaster says nothing about the question, one way or the other.

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

KaseiJin;174451 wrote:

It might be good to exactly clarify that, because, in the event you might wish to be pointing towards YHWH, I think we can very, very clearly, and most logically demonstrate the non-existence of such a supposed being.

jeeprs;174456 wrote:

How, pray tell? I still predict you will only be able to logically demonstrate what you believe.

The circumstances of the response, therefore, leads one little room to conclude other than that by your using the word "God," with the capital, you are, in fact using it in place of YHWH. I'd be more than happy to lay the argumentation out (although not in this thread, as it is very much in line with the Biblical Texts thread), if this is clearly the case . . . since your answer didn't really clarify that concern. (I was really, of the understanding that you'd be talking of some other model.)

jeeprs;174456 wrote:

(A paranthetical comment: the term YHWH was originally derived as a cypher to indicate 'that which cannot be spoken of' or 'that which is too holy to voice'.)

There is more evidence of misguided information in the above, than might meet the eye here. YHWH is much, much older than the later Second Temple period superstition which had arose, causing the creation 'el shem,' (which is the real '[derived cypher to indicate "that which cannot be spoken of."') to avoid having purposely misread YHWH in public reading in the synagogues. YHWH is the actual Hebrew lettering, and nothing more. The best understanding gives us the reading as Yahweh (or Jahweh), so when one sees YHWH, they should voice it in read pronounciation as Yahweh (or Jahweh).

So, firstly I'd like to ascertain, please, jeeprs, if it is the YHWH model you had spoken of in your post #66[/rul], or not. Then, if it had been, I'll argue my point in that other thread, after finishing a certain amount towards the presently lined up argument (and apologize that it may take just a little time to get to....sorry).

0 Replies

@Wozz,

It might be that evil, suffering, oil spills, and nuclear disasters are all necessary, for all we know.

---------- Post added 06-08-2010 at 02:37 PM ----------

There are references that YHWH was coined for exactly the reason I said, namely, it is four consonants, no syllables, cannot be spoken. There are, of course, many other meanings attributed to the word, the origin of that particular form, and so on. But the particular derivation I have referred to is definitely legitimate.

I don't have a model of God. My approach to God is apophatic. It means you can't say anything meaningful about God positive or negative.

I am attempting, not always successfully, to contain my arguments within the recognised scope of 'the argument from evil'.

2 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;174488 wrote:

Where do you draw the line, though? If you say 'the oil spill' then why not every other accident or bad thing that happens? Why does any suffering exist at all?

What is God supposed to do, anyway? Come down and put overalls on and take over the drilling operation. I can see all the other guys on the rig - 'Stand aside, commander in chief is here!'

Do you see what I am driving at? I think that what you think God is, is actually Stephen Speilberg, the guy behind the camera, calling the shots.

I like this type of dismissal. A being that has the ability to come up with quantum mechanics, physics, chemistry, and have such beauty like math and evolution, you would think it would have the ability to snap it's fingers to prevent things from happening.

god: I'm all powerful, I can do anything...

krumple: So why don't you fix all the crap in the world then?

god: Why would I do that? I don't care about helping humans.

krumple: Right, the only thing you care about is if they believe in your existence.

god: Yeah, the only thing important in the universe is me.

krumple: So those children starving around the world doesn't tug at your heart at all?

god: No, those children deserve to suffer, they are sinful and wicked. They deserve worse but since I'm so loving I have decided not to put them through more than starving to death.

krumple: Well that makes sense, you could make their lives better, but since they deserve to suffer, I guess your hands are tied.

god: Stupid humans, always whining about something they want me to do for them.

krumple: Yeah, what do you expect when you create a world where it is easier to be mean and suffering is rampant? Couldn't you have at least not created diseases or cancer?

god: I could have but if they didn't get cancer I would be ruining their free will.

krumple: How does getting rid of cancer or diseases effect free will?

god: Well they choose to get cancer by not obeying my precepts. If nothing bad happens to them for doing things that I hate then they would do what ever they wanted without a care in the world.

krumple: So you make them suffer without actually informing them of what they did wrong?

god: Oh I inform them after they die.

krumple: Doesn't that mean they don't get a chance to change?

god: A chance to change? What do you think I am running here? A land of learning? It is obey me or else, case closed.

krumple: You are a prick, you know that?

god: Sometimes I regret creating you krumple because you actually have the nerve to question my actions. You know you should not question my will?

krumple: Well what can you really do to me that I can't already do to myself?

god: I can turn my back on you and not let you sing praises about me.

krumple: Thanks, that doesn't really sound like any fun anyways.

god: Praise me, give the glory to me because I am the greatest.

krumple: No, not really...

0 Replies

Another "God" question

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know