8
   

Theists, How well can you defend your beilief that God exists?

 
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 May, 2012 11:53 pm
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

Quote:
Theists, How well can you defend your beilief that God exists?


Simple. Walk into any Home Depot outlet and walk over to where they keep propane grills. Do you see any of them which can operate themselves, or make a decision to cook something or not cook something in some proximity?

The answer is obviously not. That proves that the devil exists since it is inconceivable that atheists and evolutionites won't roast in hell and it should be obvious enough that hell, like the propane grills, cannot operate itself.

That also proves that God exists. Given that the devil exists, if God DIDN'T exist, everything we see around us would be totally evil; the fact that there is some good around us proves that God exists.

QED




Sorry but are you mildly retarded or just fully retarded? Because your line of reasoning is on the scale of something who has physical defects in their brain.
0 Replies
 
Val Killmore
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jun, 2012 05:42 am
@Krumple,
Well, to explain, I would say from premise and 3 and 4, draws the 5th premise that "f God created everything, then everything should be good."

To expand further, you suggested: "If I were an intelligent being, does that mean I could never do a dumb thing? I think a good being could create something that was evil and it would not impact the nature of the being to do so. "

Well, you would actually never do a dumb thing if you were all wise, and all knowledgeable, or also known as omniscient, which means you have infinite knowledge, one that is immeasurable, nor incomprehensible by a mortal with a finite mind.

AS to
Quote:
I think a good being could create something that was evil and it would not impact the nature of the being to do so.


Well, it's hard to say, based on a logician's view point, an infinite good being that can create evil is a problem, because it would be a contradiction. It's like saying an immovable rock will meet an unstoppable force, or saying that you are taller and shorter than me. A God, if it existed, would be limited to the logic realm, because if it did something illogical, then God can make itself not exist.
So to summarize quickly, the point is that God cannot do something that is a violation of His own existence and nature, which is not really a limitation by God, but a necessity for God to exist.

I have heard many atheists trying to get God to be illogical, but their own paradoxes that they come up with are self-refuting and invalid in the logical sense.

A contradiction (illogical aspect really) is why the famous quote falls itself flat on the face, and it goes like this, "Can God make a rock so big He can't pick it up?"


So the 5th premise is strong, and now the argument that will make or break the whole argument is free will.

If free will is inherently evil, then it means God can do contradictions, as I explained above, which means a chain of illogical thoughts, that will lead to nowhere, but a dead end, and it is like trying to assume or make God illogical.

If free will is inherently good, then it means God is not committing a contradiction by allowing humans free will, and logical aspect of the state of God is in place.

Then theists can argue using some form of Alvin Plantinga's case where he says "It is possible that God, even being omnipotent, could not create a world with free creatures who never choose evil. Furthermore, it is possible that God, even being omnibenevolent, would desire to create a world which contains evil if moral goodness requires free moral creatures."

And, since you brought it up, I'm not an atheist, I'm somewhere between a hard and a soft agnostic. I endorse neither position of atheist or theists, but just interested in the logical arguments that are brought up by both parties, that go somewhere along the line to say God does exist, or God does not exist.




Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jun, 2012 07:46 am
@Val Killmore,
Don't agree at all bottom line you are once again washing down the risk and commitment that effort requires in order for value to exist...Value is what is good and value requires opposition and true high stake risks...second again I must insist I don't believe God created anything, God doesn't have a mind as God is reality itself...minds are a property of wondering incomplete questioning beings...being God everything it just is what it is it does not require will thinking or a mind...God is order and natural Law made thing !
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jun, 2012 07:58 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Past Present and Future already exist in God, such that God does not grow, does not evolve does not think does not act does´n t have any power God is done complete and the reason of all Being because it is ALL BEING...Omniscient not because he knows but because he is the source of knowing, omnipotent not because he commands but because he is power made thing already accomplished and complete, omnipresent because he is everywhere, and finally omni benevolent not because he forgives but because there is nothing to forgive...I don't expect you to understand what I said...anyways it is said now...
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jun, 2012 08:09 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
...oh by the way I am well aware of the apparent contradictions present in my post by metaphorically stretching the limits of what those words intend to convey...was intentional...don't get confused...
0 Replies
 
Val Killmore
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jun, 2012 08:29 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Ah, now I see the problem. You see God, as identifiable with nature, and the universe, a pantheistic view, combined with monotheistic belief.

So one god but there are countless manifestations of him.

It gets more interesting.

And it is the perception of the "nature" of God. You seem to be a Naturalistic Pantheists who believes in a non-sentient Universe as an unconscious and impersonal "God." So it is interesting that you defined God to be the omni's, and you did so by redefining the terms of the omni's.

This definition is not the same my definition that I gave God, which is a personal and omni-God.

So no discussion between us really, because as far as I can tell, naturalistic pantheism is just atheism with fancy metaphors.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jun, 2012 02:39 pm
@Val Killmore,
Val Killmore wrote:
Well, you would actually never do a dumb thing if you were all wise, and all knowledgeable, or also known as omniscient, which means you have infinite knowledge, one that is immeasurable, nor incomprehensible by a mortal with a finite mind.


This works for an accident but what about if it was done on purpose? Are you saying that if I was all wise/knowledable that I couldn't infact will myself to do something dumb?

I think we are assuming something here that has not been supported with any reasoning. Why is it that creating a person who has both the ability to do good or evil is not the concern of the being who created it?

I don't like the adam and eve story to support the concept that their mess up means I am responsable for their mistake. This is punishing the offspring by a crime that the offspring were not responsible for. If what you say is true then by all means it would support this idea but I object to it and in this case it would make that being evil by punishing someone not involved in the crime.

Krumple wrote:
I think a good being could create something that was evil and it would not impact the nature of the being to do so.


Val Killmore wrote:

Well, it's hard to say, based on a logician's view point, an infinite good being that can create evil is a problem, because it would be a contradiction. It's like saying an immovable rock will meet an unstoppable force, or saying that you are taller and shorter than me. A God, if it existed, would be limited to the logic realm, because if it did something illogical, then God can make itself not exist.


Yes but should a father be held accountable for their son or daughters actions? Yes you could argue that if they are children then yes but what about if they were adults? Should the father still be held accountable for the actions of it's children? No. If a god creates you, sure it might know that you would do evil things but that doesn't make the maker evil by doing so.

I don't believe any gods exist however; why couldn't the god create you with the intention of absolute freedom to act? Who says this god would be all knowing? Why couldn't a god be uncertain to what your actions would result in? Even if this god did know all actions it still would not make the maker evil just like the gun maker analogy.

Val Killmore wrote:

So to summarize quickly, the point is that God cannot do something that is a violation of His own existence and nature, which is not really a limitation by God, but a necessity for God to exist.


Well what dictactes that a god would have to be all good? Why couldn't it be neutral as well? I mean even the parts of the bible support the concept that this god is both the bringer of evil and goodness (despite the fact that a huge majority of christians ignore that part). I don't see why a god would necessarily need be all good or even all anything to still be considered a god. Couldn't it be just as evil or prone to evil and still create everything? Seems reasonable to me.

Val Killmore wrote:

I have heard many atheists trying to get God to be illogical, but their own paradoxes that they come up with are self-refuting and invalid in the logical sense.


Well I think this comes from both sides. But the actual reality is people want to project their own ideas onto what a god is rather than investigate the actual existence of one. (Which is to say, there isn't one to investigate) So it might as well be any thing cooked up in the imagination, even if it is contradictory.

Val Killmore wrote:

A contradiction (illogical aspect really) is why the famous quote falls itself flat on the face, and it goes like this, "Can God make a rock so big He can't pick it up?"


Yeah I am familiar with the argument. I like it but I actually don't see any contradiction in it. I think people are refuting "properties" of this deity without actually "knowing" if the properties are real or not. Does a god necessarily need to be required to be all powerful? Or is this just another property that people impose on their god concept?

Val Killmore wrote:

So the 5th premise is strong, and now the argument that will make or break the whole argument is free will.


Well I don't think we have free will. I think we have the illusion of free will but many things are determined already just by natural phenomina.

Val Killmore wrote:

If free will is inherently evil, then it means God can do contradictions, as I explained above, which means a chain of illogical thoughts, that will lead to nowhere, but a dead end, and it is like trying to assume or make God illogical.


Or... a god could exist that is able to do evil things which then wouldn't contradict anything. It would just make him another potential asshole. (Yeah I know you didn't need that last part but I tossed it in for good measure.)

Val Killmore wrote:

If free will is inherently good, then it means God is not committing a contradiction by allowing humans free will, and logical aspect of the state of God is in place.


Yeah I would only accept this if free will could actually be confirmed.

Val Killmore wrote:

Then theists can argue using some form of Alvin Plantinga's case where he says "It is possible that God, even being omnipotent, could not create a world with free creatures who never choose evil. Furthermore, it is possible that God, even being omnibenevolent, would desire to create a world which contains evil if moral goodness requires free moral creatures."


Well I see an underline absurdity. I mean you make two realms, one to test the product (humans) for quality assurance (acceptence) and the other to "reward" them or "punish" them for their choice? What was the point in letting them live out their lives if they were destined for the "punishment" their entire life? Why not just create them in the "punishment" realm to begin with since thats where you "knew" they would end up anyways.

Val Killmore wrote:

And, since you brought it up, I'm not an atheist, I'm somewhere between a hard and a soft agnostic. I endorse neither position of atheist or theists, but just interested in the logical arguments that are brought up by both parties, that go somewhere along the line to say God does exist, or God does not exist.


Everyone is agnostic, because no one has knowledge that a god exists. I say since it can't be determined it might as well be meaningless and pointless to consider. If a god wants to hide it's existence and expects people to use "faith" to believe that it exists then that god is not worth accepting or praising or even considering following the tenants based on it's existence.

If it really wants me to follow these things it should solidify to me that it's existence is real otherwise I might just believe any absurd thing that comes along since I have just as much evidence towards those things as this god's existence.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jun, 2012 07:28 pm
@Val Killmore,
Quote:
So no discussion between us really, because as far as I can tell, naturalistic pantheism is just atheism with fancy metaphors.


In other words standard definition is better because is standard...and your God is personnel because well is more cute like that...okis ! Laughing
(concerning supernatural and superpowers I still prefer Marvel comics)
Val Killmore
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jun, 2012 08:06 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
I didn't say standard definition is better, but the standard definition is what monotheists define God to be.

So this argument doesn't apply to you because as pantheistic, you believe the concept of God to be that which is manifest in every aspect of the world, including every person, animal, plant, and other object

People have defined God to represent many different ideas, sorry for the confusion.

The main problem between monotheism and pantheism is that there is no universal agreement about what the concept of a deity represents.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jun, 2012 09:42 pm
@Val Killmore,
No objection to Monotheism at all... in fact I may well claim my monotheism being more plausible then yours...while you divide reality in two, that of the creator and that of the creation, I stand to unify them in one...my god instead is the source, not one or other thing, not this or that thing...things are extensions of god, but not god...god which is atemporal insuperable indestructible... is the source of all things, not because he created them, but rather because they phenomenally reside in its nature, Law made thing, the World !
Val Killmore
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jun, 2012 09:56 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
All I heard from monotheists is that God is outside of nature, he existed before it, and is its creator.
This is the first time I have encountered a monotheist that believes idea that God and Nature are the same thing
Very interesting take, and your take is logically possible. A hybridization of pantheism and monotheism.
I wonder if any Christians, with the standard definition of God will change their perspective/ definition of God, after reading your post, because it is much harder to disprove such a God, eh?

Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jun, 2012 10:12 pm
@Val Killmore,
Val Killmore wrote:

All I heard from monotheists is that God is outside of nature, he existed before it, and is its creator.
This is the first time I have encountered a monotheist that believes idea that God and Nature are the same thing
Very interesting take, and your take is logically possible. A hybridization of pantheism and monotheism.
I wonder if any Christians, with the standard definition of God will change their perspective/ definition of God, after reading your post, because it is much harder to disprove such a God, eh?


Actually it is very easy to disprove it. When people try to claim that god is nature all you have to do is ask why they are adding the baggage "god" onto something like nature. You can ask that about anything that theists like to try and use, like energy or the universe itself.

The thing is, nature is dumb. Sure there are some patterns but it is still unintelligent. Not only that but what is the scope of nature? Does it include all the laws of phyics and chemistry? Or are they something seperate?

Most theists are trying to have their cake and eat icecream and the gifts but all they are really doing is overloading concepts. How can you varify that a "god" is nature? So I say, it is meaningless to say a god is nature. Unless you can actualy varify it, why say it?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jun, 2012 10:22 pm
@Krumple,
Verify it ? Man sometimes you are just dumb...its a definition ! Who the f***K said you are entitled to have one standard or not and I don't ???
You don't grasp not even the surface here...you lack a hell lot of reading and general culture...must be a cousin of Steven Hawking or someone with an agenda...geeee !

more:

...while nature is not the product of a mind nor a mind itself it certainly it is not dumb, in turn your concept of intelligence rather seams to thick !!!
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jun, 2012 10:32 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
This is a perfect good example of what often irritates me in philosophy debates...people who don't have the least inclination intuition or association capability with great memory but incapable of connecting the dots absolutely certain of their f****ing positions...parrots !
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jun, 2012 10:33 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
...while nature is not the product of a mind nor a mind itself it certainly it is not dumb, in turn your concept of intelligence rather seams to thick !!!


When people try to sell me a lemon for a car I'm not quick to just accept the bullshit. You explain it then or wait, I know why you are frustrated, because you can't. You just want me to assume the definition works and go along with this overloaded definition. Or prove me wrong and explain it.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jun, 2012 10:37 pm
@Krumple,
Its a definition that goes along with the nature of reality itself it conforms with reality it doesn't ad anything to reality ! It is not transcendent nor super or anything else it simply recognizes a unifying order all around you not as the product of a mind but more like maths ! There straightforward !

Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jun, 2012 11:01 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
People who lack great wisdom and experience in life often confuse difficulty in defining with lack of justification...obviously the idea of God is a perfect good example of this once while it certainly is difficult for the average Joe to define and clarify its idea or impression of God quite another matter its to subsume or conclude he lacks good justification particularly when billions have the same feeling...and I am not talking of the cultural historical and magical folklore associated with it, but rather referring to that inner need of a willing thinking being who is able to recognize order in the world all around him...
Today's pilgrimage of wanna be scientists eager to make a quick name for them at expenses of washing down 5000 years of history remind me of the Jacobins in the French revolution with their poor idea of egalitarianism...no wonder at all Spendi like fellows are tempted to troll around the new world "Indians"...
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jun, 2012 11:10 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Its a definition that goes along with the nature of reality itself it conforms with reality it doesn't ad anything to reality ! It is not transcendent nor super or anything else it simply recognizes a unifying order all around you not as the product of a mind but more like maths ! There straightforward !

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkGeOWYOFoA[/youtube]


Here is the thing you are missing in my argument. Nature doesn't think that oh I should use the golden ratio because well it looks neat. No there is a reason, a natural reason why the golden ratio keeps poping up in nature. But the thing is. Not every object in nature is an exact match for the golden ratio.

The thing about the shell, the reason it so happens to fall into the golden ratio is because any other design would implode at depth. This design is well suited for deep sea preasures. More than likely evolution caused the shell to develop this way because those that developed non-golden ratio shells imploded and couldn't reproduce. We infact can find some of these failed shell designs.

It is no different than when humans have children that have mental illnesses or some physical deformity. In nature they would have probably died but since we want to control nature we develop ways to keep these humans that normally would have died, alive.

Pretty much all forms of the golden ratio pop up in nature because they are either simplist geometric shapes which require the fewest amount of resources to construct or there is a fundamental structural need or else the result would fail.

It doesn't mean nature is smart, it just means those that are successful fall in the "proper" survival range that the environment throws at the creature which just happenst to be the golden ratio. But it doesn't happen in all cases.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jun, 2012 11:15 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
...while I am certainly all in favour of attacking religious institutions for their mistakes contradictions will to power and general mediocrity, quite a different matter comes when people blissfully ignorant think they can do away with Ontology with a back kick of words...
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jun, 2012 11:23 pm
@Krumple,
oh dear...you must think I am finishing high school now...Nature thinking this or that is neat ??? lol
Nature obviously doesn't think ****...when you speak of bio-evolution in Darwinian terms I rather think in Evolution in general terms to an extent more like Herbert Spencer though of it, and it goes from the big bang on ( not implying here that Spencer knew about big bang at the time don't confuse my intentions)...by the way as far as I remember Spencer was the men who coined the idea in the first place...again my conception of natural order is about what is beyond time and phenomena or that which is manifest in the here and now...and I suspect you know very little on the Nature of Being philosophically speaking to understand what I am at...it is precisely by eroding and deconstructing miss concepts like nothingness that such ontological issues are solved and some odd old truths made clear and tangible to reason.

You not just miss the target and scope of what I meant back there but judging by your last reply you are missing the target of whom I am and what I possibly know and is not by a small margin my friend...not talking with Ganga texas ranger here...
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 11/27/2021 at 08:33:16