8
   

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

 
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jun, 2012 11:27 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

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 Spencer was the men who coined the idea in the first place...my conception of natural order is about what is beyond time and phenomena or that which is manifest in the where 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.


I like this. I ask you for an explanation and not only did you not give one except to try and say (using a video) that now god is mathmatical. Then once I envoke the survival method results in what works, you counter with something completely unrelated because why? Because you can't answer the initial question but instead want to assume I'm not on the "level" you are. Funny and nice dodge. If you can't answer that question I'll assume it's because you can't.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jun, 2012 11:44 pm
@Krumple,
This is pathetic...what answer would I not answer could you care to point me to ? Are you joking me ? What part of its a definition you didn't payee attention to ?
Again, in a nutshell, my definition of God is simply reality with order, uncreated, infinitely repeating, (Big-Bounce concept) in a timeless existence !
(...you don't like it shew it off...)
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jun, 2012 11:51 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
Again, in a nutshell, my definition of God is simply reality with order, uncreated, infinitely repeating, (Big-Bounce concept) in a timeless existence !


All I see is overloaded definitions though. It's so vague and I bet there are a few aspects you haven't considered with this reality with order. So does that not include disorder since you were inclined to use order? Not trying to be a smartass, it just seems strange to use a certain adjective that implies that it not be it's antonym. I am not even sure what reality is even so how exactly can it be "god like"? Uncreated by defnition means it doesn't exist. In a timeless existence nothing can occur, it would be a frozen moment without any thing changing or moving.

As you can tell I have a problem with your whole discription so it ends up becoming more unclear than clear. Not even sure how you even arrived at this being the nature of "god". What clearly defines it for you?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jun, 2012 12:00 am
@Krumple,
Quote:
Uncreated by defnition means it doesn't exist.


Says whom ? ad INFINITY to the equation and see what comes up...
...you will find all sorts of troubles with creation there mate especially with new theory┬┤s in Quantum Physics going on right now regarding Multiverse and so on...as for frozen depends on which view point you are taking, holistic or relative, as dynamics can be seen both as a trick of relational maths or as an event...now for practical purposes lets debate relativity and time not being absolute as the first clue on why such view is actually quite rational shall we ?
Your idea of time in turn is quite 19 century like...
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jun, 2012 12:11 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
...and please don't insult me by invoking the 2 law of thermodynamics as an example of chaos in the Universe because any intelligent mathematician will rather opt to call it complex or non linear order rather then chaos as stars and galaxy's are not colliding randomly out in the sky...so spare me the easy demagoguery coming next...
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jun, 2012 12:17 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
Says whom ? ad INFINITY to the equation and see what comes up...


Show me something that is uncreated then.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jun, 2012 12:24 am
@Krumple,
...show me a final creation cause ! ...in 20 minutes time you will end up concluding the universe and Multiverse don't exist... Laughing
we can play all night with this mate...not tired at all !
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jun, 2012 02:31 am
..."god never burdens you with more then you can bare" translated to the twenty one century without the folklore is simply an opaque variation on the more general assessment " only what is possible can happen"...being certain that Spendius and Luigi will appreciate the difference of "reading" competence here let me go back to bed again... Laughing

night night !
0 Replies
 
Val Killmore
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jun, 2012 02:04 pm
@Krumple,
Quote:
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.


That doesn't make sense, for a classical monotheist, a human chooses to do evil, so a human is involved in the crime, and therefore punished. For them:
No to little sin = Saint.

Quote:
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.

Well that's the whole argument for the free will defense, and the crux of the argument of evil which I presented. What is interesting is that you believe humans don't have free will, and the funny thing is, the free will defense doesn't mean a thing if humans don't have free will.

Quote:
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.

For a classical monotheist, the concept of omnibenevolence stems from two basic ideas of God: that God is perfect and that God is morally good. Therefore, God must possess perfect goodness. Being perfectly good must entail being good in all ways at all times and towards all other beings. Your analogy of the gun-maker is somewhat faulty, because a gun maker or gun manufacturer is a fundamentally different type of entity from omnipotent, omniscient deity. I call such ideas, the extreme stretch of analogies until they break.

Quote:
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.

Free will is dependent on how you define it. This subject is such a large can of worms that I'll post an explanation as to what I mean in my next post.


Quote:
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?

If only I knew, but I do know that Atheists sometimes suggest that an omni-God tend to be defined out of existence by their own increasing definitions, while the more finite deities are much more plausible due to their limitations producing fewer contradictions. As I said, Atheists love to make God as illogical as possible to prove God doesn't exist.


Quote:
Or... a god could exist that is able to do evil things which then wouldn't contradict anything.


By the stated definition of God in the original argument, yes there will be a contradiction.

Quote:
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.

That's funny, because it reminds of what my best friend who always used to tell missionaries who come knocking on his doors, to basically piss them off: God creates you, then cuts off all contact with you and expects you to fend for yourself because hey, the evil in the world isn't HIS problem, HE didn't make it... Then, the next time you see him, he's all pissed off at you for not living by his personal standards, despite the fact that he never spoke to you directly to teach them to you. God is an abusive father.

But to get to the point, a monotheist can argue that human violence and suffering should not be explained or excused by attributing them to God, he created us out of love. Furthermore, fanatics would argue something along the line that all pain and suffering is not from God. But God does allow it to happen if it helps to mold our free will towards His perfection. We are sinful people... that sin must be purified.


Quote:
Everyone is agnostic, because no one has knowledge that a god exists.

But agnostics are indecisive unlike atheists. A person like me avoids making any clear decision about God, even though my life becomes worthwhile by making decisions.
It might be better off to just make a clear choice of either theism or atheism, and making a decision. And even if it is the wrong one, it might be better than remaining in a state of indecision. Only God can tell (Sorry for the pun).

Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jun, 2012 03:18 pm
Theists, can you spell the word belief?
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jun, 2012 05:51 pm
@Val Killmore,
Quote:
But agnostics are indecisive unlike atheists. A person like me avoids making any clear decision about God, even though my life becomes worthwhile by making decisions.
It might be better off to just make a clear choice of either theism or atheism, and making a decision. And even if it is the wrong one, it might be better than remaining in a state of indecision. Only God can tell (Sorry for the pun)


Ahhh, so acknowledging you do not know if gods exist or if gods do not exist--and acknowledging that there is not enough evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess...is being indecisive! And making a blind guess in one direction or the other is clearly a better, more logical move.

Well damn it, I am not going to indecisive under those circumstances...so I am going to come down firmly on one side or the other. Time out for one second while I flip the coin: Heads=there is at least one GOD; Tails=there are no gods.

Okay...it was HEADS...so for today, I am blindly guessing there is at least one GOD.

Wow, it feels so good to be decisive.

I really appreciate the suggestion, Val.
Val Killmore
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jun, 2012 06:22 pm
@Krumple,
Quote:
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.


There seems to be no comprehensive solution. It is one of the most mysterious subjects in the universe.
Are we free agents with special causal powers?
Or are we natural entities that are fully integrated within the causal network of physics, and the world?
Both ideas are possible, but only one is right, and hence the mystery continues.

Some say our will is free as long as we act on authentic desires, without constraints even though our future is determined, and I should point to you that sometimes your authentic desires is not easy to identify as you think.

Others say that the future is open and that we have the power to shape it (The problem arises because it means we have the power to act contrary to the influences of our past, our families, and our genes).

For hardcore monotheists, free will is nothing more than the choice of believing in God or not.

While there are people with belief, similar to yours, that our life is simply a domino effect, where causality determines the future, and so one's future is already laid out by the past, so all caused events are determined by the past. But the thing is there is a huge problem with this:
1) If We have free will, we are responsible for our actions.
2) We don't have free will.
3) We are not responsible for our actions.
And I wish this were true, cause then I could be slapping cops in the face with my AR-15.

This is what I believe. I believe that not all events are causally determined by events in the past, and the past only has limited influence of the future. The future therefore is not determined for you or fixed by the past, and therefore not determined. So we have free wills in some cases.



0 Replies
 
igm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jun, 2012 12:18 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
But agnostics are indecisive unlike atheists. A person like me avoids making any clear decision about God, even though my life becomes worthwhile by making decisions.
It might be better off to just make a clear choice of either theism or atheism, and making a decision. And even if it is the wrong one, it might be better than remaining in a state of indecision. Only God can tell (Sorry for the pun)


Ahhh, so acknowledging you do not know if gods exist or if gods do not exist--and acknowledging that there is not enough evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess...is being indecisive! And making a blind guess in one direction or the other is clearly a better, more logical move.

Well damn it, I am not going to indecisive under those circumstances...so I am going to come down firmly on one side or the other. Time out for one second while I flip the coin: Heads=there is at least one GOD; Tails=there are no gods.

Okay...it was HEADS...so for today, I am blindly guessing there is at least one GOD.

Wow, it feels so good to be decisive.

I really appreciate the suggestion, Val.



To believe in God is to have a positive emotional experience that won't happen for that person if they abandon their belief in God etc...

To not believe in God is a positive emotional experience for those who want to be free from fear of hell or guilt of original sin etc...

To play golf (sometimes) gives a positive emotional experience that a non-golfer would not experience or understand. It could be explained that other things are more important or are a more logical activity than golf but the golfer will not give up golf because of that. The golfer will prefer the positive emotional experience gained by continuing to play golf.

All three: theist, atheist and golfer are examples of why, just because it's more logical to be one thing it's not what many of us are looking for. We are looking for positive emotional experience or put another way something that makes us feel good, happy, not unhappy... at least for some of the time.

This is why the 'logically superior' is ignored by most, in favor of what makes us happiest or most fulfilled. That's why some people choose God, atheism or golf even if they are not the logically superior choice. If the logically superior thing to do is to make no choices will that lead to an experience of fulfillment?
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jun, 2012 01:34 pm
@igm,
Very good, IGM: insightful and useful.
George
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jun, 2012 03:18 pm
@JLNobody,
You can say that again!
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jun, 2012 04:08 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...show me a final creation cause ! ...in 20 minutes time you will end up concluding the universe and Multiverse don't exist... Laughing
we can play all night with this mate...not tired at all !


All I am trying to do is get you to realize that you and pretty much every theist makes up what their god is without having a single tiny support for those characteristics. They invent everything about it and the funny things they can't even agree on these characteristics. In other words you and these people are trying to explain a mirage that doesn't exist.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jun, 2012 04:13 pm
@Krumple,
I learn with you every day...bye now.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jun, 2012 04:16 pm
@igm,
Actually, you make an excellent point here, igm.

We make many of the choices we make because they "satisfy" us.

I choose agnosticism (my brand of it) because I feel it better satisfies me. I consider it superior to the other choices I could possibly make...because it satisfies me. I do not mean to denigrate the other choices...and for people who make them, I suspect they make them because they satisfy them.

0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jun, 2012 04:33 pm
@Val Killmore,
Val Killmore wrote:
That doesn't make sense, for a classical monotheist, a human chooses to do evil, so a human is involved in the crime, and therefore punished. For them:
No to little sin = Saint.


What I was referring to here was the christian concept of original sin. You are born guilty of a crime that you did not partake in and are guilty by association because you are a decendent from those who did commit the crime. Sort of like if your grandfather commited a crime yet you get to spend all your life in jail for being his grandchild. It is absurdity at it's best.

Krumple wrote:
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.


Val Killmore wrote:

Well that's the whole argument for the free will defense, and the crux of the argument of evil which I presented. What is interesting is that you believe humans don't have free will, and the funny thing is, the free will defense doesn't mean a thing if humans don't have free will.


That statement says nothing about the person being made has a choice to do evil or good. I am saying the person is made, and it is known that they would do evil, that would not make the maker evil just to create something evil.

Val Killmore wrote:

For a classical monotheist, the concept of omnibenevolence stems from two basic ideas of God: that God is perfect and that God is morally good.


Actually this is flawed. This is a modern interpretation of god because theists (mostly christians) are trying to reinvent their god to be this all loving merciful god. Historically it was not such. The bible does not support at all an omnibenevolent god. Dispite this fact they try to say their god is. So I don't agree that "classical monotheism" believes in an omnibenevolent god. These people actually worshiped the idea that their god was wrathful and allowed to do what ever it wanted even if it were evil.

Val Killmore wrote:

Therefore, God must possess perfect goodness. Being perfectly good must entail being good in all ways at all times and towards all other beings. Your analogy of the gun-maker is somewhat faulty, because a gun maker or gun manufacturer is a fundamentally different type of entity from omnipotent, omniscient deity. I call such ideas, the extreme stretch of analogies until they break.


You keep placing definitions in places that they don't need to be. I am talking about the guilt here and the gun maker does not need to be omnipotent or omniscient for waving guilt. I am saying if someone makes a gun it has no bearing on who uses it and for why. So should the gun maker be considered evil if someone uses a gun in an evil way? No. Same for the creator of a person who does evil things.

Val Killmore wrote:

If only I knew, but I do know that Atheists sometimes suggest that an omni-God tend to be defined out of existence by their own increasing definitions, while the more finite deities are much more plausible due to their limitations producing fewer contradictions. As I said, Atheists love to make God as illogical as possible to prove God doesn't exist.


I find it more absurd that a theist can know the characteristics of their god without any method other than to say it. Why stop there? In this sense their god can be anything they want and have no requirement to support it with anything. Not even logic or reasoning can be used because their god is beyond all logic and reasoning. It is silly.

Krumple wrote:
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:

That's funny, because it reminds of what my best friend who always used to tell missionaries who come knocking on his doors, to basically piss them off: God creates you, then cuts off all contact with you and expects you to fend for yourself because hey, the evil in the world isn't HIS problem, HE didn't make it... Then, the next time you see him, he's all pissed off at you for not living by his personal standards, despite the fact that he never spoke to you directly to teach them to you. God is an abusive father.


I agree. No different than a mortal father taking part in your conception and then leaves. You never met him yet he has expectations for you. You must accept him and love him even though he really plays no part. Sure you could believe that he plays a role but if he plays a role then he would effect your free will? You can't have it both ways. It is a silly belief system and how theists manuver around all these absurd concepts baffles me.

Val Killmore wrote:

But to get to the point, a monotheist can argue that human violence and suffering should not be explained or excused by attributing them to God, he created us out of love. Furthermore, fanatics would argue something along the line that all pain and suffering is not from God. But God does allow it to happen if it helps to mold our free will towards His perfection. We are sinful people... that sin must be purified.


Even so but is it necessary? I say it isn't necessary. If I had the ability and power I wouldn't let children starve to death. I am not powerful or wealthy enough to prevent all children from starving but a god would be. Therefore I am more compassionate than any god because I wouldn't let children starve to death if I had the power to prevent it.

Krumple wrote:
Everyone is agnostic, because no one has knowledge that a god exists.


Val Killmore wrote:

But agnostics are indecisive unlike atheists. A person like me avoids making any clear decision about God, even though my life becomes worthwhile by making decisions.
It might be better off to just make a clear choice of either theism or atheism, and making a decision. And even if it is the wrong one, it might be better than remaining in a state of indecision. Only God can tell (Sorry for the pun).


Well I don't see agnosticism in the middle between atheism and theism because it deals with knowledge and theism deals with belief. They are two different things. I don't see agnosticism as indecision. In fact I am an agnostic-atheist. Because I don't have knowledge that a god exists and at the same time I don't believe a god exists.

I think it becomes meaningless to attribute a god to things like nature or the universe. But many theists want to claim this and then add additional attributes that give this god the ability to act, think or get involved. You can't have a god that is nature get involved because that would break fundamental laws to do so. So clearly a god could not be both. Also nature and the universe are dumb. They don't do anything intelligent. Also the universe and nature are neutral towards life. This would mean that god does not care about how your existence arises or ceases and everything in between.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jun, 2012 05:11 pm
@igm,
...all good there but the fact remains that there are less golf lovers then soccer lovers, and I am sure there is a pretty rational explanation on why it is so although I am not going to dwell on that now...so the point is statistics matter and usually say something upon those things we are trying to investigate...whether or not the average Joe is capable of describing is relation with soccer in objective understandable terms I am sure you agree is an entirely different matter...
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/27/2021 at 09:37:35