GOD: Metaphysics (does god exist?)

[IcecreamMan80]

I gasp at the idea that there is an all powerful being who created us "in his image"...
http://theimpudentobserver.com/world...over-homework/

And that being is up there, controlling everything, and that "he has a plan"...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25179632/

they tell me that "his will be done", and that "god is love"...
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/n...tes/index.html

the same people tell me that "everything happens for a reason" and that god is watching over us...
http://www.destructoid.com/man-beats...60-67632.phtml

and that god hears our prayers...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust

I can't really buy into this stuff completely, because if you ask me, it seems like the all-knowing, all-powerful, creator of heaven and earth is basically a kid with a fishtank, who purposefully mixed pirahna's and tropicals together just to laugh at the resulting chaos.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...s-Georgia.html

[bLatch]

Originally Posted by IcecreamMan80

I gasp at the idea that there is an all powerful being who created us "in his image"...
http://theimpudentobserver.com/world...over-homework/

And that being is up there, controlling everything, and that "he has a plan"...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25179632/

they tell me that "his will be done", and that "god is love"...
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/n...tes/index.html

the same people tell me that "everything happens for a reason" and that god is watching over us...
http://www.destructoid.com/man-beats...60-67632.phtml

and that god hears our prayers...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust

I can't really buy into this stuff completely, because if you ask me, it seems like the all-knowing, all-powerful, creator of heaven and earth is basically a kid with a fishtank, who purposefully mixed pirahna's and tropicals together just to laugh at the resulting chaos.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...s-Georgia.html

So, to summarize what you just said: "God can't be real and all loving, because of suffering."

I'm pretty sure (could be mixing up threads) that the problem of suffering has been talked to death earlier in this thread.

Edit: for Teh Grammarz!!

[IcecreamMan80]

I didnt say that...
I said "I gasp at the idea"
and "because if you ask me, it seems like the all-knowing, all-powerful, creator of heaven and earth is basically a kid with a fishtank, who purposefully mixed pirahna's and tropicals together just to laugh at the resulting chaos."

I was basically saying that if he is real, he certainly isnt worth worshiping if he lets all this horrible stuff happen.

Let me be frank.
I would rather have SUPERHEROES than a DIETY. We can just as soon worship a superhero, but they earn it everyday by saving babies from psychos, and saving people from being burned alive by psychos, true they couldn't save us all. Even if we had a dozen superheroes, they couldnt stop ALL the horror. But they could stop enough.
The problem with most of these "gods" is, they are not required to perform whatsoever in order to recieve worship. All these "gods" are worshiped whether the world goes to complete %$#*&! or not, and thats absurd. If I prayed to my god to cure my daughters cancer, and she died, I gotta be a total FOOL to not fire that god and get a new one. But people are such sheep that they use excuses like "its gods plan" or "god needed another angel" give me a freeging break. And yeah, I'm sure I'm gonna hear all this stuff about how God is not supposed to be our employee. Well, good for you, keep praying with no result. Keep worshiping with no reward. I do not even wish for anyone to follow me, I'm a total jerk with anger issues, and I am not worthy of followers anyways.

[Elvish Crack Piper]

I dont know why. Oops.

I'm pretty sure I said that I'd like to hear a piece of positive evidence for once, a reason to believe in the first place. I know what he said. I am asking for him, or any christian really, to give me positive argument about the existence of their deity.

Ok. I'll go a little more clear.

I highly doubt any religious person in this thread has a reasonable proof of the christian god I can't dismantle without using google. Stans I might have to use google. I can sense the next answer though "all that stuffs on faith man, unknowable and stuff, ya" which i take as "we believe it on an emotional level, but being generally sound logical people, I'm going to look for every bit I can to defend my preexisting belief's"

I'd just like to hear someone, anyone, give me a good reason to believe in christianity, particularly choosing it over, say, buddhism or islam. I know he's been dodging it, because I'm sure he doesn't want to.

On the problem of evil, I don't remember exactly how it worked out earlier in the thread. Wikisnatch


Logical problem of evil

1. God exists. (premise)
2. God is omnipotent and omniscient. (premise — or true by definition of the word "God")
3. God is all-benevolent. (premise — or true by definition)
4. All-benevolent beings are opposed to all evil. (premise — or true by definition)
5. All-benevolent beings who can eliminate evil will do so immediately when they become aware of it. (premise)
6. God is opposed to all evil. (conclusion from 3 and 4)
7. God can eliminate evil completely and immediately. (conclusion from 2)
   1. Whatever the end result of suffering is, God can bring it about by ways that do not include suffering. (conclusion from 2)
   2. God has no reason not to eliminate evil. (conclusion from 7.1)
   3. God has no reason not to act immediately. (conclusion from 5)
8. God will eliminate evil completely and immediately. (conclusion from 6, 7.2 and 7.3)
9. Evil exists, has existed, and probably will always exist. (premise)
10. Items 8 and 9 are contradictory; therefore, one or more of the premises is false: either God does not exist, evil does not exist, God is not simultaneously omnipotent, omniscient and all-benevolent, or all-benevolent beings who can eliminate evil will not necessarily do so immediately when they become aware of it.

the problem of evil is the problem of reconciling the existence of evil or suffering in the world with the existence of God. The problem follows with the belief that God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent whilst at the same time evil exists. God either cannot stop evil or he will not. If he cannot then he is argued to not be omnipotent. If he will not then he is argued to not be omnibenevolent.

Wikisnatch over.

Anyway, the problem of evil is just one of many things that are logically bonkers with good ole YHWH. For the same reason I dismiss a literal santa claus, I dismiss the concept of YHWH.

Edit: IcecreamMan80. Its because we have here people trying to logically defend a collection of emotional responses. And, anyway, you said very close to the basic problem of evil. The only ways I've seen people try to solve them is by making a "its all part of a grand ole plan" or some variation.

[bLatch]

Originally Posted by Elvish Crack Piper

I highly doubt any religious person in this thread has a reasonable proof of the christian god I can't dismantle without using google.

That is because there isn't one. If there was a logically consistent proof which relied only on extrinsic (that is: exterior to oneself) of God's existence that was known, then any rational person would believe in God.

I'm pretty sure that Stan has admitted as such in other threads (he can correct me if I'm wrong).

Originally Posted by Elvish Crack Piper

I'd just like to hear someone, anyone, give me a good reason to believe in christianity, particularly choosing it over, say, buddhism or islam. I know he's been dodging it, because I'm sure he doesn't want to.

This however is a different question altogether, and I look forward to reading answers to it when I'm not at work

[Elvish Crack Piper]

bLatch, people have tried. There are ontological "proofs" teleological "proofs" Thomas Aquinas has 5 proof's of gods existence.

My 2nd part isn't even asking for a proof, just one good reason to pick christianity from the thousands of other choices.

[bLatch]

Originally Posted by Elvish Crack Piper

bLatch, people have tried. There are ontological "proofs" teleological "proofs" Thomas Aquinas has 5 proof's of gods existence.

I know. I also tried to fly by tying a bath towel around my neck like a cape and running in circles when I was 5. It didn't work. It never would work, but that doesn't mean I didn't try and do it.

edit: To clarify: I'm not saying there is, or is not a God, I'm just saying that I don't think there is any way to prove that a God exists based on extrinsic evidence. A lot of the issues arise because of the starting point. If you start from the viewpoint of "I assume God exists, disprove it" (impossible) you will come to a totally different answer faced with the same evidence as someone who starts from the viewpoint "I assume God does not exist, prove that he does"

Originally Posted by Elvish Crack Piper

My 2nd part isn't even asking for a proof, just one good reason to pick Christianity from the thousands of other choices.

which makes sense, and is also why I am waiting to see other responses to it

[Elvish Crack Piper]

I've asked that question on forums dedicated to christian/atheist discussion (the forum with a college class theme to all the subforums, cant recall name right now) and couldn't get anythign beyond "open yourself to god" and "feel the power of ~whatever~" or "act like you believe till you do (thank you Lewis)"

I preferred gathering various kitchen utensils and alternating between the ninja turtles and ghostbusters myself.

[Blinking Spirit]

Originally Posted by Elvish Crack Piper

Logical problem of evil

1. God exists. (premise)
2. God is omnipotent and omniscient. (premise — or true by definition of the word "God")
3. God is all-benevolent. (premise — or true by definition)
4. All-benevolent beings are opposed to all evil. (premise — or true by definition)
5. All-benevolent beings who can eliminate evil will do so immediately when they become aware of it. (premise)
6. God is opposed to all evil. (conclusion from 3 and 4)
7. God can eliminate evil completely and immediately. (conclusion from 2)
   1. Whatever the end result of suffering is, God can bring it about by ways that do not include suffering. (conclusion from 2)
   2. God has no reason not to eliminate evil. (conclusion from 7.1)
   3. God has no reason not to act immediately. (conclusion from 5)
8. God will eliminate evil completely and immediately. (conclusion from 6, 7.2 and 7.3)
9. Evil exists, has existed, and probably will always exist. (premise)
10. Items 8 and 9 are contradictory; therefore, one or more of the premises is false: either God does not exist, evil does not exist, God is not simultaneously omnipotent, omniscient and all-benevolent, or all-benevolent beings who can eliminate evil will not necessarily do so immediately when they become aware of it.

the problem of evil is the problem of reconciling the existence of evil or suffering in the world with the existence of God. The problem follows with the belief that God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent whilst at the same time evil exists. God either cannot stop evil or he will not. If he cannot then he is argued to not be omnipotent. If he will not then he is argued to not be omnibenevolent.

Wikisnatch over.

5 and 7.1 are the contentious premises. To be specific, 5 is contentious because 7.1 is contentious.

Originally Posted by Elvish Crack Piper

Edit: IcecreamMan80. Its because we have here people trying to logically defend a collection of emotional responses. And, anyway, you said very close to the basic problem of evil. The only ways I've seen people try to solve them is by making a "its all part of a grand ole plan" or some variation.

And your attempt to dismiss this argument through ridicule is doomed to failure.

[depolarization]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

I am a fan of Bertrand Russell. He is basically the founder of modern logic (and symbolic for all ya's computer modelers out there).

And it's sad...I think the web-comic got taken away because it depicted Mohammed...and he was such a cool guy too

But I also think Dawkin's is a douche-bag, in that all he wants to do is incite the opposition. He so convinced about this position that he is right and anybody with belief in god is wrong. Seems to be a very unproductive way of going about it...or at least a fast way to martyrdom if he slips up his physical security.

[Blinking Spirit]

Originally Posted by depolarization

I am a fan of Bertrand Russell. He is basically the founder of modern logic (and symbolic for all ya's computer modelers out there).

Gottlob Frege is .

[PandasRpeople2]

Originally Posted by Darklightz

The God you seem to alude to would be an invisible, unreachable and unfathomable being. Such a being would be useless to us as we would have no way to interact with it. If it doesn't influence the world in any way, why should we acknowledge it's presence much lees deem it worthy of worship?

Rather the current Gods can, according to their believers, influence the world through prayers, moral codes and so on and so forth. It is these elements we can discuss to see wether the claims of God's influence can be proven/disproven.

The question is not whether God influences the world in any way, but whether He can be objectively proved to have done so. And this proof cannot be produced.

Many people are convinced that their prayers have been answered. Suppose, for example, a charitable organization that's been operating in the red for months receives a massive, anonymous donation the very day before its property is foreclosed on. Maybe its people would regard it as a miracle, or at the very least a gift given at God's direction; the skeptics would call it coincidence. "Miraculous" healings occur quite often; again, the skeptics would say that these spontaneous events operate on some little understood, but perfectly mundane, mechanism... and would point to the great number of prayers for healing that are not answered.

And as for morality: I am quite convinced that there is an objective moral code written into nature itself; but whether it just happens to be there, or was meticulously penned by a divine Author, cannot be proved.

Originally Posted by Elvish Crack Piper

Panda, if your premise is that its unfalsifiable why the heck are people discussing it in the first place? Cmon. For the general deistic idea of a higher level being, sure, can't disprove everything.

However, when it comes to gods that are ascribed qualities, I think we can rule out the ones that seem man-made.

What do you mean by qualities that "seem man-made?"

On your whole "better obey god than men" bit, god hasn't exactly revealed anything precise to anyone. So either we get people who believe god convienty wants them to do what they want to do anyway or we get people who follow said people.

It seems like you didn't read my statement very carefully, since I did bring up Jim Jones to illustrate that this principle is a double-edged sword, potentially very good or very terrible for humanity. (Doesn't every sword become double-edged in the hands of man?)

Anyway, if it really is as intractable as you say and that the whole virtue thing is a good idea whether or not the fantasy aspects are true, why bother with religion in the first place? Go get a book on modern secular morality, ditch the weird ♥♥♥♥ thats lying around the various holy texts, and get on with your lives.

Well, the problem I have with secular morality is that, in practice, it's rarely moral. It typically amounts to, "Do whatever you want as long as it doesn't hurt me." That approach leads to a dismissive attitude about people aborting or abandoning the children they conceived, abusing their bodies with drugs and alcohol, cheating on their taxes, cheating on their spouses, etc. A society on that path is not healthy and not sustainable.

So I do believe that there's the need for a reverential attitude, if not towards God per se, then towards the esteemed "things of God." I'd love to see a modern social movement akin to chivalry, without the chauvenism: people devoting themselves to a romantic ideal of noble, honorable and upright behavior. We really could use some modern "knights in shining armor."

[Mad Mat]

Originally Posted by PandasRpeople2

Well, the problem I have with secular morality is that, in practice, it's rarely moral. It typically amounts to, "Do whatever you want as long as it doesn't hurt me." That approach leads to a dismissive attitude about people aborting or abandoning the children they conceived, abusing their bodies with drugs and alcohol, cheating on their taxes, cheating on their spouses, etc. A society on that path is not healthy and not sustainable.

So I do believe that there's the need for a reverential attitude, if not towards God per se, then towards the esteemed "things of God." I'd love to see a modern social movement akin to chivalry, without the chauvenism: people devoting themselves to a romantic ideal of noble, honorable and upright behavior. We really could use some modern "knights in shining armor."

You're strawmanning secular morality. You are describing a societal issue though, but not one that is limited to secular morality. Many christians are guilty of the things you describe as immoral.
Well, except maybe abortion.

And your solution is but one of many.

[Darklightz]

Originally Posted by PandasRpeople2

The question is not whether God influences the world in any way, but whether He can be objectively proved to have done so. And this proof cannot be produced.

Many people are convinced that their prayers have been answered. Suppose, for example, a charitable organization that's been operating in the red for months receives a massive, anonymous donation the very day before its property is foreclosed on. Maybe its people would regard it as a miracle, or at the very least a gift given at God's direction; the skeptics would call it coincidence. "Miraculous" healings occur quite often; again, the skeptics would say that these spontaneous events operate on some little understood, but perfectly mundane, mechanism... and would point to the great number of prayers for healing that are not answered.

I will admit that for those people who believe the flow of water or the sun's shine is God's will, it is impossible to discuss the issue had both of these phenomenons have clear natural explanations but the people would rather believe that nature itself is God's will.

However in such cases why believe in God at all? If you cannot find evidence that God's presence change the outcome of a scenario, why attribute it to him? What happened to innocent until proven guilty?(By that I mean it is makes more sense to believe someone is not responsible for an act untiul proven otherwise)


EDIT : Also I would be very curious to hear about someone who had been stricken with a truly grave disease, was miraculously "healed" and did not regain the symptoms once the placebo effect wore off.

Well, the problem I have with secular morality is that, in practice, it's rarely moral. It typically amounts to, "Do whatever you want as long as it doesn't hurt me."

I take great offense to that. To claim that God's leash on his believers is the only thing saving the world from Chaos not only insults unbelievers for inferring they are all evil by nature, but it insults believers as well for suggesting you are an immoral beast as well who needs constant reminders of divine punishment to keep behaving.

I had just discussed this with a friend a while back. Consider that some of the most fervently religious countries in the world; USA,Iran,Iraq are also soem of the most violent while mostly secular nations such as Denmark and Sweden are some of the most peaceful countries with much higher quality of life.

[PandasRpeople2]

Originally Posted by Darklightz

I take great offense to that. To claim that God's leash on his believers is the only thing saving the world from Chaos not only insults unbelievers for inferring they are all evil by nature, but it insults believers as well for suggesting you are an immoral beast as well who needs constant reminders of divine punishment to keep behaving.

I had just discussed this with a friend a while back. Consider that some of the most fervently religious countries in the world; USA,Iran,Iraq are also soem of the most violent while mostly secular nations such as Denmark and Sweden are some of the most peaceful countries with much higher quality of life.

I admit that that was poorly stated.

The thing is that the strength and fidelity of families is an issue near and dear to me. It is the bedrock of any healthy society. And I see America crumbling in this area. The U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services reported, in 2007, 7.4 marriages per 1000 persons and 3.7 divorces: half as many divorces as marriages. They also reported in 2005 that 37% of all births were to unmarried women. So you've got this societal trend of kids growing up without fathers, and/or getting shuffled through divorce courts, coming into adulthood with all manner of unresolved hurts and fears, and... I'm just scared at the implications.

And the only people I hear railing against this trend are religious. And the only people I see glamorizing casual sex and "serial monogamy" and all that are irreligous. So, while I'll gladly admit that you don't have to be religious in the least to be moral and to do right by your family... the general trend seems to be (or at least strongly appears to be) that family matters more to people of faith.