Religion vs Atheism Book 2

[Mladen]

The actual argument here is about the morality of such a being, not its existence. I don't have to argue it's existence, I get to dismiss it out of hand because there's never been any evidence for any deity ever. But for the moment I'm willing to accept the premise "god is true" because I'm bored and I find the debate interesting.

Let we imagine we live in the perfect world. No evil. The mere concept is unknown. Tell me, how would you know what is right and wrong? The mere idea of judging the God's morality came from the idea that this world is created with both sides of the coin existing - both good and bad. Without those two concepts, there are no morality. 

[TrueMetis]

Let we imagine we live in the perfect world. No evil. The mere concept is unknown. Tell me, how would you know what is right and wrong? The mere idea of judging the God's morality came from the idea that this world is created with both sides of the coin existing - both good and bad. Without those two concepts, there are no morality. 

And? No morality because there doesn't need to be, sounds like a good thing to me. You act like you've made an argument, but you haven't.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

TM,

You are implying that any "bad" thing's that exist in a created universe without obvious good side effects for humanity means that the creator of that Universe is cruel and capricious.  I'm pointing out that if that creator had made a Universe where human lives were unending bliss where it was impossible for "bad" things to happen would mean those humans would have no idea they lived in a perfect universe because they have no "bad" things to compair their "perfect" existence to.  

[Mladen]

And? No morality because there doesn't need to be, sounds like a good thing to me. You act like you've made an argument, but you haven't.

Well, I think that the concept of "ideal" world is that it is not ideal. The world without evil take us the liberty of choice which inherently makes us humans. What are we if we are not able to choose? And in the world like that, in the world where you don't have to choose, there wouldn't also be a choice on religion. I prefer my free will, to be honest.

If we argue that omnipotent God gave us the free will, the evil has to exist because there wouldn't be any purpose for our will to exist.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

OAR,

How can you know that?  What if the existence of the disease that causes illness was a necessary side consequence of the evloution of a conscious being?  What if there are broader consquences to magically eliminating all illness that we cannot see?

I think it's absurd to imagine consciousness couldn't be preserved and, say, cancer eliminated. And even if it is the case that it is a necessary consequence of the evolution of a conscious being, very well, we are evolved now, the need is long outlived.

I addressed the point about free will. Referring to wholly unspecific "broader consequences" takes us down another road entirely. Now, if God is so constrained by consequence in the universe he purportedly created that he is unable to intercede to lessen human suffering by healing disease I think we have to ask whether this God we're now talking about at all resembles God as he is generally understood, as being all-powerful, or at least unimaginably, incredibly powerful- your exceedingly constrained God is very different from this version.

Even more specifically, and on a different note, we can look at the God of the Bible, who was said to come to Earth in the form of his "Son," Jesus, and literally heal the sick and raise the dead- without, apparently, provoking disastrous "broader consequences." Did he simply tire of doing so?

So, basically God's existence is measured by the quantity of pain in our lives? I am sorry, but the idea that the God is false just because there are bad things happening in the world is, IMO, one of the problems in this discussions. The problem I see with this opinion is that it completely misses the point of many religions.

In my opinion, bad things happen alongside with the good ones. Sometimes it doesn't seem fair, but living in the world where both concepts exist demand a bit of unfairness (speaking from human POV). God doesn't represent the magical solution for the problems. The religion doesn't work that way and the more we try to turn it into some sort of easy way out, the less sense it makes. I do believe that everything in the world has its own purpose. I don't think that when I get cold, I will go to church and suddenly be better (and the notion is hysterical for me) but I do believe it is just part of the good and the bad happening to me. Yes, there are times I ask, why me? But I am aware of my inability to comprehend it and if somethings happen that seems random, I deal with the usual "C'est la vie". 

What I want to say is that sometimes I think that atheists' have rather wrong approach to the religion. Because there are believers who made the peace that God is not there to fulfill every little desire we have and that he won't solve us the problems just because we went X number of times to church.

There is nothing in this which addresses the argument at hand.

[Mladen]

 

There is nothing in this which addresses the argument at hand.

Except the fact that is dealing with perception that deity should be expected to intervene in all the issues of mankind. 

[HexMachina]

Great point, why wouldn't someone with divine knowledge use it to benefit humanity? Why not tell people about vaccinations or sanitation or agricultural techniques that could sustain more people? 

because they cause autism, silly!

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

OAR,

I addressed

 the point about free will. Referring to wholly unspecific "broader consequences" takes us down another road entirely. Now, if God is so constrained by consequence in the universe he purportedly created that he is unable to intercede to lessen human suffering by healing disease I think we have to ask whether this God we're now talking about at all resembles God as he is generally understood, as being all-powerful, or at least unimaginably, incredibly powerful- your exceedingly constrained God is very different from this version.

 

OAR,

I don't think we have any real idea what God is or what God's purposes are and that all we have, at the end of the day, are our best guesses.  I don't believe we are capable of understanding God's purposes.  I'll go further and say that if we could, we would be God.  As for why a diety chose not to heal all illnesses and allow us to exist in a perfect idil we cannot understand the full purposes of a being that far beyond us but I do think their is value in attempting to try to understand.  

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Except the fact that is dealing with perception that deity should be expected to intervene in all the issues of mankind. 

It deals with it only in the sense that you dismiss the idea without addressing the argument, and instead by just stating what religion means to you.

There's nothing relevant for me to respond to.

[TrueMetis]

Well, I think that the concept of "ideal" world is that it is not ideal. The world without evil take us the liberty of choice which inherently makes us humans. What are we if we are not able to choose? And in the world like that, in the world where you don't have to choose, there wouldn't also be a choice on religion. I prefer my free will, to be honest.

If we argue that omnipotent God gave us the free will, the evil has to exist because there wouldn't be any purpose for our will to exist.

Nope. I don't care one way or the other if we have free will. It changes nothing to me. Liberty to make evil choices is a stupid thing to defend anyway and doesn't fly anywhere else. Why does it fly for god? Why is the free will of a rapist so damn important but the free will of the person being raped means jack shit?

Then it's not omnipotent is it? You guys sure love putting arbitrary restrictions onto your god. At this point he's less a god and more a computer programmer, and not a very good one at that.

TM,

You are implying that any "bad" thing's that exist in a created universe without obvious good side effects for humanity means that the creator of that Universe is cruel and capricious.  I'm pointing out that if that creator had made a Universe where human lives were unending bliss where it was impossible for "bad" things to happen would mean those humans would have no idea they lived in a perfect universe because they have no "bad" things to compair their "perfect" existence to.  

So fucking what? Kids in Africa aren't starving so I don't realize how good my easy access to food is, Oh no. I mean even if I accepted the premise as true, and I don't, this is a terrible argument.

[Mladen]

Nope. I don't care one way or the other if we have free will. It changes nothing to me. Liberty to make evil choices is a stupid thing to defend anyway and doesn't fly anywhere else. Why does it fly for god? Why is the free will of a rapist so damn important but the free will of the person being raped means jack shit?

Then it's not omnipotent is it? You guys sure love putting arbitrary restrictions onto your god. At this point he's less a god and more a computer programmer, and not a very good one at that.

This is oversimplification what we have been arguing. The ability to choose between right and wrong is what makes us humans. I would say that choice is our greatest luxury and when there is none, we can't talk about human beings. The free will of rapist doesn't surpass the free will of the person who is raped. But we are bound by what we are. We are not omnipotent and we can't somehow "choose" for bad things not to happen to us is. What we can choose is how to react to them, what to do, etc. Person who was raped can also have a choice to kill the rapist and then we will talk how rapist didn't have the choice. 

Simply put, without evil there can be no free will.

As for restrictions, we are not putting it, it is just how we see it. There are those who truly believe God will heal them if they go to church X times or they say 50 prayers. We just see it as something that is not some magical answer to all the problems.

It deals with it only in the sense that you dismiss the idea without addressing the argument, and instead by just stating what religion means to you.

There's nothing relevant for me to respond to.

Then I suppose there was no need to respond to it

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

TM,

Now you are dodging the point.  This isn't about individual cases of suffering.  It is about the implication that if any suffering exists it means God must be cruel and capricious.  That opens the question of how we could percieve a "perfect" world in a world with your implied "just God" who allows no suffering which you are refusing to address.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

OAR,

 

 

OAR,

I don't think we have any real idea what God is or what God's purposes are and that all we have, at the end of the day, are our best guesses.  I don't believe we are capable of understanding God's purposes.  I'll go further and say that if we could, we would be God.  As for why a diety chose not to heal all illnesses and allow us to exist in a perfect idil we cannot understand the full purposes of a being that far beyond us but I do think their is value in attempting to try to understand.  

Ok, I think that's fine as a personal view in that there's nothing logically objectionable in your definition of God- which is basically a God about which you seem to be making no claims whatsoever.

However, questions about the existence of cruelty do raise very important, and I think devastating, challenges to the existence of God as he is classically, commonly defined, and certainly as he is defined in Christianity, as being all-powerful (or exceptionally powerful) and benevolent.

[TrueMetis]

This is oversimplification what we have been arguing. The ability to choose between right and wrong is what makes us humans. I would say that choice is our greatest luxury and when there is none, we can't talk about human beings.

No and restating it doesn't make it true. It doesn't matter whether free will exists, it would change nothing. A universe with or without free will is exactly the same. Human beings are not defined by having free will, because free will isn't something that has been proven to exist.

The free will of rapist doesn't surpass the free will of the person who is raped. But we are bound by what we are. We are not omnipotent and we can't somehow "choose" for bad things not to happen to us is. What we can choose is how to react to them, what to do, etc. Person who was raped can also have a choice to kill the rapist and then we will talk how rapist didn't have the choice. 

Simply put, without evil there can be no free will.

But the omnipotent being you claim exists can and does, by virtue of being omnipotent. You understand that's what I'm talking about right? By not stopping rapists and murderers your god puts their rights ahead of their victims.

As for restrictions, we are not putting it, it is just how we see it. There are those who truly believe God will heal them if they go to church X times or they say 50 prayers. We just see it as something that is not some magical answer to all the problems.

You did though, by claiming and omnipotent being cannot do something.

[TrueMetis]

TM,

Now you are dodging the point.  This isn't about individual cases of suffering.  It is about the implication that if any suffering exists it means God must be cruel and capricious.  That opens the question of how we could percieve a "perfect" world in a world with your implied "just God" who allows no suffering which you are refusing to address.

I'm not dodging the point, nor am refusing to address it. I did answer it several times, I reject the premise we need evil to understand good. And even if that premise were true it wouldn't be a bad thing to not understand good. And you have yet to give me a reason it would be. You've stated it like it's self evident, it is not.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I'm not dodging the point, nor am refusing to address it. I did answer it several times, I reject the premise we need evil to understand good. And even if that premise were true it wouldn't be a bad thing to not understand good. And you have yet to give me a reason it would be. You've stated it like it's self evident, it is not.

TM,

I'd be delighted for you to explain how anyone could perceive or understand joy or delight in a Universe wherein it is impossible for anything "bad" to occur.

[TrueMetis]

TM,

I'd be delighted for you to explain how anyone could perceive or understand joy or delight in a Universe wherein it is impossible for anything "bad" to occur.

Same way we do in this universe. I mean you do understand that when I say I reject the good requires bad premise that applies to this universe too right? When I eat something that tastes good I am not comparing it to all the stuff I've eaten that tastes bad and using that as my point of reference. I can't even remember what that would be. I don't do that for anything I enjoy. It's not "I like this because it's better than X" It's just "I like this" I don't enjoy sunrises because of something bad that happened in my life scot. Sunrises are cool, that's all there is to it.

Now, care to prove your premise? I mean it is typically how that's supposed to work.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

TM,

But without bad interspersed with the good how do you have any reason to appreciate the things you value?  You have no risk, no danger, no possibility that anything but further good things will occur.  Your idilic life is a monotonous blur of one good thing after another.  There is no reason to value any experience because you are certian that's all that will follow on for eternity (as I'm sure immortality is required to avoid God being called cruel and capricious for allowing death to exist).

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

OAR,

Ok, I think that's fine as a personal view in that there's nothing logically objectionable in your definition of God- which is basically a God about which you seem to be making no claims whatsoever. 

However, questions about the existence of cruelty do raise very important, and I think devastating, challenges to the existence of God as he is classically, commonly defined, and certainly as he is defined in Christianity, as being all-powerful (or exceptionally powerful) and benevolent.

But... what I think most faiths are attempting to do is give all of us their best guess as to God's purpose which we all fail to grasp more than a smidgen of.  As such, being human and fallable we screw it up.  What I hear you saying is that if we can't further that purpose in perfect lockstep with God's plan we should abandon any attempts to try as the efforts are pointless whether God exists or not?

Is that correct?

[TrueMetis]

TM,

But without bad interspersed with the good how do you have any reason to appreciate the things you value?  You have no risk, no danger, no possibility that anything but further good things will occur.  Your idilic life is a monotonous blur of one good thing after another.  There is no reason to value any experience because you are certian that's all that will follow on for eternity (as I'm sure immortality is required to avoid God being called cruel and capricious for allowing death to exist).

Yes. Scot when I read a book I don't appreciate it because I think it's suddenly going to vanish. I'm not enjoying the pop I'm drinking because I don't think I'll ever get to drink another one. I'm playing SWTOR at the moment. Nothing bad happens to me in that game, worst thing comes to worst I wipe an operation. But that barely registers as annoying. Yet I still enjoy myself massively, even as it fits everything you described.

And no I do think death would have to exist, it would just be something an individual chooses rather than being killed or dying of natural causes. I know several people who consider immortality a horrible fate.