Aethiest sister vs intellectually lazy relgious sister

[mormont]

[quote name='nazfyratu' post='1649912' date='Jan 15 2009, 13.56']Ok, let's change the analogy a bit. Assume the parent is fabulously rich and can afford to replace bed after bed. Are you really a good parent if you allow your kids to break bed after bed just because you can afford to? From the child's perspective, you're "omnipotent" but that doesn't mean you should encourage a waste of resources.[/quote]

This is where the analogy breaks down somewhat... like, what are the 'resources' being wasted? But I'll play along for a bit. ;)

Remember, God can not only replace the bed, he can prevent it ever breaking in the first place. There is no 'bad consequence' to us jumping on the bed that he cannot prevent or avoid. If there were, he would not be omnipotent. There can also be no benefit to the ban that he couldn't achieve by other means. If he is teaching us something by allowing evil to exist, it is because he chooses to teach us it this way. Which means he has voluntarily permitted us to suffer. Which means he is not benevolent.

(Another flaw of the analogy, by the way, is that God is not just picking on the kids who jump on the bed, but also those who've done nothing wrong. Remember, the original example was an 18-month-old child starving to death.)

[Liffguard]

[quote name='nazfyratu' post='1649912' date='Jan 15 2009, 13.56']Ok, let's change the analogy a bit. Assume the parent is fabulously rich and can afford to replace bed after bed. Are you really a good parent if you allow your kids to break bed after bed just because you can afford to? From the child's perspective, you're "omnipotent" but that doesn't mean you should encourage a waste of resources.[/quote]

But to account for omnipotence, the parent doesn't just have lots of beds, he has infinite beds. And infinite manual labour with which to install them. And this manual labour is so efficient they can install a new bed infinitely fast. When dealing with omnipotence there's no such thing as "resources."

[JGP]

[quote name='Mackaxx' post='1649548' date='Jan 14 2009, 20.58']So, the god in the religion context is pretty much doomed to be disproved. As long as god is purported to be doing something I have the potential to disprove that notion.

If god does nothing but exist then god isn't god at all, not by our definitions. If we shift the definition to say something exists but doesn't actually do anything then unfortunately that has implications to the world of science. Which may be able to at some stage prove that things that exist cannot do nothing. Thus in time there is the potential to know otherwise.
fun[/quote]

There is no shifting of definitions though, Mack. I said I know it's watching and judging, but couldn't speak to the rest. Nothing's doomed here, except the scientific argument when there's no attributable religion or personages purported to speak for their God to argue against.

It's alright, you don't have to say you can't disprove it. The evidence is enough. :P

[naz]

[quote name='mormont' post='1649928' date='Jan 15 2009, 09.08']This is where the analogy breaks down somewhat... like, what are the 'resources' being wasted? But I'll play along for a bit. ;)

Remember, God can not only replace the bed, he can prevent it ever breaking in the first place. There is no 'bad consequence' to us jumping on the bed that he cannot prevent or avoid. If there were, he would not be omnipotent. There can also be no benefit to the ban that he couldn't achieve by other means. If he is teaching us something by allowing evil to exist, it is because he chooses to teach us it this way. Which means he has voluntarily permitted us to suffer. Which means he is not benevolent.

(Another flaw of the analogy, by the way, is that God is not just picking on the kids who jump on the bed, but also those who've done nothing wrong. Remember, the original example was an 18-month-old child starving to death.)[/quote]

If all this is trying to get me to say that God is not omnipotent, or that he's not universally benevolent, then yes, I'll say it. He's neither. My faith, such as it is, doesn't hold God to standards based on wildly divergent and changing human historical concepts nor does it confine God to the narrow human definitions of omnipotence and benevolence. I don't know what else to say about this without sounding like I'm rambling, so I'll just drop it.

[mormont]

[quote name='nazfyratu' post='1649947' date='Jan 15 2009, 14.27']If all this is trying to get me to say that God is not omnipotent, or that he's not universally benevolent, then yes, I'll say it. He's neither.[/quote]

No, I'm not trying to 'get you' to say anything. :) I just dig this particular philosophical argument, because (unusually) it's so neat. (Also because it forms an important part of Hume's [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogues_concerning_Natural_Religion"]'Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion'[/url], one of my favourite philosophy books - ETA and one I recommend everyone reading this thread should read!) The original formulation is simplicity itself, the counter arguments fall apart pretty easily, the whole is accessible and interesting even to non-philosophers. It's also a position I happen to agree with, i.e. that God either a) does not exist, b) is not good, or c) is not omnipotent.

I fo gor a) myself, though the problem of evil does not lead directly or inevitably to that conclusion. However, I do feel that it does show that at the very least, God's existence as a benevolent and omnipotent being is logically impossible.

[naz]

[quote name='mormont' post='1649988' date='Jan 15 2009, 10.09']No, I'm not trying to 'get you' to say anything. :) I just dig this particular philosophical argument, because (unusually) it's so neat. (Also because it forms an important part of Hume's [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogues_concerning_Natural_Religion"]'Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion'[/url], one of my favourite philosophy books.) The original formulation is simplicity itself, the counter arguments fall apart pretty easily, the whole is accessible and interesting even to non-philosophers. It's also a position I happen to agree with, i.e. that God either a) does not exist, b) is not good, or c) is not omnipotent.

I fo gor a) myself, though the problem of evil does not lead directly or inevitably to that conclusion. However, I do feel that it does show that at the very least, [b]God's existence as a benevolent and omnipotent being is logically impossible[/b].[/quote]

...but only in the way that we frame those two terms. That's all I'm saying. (And it's what you're saying, too, I know.)

[JGP]

[quote name='mormont' post='1649988' date='Jan 15 2009, 08.09']I fo gor a) myself, though the problem of evil does not lead directly or inevitably to that conclusion. However, I do feel that it does show that at the very least, God's existence as a benevolent and omnipotent being is logically impossible.[/quote]

I put philosophy study aside after GVico inflicted Kant upon me [where is that guy, btw] but I'll have to read this book. I would love to see the arugmentation that could convince anyone much less myself of this logical impossibility.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

[quote name='Liffguard' post='1649930' date='Jan 15 2009, 09.11']But to account for omnipotence, the parent doesn't just have lots of beds, he has infinite beds. And infinite manual labour with which to install them. And this manual labour is so efficient they can install a new bed infinitely fast. When dealing with omnipotence there's no such thing as "resources."[/quote]

Damn. I left this thread pondering infinity. 10 pages later, after a frolic and detour through the murky morass of creationism, we're back to infinity. Cool-o. Like Min says, this thread completely delivers.

Oh, and I think the ultimate benevolence of God is still up for debate. Think John Calvin (*shudder*).

[mormont]

[quote name='Azor Ahai' post='1649998' date='Jan 15 2009, 15.21']I put philosophy study aside after GVico inflicted Kant upon me [where is that guy, btw] but I'll have to read this book. I would love to see the arugmentation that could convince anyone much less myself of this logical impossibility.[/quote]

Vico's been gone for a loooong time. As for the book, it's certainly more accessible than that old blowhard Kant. :P It's not explicitly atheist (although Hume was an atheist) because it would have been impossible to publish an atheist tract in his day. Instead, it takes the form of a dialogue which discusses certain arguments (fashionable at that time) that were supposed to show the existence of God could be proved through reason alone.

The discussion of the problem of evil did not convince me, because I was already convinced when I read it. But it certainly has convinced a heck of a lot of people over the years. Its effect on theological thought has been described as 'profound'.

[IheartTesla]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1649873' date='Jan 15 2009, 08.01']SWK,

I have to say the "irreduciable complexity" argument seems like crap to me. If I remember correctly we believe single celled life arose two and a half billion years ago. That's a [i]very[/i] long time for changes to randomly build into the amazing complexity we see today. On a long enough time line very little is "impossible."[/quote]


Not to nitpick, but there are many things that are if not impossible, as close to improbable as we'll ever get . I'll mention the case of all gas molecules in a container filling up only half of it at some point in time. This goes to the core of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, since the multiplicity of the state I described is vanishingly small compared to other states we are used to seeing. So....they'll never do that even over the age of the universe.

The reason I bring this up is because some creationists seem to think evolution violates this law - since we are creating ordered structures out of disorder (and it is a false criticism). So I will add an addendum to your post that with external stimuli acting upon cellular organisms that self replicate a lot of things are indeed possible.

[Altherion]

[quote name='mormont' post='1649988' date='Jan 15 2009, 16.09']I fo gor a) myself, though the problem of evil does not lead directly or inevitably to that conclusion. However, I do feel that it does show that at the very least, God's existence as a benevolent and omnipotent being is logically impossible.[/quote]
I have just the quote for you:
[quote name='Sister Miriam Godwinson']Some would ask, how could a perfect God create a universe filled with so much that is evil. They have missed a greater conundrum: why would a perfect God create a universe at all?[/quote]

[Rockroi]

[quote]Now we'll look at those pesky commandments... Let me paraphrase for you (if I may be so bold) Let's call them "10 rules for having a functional civilization" 1. If you follow these rules, don't question these rules, just don't. 2. Whenever you choose to follow a path in life, stick to it. Don't try to obey conflicting doctrines. 3. Don't make symbols and icons to worship. All the faith you need is within you. 4. Don't throw curses and insults at the path you chose to follow, you made that choice. 5. Remember to set some time aside to take stock of what you have, be thankful, and relax. 6. Be respectful of your parents, they took care of you when you were young, don't abandon them when they are old. 7. Don't kill each other (pretty basic concept). 8. Running around and having affairs is not good, it might make you kill each other. 8. Don't steal. 9. Don't lie, and especially don't blame each other for your own problems. 10. Try not to be jealous of each other, or worry about what the person next to you has. Focus on your own happiness. ... I could go on, but I think you get the hint...[/quote]

That was my whole point in bringing up Moses at the Mount. Do we all really think it took God to tell the Jews these laws? Are we so hung up on God (a being we all agree cannot be proven or disproven) that we attribute these great whims of knowledge to Him and not to … ourselves and our ancestors?

My point is those rules were in existence, being used, practiced and enforced by Jews, by pagans, by sheep hearders 1000 of miles away, by Asians, Africans and Native Americans WELL BEFORE Moses made his descent. In other words, those rules did not come from God, but came from people even if one believes the Bible. And if they came from people… why is God given the credit and the authority? The credit and authority comes from humans who follow their morality.

[quote]You stated you went to catholic school. Did something happen to you at school that makes you hate God so much?[/quote]

See, thus type of question irritates me. It implies a few things. 1) that I can “Hate” God. If God does not exist, it becomes very difficult to accurately “hate” Him.

2) It takes the position that the only reason one could dislike the idea of God would be if something “bad” happened to them in order for them to reject the idea of God? Again, it presumes that a belief in God should be the default. In fact, I was also raised Catholic and I had a very positive experience- my priests were all good, I went to a Catholic High School, I read the texts and I enjoyed being Catholic (and to this DAY I take the Eucharist). It was not the “bad” of Catholicism that made me question theism, but a profound understanding of other things (sociology, science, philosophy, history, etc) that made me question God.

[quote]Lets get some things straight, and turn another direction that would eventually lead to the same path.

(A) All aspects of life (not just bacterial flagellums and blood clotting cascades) lie beyond the reach of naturalistic explanations, and (B) only intelligent design meets the criterion of an acceptable historical inference according to the Law of Cause and Effect.

This of course in turn means that both abiogenesis and materialistic evolution (proto-cell to man) is impossible.[/quote]

No. Lets get something else straight: there is not a single solitary reputable scientist who does not believe in evolution in some form. There is absolutely no serious debate in the scientific community over evolution v. creationism. None. The guy you quoted is kind of a ... weirdo. I'm just saying.

This is the EXACT problem: Religion invading areas it cannot and should not be used to explain. Faith has no business in the science class. Its horrible at it.

[quote]I feel sorry for everyone who thinks theres no purpose to the world. And no higher power. If you really think you're more intelligent for thinking that way, well KUDOS to you =)[/quote]

Hey, what’s up, strawman! We never said there was no “purpose” to the world; just not the purpose you are suggesting or that is explained by religion. And whether or not I think I am more intelligent is besides the point; the guy who mapeed the human genome is apparently a huge believer in God- me thinks he is smarter than I.

[quote]I see it this way, if I'm wrong about my beliefs, and there is no God, oh well, I didn't live a perfect live, I enjoyed it yeah, but I didn't do things that I see as being wrong because i was "Enjoying Life"

But if you're wrong about your beliefs, then well, that's an eternal 'OH SHIT' mistake.[/quote]

There is no greater dishonesty in my mind than this argument. Believing in God as a warped game of “Let’s Make a Deal.” This thought is not a tenable reason to believe in God- that if you are WRONG and are an atheist, you will be screwed. It’s a drastic invitation to turn off one’s logic and rational thought. Instead, we should choose to know these things. Otherwise, we are just spinning the wheel and playing the odds. Hardly enlightened.

[quote]Atheism is the belief that there is no God. Neither the existence of God, nor the non-existence of God, can be proven by any human means whatsoever. Therefore the belief in God's existence is pure faith....and the belief that he absolutely does not exist is pure faith.[/quote]

No. Not at all. Yes, you can believe in God based on pure faith. That is 100% unassailable. Your belief in God- based in faith and NOT in fact, logic, or reason –is fully understandable and it something that when I had it, I cherished.

However, the “disbelief” in God is IN NO WAY based in faith. Not even a little. I do not take it on faith God does not exist. I take it on 1) logic, 2) experimentation, 3) history, 4) understanding, 5) rational thought, 6) observation. You need to understand that Atheism is not a belief system structured around the disbelief of God. It’s a belief system structured around logic, reason, and science. The anti-God stuff is just a happy by-product.

This, again, is upsetting, because theists are required (by definition) to put God in the center of their belief system, and therefore, they automatically assume that the absence of God MUST be at the center of every atheists belief system. Not even close. Most atheists only spend so much time talking about God because the belief in God is such a huge part of everyone else’s life- its hard to avoid it.

[mormont]

[quote name='Altherion' post='1650071' date='Jan 15 2009, 16.28']I have just the quote for you:[/quote]

Um... thanks? :unsure:

So far as I can see that quote is a great example of someone making a statement that superficially sounds deep, but on closer examination turns out to be just moving air around. What point is it supposed to be making? That God is imperfect? That we ought to be bloody grateful that God created us at all? That we cannot understand God's motives? All of these points have been raised before in regard to the problem of evil, and none really answer it in any way or make the slightest difference to the point I have made.

ETA - it's from a character in a computer game?

[TerraPrime]

OMFG! Who broke the board when I wasn't looking?

"evolved from monkeys"?

"irreducible complexity?"

The hell? Who hot-linked this forum to [s]YouTube[/s] 4Chan?

Whoever broke it, you have 2 hours to fix this shit.

[Guest thebadlady]

Thank my atheist god. I woke up and I am still decended of a nit picking monkey. Terra, you should have read this crap right before you went to sleep. I had the oddest dreams last night...

[Fatuous]

I for one refuse to live on a planet where apes evolved from man. It's just not sanitary. "Man evolved from monkeys", you say? I can accept Lemurs but I'd say "monkeys" {chimpanzees for one yet these "monkeys" are apes} are a divergent species, not ancestor species.

I've been writing and deleting posts to this thread for days now. It's not that I don't have anything to say on the subject, it's just that I have no idea how to argue with anyone who says Creationism is a science.

I'm baffled, to put it simply. And I have no way to prove it.

[Crazydog7]

This thread is still going strong and someone actually outposted Machaxx?

[Seventh Pup]

[quote]Some would ask, how could a perfect God create a universe filled with so much that is evil. They have missed a greater conundrum: why would a perfect God create a universe at all?[/quote]

Okay I can seriously, seriously see Stephanie Meyers writing this quote. I feel the need to Twilight the hell out of this quote...

"Some people ask why my vampires sparkle. They have missed the greater conundrum: Why did my husband take away my bedazzler?"

[Guest thebadlady]

I had a hard on about defending the world from mysticism yesterday. Today its way more meh. The cold has sapped my strength and will to type. As a lol, my mom knows damn well I am atheist but wants me to go to church with her. They have cookies and coffee afterward she says. Ha!

(yes, ofc I will go with her. You never say no to your momma.)

[Altherion]

[quote name='mormont' post='1650085' date='Jan 15 2009, 17.38']What point is it supposed to be making? That God is imperfect? That we ought to be bloody grateful that God created us at all? That we cannot understand God's motives?[/quote]
The latter. I do not disagree with your argument -- if there is a God, said God is either not omnipotent or he does not deem suffering to be something that ought to be avoided at all costs. However, I'm not entirely sure which God you're arguing against because the Judeo-Christian-Muslim one doesn't merely passively allow suffering, He actively inflicts it -- sometimes to people who had it coming and sometimes to make a point (what did the Egyptian firstborns from the story of Moses do to deserve their fate?).
[quote]ETA - it's from a character in a computer game?[/quote]
Yes. I thought more people on this board had played Alpha Centauri...