The Existence of God (Myspace Edition)

[Modman]

This is related to the existence of God debate. I'm going to continue editing this until everything is accurately and clearly quoted, etc. So, consider this a work in progress.

The way you wrote this, it seems that you simply WANT to believe in God, and that's enough reason for you to do so. If you want to believe in a being that is all powerful (omnipotent) and perfectly good (omni benevolent), then you can go right ahead. But you lack any evidence for that belief.

And now, I'm going to prove that God cannot be all powerful. In fact, I'm going to prove that nothing can be all powerful.

First, let us define the traditional religious believer's faith in the omnipotence of God: God can do anything; logical or illogical, contradiction or not. After all, All powerful means just that. If there's something, anything at all, that God cannot do, no matter how small of a thing it is, it is still something that God cannot do. Therefore, if anything should be comprehendable in the sense that there is no way that God could do it, it would prove that he, nor any other being, cannot be omnipotent. Following me so far?

Good. Now, let's examine logically impossible things. That is, things that are contradictions, or cannot be done.

Can God sit down and draw a square circle? No, a square and a circle are polar opposites. There is no way a square circle could exist and still hold the definitions given to a square and a circle.

Can God create a married bachelor? If a person is married, they cannot be a bachelor. If a person is a bachelor, they cannot be married.

These are things that are logically impossible. However, you may be inclined to say that God can still do them. Regardless, they cannot be done. Also, it doesn't matter how ridiculous these ideas are, if God can't do them, they are still things that God cannot do.

Now, let's move on to the logically possible things God cannot do.

Can God create something he can no longer control? If you answer yes, then something would exist which God could no longer control. And, if God can't control something, then there's something God can't do. If you answer no, well, duh, there's something God can't do.

Can God create rules for himself to follow? If you answer yes, then God it is possible for God to permanently limit his power and actions, as if God sets a rule that he must follow, it creates something that he cannot due (break the rule). If you answer no, well, I've covered this already. It's still something he can't do.

Can God create a stone too heavy for himself to lift? Well, this is interesting. Human's have created millions of things that they cannot lift. Is it possible that we can do something God cannot? How does that make him more powerful than us? But, alas, if you answer yes, well, then there would be a stone that God couldn't lift. And if he can't lift the stone... yep, you've guessed it. It's something God cannot do.

No matter how you look at it, it is impossible for an all powerful being to exist. So, even if this God of yours does exist, the God that you're thinking of right now CANNOT exist. If a God does exist, he's not all powerful. He could be defined as most powerful, but that rank isn't static; it can be surpassed or replaced.

Now I'm sure you know that you cannot prove the nonexistence of God. That would be absolutely impossible being that you simply cannot search all possible universes for God and then still not find him, thus being absolutely certain that He is not real.

The universe clearly is very ordered.. There are things that we can't explain such as cell differentiation. and there are many complex things such as the structure of DNA. Why would these things just happen coincidently? I don't think that they did.

I also look at things such as our ability to think, feel and love and human beings' universal, innate concept of right and wrong. I feel that everyone seems to know right and wrong for a reason. Even if it is inconvenient to us, there is no denying that it's wrong to kill, rape, steal, etc... yet everyone from pretty much every culture will attest that those things are wrong. My belief on that is that there is a God who made us that way rather than chancing that it’s a coincidence and people just so happen to have ingrained in them a sense of right and wrong that is pretty universal and hard to ignore. If you also look at concepts such as love, it's a question of how we have an ability to love and feel emotions. One may say that this is simply a reaction to our environment because intelligent creatures such as humans couldn't really function together in a society without adapting the ability to love one another and have emotion. But, then you would be assuming that a colony of robots would eventually end up doing the same thing and becoming human for all intents and purposes.

See, there is usually a purpose behind evolution. If a mammal evolves from a creature that walks and has legs to a creature that swims, there was a purpose: it was easier for it to survive in its environment that way. Essentially, evolution doesn't happen without a reason. SO, what's the reason for the universe itself to just evolve? There isn't one. At least, if there is an existence of a God, the reason for the universe would be to glorify Him. That may not be much of a reason to an atheist, however, if there really was a God, it would make sense that He would make something simply for that purpose.

So, no. This isn't concrete proof in the existence of a God. It's just some reasons from a logical standpoint that makes it look like there may be. But honestly, do you really have proof He doesn't exist? Do you believe beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is not a God? Do you have anything concrete and absolute that would make me (and others) give up their faith and their reasons for believing that there is a God?


That said, there have been some serious flaws in your argument. Your applications of Occam's razor, for one, did not really fit in with the point that you were trying to make.

I mean, saying that the universe, in all of its complexities just happened by random chance is a huge assumption.

I believe it is much less presumptuous to say that the complex universe was created by an intelligent being even if He is outside of our sensory perception.

Also, you say that faith is not a good enough reason to believe in God. Well, isn't evolution a faith in and of itself because there is no way to prove it. I mean, it's technically not even a theory because they aren't even testable. Even many evolutionists themselves claim that it is not entirely infallible

*H.S. Lipson, Professor of physics, University of Manchester, UK, wrote in an article:
"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it"

*Derek Agar gave this speech to the British Geological Association in 1976 about the evolution of humans:
"It must be significant that nearly all of the evolution stories I learned as a student... have now been debunked. Similarly, my own experience of more than 20 years looking for evolution among [early Brachiopads] has proven them equally elusive"

*Paul Ehrlich, professor of biology at Stanford University states:
"No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as a part of our training."


And that is the alternative if one doesn't want to believe in Creationism?





As for your proof that God (which you define as an all-powerful being) cannot be all-powerful, I find your argument lacking in convincing logic. First, if you are going to set straw men up (which you do with the nicely somewhat ambiguous word "traditional", be aware that not everyone may agree with the position you are disproving. That being said, there are a number of responses to your argument. First, you say: "God can do anything; logical or illogical, contradiction or not. Can God sit down and draw a square circle? No." Clearly, the very basis for your argument is fundamentally flawed. You define a God who can do anything and then claim that He cannot do anything and therefore does not exist. It is my hope that you comprehend the point I am making and will not respond with something like "exactly, I am saying that such a being cannot exist", because you have not indeed proved anything. All you have done is contradicted yourself proposing a hypothetical being and violating your own proposal. If such a being did exist that could do illogical things he could clearly draw a square circle. Please next time come up with an argument that actually needs a response to defeat it.

[Modman]

Also, my friend wrote this:
"I hope you have already read the ontological proofs of God put forth by Descartes and others before posting here, so that you are not simply wasting time. Granted, there are other forms of proofs for the existence of God, but the ontological proofs are, in my opinion, the most basic.
With the assumption that you are indeed familiar with this material, I’ll continue my post. Note that this is not originally intended as an rebuttal or proof of any sort (sorry if I don’t provide you with the exhilarating debate you were seeking), but feel free to use it as that if it works. My primary goals in this are as follow: Give you a response from a(n) (semi-)intelligent Christian, express my views in a hopefully clear and understandable manner, and make sure that I keep things to the best of my ability logically consistent. Without further ado, I shall attempt to enumerate my points.
First, I find the unsupported statements you make concerning subjective topics and other’s personal experience detract from the credibility of your argument. For instance, your assertion that there is no human that could possibly be depressed by the thought of the eventual death of the world or universe is at the most absurd, and at the least an exaggeration. Not only am I skeptical of your evidence for this (it seems to come solely from your own intuition), but I have myself seen people who showed all the symptoms of depression at exactly such a thought. Not only do you seem to deny the value of others’ intuitions while putting forth assertions evidently from your own, but you re-interpret of flat out deny the evidence they give from personal experience. It is one thing to be selective in what evidence you consider and to dismiss other’s experience as something that cannot be used in this forum, due to it’s lack of objectivity, or some other characteristic, but it is a different thing to deny the truth of said experience altogether without any support. Lastly, you make such claims as that people in medieval times believed that the earth is flat. That is completely untrue. They have known it was round since classical times, and the myth that they thought it to be flat comes from a fantasy novel. Please make your arguments more supported and of a higher caliper if you want the discussion to follow conventional logic. If a logical discussion is not a requirement of yours, feel free to continue with these arguments, since I am sure that most of the myspace community will not object.
Next, I am unclear on your faith in humanity. First, you seem to oscillate between denying argument by design by talking about the KKK and the sad state of humanity, and expressing your faith in humanities ability to solve it’s own problems (which your own account of history seems to undermine). Do you have a consistent view on this, and what makes faith in humanity’s ability to solve its own problems different from the blind faith to which you are so opposed?
In answer to the question of free will put forth by Kristen, I shall attempt to explain my conceptualization of the relationship between free will and determinism. On a grand scale, viewing the history of the universe in its entirety, there exists no free will, only a universe determined by cause and effect. On a microscopic scale of history, viewing individual lives, free will is a valid concept to explain the human ability to process information and make choices based on that information, or in other words, take input and produce output. On a microscopic scale, consequences and justice make sense based on free will since one can see the correlation between an individual’s actions and the consequences. When the question of justice is brought to the macroscopic level of viewing history, it is simply present as a symmetry, or consistency in the chain of events that constitutes the life of the universe. Occasionally people then ask "well why does someone get punished for what wasn’t their fault?", but this shows a misunderstanding of the concept of determinism, since they are attempting to take a concept only present on the microscopic level, namely fault, and apply it to the macroscopic view of history. Anyone sufficiently versed in quantum mechanics and relativity theory certainly understands the difference between understanding microscopic and macroscopic phenomena. If one clearly understands my point, to disagree is to deny cause and effect, or to deny the human ability to process information and make choices altogether, both of which are not easy claims to support. Hopefully this view of determinism and free will is helpful.
The question Dick put forth is explainable through this view, but also brings up the question of God’s perfect will and His de facto will. This is a theological view stemming from a belief that God is omnipotent, and has a multidimensional or multifaceted character. While lengthy in its full form, the theory essentially states that there is a separation between God’s desires as He reveals them to humans, and what He allows to happen. It is a reconciliation of His omni benevolence with His omnipotence, and the existence of evil. Other solutions to this are recognizing evil as the absence of God, or demonstrating how God’s allowance for evil to exist results in a better end. This can be shown in a number of ways, and it is normally up to individual preference which one accepts. For an informal analogy, I find that the image of an author writing a book works well. One does not criticize the author for including corrupt characters in the story, or praise them for their lack of any character with any flaws, but on how well they write the story, and whether the events in the book follow the character’s personalities consistently. In the same way, God when writing creation, is not unjust for allowing imperfection to exist, but is praised on how well He deals with this imperfect, how just and merciful He is, or whatever other qualities you find helpful to substitute into the analogy.
While I am between topics, let me apologize for the remarks of a number of other "Christians". While I was not involved in that in any way, I feel I should give you some consolation for actually reading through their posts and surviving the brain damage that must have followed. I personally thought it was relatively clear from your posts that you were not seeking to be proselytized or to engage in who-can-type-louder contests. Sadly, I am not surprised by the responses this topic elicited, but I guess, you shouldn’t be either, since you did begin the topic on a High School Myspace page, instead of a university philosophy club.
As for the question of where God came from, I am pleased to see that you did not set that up as a proof against God, since it usually only serves the purpose of demonstrating a lack of understanding of the concept of God by those who use it in this manner. However, it is not as simple as it may seem to assert that the universe has always existed, especially if you accept the big bang theory to be true, since supposedly, the space time continuum as we know it came from the big bang, and so the initial point mass cannot have existed "in" a universe as we understand it. Furthermore, this presumes the universe to have certain "supernatural" characteristics that we do not usually associate with it, so that it would not require any cause. All this is to say that it is actually far simpler to say that God created it and is by definition ever-existent, than to explain the theory of the eternal universe. It is just the scientific quality that the latter theory has that makes it more appealing, not the simplicity with which it may be explained.
As long as I am responding to your posts at random, I shall address the issue of the imperceptibility of God. First, in responding to the barber shop example you claimed no evidence that God is the cause of the removal of pain and suffering. This seems to be your stance throughout the topic as you consistently tell people that their experiences were a result of their own actions without any higher being. I would like to point out that there is as much evidence for God being the agent of healing as there is for the barber being the haircutting agent, with the difference being objectivity in sight. What I mean is, to the person who believes God has healed them, the only difference between the reality of God and the barber is that they see the barber and they can show other the barber visibly.
Second, you give the gardener analogy early on. I am making the assumption (which seems obvious to me) that you are not using that example to say something like "If we can’t see or smell or touch the gardener, so he must not exist, since no gardener is that skillful to avoid detection by any of those methods", but that you are instead putting forth an empiricist view of reality to question the nature of reality outside sensual perception. Firstly, the analogy is not logically consistent with the question of whether God is the cause of a physical phenomenon. To make this analogy is to say God is to man (gardener) as a physical phenomenon is to a physical phenomenon (garden). Since the second pair are in the same category, and the first to are not, the analogy does not apply. Ignoring that fact however, questioning the existence of extrasensory reality is not only philosophically very controversial and difficult to support, but it is also inconsistent with the objections that you have presented against the experiential evidence others provide. If there is a reality outside of the senses, the difference between an existent imperceptible gardener and a non-existent gardener is nonsensical. If there is not reality outside of perception, then the testimonies that people give of God prove His existence, since to say they experienced Him is akin to saying they perceived him and thus He exists. If you further qualify reality to include only those things collectively experienced, it is no longer a practical definition, since it is obvious that there are many portions of our lives that others cannot experience (our thoughts for example), but which are still real in a sense and even define reality according to Descartes. Furthermore, a single individual’s denial of anything calls into question its existence. If you do not require unanimity in the collective experience, God certainly qualifies, as there are plenty of people who have experienced God, and the only way to refute their testimony is to assume an extrasensory reality. Hence, the gardener example does not discredit God’s existence, and the idea of God’s existence is just as plausible (if not more) with a perceptual definition of reality. Even were it possible to construct a notion of reality that excluded the possibility of God, God can simply be said to be outside of that reality by virtue of being its creator, and the notion of reality is still simply a notion with which no one is required to agree.
As short note, you beg the question when stating "God does not exist. People believe He does. Therefore, they are in denial" or "God does not exist. Therefore belief in Him is only due to conformity to early conditioning (upbringing) or a need for solace. Therefore God does not exist." If your reply is that you are not using this argument, than choose your words more carefully and refrain from statements such as "that’s called denial" which presume this form of reasoning.
Finally, let me make it clear again, that I enjoy debate, and think that intellectual investigation is very important. While I object to some of the statements tones contain ed in this topic, I am fundamentally for the concept of exchanging ideas, over agreement or disagreement alike. I also, am not as presumptuous to make any conscious judgments about the individuals who are making the posts, and attempt rather to deal with the content and their persona in posting (the "you" to which I occasionally refer). While controversy is occasionally catalytic and necessary, my goal is not to create that, but to provide and articulate account of my ideas, which I hope will be intellectually satisfying to those reading it, whether they concur or not. With these closing words, thank you for contributing your ideas and reading mine."

K.

[Modman]

As for your proof that God (which you define as an all-powerful being) cannot be all-powerful, I find your argument lacking in convincing logic. First, if you are going to set straw men up (which you do with the nicely somewhat ambiguous word "traditional", be aware that not everyone may agree with the position you are disproving. That being said, there are a number of responses to your argument. First, you say: "God can do anything; logical or illogical, contradiction or not. Can God sit down and draw a square circle? No." Clearly, the very basis for your argument is fundamentally flawed. You define a God who can do anything and then claim that He cannot do anything and therefore does not exist. It is my hope that you comprehend the point I am making and will not respond with something like "exactly, I am saying that such a being cannot exist", because you have not indeed proved anything. All you have done is contradicted yourself proposing a hypothetical being and violating your own proposal. If such a being did exist that could do illogical things he could clearly draw a square circle. Please next time come up with an argument that actually needs a response to defeat it.

I will, however, take time to respond to this.

I didn't define God as a being that can do anything. That is, God was defined to me as such. If you walk into a church and ask them if God can do anything that we can think of, the answer will most definitely not be 'No'. The term 'Traditional Religious Believer' is not ambiguous; there are certain fundamental beliefs that all believers in God hold, and those beliefs are what I am indirectly referring to as being the defining factors to that term. As one examines the logic in applying one's own preferred definition to a term applied in a proof by another, it becomes apparent that it is the interpreter who is at fault for misunderstanding the speaker rather than that the speaker has made a mistake.

What I suggest you do is take back your reply, and reexamine my own proof from the perspective that I am attacking the idea of omnipotence rather than an all powerful being, although one is inherent to the other. Perhaps I'll do it for you.

Omnipotence: the state of being omnipotent; having unlimited power.
Unlimited: A term to describe an action not defined within narrowed limits.
Narrow: pin down; define clearly.

I will continue to define any terms allowing you to continue with your apparent style of counter-replying. (Basing your arguments on a level of supposed ambiguity displayed by the speaker.)

Now, I will suppose that you have had some philosophical experience, and will be able to recognize what I am about to lay out:

If God is omnipotent, then he must have unlimited, unrestricted power and ability.
God is omnipotent.
______________________
God must have unlimited, unrestricted power and ability.

If God has unlimited, unrestricted power and ability, there must be nothing that does not fall in his range of capability.
God has unlimited, unrestricted power and ability.
___________________________________________
There must be nothing that does not fall in God's range of capability.


Now, if you agree that God cannot do illogical things, as I have deduced in my own time supposing he exists, you must admit that it is in fact something that he cannot do. That is, something that does not fall in his range of capability. If there exists something that God cannot do, no matter how preposterous the idea, it remains something that God cannot do. And that, my friend, is where the issue lies. My proof is not meant to prove that God does not exist; its purpose is to prove that a being with infinite power and ability does not exist.

K.

[Modman]

Also, my friend wrote this: "..."

Well, heh, I have friends too. I haven't had time to formulate a response to this, but my friend had this to say:


My first assertion after reading this is that the author has just a faint grasp on what is and what isn't. That is to say, this person has the right intention, but could find a far better catalyst to propel the views herein. My second assertion is that the "book author" analogy has derailed any respect I had for the intentions set forth by this person. One cannot honestly proclaim God's omnipotence simply to defend His "imperfection" later in the same paragraph. By claiming the results of God's creation are imperfect is to claim God Himself is imperfect. This would logically cancel the existence of God in and of itself; God must be perfect in every foreseeable and unforeseeable way.

K.

[Modman]

Now I'm sure you know that you cannot prove the nonexistence of God. That would be absolutely impossible being that you simply cannot search all possible universes for God and then still not find him, thus being absolutely certain that He is not real.

The universe clearly is very ordered.. There are things that we can't explain such as cell differentiation. and there are many complex things such as the structure of DNA. Why would these things just happen coincidently? I don't think that they did.

I also look at things such as our ability to think, feel and love and human beings' universal, innate concept of right and wrong. I feel that everyone seems to know right and wrong for a reason. Even if it is inconvenient to us, there is no denying that it's wrong to kill, rape, steal, etc... yet everyone from pretty much every culture will attest that those things are wrong. My belief on that is that there is a God who made us that way rather than chancing that it’s a coincidence and people just so happen to have ingrained in them a sense of right and wrong that is pretty universal and hard to ignore. If you also look at concepts such as love, it's a question of how we have an ability to love and feel emotions. One may say that this is simply a reaction to our environment because intelligent creatures such as humans couldn't really function together in a society without adapting the ability to love one another and have emotion. But, then you would be assuming that a colony of robots would eventually end up doing the same thing and becoming human for all intents and purposes.

See, there is usually a purpose behind evolution. If a mammal evolves from a creature that walks and has legs to a creature that swims, there was a purpose: it was easier for it to survive in its environment that way. Essentially, evolution doesn't happen without a reason. SO, what's the reason for the universe itself to just evolve? There isn't one. At least, if there is an existence of a God, the reason for the universe would be to glorify Him. That may not be much of a reason to an atheist, however, if there really was a God, it would make sense that He would make something simply for that purpose.

So, no. This isn't concrete proof in the existence of a God. It's just some reasons from a logical standpoint that makes it look like there may be. But honestly, do you really have proof He doesn't exist? Do you believe beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is not a God? Do you have anything concrete and absolute that would make me (and others) give up their faith and their reasons for believing that there is a God?


That said, there have been some serious flaws in your argument. Your applications of Occam's razor, for one, did not really fit in with the point that you were trying to make.

I mean, saying that the universe, in all of its complexities just happened by random chance is a huge assumption.

I believe it is much less presumptuous to say that the complex universe was created by an intelligent being even if He is outside of our sensory perception.

Also, you say that faith is not a good enough reason to believe in God. Well, isn't evolution a faith in and of itself because there is no way to prove it. I mean, it's technically not even a theory because they aren't even testable. Even many evolutionists themselves claim that it is not entirely infallible

*H.S. Lipson, Professor of physics, University of Manchester, UK, wrote in an article:
"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it"

*Derek Agar gave this speech to the British Geological Association in 1976 about the evolution of humans:
"It must be significant that nearly all of the evolution stories I learned as a student... have now been debunked. Similarly, my own experience of more than 20 years looking for evolution among [early Brachiopads] has proven them equally elusive"

*Paul Ehrlich, professor of biology at Stanford University states:
"No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as a part of our training."


And that is the alternative if one doesn't want to believe in Creationism?

Firstly, I do not enjoy how you claim that the entire universe is very ordered. Have you truly been all throughout the entire universe? Or, as I suppose you are beginning to realize, are you simply basing your assertions off of this one, miniscule section of the universe in which our solar system and a few galaxies reside? You ask if I believe chance and probability could be responsible for what has happened in our part of the universe, and I say yes. The probability that in a universe whose size we can never hope to measure, a small, almost non-existent section of the universe when held in a ratio to the size of the entire thing should develop "complexities" and "laws" is entirely feasible.

Unfortunately, I am not here to have a 'feeling and belief', I'm here to have a logical debate. I'm not interested in your picture preference. Also, you claim that the ideas of right and wrong are universal. I pains me to see so many references attempting to slip by the concept that because our small part of the universe appears to be complex and ordered, the rest of the universe must also be the same. This logic does not follow.

I'm also saddened to see that you're attempting to claim that one must believe in something, such that if one doesn't believe in creationism, one must believe in evolutionism. This is not the case? This isn't a presidential election; I don't have to make a choice between the lesser of two evils.

However, you're again applying your picture preference to evolution. It does not require a purpose. Saying that there must be a purpose for each evolution is an attempt to imply there was a designer. Chance, probability, and scientific "rules" for evolution are most likely going to be the explanation for that, should evolution turn out to be true.

The disproof of something's existence is the negation of the proof for its existence. I propose a question to you: is it possible that God doesn't exist?

K.

[Modman]

Lastly, you make such claims as that people in medieval times believed that the earth is flat. That is completely untrue. They have known it was round since classical times, and the myth that they thought it to be flat comes from a fantasy novel.

Yes... apparently you're history is a bit incorrect. It did come from a fantasy novel... written by a christian. Galileo was responsible for discrediting this theory via scientific experiments. http://home1.gte.net/deleyd/religion...flatearth.html

K.

[Modman]

We can only know what is in this part of the universe the rest of the universe is unknown. My belief as to how the universe was created is being based off of what I know rather than what I do not.

I was not here to engage in a debate but simply to point out why I believe what I believe... which was the original question that you had.

Yes... apparently you're history is a bit incorrect. It did come from a fantasy novel... written by a christian. Galileo was responsible for discrediting this theory via scientific experiments. http://home1.gte.net/deleyd/religion...flatearth.html

What was meant was that the earth wasn't actually believed to be flat at the time of Galileo. The intelligentsia have known the earth was spherical since the 1st century. Virtually every medieval scholar agrees on this, and it is a myth that Galileo disproved this or that it was thought during medieval times.
http://www.bede.org.uk/flatearth.htm
http://nabataea.net/flatearth.html
The point was to be more careful about verifying the information you cite.

Fair enough. I definitely don't pretend to be perfect, and I welcome criticism. I can take it as well as I can dish it out.

K.

[Modman]

With perfectly good intentions, my friend Dick has misplaced the quotes I'd referenced as I debated a few comments above. Here:
________________________________________


Sorry; I hadn't noticed this. The last one is a decent reply, but is not impervious to logic. If you like, and I'm not far too late, you can post what's below verbatim, in response to your friend:

I'm lazy, but I'll touch on a few things. I apologize if this becomes verbose, and hope I won't be taken as...pedantic for being complex in such a matter, but such a matter is complex:


Quote:
"In the same way, God when writing creation, is not unjust for allowing imperfection to exist, but is praised on how well He deals with this imperfect, how just and merciful He is, or whatever other qualities you find helpful to substitute into the analogy."

You're either ambiguating "good" in the sense of quality with "good" in the sense of morality, or muddying the waters by using an analogy that sounds wise and concise, but doesn't apply. For a book to be entertaining to those outside of its "existence", there must be antagonists. If God is writing in all of these maladies of life, whether or not he is "good" as an author, he isn't good in the sense of morality, if you'll accept morality as being a desire and will to help, or at least not harm (my apologies, but stating that these things will help in the end by some mysterious, inexplicable plan of God's will not suffice as a response to this, as to say that is simply to say, as so many Christians find easy to in a roundabout way, "To explain that inconsistency in logic...God is magic."). Back to it: Perhaps God's book would be very entertaining for those outside of it, reading, but to the protagonists and innocent "red-shirt" victims of circumstance within, a bad event is a bad event. If you thought Hellraiser was a great movie, would you then think it acceptable for demons to rend men apart with savage instruments for the sole purpose of enjoying their suffering, regardless of whether they "deserved" it or not? I should hope the answer would be "No". If Clive Barker wrote these demons to slaughter forty people, and let the rest of the world live, and whatever he wrote actually happened in real life, would he be thought "merciful"? I have never heard or read a convincing argument to the effect that God is all-good, and He is the cause of everything that occurs and is, and bad things happen, therefore, bad things must be good, or acceptable, or be the means to a good end. The only weak resistance you can give is to say, (quoting Vanilla Sky) "Without the sour, the sweet...just ain't sweet." While pleasure in the absence of discomfort or pain might not be pleasure as we think of it, there's no reason for things like the genocide in Rwanda to occur, ever. God's allowance of "evil", or bad events in any case, is not consistent with His being all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful. If He were all-powerful, He could find a way for humans to live in relative happiness, without dulling the sense of joy we get from the absence of discomfort. In any case, the extreme lows of horrible torture, rape, brutal child abuse, and so forth should never be allowed. If God allows these to occur so that the victim will later be strong enough to serve some purpose for Him (disregarding those that are killed in the process of their misfortune), why would he simply not carry out the task Himself, thus sparing needless suffering? If He's omnipotent, He can do anything. I'm fairly certain there is no logical way for a Christian to debate this point, so I forgive you in advance if you have no rebuttal, but implore you to make the attempt.


Quote:
"All this is to say that it is actually far simpler to say that God created it and is by definition ever-existent, than to explain the theory of the eternal universe."

You must see the irony in such a statement. Can I be born in a log cabin I built with my own hands? The hilarity of the human mind trying to conceive of infinity or a beginning to existence aside, it's no simpler to imagine that God created the universe than that it was created by some process, other than to simply "accept" that God created it, and stop thinking, which is inexorably easier than continued thinking. If I propose that I am 100% helium, it is easier to believe me and drop the subject than to refute it and think of why it's irrational, yes. "Points" like this only serve to exacerbate the Christian theme, "It's easier to stop thinking and blindly believe than to use logic and the power of thought to deduce".


Quote:
"If there is not reality outside of perception, then the testimonies that people give of God prove His existence, since to say they experienced Him is akin to saying they perceived him and thus He exists."

You're ignoring insanity, dishonesty, and, more importantly, confusion, using testimony as proof, and clouding the matter by including the argument of a property of God. You're correct in stating that, if there were no reality outside of human perception "[...]to say they experienced Him is akin to saying they perceived him", but your next statement is the convoluted end of a path dictating, "If someone claims it exists, it must exist". You could have said, "[...]to say they experienced Him is akin to saying they perceived him, and thus saying He exists.", but that wouldn't have the same effect, would it?


Quote:
"If you do not require unanimity in the collective experience, God certainly qualifies, as there are plenty of people who have experienced God, and the only way to refute their testimony is to assume an extrasensory reality."

...or to assume they're insane, dishonest, or confused. Perhaps you consider some of those to be an "extrasensory reality", but I would attest (and I hope you would agree) that those three are not reality at all. To say, "He is real because I can...just feel it." does not apply in a debate. By the same argument, one might say every other religion is correct, including the ones that contradict each other. "[...]as there are plenty of people who have experienced God" - Such a statement should not be used as a fact as you have just used it. Until you have proven the existence of God in this debate, you cannot use the existence of God as a piece of the puzzle to solve the mystery of whether or not He exists. Such a method is absurd, though I presume you did not do so intentionally, and are instead so steeped in your beliefs that you were simply stating a fact in your eyes, oblivious to the blunder entirely.

I'm sure there are other things I could piece apart, but I'm a little lazy, and should go perform some calisthenics and make breakfast. Despite the perceived rudeness of any of the things I've said herein, I agree fully with the usefulness of logical debate, and hold anyone willing to intelligently contest either side of such a disagreement in the highest respect.

K.

[Modman]

Yes, where is your rebuttal to our argument of your debating of our statement? Heh.

If the person in question is indeed 11 years old, entering a debate will be a good learning experience. However, the account says he/she is 14 (though I believe this is the youngest age allowed at MS), and the picture displayed is that of a woman feeding a baby. Which one of those is in the 11-14 age range? Assuming you know this person to be 11 for a fact (none of this "faith" will do here), my apologies if I was a bit harsh. I try to maintain an air of debate and not of flame, but that's only easily applicable when there's logic at hand.

To continue...

One of my favorite quotes, by Stephen Roberts, is, "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

What logic leads you to believe that the gods of the other religions do not exist? Why can there be no Zeus, no Ganesh/Ganesha/Ganesa?

Someone a bit earlier mentioned the idea that an atheist might as well be a Christian, as if they're wrong, it won't make a difference anyway. Aside from the fact that, as an atheist, that would be an obvious charade to hedge one's bets, and God would see right through it, wouldn't that argument be equivalent to advising all Christians to pay homage to all the other gods?

K.

[Modman]

God is omniscient. He knows all, even what we do not. If we fully understood the reasons for everything that happens, then we would be the omniscient ones.

This assumes everything happens for a reason, which I have already discussed. It makes no sense to say that God lacks spontaneity.

Faith, by nature, is something that transcends, not necessarily contradicts logic.

Hebrews 11:1

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Do not attempt to deny that faith cannot contradict logic, nor that it doesn't.

The problem that many Christians face is that trying to validate faith in a logical manner to an atheist can be compared to attempting to explain the concepts of light and color to a blind person. Simply said, faith is something that is very real to those who have it, yet it is very difficult, nearly impossible to explain to those who do not.

Excellent. So faith is a picture preference rather than a universal truth.

Stating that the universe was created in randomness and chaos shows the same lack of thought and certain amount of passive acceptance as a Christian who says God created the universe and has no idea why.

As for your question as to why I am a Christian and do not accept other religious beliefs, that is a whole other topic entirely. I will just say that Jesus himself claimed that there were no other ways to heaven. I believe that Jesus was who He said He was. For one, it is undisputed that there was, indeed, a man named Jesus from Nazareth, who claimed he was the son of God. I believe that He was telling the truth for several reasons. There were the many prophesies about Himself that He fulfilled. There were also several witnesses who recorded his miracles and none of them contradict each other. The other gods afore mentioned really just seem to be myth and legend. There was no logical evidence for their existence.

Heh, I'll leave this one for Jason.

K.

[Modman]

God is omniscient. He knows all, even what we do not. If we fully understood the reasons for everything that happens, then we would be the omniscient ones. Thus, we are not meant to be able to justify what God does.

What about all the things we used to think were magic, but eventually proved to be completely explainable? As we discover, Christianity's role of explanation shrinks; today it's mostly a "God is inside of us all, and we can just...feel it" affair, but a few hundred years ago it was "God makes the sun revolve around the earth"...then we discovered the mathematics to disprove that, or "God is in the Heavens, which are above us, in those clouds"...and then we went there.

Stating that the universe was created in randomness and chaos shows the same lack of thought and certain amount of passive acceptance as a Christian who says God created the universe and has no idea why.

Again, my apologies in advance if this becomes verbose. I beg of you, please read the entire thing, as I have no doubt it will be highly entertaining



Not really. Science strives daily, globally, and vehemently to discover, by mathematical and other sound, logical methods, the truth. The scientific community doesn't say, "The universe was created by math and science.", then drink a beer and be done with it. That WOULD be the same as Christianity.

How does an accurate implication make one seem unintelligent?

It was actually Dick that wrote that, but no big deal.

For one, it is undisputed that there was, indeed, a man named Jesus from Nazareth, who claimed he was the son of God.

Actually, that's quite disputed. Even in the world of professional historians and the like, it's not unheard-of for the date of birth, date of death, span of life, and even the existence whatsoever of Jesus Christ to be questioned.

Look it up. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus were written well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings.

Jesus bears many similarities to Dionysus/Osiris, Horus, and Tammuz. Dionysus was born of the virgin Semele; his father was the supreme god Zeus. He was eventually crucified. This was first written about 186 BC, almost 200 years before the supposed birth of Christ. Horus was born of a virgin (who remains eternally virginal), Isis-Meri, on December 25, in a cave or a manger (written around 3000 BC). Hmm...the Virgin Meri...Tammuz was born to a virgin, named Mylitta, on December 25 (written around 2000 BC). Like Jesus, Horus' birth was announced by a star in the East and he was allegedly attended by three wise men. Just as Jesus allegedly raised Lazarus from the dead, Horus was supposed to have raised El-Azar-us from the dead. Before his death, Horus had 12 disciples and at one stage appeared before them, 'transfigured on the Mount'. Horus was called the 'KRST', or the 'Anointed One'. Dionysus was crucified.

The Christian Apologetic response to these facts is...(drum roll) "The Devil knew Jesus would one day come, and counterfeited these myths in advance." That's the official stance of the Church!

Anyway, stating that the existence of Christ is undisputed is inane.

There were also several witnesses who recorded his miracles

Actually, there weren't. There are absolutely no eye-witness accounts of Jesus. There are, however, a load of people who heard by word of mouth what Jesus had done, and wrote that down, most of which lived decades after the death of Jesus. That, in court, is called "hearsay", and is laughed out the door.

That said, you seem to be an intelligent individual yourself and it does not go unappreciated that you are considerably less arrogant than some other people on this forum...

Thanks; I feel the same about you. Please understand that I mean no emotional or psychological harm by my words, nor do I dislike you for your beliefs. I'm merely making an attempt at clashing two ideologies together, so that everyone involved can learn a little. That said, I find it hard for you to contest many of the things being put forth against the existence of God. Faith is fine, but faith alone makes no sense. There are people who have faith in other religions, and as noted by Dick, children have faith in Santa Claus.

K.

[Modman]

You're either ambiguating "good" in the sense of quality with "good" in the sense of morality, or muddying the waters by using an analogy that sounds wise and concise, but doesn't apply. For a book to be entertaining to those outside of its "existence", there must be antagonists. If God is writing in all of these maladies of life, whether or not he is "good" as an author, he isn't good in the sense of morality, if you'll accept morality as being a desire and will to help, or at least not harm (my apologies, but stating that these things will help in the end by some mysterious, inexplicable plan of God's will not suffice as a response to this, as to say that is simply to say, as so many Christians find easy to in a roundabout way, "To explain that inconsistency in logic...God is magic."). Back to it: Perhaps God's book would be very entertaining for those outside of it, reading, but to the protagonists and innocent "red-shirt" victims of circumstance within, a bad event is a bad event. If you thought Hellraiser was a great movie, would you then think it acceptable for demons to rend men apart with savage instruments for the sole purpose of enjoying their suffering, regardless of whether they "deserved" it or not? I should hope the answer would be "No". If Clive Barker wrote these demons to slaughter forty people, and let the rest of the world live, and whatever he wrote actually happened in real life, would he be thought "merciful"? I have never heard or read a convincing argument to the effect that God is all-good, and He is the cause of everything that occurs and is, and bad things happen, therefore, bad things must be good, or acceptable, or be the means to a good end. The only weak resistance you can give is to say, (quoting Vanilla Sky) "Without the sour, the sweet...just ain't sweet." While pleasure in the absence of discomfort or pain might not be pleasure as we think of it, there's no reason for things like the genocide in Rwanda to occur, ever. God's allowance of "evil", or bad events in any case, is not consistent with His being all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful. If He were all-powerful, He could find a way for humans to live in relative happiness, without dulling the sense of joy we get from the absence of discomfort. In any case, the extreme lows of horrible torture, rape, brutal child abuse, and so forth should never be allowed. If God allows these to occur so that the victim will later be strong enough to serve some purpose for Him (disregarding those that are killed in the process of their misfortune), why would he simply not carry out the task Himself, thus sparing needless suffering? If He's omnipotent, He can do anything. I'm fairly certain there is no logical way for a Christian to debate this point, so I forgive you in advance if you have no rebuttal, but implore you to make the attempt.

This is the friend of Kellee's who wrote the post in question. Let me say that my participation on this forum is temporary and as time allows. I will reply if I am interested and have the time. I reserve the right not to reply and apologize in advance for the possible drop in discussion that may result.

Next let me thank Jason for his delightfully intellectual reply. It neither came across as argumentative or arrogant, and was quite insightful. This topic could use more posts like that, and I shall endeavor to do the same.



First let me say, that while none of my post was attempting to prove the existence of God (actually, I don't happen to believe that it is possible to prove it beyond a doubt), this analogy in particular, was simply an informal illustration. I was not asserting that the analogy is accurate or a good proof, etc. I merely provided it for the benefit of those who aren't as disposed to logic, and specified that it was a matter of personal preference. That being said, if you would like me to attempt to defend it, I will do so.

The analogy, if correct, was not meant to blur the distinction between morality and quality, but to suggest that they occupy analogous positions in the illustration and reality. Meaning that if creation could be thought of as a book, then moral goodness can be thought of as the quality of the book, or in other words that moral goodness is the quality of creation. It is obviously up to the individual whether or not to accept this analogy, but it is at least a plausible comparison. You are correct that there is a lack of any audience other than God for this book (though the characters in this book are able to see part of the plot), but since this is a hypothetical anthropomorphism, the lack of an audience isn't a problem. It is meant to suggest that the quality of a book, or morality of creation, cannot be accurately determined from the perspective of someone within it. This may be seen as an attempt to muddy the waters, but it is actually meant to give the reader an opportunity to adopt what may be akin to an outside perspective by using a common illustration. Obviously it may be debated whether or not the illustration is accurate, but since it is informal and hypothetical in nature, most of this will be personal preference. Lastly, it is not meant to say that bad things are good if they are amusing. It is meant to suggest that our view of what is good isn't completely correct, and that good doesn't always mean pleasant. This is not meant to prove that the illustration should be accepted as true, but rather that it is plausible if one accepts it.

You must see the irony in such a statement. Can I be born in a log cabin I built with my own hands? The hilarity of the human mind trying to conceive of infinity or a beginning to existence aside, it's no simpler to imagine that God created the universe than that it was created by some process, other than to simply "accept" that God created it, and stop thinking, which is inexorably easier than continued thinking. If I propose that I am 100% helium, it is easier to believe me and drop the subject than to refute it and think of why it's irrational, yes. "Points" like this only serve to exacerbate the Christian theme, "It's easier to stop thinking and blindly believe than to use logic and the power of thought to deduce".

While the statement may have come across as ironic, it was meant to disagree with the implicit application of Occam's razor to the question of initial cause. If you would like to ask the question "but where did God come from?", I can answer that, but it involves pointing out that asking such a question shows a lack of understanding of the concept of God. If however, you were saying that it is not more plausible to think that God created the universe, simply because that, by definition, answers the question of eternal existence, than to say that the universe has always existed and leave that question unanswered, than I am in agreement with you. The plausibility of the 2 theories is a difficult thing to quantify, and each side believes that their theory is much more plausible than that which opposes it. It is similar to asking about the probability of evolution, since the calculation of that is (weighted average age of the planets in the universe X number of planets in universe X probability of favorable conditions X the product of the probabilities of every step of evolution that would have to occur) or (Massive number X humongous number X minuscule number X infinitesimal number). Truthfully, I doubt that any human can calculate that probability, or calculate the plausibility of the theories for the cause of the universe. What I was saying is that it is incorrect to call the theory that the universe has always existed simpler than the theory that it was created by God.

You're ignoring insanity, dishonesty, and, more importantly, confusion, using testimony as proof, and clouding the matter by including the argument of a property of God. You're correct in stating that, if there were no reality outside of human perception "[...]to say they experienced Him is akin to saying they perceived him", but your next statement is the convoluted end of a path dictating, "If someone claims it exists, it must exist". You could have said, "[...]to say they experienced Him is akin to saying they perceived him, and thus saying He exists.", but that wouldn't have the same effect, would it?

...or to assume they're insane, dishonest, or confused. Perhaps you consider some of those to be an "extrasensory reality", but I would attest (and I hope you would agree) that those three are not reality at all. To say, "He is real because I can...just feel it." does not apply in a debate. By the same argument, one might say every other religion is correct, including the ones that contradict each other. "[...]as there are plenty of people who have experienced God" - Such a statement should not be used as a fact as you have just used it. Until you have proven the existence of God in this debate, you cannot use the existence of God as a piece of the puzzle to solve the mystery of whether or not He exists. Such a method is absurd, though I presume you did not do so intentionally, and are instead so steeped in your beliefs that you were simply stating a fact in your eyes, oblivious to the blunder entirely.

I believe I am in agreement with you here as well. My post was not meant to say that the empiricist view of reality is correct and that there is no reality outside of perception, but to show that that view wasn't very plausible, and failed to disprove God's existence anyway. If we are in agreement that the view doesn't work, then the gardener example isn't valid, since that is the view that seems to be required to make the skeptic's question anything more than confusion about the concept of existence.

Christians as a whole seem oblivious to fact that the burden of proof (of anything in life) is ALWAYS on the shoulders of the person making the assertion -- not the person refuting the claim. And until that thing is absolutely and concretely proven, it is assumed to be untrue. If I alleged that Neptune was made entirely out of polyester, then my claim would be considered absolutely false until I proved absolutely (and concretely) it to be true. And until the time comes that I can provide that proof, my assertion must (and will) remain pure conjecture and therefore a matter of faith."

This may be true. However, I personally, am not oblivious to this. It is because of this that I think Dick has the burden of proof to prove his claim that God does not exist. Note that I will not hold it against him or anyone if they choose to remove this claim, and in that event will simply consider the claim a ploy to create a debate. It is also because I recognize this, that I do in fact think that the absolute proof of God's existence is a matter of faith. So while I hope to have a fruitful discussion on the topic, I do not hope to show beyond a doubt that God exists. A small correction to the paragraph is that the claim is not considered absolutely false until proven. It is simply in the possibly true category until shown that it is definitely true or untrue.

On a side note to Dick, it is perfectly true that people did think the world was flat at some point in time. My mention of that was not about this belief or its lack, but I was simply using that as an example to encourage verification of information before posting, which you seemed to understand in your post immediately following my last comment on the topic.

On a second side note, I have notice references to "Christians" throughout the topic. I have not yet made any comment about atheists as a whole. While it is not wrong to use a generic label, please recognize that by "Christians", you mean "a certain number of people who considered themselves part of some denomination of Christianity." That is, assuming you are speaking about individuals you have had some contact with, instead of simple stereotypes. My purpose for noting this is to avoid confusion between the stereotypical, or personally derived image of Christians and specific individuals who hold Christian beliefs. As with any group, there are a wide range of individuals that are categorized by one similarity. In addition, something as amorphous as Christianity has myriad definitions, since even the beliefs foundational to on individual's faith are rejected by another individual who considers him- or herself part of the same group. Lastly, due to tradition, there are a number of what are referred to as nominal Christians, that is, those who inherited Christianity in some form, or became part of it for some other reason than believing the same thing. It is because of this, as well as the unfortunate phenomenon shared in common by virtually every group whereby the members who are loudest are both heard more, that Christians get the reputation that they do. Admittedly, I have not heard a single positive thing said about Christians from a non-Christian, though I am pleased to say that I have been the cause of some said to others. I may also refer to Christians as a whole, and I do not agree with many of the things done under the name of Christianity. Hopefully this has served to make clear the distinction between individuals who hold certain beliefs, and the image of the group to which they belong.

Thank you for your reply. I enjoy intellectual discussion, and some of the most interesting ones I've had come about due to disagreement on some matter. I am tempted to make replies to a number of the response directed at Kellee, since I have thoughts on the matter, but will for the time being, leave them to allow her to respond if she wishes.

K.

[Modman]

God is omniscient. He knows all, even what we do not. If we fully understood the reasons for everything that happens, then we would be the omniscient ones. Thus, we are not meant to be able to justify what God does.

...First off, I feel that you misinterpret the point that I was trying to make right here. I was simply stating that if we understood exactly the nature of God, then we ourselves would be omniscient. You would be omniscient. I would be omniscient. The entire world would be and therefore, we would not have a need to question God. We would have the same knowledge as God, therefore being almost divine ourselves. So, your reply to that doesn't seem to be on topic. ...

Stating that the universe was created in randomness and chaos shows the same lack of thought and certain amount of passive acceptance as a Christian who says God created the universe and has no idea why.

Not really. Science strives daily, globally, and vehemently to discover, by mathematical and other sound, logical methods, the truth. The scientific community doesn't say, "The universe was created by math and science.", then drink a beer and be done with it. That WOULD be the same as Christianity.

I was simply pointing that there are many fallacies in evolution. I believe that I explained some of this in a previous post that was addressed to Dick. Science does strive to discover the truth. And I believe that it has. With all objectivity of scientists aside, it has been found that there is a lot of evidence that points to a creator. I have discussed many of those previously and will elaborate if you prefer. I do believe that Kalev discussed the generalizations to Christianity in the post above mine. They are not appreciated as we are not categorizing atheists. Not everyone blindly accepts God. Granted, some Christians do not think. Then, there are those that do. Much like any group of people.

For one, it is undisputed that there was, indeed, a man named Jesus from Nazareth, who claimed he was the son of God.

Actually, that's quite disputed. Even in the world of professional historians and the like, it's not unheard-of for the date of birth, date of death, span of life, and even the existence whatsoever of Jesus Christ to be questioned.

Look it up. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus were written well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings.

Jesus bears many similarities to Dionysus/Osiris, Horus, and Tammuz. Dionysus was born of the virgin Semele; his father was the supreme god Zeus. He was eventually crucified. This was first written about 186 BC, almost 200 years before the supposed birth of Christ. Horus was born of a virgin (who remains eternally virginal), Isis-Meri, on December 25, in a cave or a manger (written around 3000 BC). Hmm...the Virgin Meri...Tammuz was born to a virgin, named Mylitta, on December 25 (written around 2000 BC). Like Jesus, Horus' birth was announced by a star in the East and he was allegedly attended by three wise men. Just as Jesus allegedly raised Lazarus from the dead, Horus was supposed to have raised El-Azar-us from the dead. Before his death, Horus had 12 disciples and at one stage appeared before them, 'transfigured on the Mount'. Horus was called the 'KRST', or the 'Anointed One'. Dionysus was crucified.

The Christian Apologetic response to these facts is...(drum roll) "The Devil knew Jesus would one day come, and counterfeited these myths in advance." That's the official stance of the Church!

Anyway, stating that the existence of Christ is undisputed is inane.

I am going to eat my words here. It was not undisputed. You are right.

The Roman governor, Pliny, and also two other men named Tacitus and Josephus do provide Roman records of the crucifixion, however.


http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Jesus


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Jesus


http://www.request.org.uk/main/histo...us/Jesus00.htm



I am sorry that I am not familiar with the mythology that you have mentioned.

Actually, there weren't. There are absolutely no eye-witness accounts of Jesus. There are, however, a load of people who heard by word of mouth what Jesus had done, and wrote that down, most of which lived decades after the death of Jesus. That, in court, is called "hearsay", and is laughed out the door.

The gospels were written by eye-witnesses, and are in general agreement with each other. It is notable that they have about the expected number of differences for different eye-witness accounts.

Thanks; I feel the same about you. Please understand that I mean no emotional or psychological harm by my words, nor do I dislike you for your beliefs. I'm merely making an attempt at clashing two ideologies together, so that everyone involved can learn a little. That said, I find it hard for you to contest many of the things being put forth against the existence of God. Faith is fine, but faith alone makes no sense. There are people who have faith in other religions, and as noted by Dick, children have faith in Santa Claus.

I am glad that you have such confidence in your argument because if you were to doubt it, then it would simply not be worth having. I will try my best to contest your points, however, and I do hope that you are challenged to some degree.

Also, it would be redundant to once again, explain your lack of understanding of faith and the lack of inability to properly convey faith as a viable concept to a person who does not have it. This is my own weakness, which I apologize for in advance.

And, please, don't worry about emotional or psychological harm done by your words. I realize that this is not your intent. In a debate like this, it is understood that individuals should be tolerant enough to disagree without it being taken personally. Likewise, I feel you are a decent person despite our discordant beliefs.

K.

[Modman]

It is meant to suggest that our view of what is good isn't completely correct, and that good doesn't always mean pleasant.

Despite my not being completely sober, I'll attempt to make an intelligent reply.




Is this to say that man is incapable of truly understanding the concept of goodness? In the Bible, Adam and Eve eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, correct? Surely this knowledge would have been accurate.

Good is not always pleasant, correct. For example, if I were to dislodge you from a tight place, but first had to remove your clothes and cover you in cooking oil, that would be unpleasant, but the end would justify the means. However, allowing an innocent child to suffer and die, never having accomplished anything or been made stronger for some particular task (that God can't carry out Himself with his omniscience) can't be justified. If we want to piece apart the concept of goodness, let us consider this: Christians say that simply to not believe in God is cause for eternal damnation. Why would God make a bunch of beings, then give them all a chance to go to Hell? Obviously, believing in something without any real evidence to support it, and only the pressure of parents and the community in general, as well as a book no more credible than the scriptures of ancient Sumer, is good. If all this is true, it begins to sound like God is shaping the proletariat of Heaven into something he likes, rather than something which is actually good. This brings me back to this:

At least, if there is an existence of a God, the reason for the universe would be to glorify Him. That may not be much of a reason to an atheist, however, if there really was a God, it would make sense that He would make something simply for that purpose.

It doesn't make sense to me, unless he's not all-good. Why would a being like God create an entire universe to make himself look good, or have people...suck up to him? If God is all-knowing, and all-powerful, and all-good, he would have already known he was the best, most powerful, most intelligent and knowledgeable being possible. The only sound reason for God having created a universe, and man in it, would be to allow us the opportunity to enjoy the many facets of life. Otherwise, we'd go straight to Heaven, and there wouldn't be an earthly existence. If this isn't why he created us, then God isn't the three A's at all, but some combination of two of them.

I believe I am in agreement with you here as well.

Mayhaps, but my point was that you used an inaccurate analogy to piece apart his analogy. Hence, his analogy still stands.

It is because of this that I think Dick has the burden of proof to prove his claim that God does not exist.

Very clever. However, if a doctor proclaimed that 1 kilogram daily of vitamin C would reverse the effects of aging, and had no proof or evidence to support it but that "he had faith", he would be laughed out of whatever room he was in at the time. If, then, his claims spread around the world, and were still not proven, and Dick came on the internet and made a post entitled, "Doctor Whacko is incorrect about his vitamin C treatment", while the burden of proof would lie on Dick to absolutely debunk Whacko, it would be more important that the burden of proof had always lain with Dr. Whacko concerning his vitamin C treatment.


As for the encapsulation of Christians as a whole, I have made an earnest attempt, and will continue to strive, to only use the general word "Christians" when I feel what I'm discussing applies to the vast majority of Christians. If you are not a believer of something I mention Christians as believing in, I encourage you to be "vocal" about it. I do understand that a great many Christians are intelligent, and it is for this reason I'm here to discourse. Were I of the mind that Christians were all buffoons, I would be too busy readying an underground force to remove these primates from political seats of power. I also understand that most Christians strive to promote kindness and fairness (coupled with justice when required), though I believe any good person should inherently possess these qualities with or without religion. I believe there were good people before the birth of Christ, or of even Judaism.

The Roman governor, Pliny, and also two other men named Tacitus and Josephus do provide Roman records of the crucifixion, however.

The Pliny you're referring to, "Pliny the Younger", was born in 62 AD. His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of the range of eyewitness accounts.

Tacitus, the Roman historian, was born in 64 AD, putting him well after the alleged death of Jesus. He does indeed give a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals, which were written around 109 AD, but gives no source for his material.

Josephus Flavius was born in 37 AD, thus also after the death of Jesus. He wrote Antiquities in 93 AD, after the first gospels were written. The first mention of Jesus by Josephus came from Eusebius (none of the earlier church fathers mention Josephus' Jesus), who, in his Ecclesiastical History, writes, "We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity." In his Praeparatio Evangelica, he includes a chapter entitled, "How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived".

Thus, one can hardly consider any of these "testimonies" permissible.

K.

[Modman]

Is this to say that man is incapable of truly understanding the concept of goodness? In the Bible, Adam and Eve eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, correct? Surely this knowledge would have been accurate.

I am currently replying only to the points made in response to what I wrote, though I may later answer the other points directed at Kellee.





Good point from the account of Genesis. That particular instance, I actually interpret as being rather ironic, since it was by eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that they gained the knowledge that they had just become evil. As for the accuracy of the knowledge, there doesn't happen t be any specific reason why it would have to be accurate, or why that would mean that we know good and evil. However, I see no reason to dispute that, and am happy to assume it was accurate and could also be passed down to descendants. This would be the reason why Paul makes mention of the requirements of the Law being written on human hearts, so that the gentiles naturally do things that are good. However, going with the theme of the fall of man, and the deterioration of society as a whole that is to culminate in John's revelation in the biblical eschatological view of history, this knowledge has been corrupted and is no longer perfect. It is for this reason, that we "see now through a glass darkly." So though, the concept of good is not foreign to humans, it is also not complete.

Good is not always pleasant, correct. For example, if I were to dislodge you from a tight place, but first had to remove your clothes and cover you in cooking oil, that would be unpleasant, but the end would justify the means. However, allowing an innocent child to suffer and die, never having accomplished anything or been made stronger for some particular task (that God can't carry out Himself with his omniscience) can't be justified. If we want to piece apart the concept of goodness, let us consider this: Christians say that simply to not believe in God is cause for eternal damnation. Why would God make a bunch of beings, then give them all a chance to go to Hell? Obviously, believing in something without any real evidence to support it, and only the pressure of parents and the community in general, as well as a book no more credible than the scriptures of ancient Sumer, is good. If all this is true, it begins to sound like God is shaping the proletariat of Heaven into something he likes, rather than something which is actually good. This brings me back to this:

The question put forth is the timeless theological/philosophical question "Why do bad things happen (to good people)?" I do not pretend to be able to do the question justice out of my limited knowledge and time, but will endeavor to provide a fitting answer. First, the 3-O God is a perfect God. To truly grasp perfection is a difficult task indeed, but essentially this means, that God won't have any imperfection with Him. Then comes creation, which is one of many points where explanations differ. The free-will explanation is that God was so loving that He gave us a choice, letting us be human, even if it meant He might lose some of use because of it. He then gave us as many chances as He could to come to Him and have our imperfection removed as He could without interfering with our free-will. Since some did not choose them, He created a place for them to go, which is Hell, a representation of His eternal Justice, which happens to be horrible because it isn't with the only source of good--God. Those who chose Him, he was able to make perfect again and remove their guilt so they could be with Him for eternity.

The deterministic response is that He created the universe for His glory, the only real reason if He is the cause of all things. He set up things so they were best, that is, most glorifying to Him and let creation go. It was because of the fall of man, that He could display His justice and His mercy. Justice is the symmetry of history, where actions result in appropriate consequences. Mercy contrasts justice, by letting God take some of the consequences on Himself, involving God with creation, demonstrating His benevolence, and working with justice at times to help the needy. Justice and mercy combined, then, gave the opportunity for humans to go to heaven, spending eternity with the creator who was necessary for their existence and salvation, while Hell is the contrasting side of justice that lets those who distanced themselves from God spend eternity distanced.

There is also a somewhat less thorough response that suggests that the afterlife makes up for whatever harms suffered on earth, and the child dying is not the end.

Alternatively, it may be responded, that the question itself presumes a notion of dessert, and that humans do not deserve anything, since they aren't even self-existent.

There is the response you indicated before that suggests contrast is the only way of knowing good and that events such as the holocaust are for extreme contrast, that will be remembered.

It can be said that, the question presumes a positive/negative scale, when there is really only good and the lack of good, which interprets suffering as a reminder of what life is like when God isn't constantly blessing it, meant to draw people towards the ultimate source of good--God.

Finally, another response is that God uses evil for good, and though we can't always see it, or it may not be apparent on an individual basis, the suffering that is a result of sin is being used by God for good.

The beliefs of most Christians who have considered this question are a combination of some of the above with a few personal elements added in. That being said, none of these aren't meant as arguments to persuade someone to believe in God, but rather as explanations for what is one of the oldest questions. I am fully aware that there may be gaps or inconsistencies in some explanations, which is why they are normally combined for more complete explanations. I also do not expect them to seem correct to anyone approaching the question from skeptical viewpoint. If you are interested in the topic, there are theologians and philosophers much more intelligent than I who have better answers. Hopefully I've managed to at least show what some answer may be.

Mayhaps, but my point was that you used an inaccurate analogy to piece apart his analogy. Hence, his analogy still stands.

I used no analogy, I simply interpreted his analogy according to its own assumptions. Either there is or isn't reality outside of perceptions, and either way the analogy doesn't work.

Very clever. However, if a doctor proclaimed that 1 kilogram daily of vitamin C would reverse the effects of aging, and had no proof or evidence to support it but that "he had faith", he would be laughed out of whatever room he was in at the time. If, then, his claims spread around the world, and were still not proven, and Dick came on the internet and made a post entitled, "Doctor Whacko is incorrect about his vitamin C treatment", while the burden of proof would lie on Dick to absolutely debunk Whacko, it would be more important that the burden of proof had always lain with Dr. Whacko concerning his vitamin C treatment.

Neither one is proved or disproved. Logically, either one may be correct or incorrect until one proves their case or disproves the other.

As for the encapsulation of Christians as a whole, I have made an earnest attempt, and will continue to strive, to only use the general word "Christians" when I feel what I'm discussing applies to the vast majority of Christians. If you are not a believer of something I mention Christians as believing in, I encourage you to be "vocal" about it. I do understand that a great many Christians are intelligent, and it is for this reason I'm here to discourse. Were I of the mind that Christians were all buffoons, I would be too busy readying an underground force to remove these primates from political seats of power. I also understand that most Christians strive to promote kindness and fairness (coupled with justice when required), though I believe any good person should inherently possess these qualities with or without religion. I believe there were good people before the birth of Christ, or of even Judaism.

Agreed.

K.