The Existence of God (Myspace Edition)

[Modman]

That particular instance, I actual 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.

Heh, agreed.

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.

Hmm...that sure isn't fair. With all the difficulty man has in discerning truth as it is, and the hardly palpable evidence given, God allows us to be even further confused as the end comes near? Still, human ability to understand "good" in itself is quite a large topic once opened fully, and would require some thought and probably a psychologist or two. However, I welcome the debate, as well as the psychologists, should either arrive

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.

Assuming this all were true, it's not like atheists all got together and decided to...be assholes, and blow God off. It's that we really, truly, don't UNDERSTAND why anyone would believe in Him. We can't fathom it. It's not that we made the conscious, human choice to disbelieve, but that we can't wrap our heads around the concept of truly believing. When I was still rather young, someone told me to "just believe", which I understood to mean, "stop thinking so hard, and just believe". I tried this for over a year, really, diligently trying to just believe, but it never worked. Even saying the words to myself, and trying really hard to accept them...just never worked. I always felt...dirty, as if I was lying to myself, because I knew I couldn't believe something just out of thin air. Then I tried studying intensely in the ways of the Bible, more so than any Christians I knew, and tried out all the particular sects of Christianity...but nothing worked. My parents raised me as a Christian, so it's not as though I were indoctrinated as an atheist. Even in Kindergarten at a private, Christian school, I was frequently given notes to take home to my parents complaining that I "asked too many questions", and that I "seem(s) to lack the faith that is so important to a young Christian", to quote one of the notes in particular that I still happen to have. My questioning is not borne of arrogance, but an innate burning for the truth, and while I can accept the possibility of a God, I can't accept the absolute existence of one without positive evidence. In fact, as I've already mentioned, I see a much larger possibility of there being no God, particularly any of the ones the various religions tout. If the only possible, one true God is the one Christians herald, with absolute accuracy and preciseness, without one error in the description and dictation of his proclamations and desires...then there is no God.

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.

Of course, but there seems no logical explanation for the allowance of said suffering, unless, of course, as you mentioned above, "He set up things so they were best, that is, most glorifying to Him and let creation go.", which would seem to indicate that God created things, thought they were pretty good, and hasn't had a hand in anything directly in, say, many hundreds of years (taking into account Jesus, the Great Deluge, and so forth). The concept that God put things into motion and stepped back to see what would happen, while still leaving many questions unanswered, is admittedly much more palatable than other explanations. However, I hardly think Christianity as a whole would allow that to be the accepted theory, as it seems to go against a great many components of the Bible.

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.

A similar reference can be made of heat and cold, though it would be an imperfect one, as too much heat destroys

That aside, this raises the ever-evident question, "Why would God force us to endure even the possibility of suffering, and not simply bring us to Heaven in the first place?" If there must be suffering to remind us of the pain of the absence of God, will there be suffering in Heaven, or will our respective memories be better there? If that's the case, couldn't we just have a few moments of pain and sadness from His absence, then forever remember them with Him in Heaven, happily ever after? Again, the entire concept seems fundamentally flawed. Answering that you "don't understand either, but that's not important" really isn't a proper response, though I'm always delighted to see another angle on the subject if it logically approaches the question, or at least raises more questions that may later aid in our quest.

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.

Perhaps, but in the context here, in reply to the innocent child in excruciating pain and eventual death, it doesn't really apply, unless God is swiftly killing the child for Original Sin, heh.

Hopefully I've managed to at least show what some answer may be.

Yes, you have, and hopefully will continue to; it's quite appreciated.

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.

My apologies, but I took that to be an analogy to a group of people and their beliefs, when in fact you were trying to make a semi-facetious retort to invalidate the gardener analogy via somewhat tangent thinking. That said, let us go back and review that analogy, since there is still somewhat of a chasm between our opinions of it:

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.

It seems that the analogy was between God and the universe as a whole, and a gardener and his garden, which the two men are in. In that sense, the analogy works perfectly, except that the men have not always been in the garden, and that the garden is not all of existence. But neither is the gardener God, hence the analogy is microcosmic, and as you mused, concerned specifically with "extrasensory reality", as you put it.

If there is a reality outside of the senses, the difference between an existent imperceptible gardener and a non-existent gardener is nonsensical.

Perhaps, but proposing that there is an imperceptible gardener without supporting this with anything within the realm of "sensory existence" would still be a bit indefensible, and I believe this was the point Dick was trying to make. Your next sentence, "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." should have been, rather than my previous supposition, closer to "[...]then the testimonies that people give of God must be of God actually physically being on earth, and doing things in plain sight, otherwise, they would by invalidated immediately by the nonexistence of extrasensory reality". Your response does not apply, and the analogy still works. Unless, of course...you have another response to make

[...]since it is obvious that there are many portions of our lives that others cannot experience (our thoughts for example)

And this is where we need a few psychologists, and more tangent debate. Perhaps I'll delve a little and find some things noted psychologists have said, to emulate their presence, heh. Also, sorry for bringing back the dead with references to such old material of ours; I merely wanted to redress anything either of us left unsaid, or improperly said.

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

Yes, but I was only establishing the fact that the burden of proof lies with the original assertion first and foremost, even beyond the burden of proof that lies with someone making the assertion that the original assertion is incorrect. If Dr. Whacko walked into a conference, and for the first time, announced his vitamin C treatment, and that he had no evidence but faith alone, and someone responded, "You're incorrect", his response that the burden of proof was with that critical doctor to prove that Whacko was incorrect would be a complete fallacy. My attempt was to invalidate your invalidation of Dick's assertion of the burden of proof, not to contest that God definitely and absolutely does not exist simply because the burden of proof lies with the one proposing something which has not yet been established empirically.

As for your status as a Weak Atheist, I actually find that position much more agreeable, since I have never understood how someone can essentially close the question of something as complex as God.

Neither have I, and as such, it would seem much more palatable were Christians as a whole to say, "We're pretty sure everything in this book is correct, and almost positive that there's at least a God", heheh. That said, I've never heard of a Weak Atheist (nor a Weak Theist, as I'd surmise my proposed Christians might be called), but with your permission, I'll neglect to accept such an aesthetically unbecoming title

I had a decent weekend, mostly consisting of languishing about and nursing my lack of sleep and proper nutrition (note that I am still a nearly perfect specimen of athletic health...I just have bags under my eyes, and am very hungry from simply forgetting to eat when I should). I hope you had a good weekend as well.

Dick: Your last post on page 19 does not really apply here, as I believe the concept of using logic to prove God's existence is two-pronged, neither of them pointing to what GB is alluding to: 1 - To debunk anti-Christian logic, so that people are not "misled" into leaving the flock, and 2 - To resolve whatever "problems" atheists have, and allow them to bring themselves back to God in a sense by repairing their apparently broken logic, or inapplicable desires for truths that cannot be known completely. While I wholly (ack, I hate the spelling of that word) disagree with the opposition, or at least the definitive "absolute" stance of the opposition, I don't think your quote is productive. But that's just my take; I meant no affront, and still agree with you on a grand scale

Of course, anyone with half a brain and an ounce of decency would know not to do these things and not need any god to command them as such,

Indeed.

This is why I don't preach to theists as they would preach to me, and I no longer entertain their silly arguments.

I hope you were merely giving a colorful quote, and not announcing you're taking GB's approach here on out...this is too much fun, education, and brain exercise to just discard in mid-cognitive-orgasm

K.

[Modman]

My questioning is not borne of arrogance, but an innate burning for the truth.

I do believe that you will find it. Really.

That aside, this raises the ever-evident question, "Why would God force us to endure even the possibility of suffering, and not simply bring us to Heaven in the first place?" If there must be suffering to remind us of the pain of the absence of God, will there be suffering in Heaven, or will our respective memories be better there? If that's the case, couldn't we just have a few moments of pain and sadness from His absence, then forever remember them with Him in Heaven, happily ever after? Again, the entire concept seems fundamentally flawed. Answering that you "don't understand either, but that's not important" really isn't a proper response, though I'm always delighted to see another angle on the subject if it logically approaches the question, or at least raises more questions that may later aid in our quest.

__But is it God who really forces suffering upon us? You have obviously read Genesis... The earth was originally supposed to be a paradise. Then sin came. A fault of God's? Asking if we will remember suffering in heaven or if it will be in heaven, shows a lack of having an understanding of the concept of heaven in the first place.

There are many definitions of the word heaven. From a Christian perspective (which is what would apply here, I presume), it is:

An eternal state of communion with God; everlasting bliss.

That pretty much negates the possibility of any pain and suffering being there at all, nor even the memory of it, for that matter. If we do remember the suffering endured on earth, it probably wouldn't even matter in heaven and even the most horrible things could probably be compared to a simple squabble over a toy between young siblings when viewed 30 years later. Probably difficult at the time, but hardly even relevant when looking at it in retrospect... ___

Yes, but I was only establishing the fact that the burden of proof lies with the original assertion first and foremost, even beyond the burden of proof that lies with someone making the assertion that the original assertion is incorrect. If Dr. Whacko walked into a conference, and for the first time, announced his vitamin C treatment, and that he had no evidence but faith alone, and someone responded, "You're incorrect", his response that the burden of proof was with that critical doctor to prove that Whacko was incorrect would be a complete fallacy. My attempt was to invalidate your invalidation of Dick's assertion of the burden of proof, not to contest that God definitely and absolutely does not exist simply because the burden of proof lies with the one proposing something which has not yet been established empirically.

I'm sorry but the vitamin c analogy was terrible... If there were absolutely no reasons for the existence of God, that might be a valid point. Just because you are skeptical of the evidence that Christians present does not mean that all of those claims are merely just shots in the dark like a doctor who just "feels" like vitamin C could treat a person.

It is also true, that Dr. Whacko in your example was clearly insane. Any mentally capable person would agree.

However, in this debate, the burden of proof would lie with Dick simply because he started this topic and made a claim.
Dick says he believes that there is no god.
Kalev and I say that there is.

So which claim is the more ludicrous? That would be in the eye of the beholder. And since Dick started it, burden of proof should just logically fall to him. If I started it, then it would be mine...

I don't know... Just seemed like plain, old common sense to me.

K.

[Modman]

Then sin came. A fault of God's?

Debating this would lead us back to cyclical conjecture, and the definition of such words as "sin", "fault", "deserve", and more importantly, "omnipotence", "omniscience", and "omni benevolence". Suffice it to say (or suffice to say, if you prefer...a grammatician's nightmare, heh), I should think so, be it by negligence alone. My first sentence aside, feel free to bring up what you will, of course.

That pretty much negates the possibility of any pain and suffering being there at all, nor even the memory of it, for that matter.

Then we won't have a contrast to remind us how bad the absence of God is. That was my point, and of course your answer couldn't differ much from the one you gave. However, as it was intended as a response to Kalev's post, and directed as a small disintegration of one of several theories he proposed for God allowing suffering (the most original theory, to me), I'll await his reply as well.

I'm sorry but the vitamin c analogy was terrible... If there were absolutely no reasons for the existence of God, that might be a valid point. Just because you are skeptical of the evidence that Christians present does not mean that all of those claims are merely just shots in the dark like a doctor who just "feels" like vitamin C could treat a person.

Actually, there's plenty of evidence that points to vitamin C as a healthy substance to supplement one's diet with. In fact, there's decently hard proof that it boosts the immune system significantly, as well as aiding in several other functions of the body. And while there is hardly "no whisper of evidence" for the existence of a man named Jesus, there doesn't seem to be any good evidence for God whatsoever. The evidence that exists is merely what's survived the onslaught of science throughout the centuries, hence we're left with a bunch of intangible, even ethereal, "he's all around you, but you can't feel, hear, see, smell, or taste him" concepts, whereas in the Old Testament, God was a very real, tangible being who just might smite you if you pissed him off.

It's ironic that if God spoke to me tonight, and I told you about it, you'd never believe me. I'd be very surprised if you even gave me a shred of credibility, of even the possibility that I was telling the truth. Yet God used to speak to people all the time, according to the Bible. Moreover, it seems to me that He preferred to speak with non-believers, and chose them to carry out His "special tasks", perhaps hitting two birds with one stone in that He converted them by the mere fact that they heard His voice, and perhaps saw Him in a vision. Was it written somewhere in the Bible that God decided He would stop speaking to people, or could it be that even Christians, somewhere deep down, feel it's a little silly?

However, in this debate, the burden of proof would lie with Dick simply because he started this topic and made a claim.
Dick says he believes that there is no god.
Kalev and I say that there is.

So which claim is the more ludicrous? That would be in the eye of the beholder. And since Dick started it, burden of proof should just logically fall to him. If I started it, then it would be mine...

I don't know... Just seemed like plain, old common sense to me.

So, back to my semi-initial question, regarding my Dr. Whacko analogy you liked so little, if the good doctor made the proposition I detailed above, and later that night, Dr. Random started a web discussion entitled, "Dr. Whacko's Assertion of Vitamin C Battling the Aging Process Is Incorrect", would the burden of proof lie with Dr. Random? If your response would be, "Yes, but only within the confines of the web discussion and his assertion that Whacko was incorrect.", I'll accept it, but only if you will thus accept that the burden lies with Dr. W in general. Understanding the consequences of such a concession, I doubt you'll take me up on this offer, unless you're also up for journeying the winding road of comparing the evidence for vitamin C's effects on aging to that of God's existence.

That's all for now; I eagerly await Kalev's response, and your further response, as well as anyone else's interjection.

K.

[Modman]

Debating this would lead us back to cyclical conjecture, and the definition of such words as "sin", "fault", "deserve", and more importantly, "omnipotence", "omniscience", and "omni benevolence". Suffice it to say (or suffice to say, if you prefer...a grammatician's nightmare, heh), I should think so, be it by negligence alone. My first sentence aside, feel free to bring up what you will, of course.

"and had no proof or evidence to support it"
This is what you said about the doctor stating that vitamin C would work. So, without having any prior knowledge of Vitamin C's affects on aging, I took it literally and went with that.






Sin:
1. transgression of divine law: the sin of Adam.
2. any act regarded as such a transgression, esp. a willful or deliberate violation of some religious or moral principle.
3. any reprehensible or regrettable action, behavior, lapse, etc.; great fault or offense: It's a sin to waste time.

Fault: responsibility for failure or a wrongful act

Those words as I meant them (straight from the dictionary)... There really isn't more to bring up as my point still stands and you offer no rebuttal in this post.


And, by the way, I found what you said about the crucifixion records interesting. That is something that I will continue to look into.
I have already searched the internet. I could not find anything about Roman records of any crucifixions or punishments whatsoever, even those of the common criminals that were executed often.

I have a theory that maybe these things were simply not documented because they were doubtlessly viewed as insignificant to the ancient Romans who were probably much more preoccupied with levying taxes and such anyhow.

K.

[Modman]

"and had no proof or evidence to support it"
This is what you said about the doctor stating that vitamin C would work. So, without having any prior knowledge of Vitamin C's affects on aging, I took it literally and went with that.

Because there is some evidence to support the concept that vitamin C can improve health in one or more ways, one cannot assume it could perform something as miraculous as reversing the aging process (the semantics of that aside). I was making a comparison between the somewhat-related evidence of vitamin C's "potential" age-reversing capabilities, and evidence for the existence of God.

Those words as I meant them (straight from the dictionary)... There really isn't more to bring up as my point still stands and you offer no rebuttal in this post.

Your "point" being your facetious question as to whether or not man's sin is a fault of God? I think my response was allusion enough that there are several ways to debate that. Namely, the most obvious, that if God exists and created us, then anything man does is either directly or indirectly the "fault" of God, whether you consider the "fault" to be a negligent action on his part in our imperfect creation, or a fault in the traditional sense that he is imperfect, or created imperfect beings without such an intention. Or, if he intended to make imperfect beings (or beings with the potential to be imperfect), his seeming surprise and disdain at this imperfection is illogical considering the proposed properties of the Christian God, unless he hid mathematical probability from himself, or "looked away as he painted", as it were. If your response to this would reference Adam and Eve's sin of eating the "forbidden fruit", I would then inquire why God would be apparently forced (against his will, perhaps?) to eternally punish humanity with both the perpetual knowledge of Good and Evil, and the punishment that comes from committing what God deems the latter. If he wanted to, he could banish Adam and Eve, without having to kill them, to another planet, where they would be impotent (thus not allowed to reproduce), and live forever, and start over on Earth with another batch, perhaps decreasing or eliminating the possibility of eventual sin. This would bring us back to the debate concerning God being the three O's. Hence, as I said, it would be cyclical. Don't get me wrong; that's fine, as any debate over creation will eventually become cyclical, and, if nothing else, all the bandying about of words and philosophical/psychological conjecture will at least allow us all to learn, and encounter new concepts, in furtherance of our respective current creeds, and allow us to understand each other's (creeds, that is) a bit better.

And, by the way, I found what you said about the crucifixion records interesting. That is something that I will continue to look into.
I have already searched the internet. I could not find anything about Roman records of any crucifixions or punishments whatsoever, even those of the common criminals that were executed often.

I don't understand what you're referring to here. It was you that referenced the crucifixion records here:

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.

(after this, you provided links to sources)

Ok, so no offense or anything DICK[...]just because you think you're hot shit?

Whew, it's a good thing you included that first part, because it sure does SEEM like you intended to be offensive.

Do you see the people that do believe in God trying to force you to change your opinoin?

Yes, all the time. That aside, as Dick touched on (heh, that sentence could've gone terribly wrong), I don't want to convert just anyone. I'm perfectly happy with you remaining a Christian, and with anyone else who wants to remain one continuing that path. I'm only trying to assist those who, somewhere deep within, are students of thought and wish there was some way they could logically, morally, and perpetually reject at least the definitive existence of God. Also, I hope to lend a few clues to those Christians who are unwaivering, or insufficiently wavering (heh), as to why we atheists are the same in that respect, and perhaps to be lent that same courtesy, or honor, as it were.

When you were little did people tell you that believing in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny was wrong?

No, but I wish they had. It would have saved me a lot of time. I also wish I'd known even one openly atheist person during childhood, so I could have begun to form my own solid thoughts, whether they contradicted the Bible or not, that much earlier in life.

[...]and if they did then I really feel sorry for you. I kinda feel sorry for you anyway, but that's besides the point.

Again with the (apparently unintentional) offensive attitude
Are you contending here that it's acceptable to believe a lie, if it makes one happier? If you are, you might consider that you're an atheist in disguise, even from yourself, as you illustrate our point quite expertly. If not, you contradict yourself the moment you begin that paragraph, or, at the very least, introduce an unrelated, irrelevant concept to the debate. However, I will place the largest likelihood with my first assumption, and thus laugh heartily at your transparent blunder

All that said, and noting that you will most probably not learn anything significant from either side of this debate, I will attempt to both remedy that issue, and make you feel more at home, by stooping to the closest I can to your level...and mocking your spelling, grammar, and composition:

Ok, so no offense or anything DICK,

Either "OK", or the more colloquial "Okay" would have sufficed here, but you chose to use only half your ass, and capitalized the first letter, as if it were a Eurasian surname or something. There also should have been a comma after "anything" (and after "so", if you were really going for the gold).

opinoin

Opinion. An easy mistake, but you really should look before you leap, and check for errors if you're this prone to them.

Stop trying to force what you believe on every else.

"everyone else", I assume you intended?

When you were little did people tell you that believing in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny was wrong?

When you were little, did people tell you that sufficient use of punctuation was wrong? A comma after "little" wouldn't have hurt.

NO, and if they did then I really feel sorry for you. I kinda feel sorry for you anyway, but that's besides the point.

Emphasis via capitalization is fine in this medium, but you could have used a comma after "did". Also, the term is "beside the point".


Now, I didn't make these observations so painfully out in the open to imply that I am without simple error, but, instead, to warn everyone else in this topic to be very careful, as we've already exceeded our simple error maximum due to your inclusion. Hopefully, old-fashioned memorization and rote learning are kinder to you than such disciplines as logic, proper reason, allegory, allusion, and creativity (though, calling creativity a "discipline" is, perhaps, comical), to name a few. Though, who knows? Perhaps you'll be a genius tomorrow, and if you are, I beg of you, please return and reply with your newly-formed intellect. Note that my suddenly harsh "tone" was merely in response to yours, and your cruel abstinence from true debate and the seeming impossibility of anyone replying with much more than "Bah", or complete avoidance of your statements whatsoever. To be completely obvious, my point here was to illustrate how the discussion would go if everyone took your approach, cognitive ability and all else completely unequal.

Try harder next time, or at least think harder.

K.

[Modman]

God created humans with a choice. If He had created people who would never have any sort of tendencies to disobey Him, then their obedience to Him would not be of love or respect to God. Love is essentially a choice that we must make. If we have no choice, love for God is not genuine. I believe that is why human beings are not infallable.
Also, there is, of course, a consequence for everything which would be why God did have to do something that He necessarily did not want to do...

I will be honest that the questions you ask are tough and thought-provoking to say the least. Debates like this generally consist of athiests asking the questions and the Christians trying propose the possible answers to them. That puts me at a disadvantage here. I do hope, however, that if and when Kalev returns to this forum, he will give sufficient replies. I really haven't taken philosophy classes or anything of that nature, although I do have an interest in it. I just feel as though I simply don't have enough knowledge to come up with adequate rebuttals, as I have already stated...

And as for the thing about the crucifixion records, I was talking about how you pointed out that seem to be none...

K.

[Modman]

3. You're not superior to me, so stop acting like it.

Your addressal of only Dick's simple jab at your comprehension, and my "vulturing" of your English mastery, all but proves that I am superior (let us not digress into the many other ways we could go about proving that). It also proves Dick's point, that debating with you was useless, as you probably didn't understand what was being put forth in the first place, especially indicated by your complete side-stepping of the actual debate, and any of the logical statements Dick and I made. "Nuh-uh" will not do as your next response, mind you.

God created humans with a choice. If He had created people who would never have any sort of tendencies to disobey Him, then their obedience to Him would not be of love or respect to God. Love is essentially a choice that we must make. If we have no choice, love for God is not genuine. I believe that is why human beings are not infallible.

Creating humans with the choice of whether or not to love God would be a charitable act indeed, were it not for the consequences for NOT loving him. If I were a king, and told all of my people, "You have a choice as to whether or not to pay taxes to the royal family...but if you don't, one day, soldiers are going to come to your house and spend a few days torturing everyone to death.", that wouldn't be very fair, would it? And it wouldn't really be a choice. That brings me to another point. Love, as I understand its meaning, and as I have experienced it, is not voluntary. I cannot decide to love a woman, all of a sudden. It may come in time, or it may never come. However, I understand a "love of God" to be a different kind of love, and hence, perhaps I COULD just decide to love God. But it wouldn't be enough to just say the words. I'd have to really mean it. And in order to mean it, I'd have to understand it. But I don't understand it, and not just because I don't believe it, but because I don't understand the concept of believing in it. If God created me, he didn't endow me with even the ability to comprehend the idea of believing in him, which might eventually lead to loving him, which might eventually lead to Heaven. I've got to say, he's given me a rather slim chance of happiness indeed

I will be honest that the questions you ask are tough and thought-provoking to say the least. Debates like this generally consist of atheists asking the questions and the Christians trying propose the possible answers to them. That puts me at a disadvantage here. I do hope, however, that if and when Kalev returns to this forum, he will give sufficient replies.

I thank, and respect, you for your honesty. You're correct about the normal sequence of debates like this, and I think that is partly because of the burden of proof (Dr Whacko aside, heh), and partly because Christians do not seem to ask Atheists very many questions as to why they don't believe in God, aside from those similar to "Why wouldn't you love someone who died for your sins?", which don't really apply if someone doesn't believe such a person did such a thing, or even existed at all. I would be very interested in hearing, and answering to the best of my ability, any questions you might have about atheism, and that would also give the Christians a chance to "catch a breather" from being on the defensive

I really haven't taken philosophy classes or anything of that nature, although I do have an interest in it. I just feel as though I simply don't have enough knowledge to come up with adequate rebuttals, as I have already stated...

Neither have I, nor have I taken any college courses at all, save a few I took during high school. After graduation, I immediately joined the military, and spent about three years in Special Forces (as a Green Beret in an alpha team, not some supply kid in a Special Ops Group), after which I returned to the civilian world, turned down a few international "security" jobs in favor of relaxing and enjoying my freedom, and began working in the IT field. That is not to say that I've ever scored lower than Genius on an IQ test, nor that I have not accomplished a great many things despite my lack of college experience and the accompanying degree. In the very little free time I have, I am always learning something new, and striving to further this quest in nearly any way possible. Your lack of philosophical education will not serve as a proper excuse here

That said, I'm quite impressed with your intelligence, well-constructed responses, and logical, mature demeanor, a compliment I'll also extend to Kalev.

K.

[Modman]

Ahh... I knew I was going to have to reply to something.. So, really. Love isn't a choice at all? I'm not just talking about the "feeling" like you love someone. I can attest to that firsthand, that it's pretty involuntary... However, really loving someone, is certainly a choice.
And that holds true with God as well. If we had no choice but to love Him and we were practically forced to simply because there was no other way, would that truly be love?

Neither have I, nor have I taken any college courses at all, save a few I took during high school. After graduation, I immediately joined the military, and spent about three years in Special Forces (as a Green Beret in an alpha team, not some supply kid in a Special Ops Group), after which I returned to the civilian world, turned down a few international "security" jobs in favor of relaxing and enjoying my freedom, and began working in the IT field. That is not to say that I've ever scored lower than Genius on an IQ test, nor that I have not accomplished a great many things despite my lack of college experience and the accompanying degree. In the very little free time I have, I am always learning something new, and striving to further this quest in nearly any way possible. Your lack of philosophical education will not serve as a proper excuse here

Hmm sounds interesting.. My new excuses? I haven't had as much time to learn as you? Or maybe it's just simply because I don't score to be a Genius on IQ tests?
Probably the latter. =))

So, I will take you up on that offer to ask you why you don't believe in God as I am genuinely curious. I suppose that you have discussed this a little bit in earlier posts... So why, then, exactly, are you an atheist despite that fact that you tried to believe in God and could not? (If I recall correctly, that is basically what you said.)

K.

[Modman]

I had a class canceled and so found myself with a bit of time to post. It looks like I have some catching up to do. Before I begin any logical reply (the caliper of which I am uncertain about, since I am rather tired and just came from a midterm examination), I will allow myself a few digressions.

First, Jason, I never really liked the term Weak Atheist either, but I didn't make it up. I learned of it some time ago when I was expressing the same opinion, except using the term Atheism. As I understand, the terms are fairly recent, and came about in the 90s. I capitalized it in a (successful) attempt to designate i as a tile and not a description. In any case, I am more than happy to let you reject that name and choose any reasonable term you wish. Good point about the Weak Theist, though I suppose that may be due to the different nature of knowing something is and knowing something is not. I do prefer to speak of my beliefs as beliefs, but have been repeatedly told that this is not good, since it suggests a lack of confidence or a triviality about them. Because of this continual reinforcement, I do sometimes speak of my beliefs as what I "know", but still naturally prefer to use believe, hopefully with the understanding that this is a categorization of type, and not an evaluation of the strength with which I hold to them.

Next, I went back before I became busy, and looked over the whole topic. It was surprising to say the least, even the things I had seen before. First, let me say that there actually were a few rare intermittent posts that had some worth/intelligence to them. When speaking about the thread as a whole, I do not include these posts. Let me just say that, the change between the rest of the topic and the current debate is dramatic. Jason, if you have not read the rest of it, save yourself the brain cells and trust me that it's worse than the small sample we got recently. Unless you are an Intellectual Egalitarian, I think those that have them (brain cells) should keep them. Dick, I'm sure you know all to well what I mean. I don't know about anyone else, but I was honestly surprised by some of the responses this topic elicited. Perhaps I hold my standards too high.

And on that topic, feel free to ignore any further posts by someone who clearly hasn't read any of the topic. I mean, I don't expect someone to read the entire thing, but they should, due to sheer post size alone, notice that there is a significant difference in the latest posts, and either refrain from posting, or find something intelligent to say. So, while it certainly provides some entertainment value, don't feel as if you are required to respond to anyone who doesn't actually say anything.

Lastly, I am flattered by your description of Jason and I, and by Jason's compliments as well. I do not hold myself in especially high esteem, but appreciated the kind words. Both of you are quite intelligent yourselves, and are able to grasp a number of intricacies that I am willing to bet are beyond most others. Despite becoming accustomed to an above average level of intelligence due to my enrollment in LSA Honors here in Ann Arbor, I can still recognize that you two are of a rare quality. (especially on a HS myspace forum ) As for my experience in philosophy, I am actually enrolled in my first philosophy course currently, and am enjoying it immensely.

With that, I am off to lunch, and hopefully I shall have time later to attend to the debate.

K.

[Modman]

Hmm...that sure isn't fair. With all the difficulty man has in discerning truth as it is, and the hardly palpable evidence given, God allows us to be even further confused as the end comes near? Still, human ability to understand "good" in itself is quite a large topic once opened fully, and would require some thought and probably a psychologist or two. However, I welcome the debate, as well as the psychologists, should either arrive

Ironically, if we don’t have a perfect concept of good, then we might be wrong in saying that isn’t fair. That aside, I definitely don’t believe that we are incapable of knowing good, and I agree with you in welcoming the debate. The problem of course is that a starting point is required, since to discuss the ability to understand good, you may have to discuss the ability to understand anything. However, I am happy to give my thoughts on any ideas that are presented on this topic. What I was saying above is that humans don’t completely understand universal good. Another way to say this is that, since there are disagreements about it, it is clear that people can be wrong about what is good.

Assuming this all were true, it's not like atheists all got together and decided to...be assholes, and blow God off. It's that we really, truly, don't UNDERSTAND why anyone would believe in Him. We can't fathom it. It's not that we made the conscious, human choice to disbelieve, but that we can't wrap our heads around the concept of truly believing. When I was still rather young, someone told me to "just believe", which I understood to mean, "stop thinking so hard, and just believe". I tried this for over a year, really, diligently trying to just believe, but it never worked. Even saying the words to myself, and trying really hard to accept them...just never worked. I always felt...dirty, as if I was lying to myself, because I knew I couldn't believe something just out of thin air. Then I tried studying intensely in the ways of the Bible, more so than any Christians I knew, and tried out all the particular sects of Christianity...but nothing worked. My parents raised me as a Christian, so it's not as though I were indoctrinated as an atheist. Even in Kindergarten at a private, Christian school, I was frequently given notes to take home to my parents complaining that I "asked too many questions", and that I "seem(s) to lack the faith that is so important to a young Christian", to quote one of the notes in particular that I still happen to have. My questioning is not borne of arrogance, but an innate burning for the truth, and while I can accept the possibility of a God, I can't accept the absolute existence of one without positive evidence. In fact, as I've already mentioned, I see a much larger possibility of there being no God, particularly any of the ones the various religions tout. If the only possible, one true God is the one Christians herald, with absolute accuracy and preciseness, without one error in the description and dictation of his proclamations and desires...then there is no God.

This is a VERY good point. I am aware that atheists do not feel they have the choice to believe and that many wish they did, but it helps to be reminded of this. If you do not mind the anecdote, my mother was actually in the same position. She was raised Catholic and became what she calls agnostic, but simply because atheism to her means claiming that you know for sure that there is no God. She has told me that she remembers wondering how others could have faith, and thinking that it must be nice, but was an impossibility for her. According to her, she was constantly confronted with Christians preaching at her, and remembers one day when she prayed “God, if you are there, I want to know about you, but I can’t believe just because of what these other people say.” Following that, her confrontations with Christians ceased, and it was years before she heard anything more. The two things she says that she needed to realize during those years were that if we had trouble knowing something as simple as public opinion, we obviously couldn’t go trying to find truth about God with the same method or statistics, and that if there was a God, he would not have to fit into any box or logical restrictions created by humans. So, while I have not had the same experience per-se, I can relate from a combination of what I have heard from my mother, and my own experience “asking too many questions.” As you can plainly see, I am still thinking quite hard.

Some would assert than everyone still has a choice, but I am a bit of a determinist myself.

Of course, but there seems no logical explanation for the allowance of said suffering, unless, of course, as you mentioned above, "He set up things so they were best, that is, most glorifying to Him and let creation go.", which would seem to indicate that God created things, thought they were pretty good, and hasn't had a hand in anything directly in, say, many hundreds of years (taking into account Jesus, the Great Deluge, and so forth). The concept that God put things into motion and stepped back to see what would happen, while still leaving many questions unanswered, is admittedly much more palatable than other explanations. However, I hardly think Christianity as a whole would allow that to be the accepted theory, as it seems to go against a great many components of the Bible.

I thought of that as I wrote it, and no, I did not mean to propose Deism. I simply meant to say that God created a system of cause and effect, physical laws, etc. that consistently determined the events of creation. I did not mean to say that this does not allow Him to intervene, or take part in the events, but that He had already planned them in advance. Yes, this is predestination, which is why it is the deterministic view. Though you probably know this, let me say, for the benefit of others, that predestination is not the same as fulfilling prophecy, and poses no practical problem if one does not know for what they are predestined. Though I haven’t read him thoroughly, I believe I agree with Kant’s view on determinism. As for the allowance of the suffering, that would most likely be explained with either “It was glorifying to God” or “Without the sour, the sweet just ain’t sweet.”

A similar reference can be made of heat and cold, though it would be an imperfect one, as too much heat destroys

That aside, this raises the ever-evident question, "Why would God force us to endure even the possibility of suffering, and not simply bring us to Heaven in the first place?" If there must be suffering to remind us of the pain of the absence of God, will there be suffering in Heaven, or will our respective memories be better there? If that's the case, couldn't we just have a few moments of pain and sadness from His absence, then forever remember them with Him in Heaven, happily ever after? Again, the entire concept seems fundamentally flawed. Answering that you "don't understand either, but that's not important" really isn't a proper response, though I'm always delighted to see another angle on the subject if it logically approaches the question, or at least raises more questions that may later aid in our quest.

This raises the question of dessert. Of course, you could say “wouldn’t God want to make us happy?”, but while that is intuitive, trying to speculate on the desires of an all-powerful being creates a number of complications. For the moment, I am instead focusing on the question “what is right?” or “what do we deserve” since this is a bit more concrete, and logically, God would not want something wrong anyway.

The first problem with both of these questions is that it presumes that we are separate entities from our creator, (since to ask any question about the goodness of a transaction implies to separate parties). I do not believe this to be theologically correct, since God keeps us in existence, planned out all of our days “before one of them came to be”, and according to Locke, we are God’s property. Viewing ourselves as separate entities is only valid on the small scale of our lives, in which we may, as Kant put it “act under the idea of freedom”. Since we are able to process information and make choices, we seem autonomous and therefore can have a concept of self as an independent being. When viewing history on a grand scale, this view does not seem to hold, and so the best answer to the question “what do we deserve?” is that we don’t deserve anything. The scale in terms of good was meant to propose that since we do not deserve to exist, every other part of good we get, no matter how big or small, is a bonus for which we ought to be grateful. I explained it from my own view of history as determined, but the only actual premise needed is for it to work is that we wouldn’t exist without God.

The next question is to leave the morality issue alone and ask “wouldn’t it be better for God to have done it this way?” Of course there is always the simple but unsatisfying response “no, because He is God”, but since this response simply side-steps any evaluation and already requires a belief in God, I shall skip over it. The best answer for an actual evaluation is “we don’t know”, or perhaps “what do you mean?”. It avoids morality, but is still a normative issue of measuring the goodness of something. The first question is that of determining a standard of good in order to evaluate the question. It may turn out that this will become cyclical, but it is clear that the question cannot be answered without a standard of good. The other question is “Is it even valid to propose a question about different ways of creating the universe, since we live in this universe and operate by its standards, which are fundamental to our logic and thinking?” If the answer to this turns out to be no, then there is no need for a worry about cyclical definitions of good since the question isn’t valid in the first place.
In case it is not obvious, the answer to the question "Why would God force us to endure even the possibility of suffering, and not simply bring us to Heaven in the first place?" is, at least for the moment, “I don’t know”, but more importantly “Why wouldn’t He?” Attempting to analyze God according to the idea of good that is necessarily created either directly or indirectly by Him becomes rather difficult. Apart from what I have just written, there is quite a lot of possible speculation, though this is chiefly only useful for personal satisfaction.

K.

[Modman]

Perhaps, but in the context here, in reply to the innocent child in excruciating pain and eventual death, it doesn't really apply, unless God is swiftly killing the child for Original Sin, heh.

The reply would most likely be that God is using this child to show something to the world, and the child will be rewarded in heaven.

Yes, you have, and hopefully will continue to; it's quite appreciated.

Good, I am always glad to hear that my thoughts are appreciated.

It seems that the analogy was between God and the universe as a whole, and a gardener and his garden, which the two men are in. In that sense, the analogy works perfectly, except that the men have not always been in the garden, and that the garden is not all of existence. But neither is the gardener God, hence the analogy is microcosmic, and as you mused, concerned specifically with "extrasensory reality", as you put it.

The analogy is certainly attempting to be microcosmic. I simply don’t agree with the premise “God is to a gardener as the universe is to a garden.” Perhaps it will be a bit more clear if I say that instead to examine the existence of God, the following analogy could be used: Two men come across a patch of flowers nicely arranged in a mountain clearing. One claims it grew naturally and the other claims that God made it. The question then becomes “Did this garden occur naturally, or was it created by God?“ This seems like a perfectly reasonable question to ask. Here they examine the possibility of creation for a physical object, using the garden as a model of the universe. If indeed this question is a good question, and God is not simply a big man, then substituting “gardener” for “God” with no change in the second part is clearly incorrect.

Perhaps, but proposing that there is an imperceptible gardener without supporting this with anything within the realm of "sensory existence" would still be a bit indefensible, and I believe this was the point Dick was trying to make.

Perhaps, but I do not believe this was the point of the original author. To make this point is simply to say “well we can’t ever find out if God exists or not”, and does not require the entire analogy. All that is required to make this point is “A guy sees flowers. He things a gardener put them there, but can’t see a gardener, so maybe he’s invisible. The guy has no way of knowing.” Finally, including the skeptics question would simply imply that the skeptics were even more confused than the believers since they don’t even understand the concept of existence.

Your next sentence, "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." should have been, rather than my previous supposition, closer to "[...]then the testimonies that people give of God must be of God actually physically being on earth, and doing things in plain sight, otherwise, they would by invalidated immediately by the nonexistence of extrasensory reality". Your response does not apply, and the analogy still works. Unless, of course...you have another response to make

It is possible that I am simply not understanding the point you are attempting to make. It seems you are using the view of reality being defined by unanimous perception, which I already addressed. Additionally, there are reports of miracles and such. If you were trying to say something else, say so in your reply, and I’ll be happy to look over it.

And this is where we need a few psychologists, and more tangent debate. Perhaps I'll delve a little and find some things noted psychologists have said, to emulate their presence, heh. Also, sorry for bringing back the dead with references to such old material of ours; I merely wanted to redress anything either of us left unsaid, or improperly said.

You are right that this is also a subject for debate. However, it would be significantly easier if we did not have to start from scratch and could assume some truth to begin with. I understand your intention, and welcome any necessary investigation. For the moment, however, I assert that things exist which cannot be unanimously experienced.

Yes, but I was only establishing the fact that the burden of proof lies with the original assertion first and foremost, even beyond the burden of proof that lies with someone making the assertion that the original assertion is incorrect. If Dr. Whacko walked into a conference, and for the first time, announced his vitamin C treatment, and that he had no evidence but faith alone, and someone responded, "You're incorrect", his response that the burden of proof was with that critical doctor to prove that Whacko was incorrect would be a complete fallacy. My attempt was to invalidate your invalidation of Dick's assertion of the burden of proof, not to contest that God definitely and absolutely does not exist simply because the burden of proof lies with the one proposing something which has not yet been established empirically.

This requires me to make some distinctions, which I hope I will be able to clearly articulate. In standard logic, True = NOT False, False = NOT True, and p(True)+p(False) = 0. This represents actual reality. However, due to the imperfection of human knowledge and the fact that we are not omniscient beings, we must also speak of what we know and do not know, and so modal logic is required to supplement standard logic. In modal logic, operators are added to express more intricate concepts. I shall focus on only a small portion of this, and hopefully make it understandable to anyone who reads this post. Here, the concepts of Possibly and Necessarily are added, to describe the state of knowledge or state of proof for an argument. They are defined by the following relationship: Possibly p = NOT Necessarily NOT p, while Necessarily p = NOT Possibly NOT p. (Note that I may in the future refer to them merely by the initial capitalized letter). Now, with the Vitamin C example, both claims are Possibly True. They are neither Necessarily True or Necessarily False, since they have not been shown to be either. As an informal analogy, if I was attempting to prove the existence of a red ball, I would be obligated to produce the red ball to support my claim. If I claimed that a red ball did not exist, I would be obligated to search the world to show the lack of a red ball. If I claimed that I red ball might exist, I would be obligated to show that you had not searched the world to show its non-existence. If I claimed that a red ball might not exist, I would be obligated to show that you had not produced the red ball, in order to support my claim. It is therefore, the Possibly True/Possibly False category which is the most defensible and the default position for all unproved claims.

I had a decent weekend, mostly consisting of languishing about and nursing my lack of sleep and proper nutrition (note that I am still a nearly perfect specimen of athletic health...I just have bags under my eyes, and am very hungry from simply forgetting to eat when I should). I hope you had a good weekend as well.

I also had a good weekend, and look forward to this next one which includes a concert and ski trip.

K.

[Modman]

Ironically, if we don’t have a perfect concept of good, then we might be wrong in saying that isn’t fair.

My apologies for such a prolonged absence from this debate. Also, my apologies for my current (inebriated) state, which may hobble my ability to debate properly. That said, if it seems unfair that I've just used alcohol as an excuse for a temporary deficiency in aptitude, feel free to get drunk before your next reply

I remind you, amidst my pseudo-stupor, that I hold you in high regards, and in our discourse, I mean no disrespect by any means.



Indeed. Let's delve into our definition and concept of "good". There's a great book on the subject, "The Meaning of Good", included in the Project Gutenberg collection, here: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/12508...-h/12508-h.htm

I also wrote a brief treatise on Good and Evil some time ago, and added it to my MS blog collection, here: http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fu...logID=82939755

The above piece quite probably contradicts your Biblical beliefs greatly, as it concerns not only the idea of being good to people, but also to animals. It seems the only response I get from Christians on the subject is that animals don't have souls. I don't remember seeing that in the Bible, so perhaps it's not universal, and I'd be happy to hear that you believe that life forms other than humans really DO have souls. However, should you agree with your theological compatriots, I'd be amused to hear your stance on animal cruelty, as either way, a song and dance of great effort will be required

Anyway, for the time being, and going by the assumption that you probably won't read either of the above pieces of work, I propose the following two points (paraphrasing a little from my noted blog):

1. Instinctive and emotional good arise from a natural desire to keep a species together (in this example, humans), and to catalyze cooperation and thus increased rates of reproduction, cushioned by safety within the pack, so to speak. It is partly borne of a selfish desire for happiness, but also includes the natural will for one's species as a whole to succeed, as well as one's genetics to be passed down.

2. Logical and ideal good seek to answer the question, "How can we make this world the best possible one, with every living thing as happy as possible?", albeit that's a little more macro cosmic than the average person's ponderings.

These two (or four, if you bifurcate each, heh) are fairly easy to understand, and I can't think of another kind of good. Your response, I would imagine, would be to reference another good; a good that has long perplexed atheists. This is the concept of "glorifying Him". Perhaps you'd also throw in some vague answer within the sphere of "I don't know", or "God works in mysterious ways", but assuming we take the logical route, I'd like to be enlightened as to what the meaning of "glorifying Him" really is. I know we've already touched on this, but I still don't follow your reasoning, as quite probably no atheists do.

Does God need us to make him feel better about himself? I should think not, but if so, that would seem rather selfish, and unGodlike. If this is our grand purpose, can it be interpreted as a good one simply because God wants us to perform this task? Perhaps your response would be that we are to do whatever God desires us to, no matter how absurd it may seem, because He is God. To the untrained eye, this would seem fairly similar to a small kid giving a large bully his lunch money, simply because the bully is a more powerful being. This is one of the largest contentions between atheists and theists (particularly Christians): Christians worship a God who does not appear to be a completely sound being. Perhaps this is because the people who penned the collection of books that became the Bible were fairly primitive, with strange values, who'd only recently (and incompletely) escaped the clutches of polytheism. Isn't it strange that we only began to discover and scientifically catalog dinosaurs in the 1700's, and they're nowhere mentioned in the Bible, the supposed word of God? You'd think He'd have brought them up. Then again, if the Bible was not inspired by God, but instead created by people, it would make perfect sense that something not yet known to have existed would not be included.

I implore you, explain to all of us the concept of "glorifying Him", and please elaborate as to what you find lacking in our human sense of good.

Some would assert than everyone still has a choice, but I am a bit of a determinist myself.

As am I, though Quantum Mechanics buffs may have a little to say about that, heh. I'm a little confused, though, as to how you can be a determinist, even a compatibilist determinist, as a Christian.

I did not mean to say that this does not allow Him to intervene, or take part in the events, but that He had already planned them in advance.

Your statement implies (and I assume this is your intention) that God planned the future out, knew what was going to happen, and planned also His timed interventions, and that God has given us free will, which he cannot, or does not, predict. This whole assumption is rickety and terribly loose, since God not predicting the results of free will basically means He has no idea what's going to happen next on the entire planet. Besides catastrophes, the only notable events on Earth to a being like the Christian God would have to be those of humanity, so I can't see your point as anything more than a disjointed circuit of cobblestone logic, pieced together because there absolutely has to be a God. Then again, this is how I feel about Christianity as a whole (theism, actually), and, with honest respect in mind for Christians as fellow people, I'm of the mind that if half the Bible were disproven, Christians would merely reply that God orchestrated it all to test our faith. But I digress from our specific discussion, something I can better do when we've run out of steam on our current path, and need more intellectual fuel.

K.

[Modman]

The first problem with both of these questions is that it presumes that we are separate entities from our creator, (since to ask any question about the goodness of a transaction implies to separate parties). I do not believe this to be theologically correct[...]

And now we have taken LSD, stripped naked, covered ourselves in gelatin, and jumped off of a bridge onto jagged rocks. Fine; I was bored anyway. Let us now invert our entire concept of being so that we are part of God, and disagree with Him at the same time. First, let's analyze this a bit. For something to be perfect, it has to be 100% perfect. If any part of it is imperfect, it is not, as a whole, perfect. Therefore, if we and God are one, and we are imperfect, then God is imperfect. If you intend to challenge the concept of existence, and propose some sort of horrible, Holy Trinity-esque, "The two are one, but sometimes three, but not really" idea, please elaborate.

[...]since God keeps us in existence, planned out all of our days “before one of them came to be”[...]

In that case, there is no free will, and God already decided which ones of us would believe in Him and which ones wouldn't. Again, I can't comprehend a determinist Christian.

[...]Viewing ourselves as separate entities is only valid on the small scale of our lives, in which we may, as Kant put it “act under the idea of freedom”. Since we are able to process information and make choices, we seem autonomous and therefore can have a concept of self as an independent being.

If our freedom of thought and ability to make choices is only an illusion covering the truth that all things have already been planned and put into motion, the concepts of Christianity and atheism are irrelevant, as we're merely puppets. This refutes a good deal of the Bible, and is inconsistent with Christianity. However, I've already said this, and I'm highly interested in your response, even if it is simply to say that you don't necessarily believe everything you read

When viewing history on a grand scale, this view does not seem to hold[...]

I don't quite understand what you mean here, and I'm not sure you do. Perhaps you could go into a bit more detail.

[...]and so the best answer to the question “what do we deserve?” is that we don’t deserve anything. The scale in terms of good was meant to propose that since we do not deserve to exist, every other part of good we get, no matter how big or small, is a bonus for which we ought to be grateful. I explained it from my own view of history as determined, but the only actual premise needed is for it to work is that we wouldn’t exist without God.

This assumes God's existence is fact, and also that determinism is compatible with Christianity, or at the very least, theism (and in that case, that the combination of theism and determinism is compatible with the concept of a good God). That aside, claiming that God created us and he didn't have to, and therefore we don't deserve anything and should be thankful for whatever happiness we get, is probably the weakest, most pathetic argument for God's allowance of malady in concert with His goodness that I've ever encountered. In that case, if God is all-good, he should have been nice and not created us at all, if he didn't plan to make us happy. I certainly wouldn't create a robot with sentience, and then lock it up in a dungeon, and I'm not even one of the three O's.

The next question is to leave the morality issue alone and ask “wouldn’t it be better for God to have done it this way?” Of course there is always the simple but unsatisfying response “no, because He is God”, but since this response simply side-steps any evaluation and already requires a belief in God, I shall skip over it.

Logical and admirable of you. In the same way, I cannot use the "fact" that God does not exist to disprove the contents of the Bible. This is what makes this a debate, and not a collection of meaningless rantings of two opposing groups.

The other question is “Is it even valid to propose a question about different ways of creating the universe, since we live in this universe and operate by its standards, which are fundamental to our logic and thinking?” If the answer to this turns out to be no, then there is no need for a worry about cyclical definitions of good since the question isn’t valid in the first place.

In the same vein, you might propose that it's irrelevant exactly how the Egyptians built the pyramids, because the fact is that they did, and we live in a time far removed from theirs, and that's enough for us to know. It's true that "we live in this universe and operate by its standards, and that they are fundamental to our logic and thinking", but it's nonsensical to assume that because of this, we cannot think "outside the box" of our own universe, and just shut the book based on that assumption. If that were the human way, we'd never have discovered other planets, because we wouldn't think it worthwhile to try, as we live on this planet, and operate by its standards, which are fundamental to our logic and thinking.

In case it is not obvious, the answer to the question "Why would God force us to endure even the possibility of suffering, and not simply bring us to Heaven in the first place?" is, at least for the moment, “I don’t know”, but more importantly “Why wouldn’t He?” Attempting to analyze God according to the idea of good that is necessarily created either directly or indirectly by Him becomes rather difficult.

Yes, it does, and in fact, is entirely based on faith. Saying that the concept of good is determined entirely by God, but that we can (or may) never know exactly what that concept is, is tantamount to saying "God works in mysterious ways", and halting all thought afterward. It is so ambiguous and vague that I'm not sure I can ever come up with a reply to it, simply because it's not tacked-down in any specific way whatsoever, and is intentionally so.

Apart from what I have just written, there is quite a lot of possible speculation, though this is chiefly only useful for personal satisfaction.

First, I would ask what part of this debate is not "chiefly only useful for personal satisfaction", but if I were to do that, I'd have to determine exactly what "personal satisfaction" is, as opposed to...public satisfaction (?), which, it would seem, would only be collective personal satisfaction. In any case, any speculation, with any perceived value whatsoever, is useful, and welcome, in this debate.

The reply would most likely be that God is using this child to show something to the world, and the child will be rewarded in heaven.

Why? Showing us something isn't going to change our minds if the deterministic view is correct, and besides, the child doesn't deserve anything, and hence doesn't need to be rewarded.

Before I address the next two paragraphs of yours, let me say that I am quite amused and entertained by your sense of humor therein, and appreciate a foil of sorts in an otherwise serious debate. I try, and shall continue to try to do my best in that respect as well.

I simply don’t agree with the premise “God is to a gardener as the universe is to a garden.”

I see. If comparing God to a gardener is offensive, my apologies on behalf of Dick and myself, though I don't believe that is what you meant. Let me note that the analogy was (I assume) intended to discuss the concept of a being outside of sensory reality, and not to compare God to a gardener so as to imply that God is merely tending to something which he did not wholly create and which he cannot wholly control. The analogy asks the same question all atheists do, "What possible reason would I ever have to believe in a God that does not exist except in fairy tales and proposed extra-sensory reality? For that matter, why do you believe?"

Perhaps, but I do not believe this was the point of the original author. To make this point is simply to say “well we can’t ever find out if God exists or not”, and does not require the entire analogy. All that is required to make this point is “A guy sees flowers. He things a gardener put them there, but can’t see a gardener, so maybe he’s invisible. The guy has no way of knowing.”

I think the point of the original author is primarily focused on the first explorer, and the analogy more a mockery of Christianity from the standpoint that there's no empirical evidence for the extra-sensory being, and therefore no reason to continue believing, especially considering the ever-rising scientific probability that the being does not exist at all. Therefore, Dick's point is congruent with the original author's.

It is possible that I am simply not understanding the point you are attempting to make. It seems you are using the view of reality being defined by unanimous perception, which I already addressed. Additionally, there are reports of miracles and such. If you were trying to say something else, say so in your reply, and I’ll be happy to look over it.

I was making the point that you seem to be implying that, because people have claimed to have witnessed miracles, and discoursed with God, that God must therefore exist. People have claimed many things, but I hardly think that qualifies as proof, or even decent evidence.

You are right that this is also a subject for debate. However, it would be significantly easier if we did not have to start from scratch and could assume some truth to begin with. I understand your intention, and welcome any necessary investigation. For the moment, however, I assert that things exist which cannot be unanimously experienced.

I agree; we can assume this to be true [to begin with].

This requires me to make some distinctions, which I hope I will be able to clearly articulate. In standard logic, True = NOT False, False = NOT True, and p(True)+p(False) = 0. This represents actual reality. However, due to the imperfection of human knowledge and the fact that we are not omniscient beings, we must also speak of what we know and do not know, and so modal logic is required to supplement standard logic. In modal logic, operators are added to express more intricate concepts. I shall focus on only a small portion of this, and hopefully make it understandable to anyone who reads this post. Here, the concepts of Possibly and Necessarily are added, to describe the state of knowledge or state of proof for an argument. They are defined by the following relationship: Possibly p = NOT Necessarily NOT p, while Necessarily p = NOT Possibly NOT p. (Note that I may in the future refer to them merely by the initial capitalized letter). Now, with the Vitamin C example, both claims are Possibly True. They are neither Necessarily True or Necessarily False, since they have not been shown to be either. As an informal analogy, if I was attempting to prove the existence of a red ball, I would be obligated to produce the red ball to support my claim. If I claimed that a red ball did not exist, I would be obligated to search the world to show the lack of a red ball. If I claimed that I red ball might exist, I would be obligated to show that you had not searched the world to show its non-existence. If I claimed that a red ball might not exist, I would be obligated to show that you had not produced the red ball, in order to support my claim. It is therefore, the Possibly True/Possibly False category which is the most defensible and the default position for all unproved claims.

This is true (though I dare say a bit pedantic, and partially extraneous), and that's why I maintain what you (and others, duly noted) call the position of a weak atheist, and why a good many people follow the path of the temporary agnostic. While you're correct in stating that all unproven claims are to be assumed possibly true, possibly false, but inconclusively studied/proven/disproven, it's still assumed that something isn't true until it's proven or substantiated significantly, something evident in our practical disuse of scientific theories without some decent form of prior testing or studying.

I also had a good weekend, and look forward to this next one which includes a concert and ski trip.

Cool. I hope you had a good one. I still haven't skied, and should sometime.

i believe in god b/c he blesses the food i eat and the liquids i drink. god saved be4 and will save me again. god loves every 1 no matter who it is.

I must assume you made this comment as a joke, and give it the laugh it deserves. Otherwise, if you have any aspiration of helping your fellow theists, do the right thing, and allow thinking men and women to handle debates from here on.

K.

[k64]

I saw that Jason replied, and look forward to reading his post in it's entirety and responding. For the moment, however, I am sick and have an organic chemistry test tomorrow for which I do not feel prepared. The Gutenberg treatise should keep me busy for a bit, and while I shall endeavor to respond as quickly as I can, it may be some time before I am able to do Jason's post justice. Good job moving the topic since, as humorous as they were, the random interjections by other people did not contribute much to the overall discussion. I'll take the time to respond to the last thing Jason said:
"I must assume you made this comment as a joke, and give it the laugh it deserves. Otherwise, if you have any aspiration of helping your fellow theists, do the right thing, and allow thinking men and women to handle debates from here on. "
I was also wondering if they were serious, though I decided based on the earlier posts that they unfortunately were. I definitely agree with your second sentence, and found myself often wondering if perhaps some atheist didn't pay these people to post/create multiple false accounts for the purpose of laughing at the unintelligent Christian "arguments" that were actually comic or cartoonish in thei stupidity, as if one was making use of hyperbole in imitating the arguments of those he was making fun of. Even the rather humorous satirical video of the "atheist delusion" posted by Dick (something about the way the guy said "Checkmate!" just struck me as very funny), contained better, or at least beter articulated arguments than those in the actual forum.

With that, good job on moving the forum (since 1 of us currently attended HHS and 1 more had ever done so) and I bid you all farewell until I return to the forum following my test and (hopefully quick) recovery.

[Lazy Bastard]

[this is Jason; my semi-apologies for the name, but it's been mine here for some eight years now, and I've grown rather fond of it]

Cool; good luck, man. I didn't see that video, but I'll check it out. I'll be waiting on your reply, or perhaps Kellee's next reply.