Atheism and Science

Galvasean

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

I am a scientist. :P

And I'm the Pope.

Get back to work! :mad:

King Mob

chozometroid wrote: »

Once God sets in motion the course of nature, which is in the physical realm of reality and follows the laws of nature, He wouldn't later just intervene when things are inconvenient for man and screw things up.

I don't think an earthquake that leaves people without homes and families is just "inconvenient".
And how would not having earthquakes be intervening with anyone's life?
Presumably this bit would have been done before life on earth even arrived.

If God is all powerful and all knowing and made the universe he could have made the universe in such a way where earth would never be effected by any natural disaster.

So why didn't he?

chozometroid wrote: »

Allowing free will is allowing for the possibility of evil. Hence, Satan, before man even.

But we're not talking about evil committed by man, we're talking about natural disasters and disease and random accidents.
How would taking these out of the equation negate free will?

chozometroid wrote: »

This cannot be known.

But you said:

chozometroid wrote: »

Once God sets in motion the course of nature, which is in the physical realm of reality and follows the laws of nature, He wouldn't later just intervene when things are inconvenient for man and screw things up.

How do you know that?

chozometroid wrote: »

That's like saying God can make a cake any way He wants, even if it means not including ANY ingredients that make a cake.

Well he either has limits or he doesn't.

And a universe without natural disasters isn't as illogical as a cake that's not a cake.
It's very much in the realm of limited human imagination.
So why wasn't it in God's in infinite knowledge?

chozometroid wrote: »

God wanted them to develop trust in Him as their Lord and friend.

So why did God lie about it?
Why didn't he tell them what it was and why it was there and why he didn't want them to eat it and what would happen if they did eat them.
You stuff an actual trusting friend would do.

I've always found trust is a two way street.

chozometroid wrote: »

All He did was tell them what was best for them.

So not the truth?
He told them they would die if they ate the fruit.

They ate the fruit but didn't die. God is all knowing, and thus would have known they wouldn't die.
Therefore God lied.

And why didn't he know about the talking snake?
Near as I remember he was the only one it this fairy tale who told the truth.

And why was he so harsh with Adam and Eve?
He was the one who left them alone and unguarded (with doesn't make sense since God knows all) right next to a thing he didn't want them to eat, where at any time they could be tempted by the snake (which he would have known about).
And even then Adam and Eve had no concept of right or wrong let alone temptation or punishment.

It's exactly like leaving a 2 year old baby alone next to an open bottle of bleach then abandoning him on the street when you discover the little bastard took a swig.

The garden of Eden make less and less sense the more you look at it.

chozometroid wrote: »

Someone is never a true friend until they have had a chance to screw you over, and don't.

So to recap, he's a friend who won't talk to you and won't help you out at your lowest point because it'd interfere with his plan (which he won't tell you) to make you accept him as your friend?

How does that make sense?

chozometroid wrote: »

It's not a get-out clause, but sure, it is a way to show why God appears inactive. God doesn't always "butt-in" to people's lives. He waits for them to knock.

Ah of course, all the people who die in natural disasters should have asked god to help them.
Silly buggers, how did they forget?

chozometroid

King Mob wrote: »

I don't think an earthquake that leaves people without homes and families is just "inconvenient".
And how would not having earthquakes be intervening with anyone's life?
Presumably this bit would have been done before life on earth even arrived.

If God is all powerful and all knowing and made the universe he could have made the universe in such a way where earth would never be effected by any natural disaster.

So why didn't he?

Are you a geologist? How do you know what is possible on a planet with the structure of Earth?

But we're not talking about evil committed by man, we're talking about natural disasters and disease and random accidents.
How would taking these out of the equation negate free will?

Natural disasters are not evil. They happen, and mortal men die from them.

But you said:

Originally Posted by chozometroid
Once God sets in motion the course of nature, which is in the physical realm of reality and follows the laws of nature, He wouldn't later just intervene when things are inconvenient for man and screw things up.

How do you know that?

I don't. I just believe that God generally allows things to be left alone, or intervenes in such a way as to not disrupt necessary events. Perhaps two people on opposite sides of a field are praying for no rain, so the rain comes down between them. The person between them feels screwed over, though.

And a universe without natural disasters isn't as illogical as a cake that's not a cake.
It's very much in the realm of limited human imagination.
So why wasn't it in God's in infinite knowledge?

What is your definition of a universe and who decides what a universe is? Surely there are repercussions for not having "natural disasters" which are a necessary part of the planet's natural cycles.

So why did God lie about it?
Why didn't he tell them what it was and why it was there and why he didn't want them to eat it and what would happen if they did eat them.
You stuff an actual trusting friend would do.

I've always found trust is a two way street.

So not the truth?
He told them they would die if they ate the fruit.

They ate the fruit but didn't die. God is all knowing, and thus would have known they wouldn't die.
Therefore God lied.

God didn't lie.
They died spiritually, which is a major theme in the entire Bible and one of the major areas of focus in Christianity.

And why didn't he know about the talking snake?
Near as I remember he was the only one it this fairy tale who told the truth.

Satan did lie, because he caused them to die spiritually by the corruption of their perfect sinless nature into a sinful nature.

And why was he so harsh with Adam and Eve?
He was the one who left them alone and unguarded (with doesn't make sense since God knows all) right next to a thing he didn't want them to eat, where at any time they could be tempted by the snake (which he would have known about).
And even then Adam and Eve had no concept of right or wrong let alone temptation or punishment.

It's exactly like leaving a 2 year old baby alone next to an open bottle of bleach then abandoning him on the street when you discover the little bastard took a swig.

The garden of Eden make less and less sense the more you look at it.

On the contrary, Eve exercised her free will and completely disregarded God's authority.
When Satan offered her this "temptation" of fruit, he was actually attacking God's position as Ruler. Once Eve entertained the thought, she sinned. She had God as her authority, her Lord, but she thought that she would decide for herself what was right for her, and ignore what God plainly told her. This is sin. Satan just brought Adam and Eve into the position of "God doesn't deserve His position as King. God doesn't know better than we do." Man cannot serve two gods. Adam and Eve replaced the lordship of Jesus Christ for the lordship of Satan.

Turtwig

Are all those earthquakes really necessary?
Why couldn't God have designed them to be Moment Magnitude 4 or less? That way they'd be practically harmless. Was such a violent planet so necessary?

monosharp

chozometroid wrote: »

Stan Lee is 87 years old.

Still kick gods ass.

Once God sets in motion the course of nature, which is in the physical realm of reality and follows the laws of nature, He wouldn't later just intervene when things are inconvenient for man and screw things up.

Did god create everything or did he not ?
Does god know everything or does he not ?

If he did create everything and if god knows everything then god created the world in such a way that he knew people who be hurt.

Its really not that difficult. Its very simple logic.

It's not a get-out clause, but sure, it is a way to show why God appears inactive. God doesn't always "butt-in" to people's lives. He waits for them to knock.

And yet again you show how completely you misunderstand basic logic.

If god created everything and god knows everything then god already knows if/when/how people will come to 'knock'.

monosharp

King Mob wrote: »

It's exactly like leaving a 2 year old baby alone next to an open bottle of bleach then abandoning him on the street when you discover the little bastard took a swig.

I want to put this on a t-shirt.

King Mob

chozometroid wrote: »

Are you a geologist? How do you know what is possible on a planet with the structure of Earth?

So then God is constrained to the physical laws?
So therefore he isn't all powerful?

chozometroid wrote: »

Natural disasters are not evil. They happen, and mortal men die from them.

So why do they happen?
Why does god allow needless suffering?

chozometroid wrote: »

I don't. I just believe that God generally allows things to be left alone, or intervenes in such a way as to not disrupt necessary events. Perhaps two people on opposite sides of a field are praying for no rain, so the rain comes down between them. The person between them feels screwed over, though.

And he could have just set up the Universe with no natural disasters. This wouldn't require any more interference than creating the universe in the first place.

But if God doesn't like to infer, why does he infer all the time in the old testament?
What with killing everyone in the flood, and all them Eygptian kids.
Then he gave Jesus all those superpowers.
He's not very consistent.

And are you suggesting that prayer doesn't have an effect?

chozometroid wrote: »

What is your definition of a universe and who decides what a universe is?

A universe is the sum total of time, space, energy and matter. What's your point?

chozometroid wrote: »

Surely there are repercussions for not having "natural disasters" which are a necessary part of the planet's natural cycles.

Yea there are, repercussions an all powerful being could easily negate.

chozometroid wrote: »

God didn't lie.
They died spiritually, which is a major theme in the entire Bible and one of the major areas of focus in Christianity.

So why didn't he say that they would die spiritually?
He said that they would die die.
Also for their entire existence they would have no concept of death, spiritual or actual and simply wouldn't understand the consequence. It's only after they eat the apple that they understand the difference between right and wrong.
Why wouldn't/didn't God explain it to them?

And why exactly did he allow them to die spiritually?

Didn't he know the snake was in the garden and would try to tempt them and that not being able to understand the situation or the consequences Eve would easily fall for it.

chozometroid wrote: »

Satan did lie, because he caused them to die spiritually by the corruption of their perfect sinless nature into a sinful nature.

No, he said that god wasn't telling the full truth, which he wasn't.
He said that they would get the knowledge of good and evil, which they did.

Where did he lie exactly?

chozometroid wrote: »

On the contrary, Eve exercised her free will and completely disregarded God's authority.
When Satan offered her this "temptation" of fruit, he was actually attacking God's position as Ruler.

So how come they had free will and were sinless?
And how can you possibly blame them for being tempted when they had no concept of it?

chozometroid wrote: »

Once Eve entertained the thought, she sinned.

So by having free will, which God gave her, she sinned?

chozometroid wrote: »

She had God as her authority, her Lord, but she thought that she would decide for herself what was right for her, and ignore what God plainly told her. This is sin.

But god didn't plainly tell her anything.
Or equip her with the ability to judge right and wrong.

If he wanted to tell her plainly he would have explained what the tree was why it was there and why she shouldn't eat from it.
Or at the very least warn her about the snake.

chozometroid wrote: »

Satan just brought Adam and Eve into the position of "God doesn't deserve His position as King. God doesn't know better than we do." Man cannot serve two gods. Adam and Eve replaced the lordship of Jesus Christ for the lordship of Satan.

So far we see that God gave them access to the tree, for some reason decided not to be looking at them at the time, allowed the snake to be in the garden, didn't warn them the snake was there and was bad, failed to equip them with the ability to judge right or wrong or to identify and resist temptation and then lied about the consequence of disobeying him.
Yet somehow it's not his fault.

You must do some amazing mental gymnastics for this to make sense to you.

monosharp

chozometroid wrote: »

Are you a geologist? How do you know what is possible on a planet with the structure of Earth?

If god can do ANYTHING then god can create a planet with the structure of Earth (or another structure) which doesn't have to have earthquakes.

God can do ANYTHING he could make the planet out of milk chocolate!

Again I ask you, revise your definition of god or change your argument.

If god simply created the Earth in the only way possible to create a planet like Earth then he is NOT all-powerful.

Natural disasters are not evil. They happen, and mortal men die from them.

And god is malevolent for allowing them. See how simple that is ?

What is your definition of a universe and who decides what a universe is? Surely there are repercussions for not having "natural disasters" which are a necessary part of the planet's natural cycles.

If god can do ANYTHING then god can create .....

How can you NOT understand that ?

If god created everything then a planets natural cycles are what god decided they would be.

Either that or god did NOT create everything, god created Earth inside already predefined conditions. (Gravity, light, radiation etc).

God didn't lie.
They died spiritually, which is a major theme in the entire Bible and one of the major areas of focus in Christianity.

Ah so whenever something shows god in a bad light its a metaphor but anything else and its literal ?

monosharp

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

I am a scientist. :P

The same way JC is no doubt, in your head ?

King Mob

Yep looking over the bible and God says

Gen 2
17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

Nothing about "spiritual death".
just death death.

I can see the snake only says two things.

Gen 3
4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

Both of which are entirely true.
Adam and Eve don't die. They get banished among other nasty crap God lays down. He doesn't once mention them dying either spiritually of actually.
And they do indeed gain knowledge of good and evil like God, as he confirms.

Gen3
22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

So in summary, God lied, Satan told the truth, God throws a tantrum and blames others for his cock up.

chozometroid

monosharp wrote: »

If god can do ANYTHING then god can create a planet with the structure of Earth (or another structure) which doesn't have to have earthquakes.

God can do ANYTHING he could make the planet out of milk chocolate!

Again I ask you, revise your definition of god or change your argument.

If god simply created the Earth in the only way possible to create a planet like Earth then he is NOT all-powerful.



And god is malevolent for allowing them. See how simple that is ?



If god can do ANYTHING then god can create .....

How can you NOT understand that ?

If god created everything then a planets natural cycles are what god decided they would be.

Either that or god did NOT create everything, god created Earth inside already predefined conditions. (Gravity, light, radiation etc).



Ah so whenever something shows god in a bad light its a metaphor but anything else and its literal ?

That's a lot of CAPS there buddy. :eek::rolleyes::D;):p

Your last statement is embarrassing, even for an atheist. God didn't lie and it's not a metaphor. Spiritual death is a real concept in the Bible, which happens to be the same book that mentions God and the garden of Eden.

I'm done with you and what you think God should be or how He should do things. You don't even believe in Him and you complain more about Him than the people that believe in Him with all their hearts. You think you have it all figured out and can't understand why anyone would want to worship their Creator who you happen to think is not everything a god should be. It's pathetic. Waah...why doesn't God just make all atheists free from degenerative disease?

chozometroid

King Mob wrote: »

Yep looking over the bible and God says

Nothing about "spiritual death".
just death death.

I can see the snake only says two things.


Both of which are entirely true.
Adam and Eve don't die. They get banished among other nasty crap God lays down. He doesn't once mention them dying either spiritually of actually.
And they do indeed gain knowledge of good and evil like God, as he confirms.


So in summary, God lied, Satan told the truth, God throws a tantrum and blames others for his cock up.

“When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins” (Colossians 2:13).

Hmm......"dead" and "alive" here do not mean physical death and life.
Hope that helps.

King Mob

chozometroid wrote: »

“When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins” (Colossians 2:13).

Hmm......"dead" and "alive" here do not mean physical death and life.
Hope that helps.

But god didn't say that to Adam did he?
He just said die.

Why didn't he say that to Adam or tell him the consequences.

But then Adam didn't have knowledge of good and evil, how could he know what sin was in the first place?

And can you show where the Snake lied?
Or maybe address some of my other points?

monosharp

chozometroid wrote: »

Your last statement is embarrassing, even for an atheist. God didn't lie and it's not a metaphor. Spiritual death is a real concept in the Bible, which happens to be the same book that mentions God and the garden of Eden.

1. You have just ignored 90% of my post and concentrated on my very last statement about another topic entirely.

2. God said nothing about 'spiritually dying' to Adam, he said 'die'.

why doesn't God just make all atheists free from degenerative disease?

Well why doesn't god make all people free from degenerative disease ? Why did he create degenerative disease ?

monosharp

chozometroid wrote: »

Hmm......"dead" and "alive" here do not mean physical death and life.
Hope that helps.

So everywhere in the bible where we see the words 'dead' and 'alive' that means spiritually dead and spiritually alive ?

Zillah

chozometroid wrote: »

I'm done with you and what you think God should be or how He should do things. You don't even believe in Him and you complain more about Him than the people that believe in Him with all their hearts. You think you have it all figured out and can't understand why anyone would want to worship their Creator who you happen to think is not everything a god should be.

That's the most blatant and shameless dodging I have ever seen. I'm curious, when you are so thoroughly beaten in an argument that you literally can't bring yourself to respond, how aware are you of the cognitive dissonance in your head?

Let's just bring it back to the key question. If what you're saying is not ridiculous nonsense then you should have a very simple answer to this:
God is all powerful, which means he is not limited by anything at all. So he chose to make a planet hit by thousands of earthquakes, when he could have just as easily made it the exact same except without the earthquakes? Right? If no, then he's not all powerful, right?

chozometroid

Zillah wrote: »

That's the most blatant and shameless dodging I have ever seen. I'm curious, when you are so thoroughly beaten in an argument that you literally can't bring yourself to respond, how aware are you of the cognitive dissonance in your head?

Let's just bring it back to the key question. If what you're saying is not ridiculous nonsense then you should have a very simple answer to this:
God is all powerful, which means he is not limited by anything at all. So he chose to make a planet hit by thousands of earthquakes, when he could have just as easily made it the exact same except without the earthquakes? Right? If no, then he's not all powerful, right?

God is not what you want Him to be, correct.

Zombrex

chozometroid wrote: »

Allowing free will is allowing for the possibility of evil.

Why?

I can't walk on the surface of the sun? Could it not be argued that allowing free will is allowing for me to walk on the surface of the sun, thus God has not allowed free will?

chozometroid wrote: »

This cannot be known. That's like saying God can make a cake any way He wants, even if it means not including ANY ingredients that make a cake.

Not really since it is easy for (some of us) to imagine how God could create a universe with out evil while still giving us free will.

If I can imagine it it makes little sense to argue God couldn't.

The only people who seem to have trouble imagining it are theists, who then proclaim because they can't imagine it God couldn't do it, which is some what egotistical, to think an all powerful god would be limited by your lack of imagination.

chozometroid wrote: »

God wanted them to develop trust in Him as their Lord and friend. All He did was tell them what was best for them.

But God knew they would eat the apple so that can't have been what God wanted.

Also it was only what was "best for them" because if they disobeyed him (which he knew they would) he would punish them. Eating the fruit itself didn't harm them.

iUseVi

chozometroid, you dodged the question again. Let me take the liberty of repeating Zillah's question:

God is all powerful, which means he is not limited by anything at all. So he chose to make a planet hit by thousands of earthquakes, when he could have just as easily made it the exact same except without the earthquakes?

Please give a straight answer.

Dades

chozometroid wrote: »

God is not what you want Him to be, correct.

You mean God is what you want him to be. Despite how glaringly obvious the flaws in his concept are.

I reached this 'endgame' regarding natural disasters some time ago across the way - and the final response was a brand of the "God moves in mysterious ways" argument, which is about as useful as an aspirin is for decapitation.

Zombrex

Dades wrote: »

the final response was a brand of the "God moves in mysterious ways" argument

I'm sure Malty Zillah or Robin will remember, but there is a term for that, where basically everything supports your position, even if it actually doesn't.

So when we see good things, love, peace, kindness etc it is evidence of God's existence.

But the opposites cannot be used as evidence against God's existence due to this clause. And in fact some theists go so far as to proclaim these bad things are also evidence of God's existence.

So in the mind of the theist, who really wants to believe in God, everything becomes evidence of his existence.

chozometroid

monosharp wrote: »

So everywhere in the bible where we see the words 'dead' and 'alive' that means spiritually dead and spiritually alive ?

Are you dead serious, or just pretending to be brain dead?

chozometroid

Wicknight wrote: »

Why?

I can't walk on the surface of the sun? Could it not be argued that allowing free will is allowing for me to walk on the surface of the sun, thus God has not allowed free will?

That is not the same at all. Walking on the sun is just something we are not physically capable of performing. Making a choice to "do good" in a given scenario always allows for the possibility of "evil."

Zombrex

monosharp wrote: »

So everywhere in the bible where we see the words 'dead' and 'alive' that means spiritually dead and spiritually alive ?

No just when it would make the Bible look silly.

We can't have that after all :P

Zombrex

chozometroid wrote: »

That is not the same at all. Walking on the sun is just something we are not physically capable of performing.

It is the same thing, again the only problem here is your lack of imagination, which you then rather ridiculously assume constrains your god.

chozometroid wrote: »

Making a choice to "do good" in a given scenario always allows for the possibility of "evil."

No it doesn't.

God could have made us incapable of doing evil and we still would have retained free will, just like my not being able to walk on the sun retains my (constrained) free will.

Free will means we choose from a set of God given options as to which one we pick to perform. I either get up and go have a coffee or I keep working for 15 minutes. Or I fly out the window, except I can't do that last one

God chooses what our options are, always has, by the way he constructs us, our brains and the universe around us.

If our only options are between a set of different good things we can do we still retain free will. If our brains are only capable of conceiving good things to do then we still retain free will.

We have never required that God give us all the options possible for us to have free will. If that was the definition of free will then we don't have it now.

chozometroid

Wicknight wrote: »

It is the same thing, again the only problem here is your lack of imagination, which you then rather ridiculously assume constrains your god.



No it doesn't.

God could have made us incapable of doing evil and we still would have retained free will, just like my not being able to walk on the sun retains my (constrained) free will.

Free will means we choose from a set of God given options as to which one we pick to perform. I either get up and go have a coffee or I keep working for 15 minutes. Or I fly out the window, except I can't do that last one

God chooses what our options are, always has, by the way he constructs us, our brains and the universe around us.

If our only options are between a set of different good things we can do we still retain free will. If our brains are only capable of conceiving good things to do then we still retain free will.

We have never required that God give us all the options possible for us to have free will. If that was the definition of free will then we don't have it now.

You are proposing that we would be unable to make choices to do things that we are physically capable of doing.

chozometroid

iUseVi wrote: »

chozometroid, you dodged the question again. Let me take the liberty of repeating Zillah's question:



Please give a straight answer.

Does being able to do all logically possible things imply being able to do them in every possible way? No.

Zombrex

chozometroid wrote: »

You are proposing that we would be unable to make choices to do things that we are physically capable of doing.

No, I'm proposing we are unable to make choices to do things that God has not presented to us as choices.

The problem is that since we already live in a world with evil you can't imagine living in a universe without it, where it would be an unknown concept.

If we lived in a universe where evil was unknown and unattainable, choosing to do it would be such an alien concept as to be utterly irrelevant.

Think of it this way.

Given that we are not gods it is logical to assume there are some things we cannot even imagine doing. In fact there are probably an infinite number of things we can't imagine doing, let alone actually do.

Ok, so now choose to do something you can't imagine doing

Naturally you can't, because you can't imagine it. Your brain is incapable of doing this.

And yet you retain free will.

You can happily and freely choose between the thing you can imagine and the things you can do.

So we already live in a universe where what we can do or even imagine doing is greatly constrained already.

You can imagine doing evil only because you already live in a universe where you can imagine and actually do evil. If God exists he choose that this would be the case.

If you didn't then "evil" would be an unknown concept to you. Saying you choose to do it would be irrelevant since you don't even know what it is.

It would be like you saying you choose to do X now, where X is something unimaginable.

None of this constrains free will. The set of what you can imagine doing is most likely infinitely smaller than the set of things you could imagine if you had a god sized brain. Yet this does not mean no free will.

iUseVi

chozometroid wrote: »

Does being able to do all logically possible things imply being able to do them in every possible way? No.

That wasn't the question. I think you are doing it on purpose. Please read it again and your answer should include the word "earthquake".

Dades

chozometroid wrote: »

Does being able to do all logically possible things imply being able to do them in every possible way? No.

Forget the generalisations - I don't see it as too difficult a task for the creator of the entire universe to make our planet without tectonic plates that frequently kill innocent men, women and children by shaking their houses and schools on top of them.

Now why would he do that?

Turtwig

Just to pre-empt Chozo's sort of is there any other way for life without earthquakes? Why not give us a huge warning siren that cause a bell inside the earth to ring out. Or why not create life on Earth after the planet's tectonic activity has died down to less noticeable effects?

Right now our planet is exactly like you'd expect it to be if there was no intentional design involved. Earthquakes are necessary for known life alright, but if you're going to say that that is the only way for God create life, then He's been constrained by the laws of nature.

Zombrex

Malty_T wrote: »

Just to pre-empt Chozo's sort of is there any other way for life without earthquakes? Why not give us a huge warning siren that cause a bell inside the earth to ring out. Or why not create life on Earth after the planet's tectonic activity has died down to less noticeable effects?

Right now our planet is exactly like you'd expect it to be if there was no intentional design involved. Earthquakes are necessary for known life alright, but if you're going to say that that is the only way for God create life, then He's been constrained by the laws of nature.

Time and time again it comes back to this point, the universe looks like nothing is actively guiding it. Earthquakes just happen. Sometimes they destroy sometimes they create. Sometimes they create and destroy.

There is no rhyme or reason to it.

It takes a special kind of convoluted logic to get God, or an intelligence, into the picture and you end up with nonsense like "God works in mysterious ways"

liamw

Wicknight wrote: »

Time and time again it comes back to this point, the universe looks like nothing is actively guiding it.

Exactly, there's just no reason to invoke God at all. Chromo has to jump through hoops to try make his specific God fit with everything in the world. It just doesn't make ANY sense.

Sam Vimes

liamw wrote: »

Exactly, there's just no reason to invoke God at all. Chromo has to jump through hoops to try make his specific God fit with everything in the world. It just doesn't make ANY sense.

It really doesn't. People say that god works in mysterious ways or any number of variants of that but there are three characteristics that are not mysterious and that he is supposed to possess:

1. Omnibenevolence
2. Omnipotence
3. Omniscience

An omnibenevolent being that had a plan would by definition carry it out in the most benelovent way it possibly could. If the plan could succeed without suffering but the being allows suffering to happen anyway, the characteristic of omnibenevolence is negated.

An omnipotent and omniscient being by definition has the knowledge and the power to carry out the plan with infinite benevolence, ie no living being ever need suffer for the plan to succeed.

If there is a God it cannot possibly possess all three of those characteristics because suffering that is caused by both man and nature happens regularly.

And that's not even considering all the suffering that was directly commanded by a supposedly omnibenevolent being in the Old Testament.

King Mob

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And that's not even considering all the suffering that was directly commanded by a supposedly omnibenevolent being in the Old Testament.

What I'd love to know is why didn't he just teleport the Jews out of Egypt?
Surely that would have been preferable to murdering thousands of innocent children.

robindch

Malty_T wrote: »

Just to pre-empt Chozo's sort of is there any other way for life without earthquakes? Why not give us a huge warning siren that cause a bell inside the earth to ring out.

That would require physical change to effect. Most of the christian deity's interaction is on the "spiritual" side of the dualistic divide, so to remain consistent with christian belief, an apologist has to explain why nobody receives any messages from god about an impending disaster. Or even something as obvious as "Boil the water before you feed it to the kid".

Of course, he could just suggest (in a solicited, or unsolicited manner) to christian bell-ringers, that they should ring the bells in the christian churches in a specific manner when an earthquake is due. In this way, not only would he remain consistent with dogma, but by selectively saving the physical lives of people within earshot of churches -- presumably mostly christians -- he'd be using evolution to increase the numbers of his own believers at the expense of the other deceased ones, while clearly demonstrating that he does answer prayers, as Jesus said he would.

There's an entire religious industry -- that of theodicy -- which is devoted to explaining away the Problem of Evil. Unfortunately, nobody but the religious believers themselves seems to find them all that convincing.

Ickle Magoo

Which only leaves a god that deliberately created a world in which suffering would exist. Who only interjects from time to time to create the odd miracle healing or whatever and then buggers off again leaving everyone else to the ravages of natural disaster, disease and crime without so much as a backwards glance...so rather than an all-knowing, all-powerful god, theists want us to pray for health and wellness on a lottery god in the hope he's feeling a bit generous that day?!

If gods intervention is entirely down to chance and my odds without a god is down to chance, what's the bloody point ~I just don't get it?!

Sam Vimes

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

If gods intervention is entirely down to chance and my odds without a god is down to chance, what's the bloody point ~I just don't get it?!

It's not down to chance, it's down to how much you love god and people who love god but suffer anyway didn't love him enough! :rolleyes:

Hence this picture:

Ickle Magoo

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's not down to chance, it's down to how much you love god and people who love god but suffer anyway didn't love him enough! :rolleyes:

Which makes no sense. Eek on the pic!

If there really is a god then religious people would get some kind of preferential treatment, surely? It can't all be a case of life being exactly the same as it would be with or without god other than the promise of a ticket into a heaven that we don't actually know exists, can it?!

Sam Vimes

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Which makes no sense. Eek on the pic!

If there really is a god then religious people would get some kind of preferential treatment, surely? It can't all be a case of life being exactly the same as it would be with or without god other than the promise of a ticket into a heaven that we don't actually know exists, can it?!

It seems so. Strange I know

monosharp

chozometroid wrote: »

Are you dead serious, or just pretending to be brain dead?

You are the one who is after telling me that the word 'die' in a particular sentence in genesis means 'spiritually die' and not 'die'.

Is there a footnote somewhere I haven't seen which explains when 'die' means something else in certain places in the bible ?

Galvasean

monosharp wrote: »

God can do ANYTHING he could make the planet out of milk chocolate!

Pfft, then we'd just eat our planet and have nowhere to live! God wouldtehn have to kill us randomly with natural disasters to prevent this from happening.
Hey, you don't suppose that's kind of what he's doing now?
"Hey, stop poluting the planet!" *smite*

Turtwig

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm sure Malty Zillah or Robin will remember, but there is a term for that, where basically everything supports your position, even if it actually doesn't.

Rationalization?
Awful word to describe the concept if you ask me.

Zillah

chozometroid wrote: »

God is not what you want Him to be, correct.

This has nothing to do with what I think of God. I don't believe there is a God. We're talking about your beliefs. Do me a favour and address these bite sized chunks:

1 - Is God all powerful?

2 - Is God all loving?

3 - If you answer yes to the above, then how is it possible that the planet constantly tries (frequently with success) to kill us?

Again, we're not talking about what I think about God, we're talking about what you think about God.

Turtwig

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

I am a scientist. :P

Kinda feel like beating my self up for not thinking of this video yesterday.

Rev Hellfire

Classic.

monosharp

Malty_T wrote: »

Kinda feel like beating my self up for not thinking of this video yesterday.

Sounds like a cross between Kent Hovind's dissertation and JC's posts.