A case for religion, and against AA.

[witeken]

No matter what is said Atheists will always full-proof their arguments, buy pushing the question further and further back.

Theists don't even have arguments.....

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

I have no argument against god...I believe in God!!

Spoken like a true Atheist.....How am I moving the goal posts? I don`t limit my God!
Why would God want to prevent me from moving the goal posts?
It`s Atheists who always are moving the goal posts.....I think you did not comprehend very well what I said concerning why god is not in the business of proving himself....

No matter what is said Atheists will always full-proof their arguments, buy pushing the question further and further back.

Can god stop them or not? Is he unable or unwilling? Impotent or evil?
Choose.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

It should be no wonder where theist stereotypes come from.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Can god stop them or not? Is he unable or unwilling? Impotent or evil?
Choose.

An answer to that is that he can, but he doesn't because he is unwilling to do the true evil of eliminating who you are.

In the dead children example: the sad part there isn't that they return to the creator, but that we as humanity have lost so much opportunity, so much potential, so much love that would have been on this earth. It is sad for humanity, and a reflection of the sad state of humanity.

Another example: There have been 200k years of human evolution where God was not a codified thing, but an entity that we felt and either followed, or denied by being self-serving, other hurting, in our lust and pride. Think of all the evil and death and war and murder and rape and... But without it you and I would not be you and I.

It should be no wonder where theist stereotypes come from.

I swear to God, CT, you're right. There's no question that when an ideologue has faith he has an unassailable point anything to the contrary is met with nothing but derp-eyes...

 

[witeken]

Another example: There have been 200k years of human evolution where God was not a codified thing, but an entity that we felt and either followed, or denied by being self-serving, other hurting, in our lust and pride. Think of all the evil and death and war and murder and rape and... But without it you and I would not be you and I.

Okay, but what is your point? Do you mean that the world is a better place with all the rape and murder?

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Wait... you guys aren't just part of my dreamstate?

that's so weird, I had a dream you would say that

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Do you mean that the world is a better place with all the rape and murder?

I mean that the Epicurean paradox is solved if greatest good isn't a world free of evil, but a world where you and I exist exactly how we are.

Okay, but what is your point?

If there is good and evil we have to say "so what do we mean by that". If evil is selfishly hurting people for your own lust and pride then good as having the opportunity to serve your own lust and pride but instead helping someone else.

If God took away lust and pride (and all the concomitant evils) then God would also take away the opportunity to do good; and thus take away an essential element of who we are.

 

[witeken]

I mean that the Epicurean paradox is solved if greatest good isn't a world free of evil, but a world where you and I exist exactly how we are.

All nice I guess, but "how we are" is determined by our brains. So if god did some magic trick and changed our brains to stop killing and doing other evil things, we would still be "exactly how we are". I think you're basically saying the greatest good would be a world where there was no god (everything would behave "exactly how they are" aka naturally).

If there is good and evil we have to say "so what do we mean by that". If evil is selfishly hurting people for your own lust and pride then good as having the opportunity to serve your own lust and pride but instead helping someone else.

If God took away lust and pride (and all the concomitant evils) then God would also take away the opportunity to do good; and thus take away an essential element of who we are.

It's essential element of who we are because of evolution, not because it's an absolute necessity. No harm is done by taking away lust and pride.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

"everything would behave "exactly how they are" aka naturally" This is predicated on the assumption that some how "everything exactly how it is" is not natural if God is involved. This makes absolutely no sense if we are speaking to the Epicurean God of all good and creation.

"It's essential element of who we are because of evolution" is a side track from the epicurean argument; and doesn't make sense from an evolutionary-antrhropology/psychology perspective.

Further "not because it's an absolute necessity" is actually not a "not because" as evolutionary thinking in terms of consistent systems and consistent world-systems imply a sort of "absolute necessity" of outcomes. So Evolution and necessity of outcome make similar assumptions.

" No harm is done by taking away lust and pride." If you see the total obliteration of who you are as a human being as "no harm" then you're right.

I can imagine a world where humans don't exist, and if your solution to Epicurious's argument is that a good God wouldn't allow humans and thus God made a mistake in making humans (and thus can't exist) that's perfectly rational. But also, given the Epicurean constraints, concluding that God created humans to be just the way we are and such is the greatest good is also a solution.

I'm not saying that there must be a God because of my argument, I'm just saying that the problem of evil is not an unassailable disproof.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

An answer to that is that he can, but he doesn't because he is unwilling to do the true evil of eliminating who you are.

In the dead children example: the sad part there isn't that they return to the creator, but that we as humanity have lost so much opportunity, so much potential, so much love that would have been on this earth. It is sad for humanity, and a reflection of the sad state of humanity.

Another example: There have been 200k years of human evolution where God was not a codified thing, but an entity that we felt and either followed, or denied by being self-serving, other hurting, in our lust and pride. Think of all the evil and death and war and murder and rape and... But without it you and I would not be you and I.


I swear to God, CT, you're right. There's no question that when an ideologue has faith he has an unassailable point anything to the contrary is met with nothing but derp-eyes...

Then he is not omnipotent. In order to make any sense, you're requiring that god be unable to prevent evil without changing who people are. That's a limitation, and thus he's no longer omnipotent, and thus not god.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Then he is not omnipotent. In order to make any sense, you're requiring that god be unable to prevent evil without changing who people are. That's a limitation, and thus he's no longer omnipotent, and thus not god.

No did you read her post? She says -- He can!!
Your not understanding or your so bias against that you cannot understand....
You claim in order to make any sense....whose sense?? Your sense?? Sorry it does not work that way...more Atheist talking points....
God is not limited..yet God can always choose not to do something...for example the 5,000,000 million starving children as opposed to the Tax miracle....

God is God...perhaps God`s thoughts and actions are above our understanding.....

 

[witeken]

Perhaps those 'miracles' and starving children are caused by natural events governed by the laws of nature.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

No did you read her post? She says -- He can!!
Your not understanding or your so bias against that you cannot understand....
You claim in order to make any sense....whose sense?? Your sense?? Sorry it does not work that way...more Atheist talking points....
God is not limited..yet God can always choose not to do something...for example the 5,000,000 million starving children as opposed to the Tax miracle....

God is God...perhaps God`s thoughts and actions are above our understanding.....

Actually, she says she can, but not without changing who we are. Which is a limitation.

Haven't avoided the paradox at all. Either god can stop that evil without changing who we are, and chooses not to - in which case, he is evil. Or he can't, in which case not omnipotent.

 

[disappoint]

They are perceiving reality, but everything is warped by your brain. Color for example doesn't exist. The atoms do exist, but the color how your brain interprets those doesn't. Reality looks a whole lot different than you think it does. The same is true for all other senses and arguably even thoughts.

Color exists. Color is real. If you can measure it, it is real and you can measure the wavelength of light, which is an electromagnetic wave. It seems reality might look a whole lot different than you think it does as well.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Haven't avoided the paradox at all. Either god can stop that evil without changing who we are, and chooses not to - in which case, he is evil. Or he can't, in which case not omnipotent.

Or God`s understanding is so far above our limited understanding that we only see a very small limited picture....

Who are you to say "in which case God is evil??"

 

[Dr. Zaus]

PA's down to "God can't contradict himself, and thus isn't God". But if God could contradict himself he would also not be God right? This "Tails I win, Heads you lose" mentality is great as a basis of faith, but not so great as the basis of a thoughtful discussion.

Perhaps those 'miracles' and starving children are caused by natural events governed by the laws of nature.

Without question: but that in no way updates our information about the existence of a creator of those laws. The Epicurean paradox is still solved if greatest good isn't a world free of evil, but a world where you and I exist exactly how we are.

 

[witeken]

Color exists. Color is real. If you can measure it, it is real and you can measure the wavelength of light, which is an electromagnetic wave. It seems reality might look a whole lot different than you think it does as well.

Sure, the wavelength is real.

But not the color. There are no laws that dictate that what you perceive as green, is how that wavelength looks to other people, other animals or aliens: Is your red the same as my red?

Your senses do not really exist, they're signals of your brain, the product of evolution.

 

[witeken]

Without question: but that in no way updates our information about the existence of a creator of those laws. The Epicurean paradox is still solved if greatest good isn't a world free of evil, but a world where you and I exist exactly how we are.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

Okay, so that would imply that it's benevolent to create malicious beings. I don't think so. Your "solution" isn't a solution, because we are always "exactly how we are".

 

[JEDIYoda]

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? He is God!
Is he able, but not willing? He is still God!
Is he both able and willing? He is still God!
Then whence cometh evil? He is still God!
Is he neither able nor willing? He is able and still God!!
Then why call him God? God is God!

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

Okay, so that would imply that it's benevolent to create malicious beings. I don't think so. Your "solution" isn't a solution, because we are always "exactly how we are".

God is able but unwilling not because he is malevolent, but because it is in service of a higher good: your existence.

You'll have to unpack exactly how the existential-being that you are today would still exist if there was no evil; i'm not catching the argument.

Side note: color is just a manifestation of how we socially interpret the experience of wavelengths of light. For example, Koreans do not have a word for green that is different from blue and thus if you have them look at a light blue light green and dark green they will say the two 'light' colors are more similar; while in societies where there is a difference between green and blue we would say light green and dark green are more similar.

 

[witeken]

God is able but unwilling not because he is malevolent, but because it is in service of a higher good: your existence.

I don't consider my existence "a higher good".

You'll have to unpack exactly how the existential-being that you are today would still exist if there was no evil; i'm not catching the argument.

It'd be different without evil. But that's sort of the whole point of it. It means, according to Epicures, that it isn't god because he doesn't stop evil etc.

Side note: color is just a manifestation of how we socially interpret the experience of wavelengths of light. For example, Koreans do not have a word for green that is different from blue and thus if you have them look at a light blue light green and dark green they will say the two 'light' colors are more similar; while in societies where there is a difference between green and blue we would say light green and dark green are more similar.

It might be influenced by culture, but not a manifestation of culture.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I don't consider my existence "a higher good".

That's fine Witeken, and I appreciate the conversation. I consider your existence the highest good; in fact I consider the good you do the whole purpose of reality. If you prefer not to think of things that way then you're right in dismissing my counter point. Just as long as we recognize that we've now turned the 'logical disproof' into a subjective choice about what 'benevolent' is in the first place.

It'd be different without evil. But that's sort of the whole point of it. It means, according to Epicures, that it isn't god because he doesn't stop evil etc.

Sure, but without humans to be evil what's the meaning of good? Again, Heads I win, Tails you lose: If there is evil then there can't be a good creator and if there isn't evil then there can't be a good creator.

The epicurean argument relies on a more complex structure for its cogency.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

Within this structure I am arguing the bold. My argument is that form my perspective on what good and evil are, allowing some evil is the most benevolent thing. This tears apart the Epicurean argument.

You might say that it is not the most benevolent thing, and in fact not allowing you and I to exist would be what you feel is the most benevolent thing. I can't argue with you because the answer is subjective; but I don't think you can much argue with me either.

As, in that the answer to "can it be benevolent to allow for some evil" is a subjective answer, it means the Epicurian disproof for God is no longer a necessary logical disproof; but rather limited to how you choose to answer a subjective question.

It might be influenced by culture, but not a manifestation of culture.

I wouldn't say that the ability to see wavelength we call 'red' would disappear just because a culture dis-avowed any words related there-to. But I would say the subjective experience of the color 'red' in the way we experience it is likely bound by culture. Does this track with what you're thinking here?

 

[witeken]

Just as long as we recognize that we've now turned the 'logical disproof' into a subjective choice about what 'benevolent' is in the first place.

Sure, I prefer to use real arguments anyway. But it's quite interesting, and it makes you think about if those features of god can exist together in the first place.

Sure, but without humans to be evil what's the meaning of good? Again, Heads I win, Tails you lose: If there is evil then there can't be a good creator and if there isn't evil then there can't be a good creator.

If there's an earthquake, no evil is done by humans, but they have to help the victims. That's a good thing, I guess.

I wouldn't say that the ability to see wavelength we call 'red' would disappear just because a culture dis-avowed any words related there-to. But I would say the subjective experience of the color 'red' in the way we experience it is likely bound by culture. Does this track with what you're thinking here?

Fair enough.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

^Thank you for the conversation, I respect your perspective and appreciate the discourse.

 

[soulcougher73]

I cant believe this thread is still going and people reply to Jediyoda lol. He is beyond a lost cause.