Proof there is no God

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
Post Reply
User avatar
Jack D Ripper
Posts: 323
Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Contact:

Proof there is no God

Post by Jack D Ripper » October 9th, 2020, 9:56 pm

This isn’t a new proof, but what follows the proof is what is important.

In this thread, by “God” (with a capital “G”) I mean a being that is omniscient (all knowing), omnipotent (all powerful), and omnibenevolent (all good). I am not presently interested in the issue of whether some other god (notice, small “g”) exists, such as whether Zeus exists or not; Zeus can be the subject of another thread, if someone wishes to discuss him.


The proof that no God exists is the problem of evil. (“Evil”, in this context, simply means anything that is bad.) If there were such a God, being omniscient, it would know about any evil, being omnipotent, it would be able to prevent all evil, and being omnibenevolent, it would have the inclination to prevent all evil. Consequently, it would prevent all evil. Since there is evil (i.e., bad things happen), there cannot be such a God.


Historically, theists have tried to come up with a variety of excuses for God, to try to circumvent the argument. These excuses, though, invariably fall into one of three categories (usually the first of the three). First, many of them essentially deny that God has one of the attributes in question, which really is an admission that there is no such God, though those coming up with the excuses typically don’t recognize that fact. I will provide some examples below.

The second approach is to simply refuse to admit defeat, even though they have nothing real to argue against the problem of evil (e.g., “it is a mystery”). Often, this second approach is used within an argument about an excuse, such that the person never admits defeat of that excuse, even though it has been shown to fail (this has been called “the Invincible Ignorance fallacy” and “argument by pigheadedness” and probably has probably been called a few other names as well). When people cherish a belief, they do not like to give it up, and often tend to dogmatically hang onto it no matter what. One can try to hide the failure by trying to make the argument go on and on and on endlessly, instead of honestly admitting defeat. I will not be surprised if we see this tried in this thread, as it is sometimes used in threads in which someone is determined to be the last one posting, as if that meant that they were right after all. After a certain point, I may decide to stop replying to someone if they just keep repeating a debunked position.

The third is to produce something that is simply irrelevant to the argument, while pretending that it refutes the argument (the latin for this type of fallacy is "non sequitur”).


It is impossible to list here everything that everyone has ever said on this topic, and consequently you may feel dissatisfied with my claim. However, I challenge any and all of you to come up with an excuse for God to circumvent the problem of evil, that does not have one of the faults listed. If it has one of the faults listed, the excuse fails and the argument stands. I will check this thread from time to time, for, say, a month (I do not want to commit to this thread for the rest of my life!) to respond and show that the arguments presented fit one of the three categories listed. I am submitting this on October 9, 2020, so I am only committing to replying through November 9, 2020. Of course, if I die from COVID-19 or some other thing, I may stop replying to the thread sooner; I do not promise to post while dead.



Here, though, are three samples to get us started. The first comes from another thread (which is what has inspired this thread):
musicgold wrote:
March 5th, 2020, 2:17 pm
Hi,
I am trying to determine the logical fallacy committed by B in the following argument. I think it is circular reasoning but I am not sure. Or is B using God's will as a justification to another problem potentially arising from God's will?

A: How could a fair God create such an unjust world?

B: This world is not the final world. This world is like an examination hall, and God is testing us to see who is good and who is evil, and that's why it is not a fair world. God gives here everyone a separate test. Finally, after the day of judgement, God admits only good people to his eternal, beautiful, and just world.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=16668


I stated in reply:


B is implicitly saying that God is too stupid to know in advance which of his creations would pass a test, so he has to test them. If God knew which ones would pass, he would not need to test them. And consequently, making people suffer in such a test would be unnecessary evil.


Presumably, you are thinking of a God that is supposed to be omniscient (all knowing), omnipotent (all powerful), and omnibenevolent (all good). And person A is bringing up the problem of evil. All of the excuses that theists have come up with against the problem of evil ultimately end up denying one of the three supposed attributes of God, or are simply a refusal to admit defeat (e.g.,"it is a mystery"). In the example you have given, either the God does not know who will pass the test (so he is not omniscient), or if he does know in advance of the test what the results would be and decides to torture people with it anyway, then he is not omnibenevolent. Basically, the excuse given is stating that there is no omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God.

Keep in mind, the problem of evil is only relevant to such a god. For example, it is irrelevant to the ancient Greek religion. Zeus, the most powerful of the ancient Greek gods, is not supposed to be omnipotent, omniscient, or omnibenevolent, nor is he supposed to have created the world. So the problem of evil does not disprove the ancient Greek religion.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=16668&start=15#p368486


Notice, depending on one’s take on this excuse, it could be a denial that God is omniscient, or it could be a denial that God is omnibenevolent, but either way, it is denying that there is a God that is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, because the being described lacks at least one of the three attributes.

So, the idea that this life is a test fails for the reason that it essentially denies that God has the three attributes.



Our second example is the claim that “good” and “evil” are subjective and have no objective meaning. This is an instant denial that God is omnibenevolent, as that is the claim that God is all good, and if there is no such thing as good, then not only would it mean that God can’t be all good, it would mean that God cannot be good at all. So that would make it impossible for there to be a being with all three of the attributes, since it is the denial that anything can have one of those attributes.



The third example is one that is commonly brought up, which has many problems with it. It is the claim that God cannot prevent evil because people have free will.

There are many objections that people can and have raised against this, like pointing out the fact that the expression “free will” needs to be properly defined before it can be properly analyzed, which almost no one ever does, as people seem to assume that everyone knows what it means, even though that clearly is not the case, as anyone who has read threads about “free will” will notice, with some people affirming things about “free will” that others regard as “obviously false”. One can also see that different people mean different things, when one considers that some regard “free will” as compatible with determinism (called “compatibilism”) and others affirm that it is not compatible with determinism (not surprisingly, called “incompatibilism”). But as this would get us mired in troublesome disputes, and because this is not the only issue regarding this excuse, we need not resolve that or consider it here.

One might also question whether we have “free will” or not (because if we don’t, then this is obviously worthless as an excuse), though, again, that is going to get us mired in troublesome disputes, and because this is not the only issue regarding this excuse, we need not resolve that or consider it here.

Another issue involves considering whether it would be better or worse for people to have “free will”. Though some people take it for granted that having free will is better than not having it, that is a substantive claim that would require evidence before it would be reasonably believed. Additionally, on the face of it, it just seems false to claim that it is a good thing for rapists and murderers to have free will. If it is not better for people to have free will, then it would have been better if God did not give us or allow us to have free will. But, again, that is going to get us mired in troublesome disputes, and because this is not the only issue regarding this excuse, we need not resolve that or consider it here.

As an aside, if free will were a proper explanation for evil in the world, making it impossible for the world to be devoid of evil, then that would make hash out of the idea of heaven, a place where people supposedly go that is perfect and devoid of evil. If having free will means that there will be evil, then if people in heaven have free will, then there would be evil in heaven and therefore it would not be heaven (i.e., it would not be a perfect place with no evil). Of course, it could be that people no longer have free will in heaven, but if that is the case, the it must be better to not have free will (because heaven is supposed to be perfect, certainly better than the earth), which would mean that having free will is not an excuse for evil, because it would mean that God should not allow free will in the first place. But, of course, belief in heaven is not necessitated by the premise of the argument, so this will only be applicable to those who are inconsistent and believe that free will necessitates evil and who also believe in heaven, a perfect place where some people go after they die.

It is also an interesting thing, that people who promote the free will defense apparently believe it is impossible for people to freely choose to be good. If that is possible, then that would be better than them choosing evil, and consequently it would be better if only people who freely chose to do good existed, which means that the free will excuse would not work for there being evil. But we need not worry too much about this point, for this is just an aside.

In connection with this, we can ask, does God have free will? Being omnibenevolent, God would never choose evil. Does that mean God lacks free will? But, again, we can set this aside as well, because the free will defense does not work regardless, for reasons I am about to present.

One of the reasons why the free will excuse does not work is because it does not deal with evil that is not caused by people. For example, when a child dies a horribly painful death from bone cancer, cancer is not something that a person has chosen for the child to have. Free will does not deal with earthquakes or hurricanes or any other natural disaster (what some insurance companies call “acts of God”), which are very bad and cause quite a lot of pain and suffering. It does not cover natural diseases that cause incredible suffering in the world. So the free will excuse, if it worked at all, would only cover some kinds of evil, and still not be a proper excuse for all of the evil in the world.

I could stop there, but the thing is, the free will excuse does not even work for the limited cases for which it is supposed to work. This is probably most easily seen with a little thought experiment. Imagine that you and I are sitting together having coffee or drinks, on the rooftop of a restaurant, looking down on the street below. But down below in the street, we see a group of men attack someone, brutally beating the person, and raping the person. You say something like, “We should do something! Let’s call the police!” But I reply, “No, we should not do that; that would interfere with their free will.” So I do nothing in this imaginary example. Now, what would you say of me in this hypothetical scenario? That I was a monster, an evil person? Well, what I would be doing is EXACTLY what God does in many such situations, as otherwise, the police would always be called.

Additionally, if we called the police, we would not be taking away anyone’s free will. And likewise, if God called the police, God would not be taking away anyone’s free will. Furthermore, if we took out guns and shot the men who were attacking the person, although they might then no longer have free will if we killed them, our actions would not make it so they never had free will. Likewise, if God struck them down dead, God would not thereby be making it so they never had free will.

In our case, there might possibly be some excuse for not doing anything, as we may be afraid to act for some reason, we may not have a phone to call the police, etc. But God cannot have such an excuse, as a being that is omnipotent could do anything and overcome any opponent, and being omniscient, God would know this and know how to most effectively stop this. Indeed, God could (if, that is, God actually existed) strike the men dead just before they actually attacked the person, but after they decided of their own free will to attack the person. Or, if God wanted, God could have, at that moment, made the would-be attackers fall asleep or be temporarily paralyzed or any of many other things to stop the attack from happening. None of those actions would make a change in what the men willed; their free will would be untouched, but they would be prevented from doing evil (though not from thinking evil and wishing to do evil). But, since God allows such things to happen, God must want them to happen; after all, he has both the power to prevent it and the knowledge of what is going on. So, if there were a being that was both omnipotent and omniscient, it would be evil.

Thus, the free will excuse fails.



That is the end of the sample excuses, each of which obviously does not work. If you think of an excuse for God that you believe would actually work, go ahead and present it below. Keep in mind, your excuse must be consistent with God having all three attributes, or it does not work.

Naturally, one of the things we can expect is for someone (or more than one person) to post incomprehensible gibberish, and pretend that that excuses God. That would fall under the third category listed above, of being an example of the fallacy known as non sequitur.

So, are there any question? Comments? Threats?
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume

User avatar
Arjen
Posts: 468
Joined: January 16th, 2019, 4:53 am
Favorite Philosopher: Immanuel Kant

Re: Proof there is no God

Post by Arjen » October 10th, 2020, 1:42 am

*Picks up the glove, while being an atheist*.
I need a while to prepare a proper response to this challenge!
The saying that what is true in theory is not always true in practice, means that the theory is wrong!
~Immanuel Kant

Atla
Posts: 1194
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: Proof there is no God

Post by Atla » October 10th, 2020, 2:06 am

Oh but this world isn't real, it's just the figment of my imagination. :) Jack D Ripper is also just a figment of my imagination.

I'm an Angel in the making. God put me into this solipsistic situation, where I have to experience this fictionary world with so much evil in it. Only by understanding good and evil, can I graduate as a proper Angel, who always does good.

Gee
Posts: 353
Joined: December 28th, 2012, 2:41 am
Location: Michigan, US

Re: Proof there is no God

Post by Gee » October 10th, 2020, 4:26 am

Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 9:56 pm
This isn’t a new proof, but what follows the proof is what is important.

In this thread, by “God” (with a capital “G”) I mean a being that is omniscient (all knowing), omnipotent (all powerful), and omnibenevolent (all good). I am not presently interested in the issue of whether some other god (notice, small “g”) exists, such as whether Zeus exists or not; Zeus can be the subject of another thread, if someone wishes to discuss him.

So, are there any question? Comments? Threats?
Normally, I find your posts to be intelligent, informative, and a worthy read. But you really should not write about the "God" concept as it is clear you have issues with it and not a clue about it.

I am reminded of statements I made in another "God" thread; I proposed that if a dozen five-year-olds were asked to explain gravity, and then their explanations were used to deny or prove gravity, would their proofs be worth anything? No. You can not cherry pick ideas, that are actually interpretations and guesses, from various religions without any evidence and/or even a valid premise and conclude anything of value.

Consider:
"God" is not a "being". That is not possible.
"God" can not "choose", as that requires a rational aspect of mind. You are talking about anthropomorphism.
Good and evil are not opposites. Good and bad are opposites. Evil has a different meaning.
Free will in this context simple means you have a rational aspect of mind and can make a choice.
There are too many nonsensical statements to even note them all, much less address them all.
I am not sure if I could find a valid premise anywhere in your very long post.

Have you spent any time studying consciousness? Do you realize that "God" is religion's theory of consciousness? Consciousness can not be a "being", but it can be considered to be omniscient, omnipotent, and even omnibenevolent.

Gee

User avatar
UniversalAlien
Posts: 1238
Joined: March 20th, 2012, 9:37 pm
Contact:

Re: Proof there is no God

Post by UniversalAlien » October 10th, 2020, 5:35 am

Jack D. Ripper wrote:
Proof there is no God

This isn’t a new proof, but what follows the proof is what is important............
Gimmie a break! - How many times, and for how long will it take for me to prove I always existed?

I was here before time began - Where were you? More so, where did time come from?
Don't know do you?

Where did the very intelligence you seem to claim possession of come from? Random events?
If the universe you exist in was based upon random events, you would have no science, no math,
no logic - It would be chaos. Do you know what chaos is? - Only if you compare it to logical order.

And who gave you, besides intelligence, logical order?

No, you don't have to thank me, and I realize it may have been a mistake - But your stuck with it
- And no religious or anti-religious paradigm will let you escape. - So make the best of it.

And instead of acting like a dumb Human - Get smart and add to my intelligence base by showing me
that the evolved Human to date is not a dead end - And the best is yet to come!

Evolve with me instead of against me :arrow: :idea:


“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together.
We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”
― Max Planck {Nobel Prize in Physics, 1918}

User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 2912
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Proof there is no God

Post by Sculptor1 » October 10th, 2020, 5:37 am

UniversalAlien wrote:
October 10th, 2020, 5:35 am
Jack D. Ripper wrote:
Proof there is no God

This isn’t a new proof, but what follows the proof is what is important............
Gimmie a break! - How many times, and for how long will it take for me to prove I always existed?

I was here before time began - Where were you? More so, where did time come from?
Don't know do you?

Where did the very intelligence you seem to claim possession of come from? Random events?
If the universe you exist in was based upon random events, you would have no science, no math,
no logic - It would be chaos. Do you know what chaos is? - Only if you compare it to logical order.

And who gave you, besides intelligence, logical order?

No, you don't have to thank me, and I realize it may have been a mistake - But your stuck with it
- And no religious or anti-religious paradigm will let you escape. - So make the best of it.

And instead of acting like a dumb Human - Get smart and add to my intelligence base by showing me
that the evolved Human to date is not a dead end - And the best is yet to come!

Evolve with me instead of against me :arrow: :idea:


“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together.
We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”
― Max Planck {Nobel Prize in Physics, 1918}
You are just a figment of your own imagination.
What made you what you are?
If we all need to have a creator then what created you, and what created that, then what created that, , then what created that, then what created that, then what created that, then what created that, then what created that, then what created that, then what created that, then what created that, then what created that, then what created that, then what created that, then what created that, then what created that, then what created that, then what created that, then what created that, then what created that, then what created that, then what created that, then what created that, then what created that, then what created that, then what created that, then what created that, then what created that, then what created that, then what created that, then what created that, then what created that, then what created that, then what created that, then what created that, then what created that, then what created that, then what created that, then what created that, then what created that, then what created that, then what created that, then what created that, then what created that, then what created that, then what created that, then what created that

User avatar
Arjen
Posts: 468
Joined: January 16th, 2019, 4:53 am
Favorite Philosopher: Immanuel Kant

Re: Proof there is no God

Post by Arjen » October 10th, 2020, 6:15 am

*Clears Throat*

It is as if this part was written for you in the bible, and it is how I would like to start my opposition:
psalm27:8 wrote:Up now, slight man! flee, for a little while, your occupations; hide yourself, for a time, from your disturbing thoughts. Cast aside, now, your burdensome cares, and put away your toilsome business. Yield room for some little time to God; and rest for a little time in him. Enter the inner chamber of your mind; shut out all thoughts save that of God, and such as can aid you in seeking him; close your door and seek him. Speak now, my whole heart! speak now to God, saying, I seek your face; your face, Lord, will I seek (Psalms xxvii. 8).[4] And come you now, O Lord my God, teach my heart where and how it may seek you, where and how it may find you.
As my opening move, I would like to submit Anselm's Proslogion (which, incidently, also starts with the above):
1)In Latin: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/anselmproslogion.html
2)In English: https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/a ... HAPTER%20I
3)Relevant excerpts: http://home.intekom.com/buks/perspectiv ... logion.htm

The excerpt that is the most relevant:
translation of proslogion wrote: CHAPTER II
That God Truly Exists

Therefore, Lord, you who give knowledge of the faith, give me as much knowledge as you know to be fitting for me, because you are as we believe and that which we believe. And indeed we believe you are something greater than which cannot be thought. Or is there no such kind of thing, for "the fool said in his heart, 'there is no God'" (Ps. 13:1, 52:1)? But certainly that same fool, having heard what I just said, "something greater than which cannot be thought," understands what he heard, and what he understands is in his thought, even if he does not think it exists. For it is one thing for something to exist in a person's thought and quite another for the person to think that thing exists. For when a painter thinks ahead to what he will paint, he has that picture in his thought, but he does not yet think it exists, because he has not done it yet. Once he has painted it he has it in his thought and thinks it exists because he has done it. Thus even the fool is compelled to grant that something greater than which cannot be thought exists in thought, because he understands what he hears, and whatever is understood exists in thought. And certainly that greater than which cannot be understood cannot exist only in thought, for if it exists only in thought it could also be thought of as existing in reality as well, which is greater. If, therefore, that than which greater cannot be thought exists in thought alone, then that than which greater cannot be thought turns out to be that than which something greater actually can be thought, but that is obviously impossible. Therefore something than which greater cannot be thought undoubtedly exists both in thought and in reality.
However, I think that you should also include this portion (and will serve as my insult :P):
translation of proslogion wrote: CHAPTER IV
How the Fool Managed to Say in His Heart That Which Cannot be Thought

How in the world could he have said in his heart what he could not think? Or how indeed could he not have thought what he said in his heart, since saying it in his heart is the same as thinking it? But if he really thought it because he said it in his heart, and did not say it in his heart because he could not possibly have thought it - and that seems to be precisely what happened - then there must be more than one way in which something can be said in one's heart or thought. For a thing is thought in one way when the words signifying it are thought, and it is thought in quite another way when the thing signified is understood. God can be thought not to exist in the first way but not in the second. For no one who understands what God is can think that he does not exist. Even though he may say those words in his heart he will give them some other meaning or no meaning at all. For God is that greater than which cannot be thought. Whoever understands this also understands that God exists in such a way that one cannot even think of him as not existing.

Thank you, my good God, thank you, because what I believed earlier through your gift I now understand through your illumination in such a way that I would be unable not to understand it even if I did not want to believe you existed.
I await your response in suspense.
The saying that what is true in theory is not always true in practice, means that the theory is wrong!
~Immanuel Kant

User avatar
UniversalAlien
Posts: 1238
Joined: March 20th, 2012, 9:37 pm
Contact:

Re: Proof there is no God

Post by UniversalAlien » October 10th, 2020, 6:19 am

Sculptor1 wrote:
You are just a figment of your own imagination.
What made you what you are?
If we all need to have a creator then what created you...........
"You are just a figment of your own imagination." - More then that, I am imagination.

"What made you what you are?" - Same answer, imagination.

"If we all need to have a creator then what created you..........." What did you say?:
"You are just a figment of your own imagination."
But now that you ask, you've become a figment of my imagination.

Of course to God - everything is a figment of the imagination
- Imagination being a primal force of all that is.


“We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up to now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future.”
― Max Planck, The Universe in the Light of Modern Physics

evolution
Posts: 617
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: Proof there is no God

Post by evolution » October 10th, 2020, 7:40 am

Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 9:56 pm
This isn’t a new proof, but what follows the proof is what is important.

In this thread, by “God” (with a capital “G”) I mean a being that is omniscient (all knowing), omnipotent (all powerful), and omnibenevolent (all good). I am not presently interested in the issue of whether some other god (notice, small “g”) exists, such as whether Zeus exists or not; Zeus can be the subject of another thread, if someone wishes to discuss him.


The proof that no God exists is the problem of evil. (“Evil”, in this context, simply means anything that is bad.) If there were such a God, being omniscient, it would know about any evil, being omnipotent, it would be able to prevent all evil, and being omnibenevolent, it would have the inclination to prevent all evil. Consequently, it would prevent all evil. Since there is evil (i.e., bad things happen), there cannot be such a God.
But being those things does NOT mean that one 'has to' then do that. For example, being 'able to' prevent evil or being 'inclined' to prevent evil, does NOT mean that one then has to do those things.

See, you have to understand fully what God actually IS, and how God works, exactly, before you could even begin to understand how and why this is NOT proof that God does not exist.

Obviously, one could know about any evil, be able to prevent evil, and be inclined to prevent all evil, but this does NOT necessarily mean that that one would force things to happen.

When 'you', adult human beings, start being, and doing, what is Truly necessary to learn and understand ALL things, then, and only then, 'you' will uncover and unveil, and thus KNOW what God actually IS and how God actually WORKS. You will then also understand WHY God works in this way.

Until then 'you', adults, will just continue to create and make these unsound and/or invalid arguments about God not existing and God existing.
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 9:56 pm
Historically, theists have tried to come up with a variety of excuses for God, to try to circumvent the argument. These excuses, though, invariably fall into one of three categories (usually the first of the three). First, many of them essentially deny that God has one of the attributes in question, which really is an admission that there is no such God, though those coming up with the excuses typically don’t recognize that fact. I will provide some examples below.
But God has these three attributes, right?
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 9:56 pm
The second approach is to simply refuse to admit defeat, even though they have nothing real to argue against the problem of evil (e.g., “it is a mystery”). Often, this second approach is used within an argument about an excuse, such that the person never admits defeat of that excuse, even though it has been shown to fail (this has been called “the Invincible Ignorance fallacy” and “argument by pigheadedness” and probably has probably been called a few other names as well). When people cherish a belief, they do not like to give it up, and often tend to dogmatically hang onto it no matter what.
Which can be CLEARLY SEEN and EVIDENCED.
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 9:56 pm
One can try to hide the failure by trying to make the argument go on and on and on endlessly, instead of honestly admitting defeat. I will not be surprised if we see this tried in this thread, as it is sometimes used in threads in which someone is determined to be the last one posting, as if that meant that they were right after all. After a certain point, I may decide to stop replying to someone if they just keep repeating a debunked position.
But 'evil' is not at all a mystery, correct?
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 9:56 pm
The third is to produce something that is simply irrelevant to the argument, while pretending that it refutes the argument (the latin for this type of fallacy is "non sequitur”).
What I find is only that which is a sound and valid argument can be agreed upon and accept. In fact, a sound valid argument can NOT be refuted. So, until you produce one, then there is NO proof that there is no God.

So, what can be CLEARLY SEEN here is;

I am NOT denying God has those three attributes.
I am NOT saying evil is a mystery at all. And,
I am NOT producing something that is simply irrelevant to the argument.

I am just doing what I set out to do. That is; to NOT provide sound and valid arguments, which EVERY could accept and agree as being part of thee Truth here in this forum, but instead to just learn how to communicate better with human beings, and SHOW how and why the adult human beings, in the days of when this is being written, are so CLOSED OFF from what thee actual Truth of things IS.

Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 9:56 pm
It is impossible to list here everything that everyone has ever said on this topic, and consequently you may feel dissatisfied with my claim. However, I challenge any and all of you to come up with an excuse for God to circumvent the problem of evil, that does not have one of the faults listed.
Why do you use the 'excuse' word here?

Does this mean or imply that no matter what is presented to you you will just classify it as an 'excuse', and therefore have NO real bearing at all on this matter?
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 9:56 pm
If it has one of the faults listed, the excuse fails and the argument stands.
But your, so called, "argument", itself, failed a long time ago. Although the argument presented above may appear valid, it is actually unsound AND invalid. But then one would have to KNOW, exactly, what God, Itself, actually IS first to recognize, know, and understand this fact.
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 9:56 pm
I will check this thread from time to time, for, say, a month (I do not want to commit to this thread for the rest of my life!) to respond and show that the arguments presented fit one of the three categories listed.
Okay. You do that.
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 9:56 pm
I am submitting this on October 9, 2020, so I am only committing to replying through November 9, 2020. Of course, if I die from COVID-19 or some other thing, I may stop replying to the thread sooner; I do not promise to post while dead.
And one might commit to waiting, and then providing a sound and valid argument, or an explanation of HOW and WHY your presented argument is invalid and/or unsound, on, say, 2020, 10 November. That way you can NOT reply to it without you breaking your commitment.
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 9:56 pm

Here, though, are three samples to get us started. The first comes from another thread (which is what has inspired this thread):
musicgold wrote:
March 5th, 2020, 2:17 pm
Hi,
I am trying to determine the logical fallacy committed by B in the following argument. I think it is circular reasoning but I am not sure. Or is B using God's will as a justification to another problem potentially arising from God's will?

A: How could a fair God create such an unjust world?

B: This world is not the final world. This world is like an examination hall, and God is testing us to see who is good and who is evil, and that's why it is not a fair world. God gives here everyone a separate test. Finally, after the day of judgement, God admits only good people to his eternal, beautiful, and just world.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=16668


I stated in reply:


B is implicitly saying that God is too stupid to know in advance which of his creations would pass a test, so he has to test them. If God knew which ones would pass, he would not need to test them. And consequently, making people suffer in such a test would be unnecessary evil.
Well just about EVERY thing has been taken out of context on both "sides" here.

Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 9:56 pm
Presumably, you are thinking of a God that is supposed to be omniscient (all knowing), omnipotent (all powerful), and omnibenevolent (all good). And person A is bringing up the problem of evil.
But there is ACTUAL, so called, "problem" of 'evil', which has NOT YET ALREADY been solved, and thus answered.
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 9:56 pm
All of the excuses that theists have come up with against the problem of evil ultimately end up denying one of the three supposed attributes of God, or are simply a refusal to admit defeat (e.g.,"it is a mystery"). In the example you have given, either the God does not know who will pass the test (so he is not omniscient), or if he does know in advance of the test what the results would be and decides to torture people with it anyway, then he is not omnibenevolent. Basically, the excuse given is stating that there is no omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God.
Why do you call God a "he"?

Are you privy to some knowledge or information that the rest of us are not?
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 9:56 pm
Keep in mind, the problem of evil is only relevant to such a god.
Why do you use the small 'g' for God here, especially in light of what you said at the beginning of this post?

I would have thought the, so called, "problem of evil" would only be relevant to God, Its Self, and NOT to any other god/s.
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 9:56 pm
For example, it is irrelevant to the ancient Greek religion. Zeus, the most powerful of the ancient Greek gods, is not supposed to be omnipotent, omniscient, or omnibenevolent, nor is he supposed to have created the world. So the problem of evil does not disprove the ancient Greek religion.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=16668&start=15#p368486


Notice, depending on one’s take on this excuse, it could be a denial that God is omniscient, or it could be a denial that God is omnibenevolent, but either way, it is denying that there is a God that is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, because the being described lacks at least one of the three attributes.

So, the idea that this life is a test fails for the reason that it essentially denies that God has the three attributes.
When you say "this life" and "test", then what EXACTLY are you referring to?

Maybe the reason WHY you have YET to understand HOW and WHY God exists the way that It does is because you are NOT YET SURE what 'this life' actually IS and what any 'test' could actually BE. We will just have to wait and see how you answer my clarifying question here.

By the way, God still exists and remains with those three attributes.

Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 9:56 pm
Our second example is the claim that “good” and “evil” are subjective and have no objective meaning. This is an instant denial that God is omnibenevolent, as that is the claim that God is all good, and if there is no such thing as good, then not only would it mean that God can’t be all good, it would mean that God cannot be good at all. So that would make it impossible for there to be a being with all three of the attributes, since it is the denial that anything can have one of those attributes.
But 'good' and 'evil' are subjective, but they still have objective meaning. Just like God still has those three attributes.
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 9:56 pm

The third example is one that is commonly brought up, which has many problems with it. It is the claim that God cannot prevent evil because people have free will.
But just because human beings, obviously, have free will, then this CERTAINLY does NOT Mean that God cannot prevent evil. As this is about one of the most simplest and easiest things to do.
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 9:56 pm
There are many objections that people can and have raised against this, like pointing out the fact that the expression “free will” needs to be properly defined before it can be properly analyzed, which almost no one ever does, as people seem to assume that everyone knows what it means, even though that clearly is not the case, as anyone who has read threads about “free will” will notice, with some people affirming things about “free will” that others regard as “obviously false”.
But 'free will' has ALREADY been, properly and correctly, defined.
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 9:56 pm
One can also see that different people mean different things, when one considers that some regard “free will” as compatible with determinism (called “compatibilism”) and others affirm that it is not compatible with determinism (not surprisingly, called “incompatibilism”).
One can also ALREADY know that different people mean different things for just about EVERY thing. Thus the reason WHY 'you', human beings, are so confused about what is actually True and what is NOT.
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 9:56 pm
But as this would get us mired in troublesome disputes, and because this is not the only issue regarding this excuse, we need not resolve that or consider it here.
Sounds like you are just using an 'excuse' to wiggle out of LOOKING AT ALL things. But this is the tendency of those with BELIEFS.
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 9:56 pm
One might also question whether we have “free will” or not (because if we don’t, then this is obviously worthless as an excuse), though, again, that is going to get us mired in troublesome disputes, and because this is not the only issue regarding this excuse, we need not resolve that or consider it here.
Okay. If you are incapable of resolving issues here, then so be it.
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 9:56 pm
Another issue involves considering whether it would be better or worse for people to have “free will”. Though some people take it for granted that having free will is better than not having it, that is a substantive claim that would require evidence before it would be reasonably believed.
Human beings either have free will or they do not. Whether it is, so called, "better" or not to have free will is a completely other issue.
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 9:56 pm
Additionally, on the face of it, it just seems false to claim that it is a good thing for rapists and murderers to have free will.
You appear to go on considerably about this free will issue, especially considering you just mentioned that doing so "would get us mired in troublesome disputes".

So, do you want to discuss 'free will' or not?

If you do not, then let us NOT discuss 'free will' at all here.
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 9:56 pm
If it is not better for people to have free will, then it would have been better if God did not give us or allow us to have free will. But, again, that is going to get us mired in troublesome disputes, and because this is not the only issue regarding this excuse, we need not resolve that or consider it here.
Okay.
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 9:56 pm
As an aside, if free will were a proper explanation for evil in the world, making it impossible for the world to be devoid of evil, then that would make hash out of the idea of heaven, a place where people supposedly go that is perfect and devoid of evil.
So, you write, "we need not resolve 'free will' or consider 'free will' here" THREE TIMES, YET here you are STILL going on about 'free will'.

Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 9:56 pm
If having free will means that there will be evil, then if people in heaven have free will, then there would be evil in heaven and therefore it would not be heaven (i.e., it would not be a perfect place with no evil). Of course, it could be that people no longer have free will in heaven, but if that is the case, the it must be better to not have free will (because heaven is supposed to be perfect, certainly better than the earth), which would mean that having free will is not an excuse for evil, because it would mean that God should not allow free will in the first place. But, of course, belief in heaven is not necessitated by the premise of the argument, so this will only be applicable to those who are inconsistent and believe that free will necessitates evil and who also believe in heaven, a perfect place where some people go after they die.

It is also an interesting thing, that people who promote the free will defense apparently believe it is impossible for people to freely choose to be good. If that is possible, then that would be better than them choosing evil, and consequently it would be better if only people who freely chose to do good existed, which means that the free will excuse would not work for there being evil. But we need not worry too much about this point, for this is just an aside.
You seem to go on for quite some length in regards to some point, which "we (supposedly) need worry too much about".
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 9:56 pm
In connection with this, we can ask, does God have free will? Being omnibenevolent, God would never choose evil. Does that mean God lacks free will? But, again, we can set this aside as well, because the free will defense does not work regardless, for reasons I am about to present.
If we can Truly set 'free will' aside, then WHY do you continue to go on and on about it here.

You are even, supposedly, going to present some reason for why 'free will' does not work, (in relation to some thing).
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 9:56 pm
One of the reasons why the free will excuse does not work is because it does not deal with evil that is not caused by people.
You wrote previously that 'evil' simply means anything that is bad.

Are you suggesting that there are 'bad' things, which are not caused by people?

If yes, then how are you meaning the word 'bad' here?
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 9:56 pm

For example, when a child dies a horribly painful death from bone cancer, cancer is not something that a person has chosen for the child to have.
How many people actually choose for children to have horribly painful deaths?

But how many people actually cause horribly painful deaths for children?

And, are ALL of these horribly painful deaths of children caused by human beings actually 'evil' and/or 'bad' things?
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 9:56 pm
Free will does not deal with earthquakes or hurricanes or any other natural disaster (what some insurance companies call “acts of God”), which are very bad and cause quite a lot of pain and suffering.
How EXACTLY are earthquakes, hurricanes, or any other NATURAL disaster, supposedly, very "bad things"?

To me only 'you', adult human beings, can do 'bad things'.
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 9:56 pm
It does not cover natural diseases that cause incredible suffering in the world. So the free will excuse, if it worked at all, would only cover some kinds of evil, and still not be a proper excuse for all of the evil in the world.
You appear to have distorted and twisted some things so far here, there is absolutely NO wonder WHY you still are very confused here.
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 9:56 pm
I could stop there, but the thing is, the free will excuse does not even work for the limited cases for which it is supposed to work. This is probably most easily seen with a little thought experiment. Imagine that you and I are sitting together having coffee or drinks, on the rooftop of a restaurant, looking down on the street below.
Okay. Doing this.
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 9:56 pm
But down below in the street, we see a group of men attack someone, brutally beating the person, and raping the person.
Okay.
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 9:56 pm
You say something like, “We should do something! Let’s call the police!” But I reply, “No, we should not do that; that would interfere with their free will.”
Okay. "Would you like to get something to eat with our coffee now?" I say.
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 9:56 pm
So I do nothing in this imaginary example.
Do you not even answer my question in this imaginary example?
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 9:56 pm
Now, what would you say of me in this hypothetical scenario?
I would that 'you' are a person who has just shown your 'free will'.
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 9:56 pm
That I was a monster, an evil person?
No. I just told you what I would say of 'you', in this hypothetical scenario. Did you ASSUME I would say some thing else?

If yes, then WHY?

Why would you ask 'me' if I would say that you were a monster, an evil person?

Seems like a very specific thing to ask what "another" would say, especially considering the actual number of things that another could or might say.
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 9:56 pm
Well, what I would be doing is EXACTLY what God does in many such situations, as otherwise, the police would always be called.
And what EXACTLY is 'it' that you propose here God 'would be doing', EXACTLY?
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 9:56 pm
Additionally, if we called the police, we would not be taking away anyone’s free will. And likewise, if God called the police, God would not be taking away anyone’s free will. Furthermore, if we took out guns and shot the men who were attacking the person, although they might then no longer have free will if we killed them, our actions would not make it so they never had free will. Likewise, if God struck them down dead, God would not thereby be making it so they never had free will.
But if one can NOT have 'free will' after they have been struck 'dead', then who or whatever 'struck them dead' would actually be making it so that one never had free will, again.
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 9:56 pm
In our case, there might possibly be some excuse for not doing anything, as we may be afraid to act for some reason, we may not have a phone to call the police, etc. But God cannot have such an excuse, as a being that is omnipotent could do anything and overcome any opponent, and being omniscient, God would know this and know how to most effectively stop this.
Are you SURE this was an actual and real 'thought experiment', or just you finding whatever you can to 'try to' use to "justify" your own ALREADY held BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS about what is actually true, right, and/or correct?
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 9:56 pm
Indeed, God could (if, that is, God actually existed) strike the men dead just before they actually attacked the person, but after they decided of their own free will to attack the person.
What did this person supposedly do, in YOUR, so called, "thought experiment"?
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 9:56 pm
Or, if God wanted, God could have, at that moment, made the would-be attackers fall asleep or be temporarily paralyzed or any of many other things to stop the attack from happening. None of those actions would make a change in what the men willed; their free will would be untouched, but they would be prevented from doing evil (though not from thinking evil and wishing to do evil).
Is it evil to bash "others", or fight with "others", among the species human beings?

From what I have observed, some of the greatest number of viewers of, so called, "sporting contests" and some of the highest paid, so called, "athletes", among 'you', human beings, are the ones who bash, or fight, "others".

WHY would God want to stop 'you', human beings, from just watching and doing what 'it' is that 'you' want to watch, and do?
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 9:56 pm
But, since God allows such things to happen, God must want them to happen;
Not necessarily so.

Do children fight among themselves?

If yes, then do parents ALWAYS stop this from happening?

If yes, then HOW could and would children learn more, and/or anew? If children are NOT allowed to learn how fix or work things out for themselves, then how could they and how would they possibly learn more, and/or anew?

Surely adults can NOT YET teach children what is ACTUALLY right and wrong. For the very fact that an adult has YET to say or write down what is ACTUALLY right and wrong.

If children watch their parent/s watching adults fighting and beating each other, and they watch their parent/s even pay great sums of money for the, so called, "privilege" to watch this behavior, then when does this behavior become, so called, "bad" or "evil"?

There is NO wonder WHY you WOULD say such a thing as you did while drinking coffee in your, so called, "thought experiment".
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 9:56 pm
after all, he has both the power to prevent it and the knowledge of what is going on.
Do you step in and prevent 'things' EVERY time, which you have the power to prevent and the knowledge of what is going on?
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 9:56 pm
So, if there were a being that was both omnipotent and omniscient, it would be evil.
How, exactly, are you proposing 'evil' is a 'being' here?
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 9:56 pm
Thus, the free will excuse fails.
From the way you have described 'free will' here, then OBVIOUSLY your, so called, "free will excuse" fails. It FAILS on ALL accounts.

By the way, that was quite a lot on 'free will', especially considering.

Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 9:56 pm
That is the end of the sample excuses, each of which obviously does not work.
And your reasons for why they do not work also does NOT WORK.
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 9:56 pm
If you think of an excuse for God that you believe would actually work, go ahead and present it below. Keep in mind, your excuse must be consistent with God having all three attributes, or it does not work.

Naturally, one of the things we can expect is for someone (or more than one person) to post incomprehensible gibberish, and pretend that that excuses God.
What do you actually mean by; "excuses God"?

To some, this is, actually, 'incomprehensible gibberish', itself.

Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 9:56 pm
That would fall under the third category listed above, of being an example of the fallacy known as non sequitur.

So, are there any question? Comments? Threats?

User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 2912
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Proof there is no God

Post by Sculptor1 » October 10th, 2020, 10:13 am

evolution wrote:
October 10th, 2020, 7:40 am
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 9:56 pm
This isn’t a new proof, but what follows the proof is what is important.

In this thread, by “God” (with a capital “G”) I mean a being that is omniscient (all knowing), omnipotent (all powerful), and omnibenevolent (all good). I am not presently interested in the issue of whether some other god (notice, small “g”) exists, such as whether Zeus exists or not; Zeus can be the subject of another thread, if someone wishes to discuss him.


The proof that no God exists is the problem of evil. (“Evil”, in this context, simply means anything that is bad.) If there were such a God, being omniscient, it would know about any evil, being omnipotent, it would be able to prevent all evil, and being omnibenevolent, it would have the inclination to prevent all evil. Consequently, it would prevent all evil. Since there is evil (i.e., bad things happen), there cannot be such a God.
But being those things does NOT mean that one 'has to' then do that. For example, being 'able to' prevent evil or being 'inclined' to prevent evil, does NOT mean that one then has to do those things.
But you have to conclude the character of such a being that would allow suffering and evil and willfully do nothing; is a bastard.
You also have to conclude that were such a being omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent that such a being is the cause and wholly the generation of that evil and all suffering. And as designer of the universe is omniresponsible.
This is the indelible conclusion from the common definition of god. God is a C*nt.

See, you have to understand fully what God actually IS, and how God works, exactly, before you could even begin to understand how and why this is NOT proof that God does not exist.
If god is the creator then have to decency to assess the character of that being by "his" creation.
Why do you not?

Ecurb
Posts: 644
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: Proof there is no God

Post by Ecurb » October 10th, 2020, 11:01 am

Gods are traditionally described in hyperbolic terms. Odin is constantly being called "all-seeing". But we know that those two ravens fly around the world and report back to him. That constitutes "all seeing"? So the Jewish and Christian God may be very powerful, very wise, and very loving without quite being "omni". The Bible suggests this may be the case, since God is occasionally "surprised" by the actions of HIs Chosen People.

IN addition, judging God by human standards seems unfair. God transcends (supposedly) time and space. What does he care about some minor, temporal suffering? Why should we blame him for killing all those first born Egyptians? After all, he created a world in which everyone suffers and dies. The first-born Egyptians are no different from anyone else from the perspective of eternity. Maybe they're better off dead, for all we know.

Many of the virtues that Christianity values would be impossible without death and suffering. How could courageand fortitude exist without pain and death? How could justice exist without evil? In one of the great pre-Tolkien fantasy novels, E.R. Edison writes about the Worm Ouroboros. The good guys win their battle with the villains, and then despair that there will no longer be occasion to exercise their valor and heroism. Perhaps they are right and a world without pain and sufffering would be a timid, boring place, and our humanity demands more excitement.

User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 2912
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Proof there is no God

Post by Sculptor1 » October 10th, 2020, 2:08 pm

Ecurb wrote:
October 10th, 2020, 11:01 am
Gods are traditionally described in hyperbolic terms. Odin is constantly being called "all-seeing". But we know that those two ravens fly around the world and report back to him. That constitutes "all seeing"? So the Jewish and Christian God may be very powerful, very wise, and very loving without quite being "omni". The Bible suggests this may be the case, since God is occasionally "surprised" by the actions of HIs Chosen People.

IN addition, judging God by human standards seems unfair.
BooHoo.
Whada ya got?
Your stuck with it, since gods are invented by humans.
God transcends (supposedly) time and space.
Convenient.
What does he care about some minor, temporal suffering?
So he transcends time and space this "HE"? LOL Not transcendent enough to avoid gender.
Why should we blame him for killing all those first born Egyptians? After all, he created a world in which everyone suffers and dies. The first-born Egyptians are no different from anyone else from the perspective of eternity. Maybe they're better off dead, for all we know.
God causes suffering.
God is a C*nt.

Many of the virtues that Christianity values would be impossible without death and suffering.
Ha. Yeah god creates a little bit of good just to maximally piss people off when they go back to suffering. Nice.
How could courageand fortitude exist without pain and death?
WHy are you bringing all this human rubbish on board. God is supposed to transcend that.
How could justice exist without evil?
Evil could not exist without justice. So god makes evil in the world and then makes you die in pain. Nice.
In one of the great pre-Tolkien fantasy novels, E.R. Edison writes about the Worm Ouroboros. The good guys win their battle with the villains, and then despair that there will no longer be occasion to exercise their valor and heroism. Perhaps they are right and a world without pain and sufffering would be a timid, boring place, and our humanity demands more excitement.
They are pissing in the wind. The great evil god washes them away and they too die in pain, laughing in their face.

User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 827
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: Proof there is no God

Post by Marvin_Edwards » October 10th, 2020, 2:13 pm

Apparently, evil is necessary to God's plan to achieve the best possible good. So, the notion that evil would be excluded by an omnibenevolent God is a false assumption.

I say "apparently" because if we see both evil and an omnibenevolent God, it must logically be the case that evil is necessary to omnibenevolence.

Another argument that this must be the case is that one cannot define good without bad (the absence of good).

User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 2912
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Proof there is no God

Post by Sculptor1 » October 10th, 2020, 2:25 pm

Marvin_Edwards wrote:
October 10th, 2020, 2:13 pm
Apparently, evil is necessary to God's plan to achieve the best possible good. So, the notion that evil would be excluded by an omnibenevolent God is a false assumption.

I say "apparently" because if we see both evil and an omnibenevolent God, it must logically be the case that evil is necessary to omnibenevolence.

Another argument that this must be the case is that one cannot define good without bad (the absence of good).
Apparently, good is necessary to God's plan to achieve the best possible evil. So, the notion that good would be excluded by an omnimalign God is a false assumption.

I say "apparently" because if we see both good and an omnimalign God, it must logically be the case that good is necessary to omnimalignancy

Another argument that this must be the case is that one cannot define evil without good (the absence of evil).

So the god who is utterly evil gives us a little hope so that we makes efforts to improve our lives and the lives of others so that the suffering when it really comes is understood with utter despair, and whatever we might do we all die either in extreme pain and hoplessness or we cause to pain to those around us.

Ecurb
Posts: 644
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: Proof there is no God

Post by Ecurb » October 10th, 2020, 3:19 pm

Sculptor1 wrote:
October 10th, 2020, 2:08 pm


IN addition, judging God by human standards seems unfair.
BooHoo.
Whada ya got?
Your stuck with it, since gods are invented by humans.

[/quote]

Of course we can judge God only by human standards, but they need not be the SAME standards by which we judge humans. Didn't God ask Job,
2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?

3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.

4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

8 Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?
One of the principles of criticism is that it is unfair to criticize a text for failing to be a different text. Jane Austen never wrote about Napoleon. So what? James Joyce didn't either.

So if we want to talk about the the God of the Bible, it is incumbent upon us to try to figure out HOW a benevolent God can act the way He (the male is merely traditional) does. It is you, not I, who are acting as if God is something other than a human creation, something other than a character in a book. If he is a character in a book, your criticisms of Him ignore the text, and the long and rich history of Christian theology and apologetics.

By the way, since you accuse me of being sexist in my traditional use of "Him", perhaps you should notice your own obnoxious habit of using the "C" word as a pejorative. Your constant use of the word suggests that you find female sexuality dirty and disgusting, and labels you as a bigot.

Post Reply