And the "whal-o-matic app"? Where does that fit in?detail wrote:The problem , why should anybody be in need of a inhumane deity which is not in case interested in personal matters....
Proof there is no God
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Proof there is no God
- Jack D Ripper
- Posts: 610
- Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
- Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
- Contact:
Re: Proof there is no God
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑October 17th, 2020, 7:02 pmI don't mean to suggest that statements are supposed to be about anything.Jack D Ripper wrote: ↑October 17th, 2020, 12:22 pm
Do you mean to suggest that the statement "God is good" is not supposed to be about God, but about something else?
They ARE about whatever they're about per the particular usages in question.
Regarding the problem of evil, judging from the responses one gets from those who believe in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being, the term "omnibenevolent", to them, has no meaning whatsoever.
We can analyze the basic ideas of the three characteristics, but without the "omni-" prefix, in a person, to get an idea of how the terms work. If we look at, say, my actions, we may observe that, if there is a house on fire on the other side of town, while I am on this side of town, I do not call the fire department. The reason being, I do not know about it (I am not omniscient). But if I am on the other side of town and see the fire, then I do not put it out, but I call the fire department. The reason for me not putting out the fire is that I am unable to (I am not omnipotent). I do, however, call the fire department, because that is something I can do (assuming I have my phone with me, there is cell reception, etc.), and I am motivated to do it because I am good (it does not take much goodness to do that, but, evidently, the god of many people lacks even this low level of good, since it does nothing; the fire department is not called by any gods). Not doing anything would normally be regarded as a bad thing, unless, of course, one was unable to do anything. But that is what everyone's god is going: Nothing at all. The fire burns, and their god does not put it out and it does not even call the fire department, if it is too impotent to put out the fire by itself. It lets the fire burn.
If someone now pretends, that this is because their god wants to teach people something, then I should probably not call the fire department either, so that people will learn the lesson that that god is teaching. I should not spoil god's educational plans for others, should I? So, evidently, the right thing to do, then, is to let the fire burn and do nothing, as one is then following the example of the most wise being there is. That is essentially the result of the thinking that this is somehow a lesson from their god, that one should do nothing to prevent bad things from happening, so the lesson from this god will be learned.
In other contexts (i.e., when not discussing the problem of evil), believers often imagine that their god is very active in their affairs:
https://www.pewforum.org/2018/04/25/whe ... they-mean/Overall, about half of Americans (48%) say that God or another higher power directly determines what happens in their lives all or most of the time. An additional 18% say God or some other higher power determines what happens to them “just some of the time.”
...
Nearly eight-in-ten U.S. adults think God or a higher power has protected them, and two-thirds say they have been rewarded by the Almighty.
....
When asked additional questions about what they believe God or another higher power in the universe is like, those who believe in God as described in the Bible and those who believe in another kind of higher power or spiritual force express substantially different views. Simply put, those who believe in the God of the Bible tend to perceive a more powerful, knowing, benevolent and active deity.
For instance, nearly all adults who say they believe in the God of the Bible say they think God loves all people regardless of their faults, and that God has protected them. More than nine-in-ten people who believe in the biblical God envisage a deity who knows everything that goes on in the world, and nearly nine-in-ten say God has rewarded them, and has the power to direct or change everything that happens in the world.
Far fewer people who believe in some other higher power or spiritual force (but not the God of the Bible) ascribe these attributes and actions to that higher power. Still, even among this group, half or more say they believe another higher power in the universe loves all people (69%), is omniscient (53%), has protected them (68%) and rewarded them (53%).
...
It is funny how so many believers in God (or a "higher power") regard God (or a "higher power") as very active in the world, and yet there are so many things that go badly, where people and animals suffer terribly, as if there were no being watching over them, as if there were no being that is directing what happens.
Basically, believers do not seem to keep their story straight, as most of them, in the U.S., at least, believe that this being is very active in managing human affairs, and yet is strangely absent in countless examples where things go horribly bad.
- Jack D Ripper
- Posts: 610
- Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
- Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
- Contact:
Re: Proof there is no God
Sculptor1 wrote: ↑October 18th, 2020, 8:40 amBut there is already a good word for that: Universe. I know the universe exists.If there is only one mind then why don't you agree with what I say?
'God', in the non visible sense, is the Mind, Itself. Which, contrary to popular belief, there is One, only.
Aside from what you say, it also does not explain what God is. That there is one mind requires a good deal of explanation to even be coherent, and much more to give us any reason to believe it is true.
Not only do we have no reason to believe the universe has (or is) a mind, we have no reason to believe it has any of the three qualities listed in the opening post. The universe, as a whole, appears to be completely stupid, and completely uncaring (which means, among other things, that it is not good). Nor does the universe appear to be omnipotent. There are powerful forces in the universe, but that does not mean that the universe as a whole is powerful. But even if we say that the universe as a whole is powerful, that still does not mean that its power is unlimited:
https://www.lexico.com/definition/omnipotentomnipotent
ADJECTIVE
1 (of a deity) having unlimited power.
If his god does not have all of the properties listed in the opening post, then, as mentioned there (and several times since then), this thread is not about that god. Just like this thread is not about Zeus. Nothing posted in this thread proves that Zeus does not exist.
-
- Posts: 3258
- Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am
Re: Proof there is no God
As a former theist that believed in the Christian God, I think that a Christian would simply argue that the reason you are so antithetical towards God, in terms of your apparent reasoning at least. Is due to the fact that you don’t have a relationship with him. You make some valid points in reference to the problem of evil, but if a being is omniscient including of the future, how can we as mortals truly scrutinise his actions when we can at most see 5 years into the future by way of prediction, not true foresight.It is funny how so many believers in God (or a "higher power") regard God (or a "higher power") as very active in the world, and yet there are so many things that go badly, where people and animals suffer terribly, as if there were no being watching over them, as if there were no being that is directing what happens.
Basically, believers do not seem to keep their story straight, as most of them, in the U.S., at least, believe that this being is very active in managing human affairs, and yet is strangely absent in countless examples where things go horribly bad.
Your argument is strong, but the Christian, based upon their own experiences and other people's testimonies, will tell you the great things that God has done in their lives. Granted, we have no valid reason to assent to their claim(s). But the fact that there is an alternative, diametric view to yours, should at least cause you leave the door slightly open to the possibility that the state of the world does not reflect God’s character, but the nature of autonomous human-beings. If we blame God for everything that can be referred to as bad or evil, just because he has the power to do otherwise, do we not take away from the power of mankind to do good, and our accountability? In the sense that, apart from natural disasters, we have made our own beds? And the rods that beat our backs, are they not of our own making?
This is why I hesistate to blame God for the problem of evil, because if he exists as he is purported to, we cannot fathom the reasons why such a being would allows evil to occur in a world of both good and evil, the best we can do is speculate by way of reason. I mean, he supposedly sent Jesus Christ into this world to be a sacrifice for the sins that he never even committed, so as to defer mankind's judgement. Why would a being that is capable of allowing something that he treasured (his own son), to be destroyed, even temporarily, be incapable of doing good?
- Jack D Ripper
- Posts: 610
- Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
- Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
- Contact:
Re: Proof there is no God
Fanman wrote: ↑October 20th, 2020, 9:01 am Jack D Ripper,
As a former theist that believed in the Christian God, I think that a Christian would simply argue that the reason you are so antithetical towards God, in terms of your apparent reasoning at least. Is due to the fact that you don’t have a relationship with him. You make some valid points in reference to the problem of evil, but if a being is omniscient including of the future, how can we as mortals truly scrutinise his actions when we can at most see 5 years into the future by way of prediction, not true foresight.It is funny how so many believers in God (or a "higher power") regard God (or a "higher power") as very active in the world, and yet there are so many things that go badly, where people and animals suffer terribly, as if there were no being watching over them, as if there were no being that is directing what happens.
Basically, believers do not seem to keep their story straight, as most of them, in the U.S., at least, believe that this being is very active in managing human affairs, and yet is strangely absent in countless examples where things go horribly bad.
Your argument is strong, but the Christian, based upon their own experiences and other people's testimonies, will tell you the great things that God has done in their lives. Granted, we have no valid reason to assent to their claim(s). But the fact that there is an alternative, diametric view to yours, should at least cause you leave the door slightly open to the possibility that the state of the world does not reflect God’s character, but the nature of autonomous human-beings. If we blame God for everything that can be referred to as bad or evil, just because he has the power to do otherwise, do we not take away from the power of mankind to do good, and our accountability? In the sense that, apart from natural disasters, we have made our own beds? And the rods that beat our backs, are they not of our own making?
This is why I hesistate to blame God for the problem of evil, because if he exists as he is purported to, we cannot fathom the reasons why such a being would allows evil to occur in a world of both good and evil, the best we can do is speculate by way of reason. I mean, he supposedly sent Jesus Christ into this world to be a sacrifice for the sins that he never even committed, so as to defer mankind's judgement. Why would a being that is capable of allowing something that he treasured (his own son), to be destroyed, even temporarily, be incapable of doing good?
Two things.
First, nothing in the future can undo the bad things that happen now. So no matter what good things happen in the future, it does not make things okay now.
I am reminded of a film I saw many years ago regarding medical ethics, where someone who was burned over most of his body, was being kept alive, even though the person was in agony, because they could not give him enough pain killers to stop the pain as a sufficient dose of the pain killers for that would kill him (they no longer do things that way, I am told; now, they used medically induced comas for such patients, as they do not wish to torture people if they can keep them alive without torture). He was constantly begging them to kill him, to put him out of his torment. Eventually, he healed and left the hospital. He later on met a woman and got married, and was happy with his life at that point. However, when he was asked if that meant that his previous suffering was worth it, he said, no, they should have killed him. That nothing could possibly make up for what he endured. Of course, at that point in time, he had no reason to kill himself, as his life at that point was good. But the totality of his life wasn't.
Good things in the future do not undo bad things now. So it is just BS nonsense to say that a good plan makes up for it. Especially since an omniscient, omnipotent being could just make the thing it wanted without using bad things to achieve those things. We use means to achieve ends because we cannot directly achieve our ends. But a being that is claimed by many to make something out of nothing does not need to use means to ends; it can directly achieve its ends. So god using evil to achieve god's ends means god is evil.
Second, the Jesus story shows god in that story to be evil. Instead of just deciding "to defer mankind's judgement", god decides that it is better to punish a supposedly innocent being. Remember, the reason why a punishment is required is because god requires it. God could instead simply not require that anyone be punished. Punishing an innocent individual makes god a worse being than just deferring judgement. The whole basis of Christianity is ridiculous and obscene.
What is remarkable is that people are so accustomed to the story that they do not think about its meaning, about what it is saying, about what an evil being that god must be to do such a thing. But that is the way with a lot of religious stories; people do not think about them in the same way that they think about other stories; they do not properly think about the religious stories at all. This is why they are ready to believe things like Mary being a virgin while pregnant, because some guy supposedly has a dream in which that is claimed by angels, but would not believe the same story if I told them that my wife was pregnant when we got married, but was a virgin, and I knew this because angels told me this in a dream. When the story is brought into the modern world like that, even most of the people foolish enough to believe the ancient story see how idiotic the story is.
(Not that it matters for the hypothetical above, but my wife was not pregnant when we got married. Indeed, I do not need to have a wife at all for the point to be made.)
- Jack D Ripper
- Posts: 610
- Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
- Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
- Contact:
Re: Proof there is no God
Fanman wrote: ↑October 20th, 2020, 9:01 am Jack D Ripper,
...It is funny how so many believers in God (or a "higher power") regard God (or a "higher power") as very active in the world, and yet there are so many things that go badly, where people and animals suffer terribly, as if there were no being watching over them, as if there were no being that is directing what happens.
Basically, believers do not seem to keep their story straight, as most of them, in the U.S., at least, believe that this being is very active in managing human affairs, and yet is strangely absent in countless examples where things go horribly bad.
Your argument is strong, but the Christian, based upon their own experiences and other people's testimonies, will tell you the great things that God has done in their lives. Granted, we have no valid reason to assent to their claim(s). But the fact that there is an alternative, diametric view to yours, should at least cause you leave the door slightly open to the possibility that the state of the world does not reflect God’s character, but the nature of autonomous human-beings. If we blame God for everything that can be referred to as bad or evil, just because he has the power to do otherwise, do we not take away from the power of mankind to do good, and our accountability? In the sense that, apart from natural disasters, we have made our own beds? And the rods that beat our backs, are they not of our own making?
...
You write, as so many do when they are trying to come up with excuses for god, as if humanity were one person, instead of many. What someone else does is not what I do. This is relevant to a couple of points, one of which applies to your post.
So when you state, "we have made our own beds", really it is that other people have made our beds. The Jews did not gas themselves in WWII. Essentially, what you are doing is blaming everyone for what everyone else does, which is extreme injustice.
You might want to reread the bit in the opening post about the "free will" defense, with the story of us drinking on a rooftop, observing a brutal attack below. The ridiculousness of your claim is exposed in that story.
This, too, is typical of these attempts at justifying what happens in the world, where things are brought up that have already been refuted. It is simply a refusal to go with reason, and not something that opens the door to anything. A refusal to ever admit the conclusion of an argument is not a refutation of it.
The other thing is about a claimed independence that people gain from not relying on god. The reality is that every human is dependent upon other people. If, the moment one was born, one was just abandoned by other people, one would die very quickly. After one is an adult, most do not grow all of the food they eat, nor do they make their own clothing, nor do they build their own homes, etc. People are dependent on others. Even if one decides to go out in the woods and live off the land, one most likely takes clothes with them, a knife and other such implements, that one did not make oneself. And even if one did go into the woods naked, with no implements (this is very implausible), one still very likely has learned from others (perhaps from reading a book, written by another person, about how to live off the land), and was not independent in that. Additionally, one is dependent on others not chopping down the forest, to make lumber or clear the land for farming, or for making condos or whatever. One sees the tension on this in the Brazilian rain forest, with land that was being used by indigenous people being taken away from them. People are dependent on others. Why not be dependent upon god instead of other people? One is no less dependent that way. Furthermore, god could simply make people more independent, if independence is a good thing. Indeed, if it is a good thing to be very independent, then god can be blamed for not making people more independent, which would be yet another proof that god is evil.
This illustrates the point of the opening post, that the excuses that people come up with typically really amount to denying one of the attributes of God. Here, with this idea of independence, if it is a good thing, then either god is too stupid to know that and therefore has not made us more independent (meaning god is not omniscient, and in fact an idiot for not knowing what people supposedly know), or god is unable to make people more independent (meaning god is not omnipotent), or god does not want to make people more independent (which makes god not omnibenevolent, and, in fact, evil). Of course, if independence is not a good thing, then the "excuse" is just the purest BS nonsense. So, no matter what the truth is about the issue of independence, there is no God as described in the opening post.
-
- Posts: 3258
- Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am
Re: Proof there is no God
That is not strictly the case. It is true that what is done cannot be undone, but something good can make amends for something bad. Someone who experiences the bad can be rewarded so the loss is compensated for. It doesn’t bring back what is initially lost, but there is no expectation by anyone that they will go through life and not experience loss of some kind. And when we do experience loss, to use that as the basis of a claim for God being evil, doesn't make sense to me. I have experienced the loss of a career that I studied for years to get into. Intially I felt like ****, but I retrained to do something else. Now, looking back, getting out of that career was the best thing that could've happened to me. Its all about perspective Jack.Two things.
First, nothing in the future can undo the bad things that happen now. So no matter what good things happen in the future, it does not make things okay now.
One person’s experience does not make a rule. I know that if I was on the brink, but with time things got better for me. I would be too thankful to reflect upon what had happened to me from a negative perspective. Time moves forward, if someone’s perspectives are too reflective of the past, how can they make clear judgements about the future or even the present. Wouldn't that make someone anachronistic, or just plain out of touch?I am reminded of a film I saw many years ago regarding medical ethics, where someone who was burned over most of his body, was being kept alive, even though the person was in agony, because they could not give him enough pain killers to stop the pain as a sufficient dose of the pain killers for that would kill him (they no longer do things that way, I am told; now, they used medically induced comas for such patients, as they do not wish to torture people if they can keep them alive without torture). He was constantly begging them to kill him, to put him out of his torment. Eventually, he healed and left the hospital. He later on met a woman and got married, and was happy with his life at that point. However, when he was asked if that meant that his previous suffering was worth it, he said, no, they should have killed him. That nothing could possibly make up for what he endured. Of course, at that point in time, he had no reason to kill himself, as his life at that point was good. But the totality of his life wasn't.
So, because God doesn’t accord with what you believe he should do, he is evil? That is not right from my perspective. A finite mind cannot hope to comprehend the actions of an infinite one. We live for approximately 75 years. God lives forever, let that sink in... it is therefore a folly to think that we could judge what he does on the basis of what we comprehend as ethics.Good things in the future do not undo bad things now. So it is just BS nonsense to say that a good plan makes up for it. Especially since an omniscient, omnipotent being could just make the thing it wanted without using bad things to achieve those things. We use means to achieve ends because we cannot directly achieve our ends. But a being that is claimed by many to make something out of nothing does not need to use means to ends; it can directly achieve its ends. So god using evil to achieve god's ends means god is evil.
I don’t see it that way. The sacrifice of Christ was a mercy, crimes were committed, and justice was required. Rather than destroy the world, he placed the judgement on his son. Why should a God forgive everyone of everything? It sounds as though the only type of deity you would find acceptable is a fairy god mother. One who grants all the wishes of all the people, and only does good things. However, even a fairy god mother would have difficulty in doing good when some people are evil. Should bad people go unpunished? What would a God that is acceptable to you do? If you were God what would you do? Our justice systems only differ in the fact that people are punished for their crimes. Years ago people used scape goats, but not anymore.Second, the Jesus story shows god in that story to be evil. Instead of just deciding "to defer mankind's judgement", god decides that it is better to punish a supposedly innocent being. Remember, the reason why a punishment is required is because god requires it. God could instead simply not require that anyone be punished. Punishing an innocent individual makes god a worse being than just deferring judgement. The whole basis of Christianity is ridiculous and obscene.
People will believe all sorts of things, if there is even the slightest reason to. If I had a dream where what seemed like a divine being told me what he was told, I don’t see a reason to dismiss it without even the slightest consideration. Not as an agnostic anyway. Kind of like saying "Oh let me just ignore what the seemingly divine being told me in my dream, I am better placed to understand things."What is remarkable is that people are so accustomed to the story that they do not think about its meaning, about what it is saying, about what an evil being that god must be to do such a thing. But that is the way with a lot of religious stories; people do not think about them in the same way that they think about other stories; they do not properly think about the religious stories at all. This is why they are ready to believe things like Mary being a virgin while pregnant, because some guy supposedly has a dream in which that is claimed by angels, but would not believe the same story if I told them that my wife was pregnant when we got married, but was a virgin, and I knew this because angels told me this in a dream. When the story is brought into the modern world like that, even most of the people foolish enough to believe the ancient story see how idiotic the story is.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7148
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Proof there is no God
LOL
The central plank of the Christian delusion is incoherent babble.
If God is God then to whom does he have to appeal for justice?
- Jack D Ripper
- Posts: 610
- Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
- Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
- Contact:
Re: Proof there is no God
Fanman wrote: ↑October 20th, 2020, 1:18 pm Jack D Ripper,
That is not strictly the case. It is true that what is done cannot be undone,Two things.
First, nothing in the future can undo the bad things that happen now. So no matter what good things happen in the future, it does not make things okay now.
Really, we are done at that point. The evil happens, and nothing can ever undo it. A perfectly good being would not want any bad at all.
https://www.lexico.com/definition/omnibenevolentOxford Dictionary wrote:
omnibenevolent
ADJECTIVE
(of a deity) possessing perfect or unlimited goodness.
Fanman wrote: ↑October 20th, 2020, 1:18 pm
but something good can make amends for something bad. Someone who experiences the bad can be rewarded so the loss is compensated for. It doesn’t bring back what is initially lost, but there is no expectation by anyone that they will go through life and not experience loss of some kind.
We expect that because we know we live in a world full of evil. That does nothing to justify the evil, or make it okay. That is as absurd as me taking your hand and shoving into a garbage disposal, with your knowledge of what I am shoving your hand into, so you expect bad things to happen. That expectation does not make it okay.
Imagine a court case, where the defendant in a murder trial says, "your honor, I am not guilty of any wrong, because everyone knew I was greedy and had no regard for human life other than my own, and when my aunt was not yet dead, she and everyone else should expect me to murder her for the inheritance." That is what you are effectively doing with your "excuse", which is not an excuse at all.
It does not make sense to you to blame who is responsible for it happening? With an omniscient and omnipotent being, nothing could possibly happen without it being totally okay with it happening. It is the being that can make the outcome whatever it wants. It is more responsible for what happens than any other being could possibly be. Being omnipotent, nothing could stop it from succeeding at whatever it does.
Fanman wrote: ↑October 20th, 2020, 1:18 pm I have experienced the loss of a career that I studied for years to get into. Intially I felt like ****, but I retrained to do something else. Now, looking back, getting out of that career was the best thing that could've happened to me. Its all about perspective Jack.
Maybe in this world as it is, that is the case, but if there were an omnipotent being, it could have gotten you to change careers without making you feel bad. It could also have gotten you to study something else in the first place. Basically, you are settling for things in this world, because you have nothing better that you expect. That is because there is no God making things right; you have to put up with some crap in the world, because you are going to get crap, because there is no God looking over you making sure things go right.
In other words, your story is an admission that there is no God. If there were one, you would expect better things.
Fanman wrote: ↑October 20th, 2020, 1:18 pmOne person’s experience does not make a rule.I am reminded of a film I saw many years ago regarding medical ethics, where someone who was burned over most of his body, was being kept alive, even though the person was in agony, because they could not give him enough pain killers to stop the pain as a sufficient dose of the pain killers for that would kill him (they no longer do things that way, I am told; now, they used medically induced comas for such patients, as they do not wish to torture people if they can keep them alive without torture). He was constantly begging them to kill him, to put him out of his torment. Eventually, he healed and left the hospital. He later on met a woman and got married, and was happy with his life at that point. However, when he was asked if that meant that his previous suffering was worth it, he said, no, they should have killed him. That nothing could possibly make up for what he endured. Of course, at that point in time, he had no reason to kill himself, as his life at that point was good. But the totality of his life wasn't.
Of course, one person's experience does not tell you about how things are for everyone. (Though one counterexample to a claim can disprove the claim, as, indeed, this does for the claim that there is a good god running things.) But it does help illustrate the point that nothing in the future can undo what happened in the past or what is happening now. Nothing justifies the mess that is now.
Fanman wrote: ↑October 20th, 2020, 1:18 pm
I know that if I was on the brink, but with time things got better for me. I would be too thankful to reflect upon what had happened to me from a negative perspective. Time moves forward, if someone’s perspectives are too reflective of the past, how can they make clear judgements about the future or even the present. Wouldn't that make someone anachronistic, or just plain out of touch?
So, because God doesn’t accord with what you believe he should do, he is evil?Good things in the future do not undo bad things now. So it is just BS nonsense to say that a good plan makes up for it. Especially since an omniscient, omnipotent being could just make the thing it wanted without using bad things to achieve those things. We use means to achieve ends because we cannot directly achieve our ends. But a being that is claimed by many to make something out of nothing does not need to use means to ends; it can directly achieve its ends. So god using evil to achieve god's ends means god is evil.
It is not just my personal perspective. It is the perspective of every person who is not a psychopath. You must think it right and proper for millions of Jews to be murdered in WWII to think otherwise. Not to mention the millions more who were also murdered at that time. And at other times and places.
What happens, as soon as one brings up the problem of evil, those who insist there is a God suddenly change on what they regard as "good". Everyone knows the world is a mess, until they try to explain away the inconsistency in their beliefs regarding this God character.
I see you are now going with the "it's a mystery" excuse, mentioned in the opening post, which explains nothing whatsoever and is just an attempt at avoiding the obvious conclusion.
Whenever people make a judgement of good or bad, they use whatever standards they have themselves.
Also, it follows from what you are saying that it is literally a good thing that Hitler murdered millions of people. Why not be honest and tell us that you believe that it is a good thing that Hitler murdered millions of people? And it is a good thing that Stalin murdered millions of people? And that all of the murders and rapes and brutality that happens in the world is a good thing? Why are you not explicitly saying that, since it follows necessarily from your claims?
Fanman wrote: ↑October 20th, 2020, 1:18 pmI don’t see it that way.Second, the Jesus story shows god in that story to be evil. Instead of just deciding "to defer mankind's judgement", god decides that it is better to punish a supposedly innocent being. Remember, the reason why a punishment is required is because god requires it. God could instead simply not require that anyone be punished. Punishing an innocent individual makes god a worse being than just deferring judgement. The whole basis of Christianity is ridiculous and obscene.
It does not matter what way you see it. It is an insane and obscene story, whether you acknowledge that or not. You don't have to acknowledge the pythagorean theorem, either, but that, too, makes no difference for it.
So, according to you, it is "justice" to torture an innocent individual. If not, then the story does not result in justice at all, and your claim is just BS. Do you not see how ridiculous your story is, how it completely perverts the meanings of the words you use?
Maybe because that god, according to the story that you have introduced into the discussion, created everything, which means that it is god's fault that there is evil in the world. It is god's fault, according to the story, that there are bad people in the world.
No. I never said that it must grant wishes to people. You are just making that up, as it is not in anything I have posted in this thread.
If it was omnibenevolent, it would only do good things. That is what "omnibenevolent" means.
Indeed, in this you are admitting that the god in question is not perfectly good. Consequently, you are admitting that the God of the opening post does not exist.
According to the fairy tale that you are referring to, god made the evil people, so it is god's fault that there are evil people. God could have chosen otherwise, but did not. So the blame falls directly on god.
It is hilarious that you bring up scapegoats, since that is what Jesus was in the story which you brought up. It is a primitive idea of justice, which you are now admitting, when before you stated that it was justice, since, according to you, god got justice in that story.
I feel sorry for anyone who cannot distinguish between dreams and reality. If you dream you can fly without the aid of any devices, does that make you believe that you really can fly without the aid of any devices? What if it seemed really real in the dream, will you then believe that you can fly without the aid of any devices when you wake up? Somehow I doubt you really would believe such a thing, no matter how strong the dream seemed.Fanman wrote: ↑October 20th, 2020, 1:18 pmPeople will believe all sorts of things, if there is even the slightest reason to. If I had a dream where what seemed like a divine being told me what he was told, I don’t see a reason to dismiss it without even the slightest consideration. Not as an agnostic anyway. Kind of like saying "Oh let me just ignore what the seemingly divine being told me in my dream, I am better placed to understand things."What is remarkable is that people are so accustomed to the story that they do not think about its meaning, about what it is saying, about what an evil being that god must be to do such a thing. But that is the way with a lot of religious stories; people do not think about them in the same way that they think about other stories; they do not properly think about the religious stories at all. This is why they are ready to believe things like Mary being a virgin while pregnant, because some guy supposedly has a dream in which that is claimed by angels, but would not believe the same story if I told them that my wife was pregnant when we got married, but was a virgin, and I knew this because angels told me this in a dream. When the story is brought into the modern world like that, even most of the people foolish enough to believe the ancient story see how idiotic the story is.
- Jack D Ripper
- Posts: 610
- Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
- Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
- Contact:
Re: Proof there is no God
Yes, indeed.
-
- Posts: 3258
- Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am
Re: Proof there is no God
Hmm, I didn't expect the discussion to take this path... I was only interested in discourse. I have not mentioned, you. Regardless.
I understand your point.Really, we are done at that point. The evil happens, and nothing can ever undo it. A perfectly good being would not want any bad at all.
I didn’t say that it did.We expect that because we know we live in a world full of evil. That does nothing to justify the evil, or make it okay. That is as absurd as me taking your hand and shoving into a garbage disposal, with your knowledge of what I am shoving your hand into, so you expect bad things to happen. That expectation does not make it okay.
There are good things that have happened to me as well. If there was a God, wouldn’t he also be responsible for those things?Maybe in this world as it is, that is the case, but if there were an omnipotent being, it could have gotten you to change careers without making you feel bad. It could also have gotten you to study something else in the first place. Basically, you are settling for things in this world, because you have nothing better that you expect. That is because there is no God making things right; you have to put up with some crap in the world, because you are going to get crap, because there is no God looking over you making sure things go right.
I don’t think it is. I was just using my story to make a point, that good came from me losing my career.In other words, your story is an admission that there is no God. If there were one, you would expect better things.
- Jack D Ripper
- Posts: 610
- Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
- Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
- Contact:
Re: Proof there is no God
When one considers the start in the Bible, how could it go any other way? With Genesis chapters 1 & 2, we have light before there is a source of light, and we have the two stories of creation, one right after the other, where the order of things being created is changed from one to the next. So the BIble is inconsistent before the end of the first two chapters. But it gets even more interesting in Genesis 2 & 3, with the story of the garden of Eden, where Adam and Eve are expected by god to not eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which is to say, god expects them to know that it is "evil" to disobey god before they have the knowledge of good and evil. At that point, everyone should know the story is batshit crazy, so by the time one gets to the stuff about Jesus, one should have a pretty good idea that it isn't going to make any sense either.
Really, with god expecting people to know what is good and evil before they can know what is good and evil shows either that god is evil, willfully setting them up to fail, or is incredibly stupid or just plain crazy.
Yeah, that is what people worship. That is their idea of something good and wise and omniscient. It would be difficult to parody such a ridiculous and insane story. It already reads like an overdone parody of something.
Of course, there is a reason why I did not start the thread with any mention of the Bible. What is entailed there for the believers is mere inconsistency. With the Bible, things become a completely incoherent mess. It is amazing that any adult takes the Bible seriously. Or would be, if intelligent life existed on this planet.
- Jack D Ripper
- Posts: 610
- Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
- Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
- Contact:
Re: Proof there is no God
Of course. Bringing up that would be relevant if you found someone seriously claiming that there is an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly evil being. What happens in the world is not consistent with such an idea. Just like what happens in the world is not consistent with there being an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being. So we are equally justified in claiming that neither such being exists.Fanman wrote: ↑October 20th, 2020, 3:42 pm...There are good things that have happened to me as well. If there was a God, wouldn’t he also be responsible for those things?Maybe in this world as it is, that is the case, but if there were an omnipotent being, it could have gotten you to change careers without making you feel bad. It could also have gotten you to study something else in the first place. Basically, you are settling for things in this world, because you have nothing better that you expect. That is because there is no God making things right; you have to put up with some crap in the world, because you are going to get crap, because there is no God looking over you making sure things go right.
...
What one often finds, though, is religious believers attributing every good thing to God, as God is often regarded as the maker of everything, but then inconsistently refusing to blame God for the bad things, as if those things were somehow beyond God's control. The inconsistencies, though, do not typically end there, as the above post illustrates.
The simple fact is, there is no reason to believe in the existence of any being that has even one of the three qualities in the opening post. The reason for the discussion is that there are people who have claimed that such a thing exists. Their claim, though, is more than merely unfounded; it is inconsistent with what we observe occurring.
One can pretend that there is no inconsistency by pretending that all of the bad things that happen are really good. Aside from that being merely pretend, the same would apply equally well to pretending that all of the good things that happen are really bad, in service of pretending that an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly evil being exists. That would be equally justified. Which is to say, it would be equally inaccurate.
- Count Lucanor
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
- Location: Panama
- Contact:
Re: Proof there is no God
What believers in a “God” (with a capital “G”) will often do to bypass the proofs against their deity is to transform the inquiry, so that instead of proving that there's no god, you are required to prove that there isn't any god. God with capital “G” becomes one of the many possibilities within a set (the any god set). Of course, "any" god is an open set, a variable that can be filled with any description at convenience, and whenever an entity with a particular description is disproved, they can move the pole and say "well, my god does not fit exactly that description, there's something more to it (usually something mysterious and ineffable) so you have not disproved it". It becomes a moving target, from one of possibility of godness to another, within the any god set. You can't never disprove the set as a whole. And once they have made sure you cannot hit the moving target, then they'll announce you lost the bid and proceed to assert the existence of their God with capital "G", which is somewhere within the any god set, they just will never point at it with precision. Pure sophistry.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.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
-
- Posts: 3258
- Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am
Re: Proof there is no God
Are you saying that if there was a God, he/she is only responsible for what is bad/evil in the world, that what is good cannot be attributed to him/her?What one often finds, though, is religious believers attributing every good thing to God, as God is often regarded as the maker of everything, but then inconsistently refusing to blame God for the bad things, as if those things were somehow beyond God's control. The inconsistencies, though, do not typically end there, as the above post illustrates.
I mean, it does not seem logical to me, to claim that in a world where both good and evil exist, that the deity who created it is purely evil, and/or incapable of good. How could that possibly be the case, when good exists in abundance?
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023