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

Re: Proof there is no God

Post by evolution » October 16th, 2020, 8:53 am

Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 14th, 2020, 4:39 pm
SilverRing wrote:
October 14th, 2020, 1:13 am
Firstly let me start off by saying I am an atheist, and firmly believe that a God cannot belong to religion even if the being existed, yet I still believe religion regardless of accuracy is important. However, I would like to provide some reply for you to think about.

In your well-written statement, I saw you mentioned the topic of good and evil. I would like to bring the military into account here. Killing we can all agree I am sure is wrong in essence, but when done to protect others like in the military It can be good. You mention God would be obliged to stop evils such as murder and rape, but what if those evils exist for growth. Nothing good has come from merely existing, and without evil, there cannot be good. The two are dependent on the other.

Taking this into account you could argue that it would be evil to not allow the growth of both those affected by the evil and those who commit the evil. Furthermore, this would go so far to mean that God would be even obliged to allow these evils to exist. While the act of allowing these things would seem evil in themselves, the long-term reasons would be what defines them as being good. While an all-knowing God may already understand the outcome, the people this being created would not.

A rebuttal I see to this theory would be that this all-powerful being could simply transfer this knowledge into its creations, yet this would defeat the point of them knowing at all.

I disagree. Knowledge is valuable regardless of how one got it.

SilverRing wrote:
October 14th, 2020, 1:13 am
This is in comparison to video-games, if a game gives you everything right from the back with no work, then what's the point? ....

Your analogy is faulty because giving you the items does not give you the skills. In our hypothetical omnipotent God situation, God would be giving the gamer (to keep with your metaphor) the skills without bothering with requiring practice. Indeed, God could give the gamer better skills, perfect skills, that the gamer would never get from practicing. So what you have is a situation in which God chooses to use evil to get worse results than God could get without using evil.
Your conclusion is false, and you arrived at in a faulty way, BECAUSE you are NOT YET AWARE of what 'God' actually is, and how It works, EXACTLY.
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 14th, 2020, 4:39 pm
This makes God stupid as well as evil.
And what a "coincidence" that this fits PERFECTLY with your ALREADY gained and pre-existing held BELIEFS, correct?
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 14th, 2020, 4:39 pm
Stupid because the results are worse, and evil because God is using evil that is not necessary.
LOL How do you KNOW 'the results are worse'?

And, how do you KNOW that what you call "evil" is not necessary?

Do not forget that God is purported to be the ALL-knowing One, and NOT you.

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4388
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Proof there is no God

Post by Terrapin Station » October 16th, 2020, 8:54 am

Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 14th, 2020, 5:45 pm
Terrapin Station wrote:
October 14th, 2020, 9:39 am


First, you're overlooking something that I said: "They're not going to mean that per consensus assessments the next door neighbor or Bob is a good person, even though the consensus differs from their personal evaluation."

Now, the consensus might not differ from their person evaluation. But often it does.

This isn't a matter of the person having subjectivist versus objectivist views on the metaethics or the ontology of ethics. The above works just the same way regardless of their ontological views. If they're objectivists, they're going to give their personal evaluation which they believe they happen to have right per how the world independently is, where the consensus has it wrong. If they're subjectivists, they're going to think that they simply feel differently than other folks. In either case, they're giving their personal evaluation, NOT a consensus evaluation that they might disagree with.

The argumentum ad populum occurs when we say that we're deferring to the popular view in something like a criticism of omnibenevolence, because it's the popular view. (Remember the context of our comments.)

By the way, while not everyone is a subjectivist on metaethics, obviously, the subjectivists have right what the world is like. The objectivists are mistaken. There are no person/mind-independent moral stances.

After I was done with this site for the night, I regretted what I wrote almost immediately. Not because I thought it was wrong, but because it is unimportant to the task at hand. It does not matter, for the purposes of this discussion, what the correct view of ethics is. (And that would be better discussed in the ethics section of this site instead of the religion section of this site.)

What I should have stated is something like this:

You seem to be taking a straight up subjectivist approach to ethics. Thus, with:

1) S says, "X is good."

where "S" is something that can make an affirmation, like a human, an alien being like those seen on science fiction shows (if such a being were real), a talking dog like Mr. Peabody (from the old Rocky and Bullwinkle show, if he were real), an angel (If real), a god (if real), etc., and where X is anything that would make a meaningful sentence, like "freedom from pain", "torturing small children with flaming hot pincers", etc.

The straight subjectivist approach, based on 1 above, is to affirm:

2) S likes X.

And that is the full significance of 1, on the subjectivist interpretation.

Now, what that means is that, if that view is correct, the statement "X is good" within 1 is not really about X, but is about S. It is about what S likes. So that the true subject of what is being said is S, which is more clearly indicated with 2, because with 2 the grammatical subject is what the statement is about.


Now, how this relates to the opening post is that with the statement:

3) God is good.

That is supposed to be telling you something about God. But, on the subjectivist interpretation, it is not. It is telling you about whoever it is who says "God is good." In the opening post, the statement about God's goodness is supposed to be about God. If the idea of "goodness" as a property of a thing is wrong or incoherent, then the description in the opening post is wrong or incoherent. And if that is the case, then the God of the opening post simply does not exist, because nothing has that property of goodness that is being affirmed about God in that description.

So we don't even have to think about omnipotence or omniscience or about evil (which, of course, on the straight subjectivist interpretation, evil is also not a property of a thing, but a feeling about the thing, just like good). Because, on the subjectivist interpretation of "good", there is no God as described in the opening post because goodness is not a property of a thing.

If it is clearer, what is meant by "God is good" is:

4) God has a property [of goodness].


When religious people tell you that "God is good", haven't you gotten the impression that they mean to be saying something about God, rather than just saying that they like God? That God being good is a selling point of the religion, that is supposed to make you like God, too, because of this property of "goodness" that God allegedly has? This is quite different from someone telling you that they like chocolate ice cream more than vanilla ice cream, because that is not something that is supposed to make you prefer chocolate, though someone might want you to try it, thinking that your tastes may be similar. Sometimes, of course, someone jokingly says that it is wrong to eat vanilla ice cream and that it is only right and proper to eat chocolate ice cream, often as a way of trying to emphasize their love of chocolate ice cream.

But we need not pursue that here; the point is, the description in the opening post is supposed to be about God, certainly not about how I feel about God. If goodness isn't a property of a thing, then the description is inaccurate, which is to say, no such thing exists.
First, saying that x doesn't have property φ, even though property φ is postulated of x, doesn't imply that x doesn't exist, unless x is supposed to be exhaustively identical to φ (that is, x is identical to φ and only identical to φ, so that if there's no φ, there's no x).

Second, you seem to be suggesting that any theist (so anyone who'd say "God is good" and believe it, because they believe that God exists, etc.) is necessarily an objectivist on (at least ethical) values. I don't believe this is at all the case, though sure, plenty are probably objectivists on ethics (as are plenty of people in general).

Re "I like x," that's too simplistic of an interpretation, but there's no reason to get into that unless it becomes an issue for some reason. At any rate, yes, on my view value statements tell us something about the individual uttering them (where they agree with them and they're not simply reporting others' views) in a relational way; values are not properties of things that we're simply perceiving. Values are ways that we feel about things--that's the whole idea of them being subjective.

But even if someone is an objectivist, values are still ways that they feel about things (not the least reason for which is that in reality, that's all there is--value objectivism is factually incorrect), and when they tell you a value statement ("My neighbor is a good person"), they're not going to be reporting how other people feel, even though they disagree (again, it's just that if they're objectivists, their belief is going to be that they have the value correct, whereas the contrary opinion is incorrect). However, when it comes to God, for religious believers, there's generally a view that God's actions are morally good, etc. from a God's-eye perspective, which we can (and often do) fail to understand fully, for rather obvious reasons on their view.

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

Re: Proof there is no God

Post by evolution » October 16th, 2020, 8:59 am

Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 14th, 2020, 4:42 pm
Felix wrote:
October 14th, 2020, 3:50 am
Jack D Ripper said: "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."

What a trivial argument... Ergo, if we all spent our lives lying around happily stoned, it would prove that the god you described exists?

Who said anything about being stoned? There are alternatives other than being stoned.
Remove the word 'stoned' and the statement/question is still the same.

Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 14th, 2020, 4:42 pm
Felix wrote:
October 14th, 2020, 3:50 am

Actually, word is that the God in question did create a perfectly harmonious world, sans any form of evil, but he found that it's sentient residents considered it a fate worse than death to stay there for a prolonged period, they were literally driven mad by it's incessant ground-hog day placidness.
...

If that is the case, then God failed to make a perfect world.
A perfect world, and, a perfectly harmonious world are two different things, correct?
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 14th, 2020, 4:42 pm
Apparently, your idea of God is an incompetent buffoon. Which, of course, is something other than the proposed idea in the opening post. The argument is only about that concept of God, not about any other concept of God.
But you do have to understand the actual correct concept of what God actually IS, before you could even begin to make accurate claims. Until then both "sides" are just bickering, literally, over nothing.

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4388
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Proof there is no God

Post by Terrapin Station » October 16th, 2020, 9:04 am

Is this a mania day, evolution?

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

Re: Proof there is no God

Post by evolution » October 16th, 2020, 9:07 am

Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 14th, 2020, 5:45 pm
Terrapin Station wrote:
October 14th, 2020, 9:39 am


First, you're overlooking something that I said: "They're not going to mean that per consensus assessments the next door neighbor or Bob is a good person, even though the consensus differs from their personal evaluation."

Now, the consensus might not differ from their person evaluation. But often it does.

This isn't a matter of the person having subjectivist versus objectivist views on the metaethics or the ontology of ethics. The above works just the same way regardless of their ontological views. If they're objectivists, they're going to give their personal evaluation which they believe they happen to have right per how the world independently is, where the consensus has it wrong. If they're subjectivists, they're going to think that they simply feel differently than other folks. In either case, they're giving their personal evaluation, NOT a consensus evaluation that they might disagree with.

The argumentum ad populum occurs when we say that we're deferring to the popular view in something like a criticism of omnibenevolence, because it's the popular view. (Remember the context of our comments.)

By the way, while not everyone is a subjectivist on metaethics, obviously, the subjectivists have right what the world is like. The objectivists are mistaken. There are no person/mind-independent moral stances.

After I was done with this site for the night, I regretted what I wrote almost immediately. Not because I thought it was wrong, but because it is unimportant to the task at hand. It does not matter, for the purposes of this discussion, what the correct view of ethics is. (And that would be better discussed in the ethics section of this site instead of the religion section of this site.)

What I should have stated is something like this:

You seem to be taking a straight up subjectivist approach to ethics. Thus, with:

1) S says, "X is good."

where "S" is something that can make an affirmation, like a human, an alien being like those seen on science fiction shows (if such a being were real), a talking dog like Mr. Peabody (from the old Rocky and Bullwinkle show, if he were real), an angel (If real), a god (if real), etc., and where X is anything that would make a meaningful sentence, like "freedom from pain", "torturing small children with flaming hot pincers", etc.

The straight subjectivist approach, based on 1 above, is to affirm:

2) S likes X.

And that is the full significance of 1, on the subjectivist interpretation.

Now, what that means is that, if that view is correct, the statement "X is good" within 1 is not really about X, but is about S. It is about what S likes. So that the true subject of what is being said is S, which is more clearly indicated with 2, because with 2 the grammatical subject is what the statement is about.


Now, how this relates to the opening post is that with the statement:

3) God is good.

That is supposed to be telling you something about God. But, on the subjectivist interpretation, it is not. It is telling you about whoever it is who says "God is good." In the opening post, the statement about God's goodness is supposed to be about God. If the idea of "goodness" as a property of a thing is wrong or incoherent, then the description in the opening post is wrong or incoherent. And if that is the case, then the God of the opening post simply does not exist, because nothing has that property of goodness that is being affirmed about God in that description.

So we don't even have to think about omnipotence or omniscience or about evil (which, of course, on the straight subjectivist interpretation, evil is also not a property of a thing, but a feeling about the thing, just like good). Because, on the subjectivist interpretation of "good", there is no God as described in the opening post because goodness is not a property of a thing.

If it is clearer, what is meant by "God is good" is:

4) God has a property [of goodness].


When religious people tell you that "God is good", haven't you gotten the impression that they mean to be saying something about God, rather than just saying that they like God? That God being good is a selling point of the religion, that is supposed to make you like God, too, because of this property of "goodness" that God allegedly has? This is quite different from someone telling you that they like chocolate ice cream more than vanilla ice cream, because that is not something that is supposed to make you prefer chocolate, though someone might want you to try it, thinking that your tastes may be similar. Sometimes, of course, someone jokingly says that it is wrong to eat vanilla ice cream and that it is only right and proper to eat chocolate ice cream, often as a way of trying to emphasize their love of chocolate ice cream.

But we need not pursue that here; the point is, the description in the opening post is supposed to be about God, certainly not about how I feel about God. If goodness isn't a property of a thing, then the description is inaccurate, which is to say, no such thing exists.
If you want to 'try to' make this your argument here, then will you stand by it and stick to discussing it?

If yes, then let us proceed;

If, as you say, "goodness is a property of a Thing/God, then how and why does this supposedly lead to your conclusion that "no such God/Thing exists"?

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

Re: Proof there is no God

Post by evolution » October 16th, 2020, 9:23 am

Fanman wrote:
October 14th, 2020, 5:57 pm
SilverRing,
In your well-written statement, I saw you mentioned the topic of good and evil. I would like to bring the military into account here. Killing we can all agree I am sure is wrong in essence, but when done to protect others like in the military It can be good. You mention God would be obliged to stop evils such as murder and rape, but what if those evils exist for growth. Nothing good has come from merely existing, and without evil, there cannot be good. The two are dependent on the other.
I think that you make a valid point. In that killing, in essence, is wrong. But dependant upon the circumstances killing may not be viewed as wrong if it is done for a particular, justifiable reason. Such as self-defence, or as you give reference to, the military. I think that our individual sensitivities come into play here, whereby some may not be as offended by killing as others, depending on what we have seen, what has influenced us and our general perceptions of right and wrong, in terms of ethics.

With regards to God, I think that he would, if he existed, have a duty of care towards his creation.
Why does a Thing 'have to' have a duty of care towards Its creation?

If a thing creates something, then does it NOT have the right to do whatever it wants with its creation?

Do I not have the right to use and do whatever I see fit with what I create?

In what jurisdiction, or in what 'world', do the words "one has a duty of care towards its creation"?

Could it also be asked; does the one who created the phrase, "one has a duty of care towards its creation", also have a 'duty of care towards this creation, itself'?

In other words, does the one who created this phrase have the right to force this view onto others?
Fanman wrote:
October 14th, 2020, 5:57 pm
Not insomuch as he provides us with a personal shield against the evils of this world, but that he ensures our longevity as a species. I believe that he could argue that he has done so, in giving us abundant means of survival, and an intellect capable self-maintenance, whereby I mean self-preservation.
Why do 'you', human beings, persist with this sense of self-importance, and thinking that 'you' revolve around God and that God revolves around 'you', human beings?

Why do you propose that God cares about 'you', human beings, and is ensuring the longevity of 'you' as a species?

Crocodiles, and turtles, after all have been around a lot longer than 'you', human beings.
Fanman wrote:
October 14th, 2020, 5:57 pm
I agree that evil can cause growth in those who are subjected to it in any form, if they can survive and have the right kind of constitution to see it in that way.
When you say, " 'those' who are subjected to 'it' in any form", then do you mean 'individual human beings' and 'evil'?

If yes, then what do you mean by, "if they can survive"?
Fanman wrote:
October 14th, 2020, 5:57 pm
With regards to the good/evil dynamic, I don’t think that we can know for certain if they are dependant upon each other, because I don’t believe we will ever exist in a world where there is a complete absence of one or the other. But you could be right, in that one is dependent upon the other for its identity.
How is the word 'evil' being defined here now?

I see 'bad', not 'evil', as being opposed, or dependent upon, 'good'.

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

Re: Proof there is no God

Post by evolution » October 16th, 2020, 10:04 am

Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 15th, 2020, 11:30 am
Fanman wrote:
October 14th, 2020, 5:57 pm
SilverRing,



I think that you make a valid point. In that killing, in essence, is wrong. But dependant upon the circumstances killing may not be viewed as wrong if it is done for a particular, justifiable reason. Such as self-defence, or as you give reference to, the military. I think that our individual sensitivities come into play here, whereby some may not be as offended by killing as others, depending on what we have seen, what has influenced us and our general perceptions of right and wrong, in terms of ethics.

Using human actions as a guide to what God would do does not always work. For example, an omnipotent being can do anything, and it cannot lose a fight that it wants to win.
But there is NO 'want to win', for the One that is omnipotent.
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 15th, 2020, 11:30 am
So such a being does not need to kill in self-defense or defense of anything else. It is purely a matter of how it chooses to react.
And that One NEVER reacts this way.
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 15th, 2020, 11:30 am
Humans use all sorts of questionable means to human ends (some of the ends are not good, but we can set that aside for the moment), but an omnipotent being can effortlessly bring about whatever it wants. So it has no need of using questionable means.
So, there is no more need to discuss this, right?
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 15th, 2020, 11:30 am
When a human surgeon removes an infected appendix, this involves cutting healthy tissue to get to the appendix in order to remove it. The only reason that that is considered acceptable is because there is no other way for humans to do this, and appendicitis is often fatal if the appendix is not removed. (If someone cuts your abdomen like a surgeon does, but does not remove your appendix and does it on the street, they can go to prison for many years for this.) God, however, could deal with this by magically healing the appendix, by removing it without cutting healthy tissue, or, better still, have people born without an appendix.
Well this is a VERY CLEAR SIGN that you have NO IDEA how God, Itself, actually works.
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 15th, 2020, 11:30 am
If you have your appendix removed, you will never miss it. You do not need it at all. In fact, for those who regard humans as being created by God, the appendix appears to be a design flaw, unless God wanted people to occasionally get sick and sometimes be in excruciating pain and sometimes die and give doctors an opportunity to have more work and make more money.
LOL A typical human being perspective of things. Adding 'money' into the equation, as though money has some REAL resemblance to Life, and living.

Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 15th, 2020, 11:30 am
Frankly, the appendix is a stupid "design".
But how do you KNOW that getting, so called, "sick" is not part of the design plan? After all it could be how one actually learns and KNOWS what IS actually 'good', and 'healthy'.
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 15th, 2020, 11:30 am
If, that is, that the human body is designed. There are other "design" problems with the human body, like the blind spot in each eye due to the way that the optic nerve attaches to the eye (this is exploited in some of the "optical illusions" one may encounter); not all eyes in the animal kingdom have this flaw, which indicates that the eye evolved independently in some of the different animals.
And how EXACTLY is this blind spot in each eye of the human body a, so called, "problem with the human body"?
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 15th, 2020, 11:30 am
Or, if God did it, then God must prefer for humans to have flawed eyes (not to mention the fact that most humans eventually need glasses or corrective surgery due to the eye being extremely unreliable).
Is ANY individual body created the EXACT SAME?

In fact is there an animal that is perceived to be not flawed in some way or another?

If you want to compare bodies against bodies, then the human body is probably about one of the most weakest bodies of all.
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 15th, 2020, 11:30 am
Really, the human body is a mess when compared to what an omniscient and omnipotent being could create.
Another typical human being response and perspective of things. That is, looking at, and seeing, only the body for what a human being REALLY IS.
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 15th, 2020, 11:30 am
Looking at the human body as a created thing, it really shows that the designer was either an idiot who did not know what it was doing, or evil, wanting to create unnecessary problems.
And this is a typical response from one who looks at, and sees, only some things, or only looks at, and thus only sees, a part of the picture. But this is the ongoing effect of BELIEFS, themselves.

Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 15th, 2020, 11:30 am
Fanman wrote:
October 14th, 2020, 5:57 pm
With regards to God, I think that he would, if he existed, have a duty of care towards his creation.

That word "creation" brings up more issues.
Why?

Were you NOT 'created'?
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 15th, 2020, 11:30 am
Why would God create anything?
Well considering that EVERY thing was created, then, obviously, EVERY thing was created by some 'thing'.
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 15th, 2020, 11:30 am
An omnipotent being is self-sufficient.
Yes. And how this Being actually works.
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 15th, 2020, 11:30 am
It can do anything on its own, and does not need the help of others.
Yes you are CORRECT again.
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 15th, 2020, 11:30 am
If it is bored and decides it would be interesting to create a world full of evil for its entertainment, then it is an evil being, creating unnecessary evil.
Or, maybe It created, so called, "evil" for ANOTHER REASON, correct?

OBVIOUSLY a well-reasoned being, like "yourself", would have ALREADY thought of this, correct?
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 15th, 2020, 11:30 am
It would be like me kidnapping you and locking you up in my basement and torturing you, because I am bored and suppose that that will relieve my boredom.
This would be like that ONLY IF your ASSUMPTIONS were true, right, and correct in the first place.

But for your analogy here to be true, right, and correct, your ASSUMPTIONS first about It being "bored", about It "deciding it would be interesting to create a world full of evil", about deciding to do this "for Its entertainment", and that this is an "evil being", "creating unnecessary evil", would have to be true, right, and correct also, which it plainly IS NOT.

All you are doing here is providing the actual distorted thinking you ALREADY HELD, which has led you to the completely FALSE BELIEFS that you STILL MAINTAIN.
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 15th, 2020, 11:30 am
If I were to do that, what would you say of me?
If that human being is bored in this One and ONLY Life, and if that human being thinks or believes that the supposition that doing that to another human being will relieve them of them boredom is true, then I feel VERY, VERY SORRY, for them. They must have had some horrendous past experiences. I wonder if they would like to talk about that, without any fear of judgement, ridicule, nor punishment?
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 15th, 2020, 11:30 am
What do you think most people would say of me?
"That one is a true asshole, and needs to be punished, and/or killed".
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 15th, 2020, 11:30 am
For those who object to the word "torture" in connection with this, aside from the fact that many thousands, if not millions, of people have literally been tortured,
"Been tortured" through what means?
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 15th, 2020, 11:30 am
one needs to consider the total of all of the pain, by all of the things that can feel pain. Do you seriously believe that all of that pain is a good thing?

Fanman wrote:
October 14th, 2020, 5:57 pm
Not insomuch as he provides us with a personal shield against the evils of this world, but that he ensures our longevity as a species. ...

Why would you think that? Would it be good to create a species that suffers horribly, but continues to live through many generations?
How, exactly, are you proposing the species - human being - is "suffering" "horribly"?

What are they suffering from, exactly, and what, exactly, is causing this, so called and alleged, "suffering"?
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 15th, 2020, 11:30 am
And what difference does it make to a God if a species lasts 100,000 years and then dies off, or a million years and then dies off? Why have things that die off at all? Why not just create the beings it wants (if it wants any at all) and have them be eternal?
You REALLY have absolutely NO IDEA AT ALL how God actually works, do you?

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

Re: Proof there is no God

Post by evolution » October 16th, 2020, 10:10 am

Fanman wrote:
October 15th, 2020, 2:59 pm
Jack D Ripper,

I appreciate that you’ve taken the time to write such a detailed response. In my view, if there is a God, the only thing he/she owes us is the resources to survive and we have those. You may not accept this as a reasonable answer, but that is my opinion. I believe that the price of autonomy is that we will have both successes and failures of varying nature and degree. Hopefully we learn from them and pass the knowledge onto the next generation. I personally would not want a God to heal me of my injuries unless they were fatal, and if he/she doesn’t then my time is simply up. There is a joy and satisfaction in learning to help oneself physically and psychologically, that I have found to be unrivalled.
I agree that this 'helping one's self and/or doing and accomplishing things for, and by, one's self' is unrivaled.
Fanman wrote: Human-beings are frail creatures, but we have so much potential. In order to fulfil our potential we have to learn from each other and our environment. We cannot do so if our hands are held by a deity for the duration of our existence.
For every species when the 'young' are old enough or mature enough, then it is their time to learn how to, and to, do things for, and by, them selves.
=Fanman wrote: To only do things only in the way they think should be done, his/her way or the highway. In doing so I believe that we would lose our diversity and handover to God our freedom of choice.

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

Re: Proof there is no God

Post by evolution » October 16th, 2020, 10:24 am

Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 15th, 2020, 5:46 pm
Felix wrote:
October 15th, 2020, 5:10 pm
Sculptor1 said: "It's not Ripper's God. His argument is based on the standard God of the Christians"

No, in fact his argument displays a profound ignorance of Christian theology, e.g., one of its main tenets is that we have or are immortal souls. It should be obvious that material evil would not be a real bugaboo to someone who has realized that (not just intellectually).

Limited evil is still evil. (It being "limited" just means that it is finite, not that it is not really terrible. Think about people being burned alive, which is common enough, and all of the other bad things that have happened over the years. You make light of the fact that many suffer horrible, almost unimaginable torments in life.) The fact that Christians typically believe that people have immortal souls does not erase the evil that happens on earth.
How do you define the word 'evil'?

And, does 'evil' (whatever that is to you) only happen on earth?
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 15th, 2020, 5:46 pm
And since you bring up Christianity, traditional Christianity claims that most people spend eternity in hellfire, which is infinite evil.
Which is more or less EXACTLY what you are saying.

Let us SEE if you are even capable of beginning to just start comprehending and understanding this fact.
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 15th, 2020, 5:46 pm
So, with traditional Christianity, the issue of evil is even worse than just what was mentioned in the opening post.

I am guessing, though, that you are going to tell us that your personal version is the correct one. If you want, go ahead and tell us how your personal version deals with all of the issues.
But there are NO "issues", obviously other than the ones that you are making up, in that head.

Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 15th, 2020, 5:46 pm
Felix wrote:
October 15th, 2020, 5:10 pm

Sculptor1: "You then follow up your bile with a strawman, as if the absence of evil would necessarily mean ' a perfectly harmonious world'."

That is JDR's "strawman," not mine! He said: "it (i.e., God) would be able to prevent all evil, and being omnibenevolent, it would have the inclination to prevent all evil." What is the goal of this prevention of all evil if not a perfectly harmonious existence?

If a perfect harmonious realm is impossible, that makes hash of the Christian idea of heaven. Heaven is supposed to be a place with no evil. So with Christianity, the problems become greater rather than less.
That is from YOUR perspective. But you do appear to have most of this backwards, or, at least, completely twisted and distorted.
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 15th, 2020, 5:46 pm
The simple fact is, if there were a God, if it made anything at all, it would make whatever it made directly suitable for heaven. Tormenting people on earth is unnecessary.
Your conclusion of 'tormenting people' and that this as being "unnecessary" is, again, of YOUR OWN MAKING.

It is NOT based on actual logical reasoning.

Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 15th, 2020, 5:46 pm
Felix wrote:
October 15th, 2020, 5:10 pm

Sculptor1: Fact is that there is a great deal of useless suffering with no benefit to "material evolution."

How do you know? Do you have a complete understanding of universal laws and the nature and structure of material reality, i.e., what is or is not conceptually/physically possible? Of course you do not, you are making an argument from ignorance.

And what sort of argument are you making when you allege it is not possible to make a better realm? You hypocritically make pronouncements on this subject, pretending that others must have complete understanding in order to do so.

However, Sculptor1 is correct, that things could be better, if there were a god. You know this as well, even though you don't want to admit it. For example, an omniscient being could have told people how to make a polio vaccine long, long ago, instead of letting people suffer with that disease that the Christian god created (according to traditional Christianity, god made everything on earth). Apparently, the Christian god likes torturing people.
You have, and use, a completely twisted and distorted version of 'torturing people' here.
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 15th, 2020, 5:46 pm
You worship an evil being, not anything even remotely good. Or, rather, you would be worshipping an evil being, if your god actually existed.
I wonder how many people SEE the absolute illogical reasoning here? That is; the only way to prove that God does not exist is to prove that God, Itself, is actually an "evil" Being.

(By the way, whatever 'evil' actually means here now?)

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

Re: Proof there is no God

Post by evolution » October 16th, 2020, 10:36 am

Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 15th, 2020, 10:42 pm
Ecurb wrote:
October 15th, 2020, 8:12 pm


Wait a minute! Didn''t Lucifer rebel against God? Didn't he fall FROM heaven? Didn't some angels accompany him in his fall? How (given this) is "heaven supposed to be a place with no evil"?

One thing is certain, Jack and Sculptor think they could do a better job of running things than the Christian God, if only they were omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. But since they are not omni-anything, how do they know? Also, trying to even imagine Sculptor as "omnibenevolent" beggars the imagination.

Dr. Pangloss taught Candide that this is "the best of all possible worlds". Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But that depends on what we think is "best", and on what is "possible". I'm not sure Sculptor or Jack know, and I'm certain I don't.

I think you missed the point of Candide. It is ridiculing the idea that this is the best of all possible worlds. Since almost every person can think of ways to improve it, it is obviously idiotic to believe that this is the best of all possible worlds.
Not when you KNOW what IS actually occurring.
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 15th, 2020, 10:42 pm
But for the sake of the unimaginative, do you think that coming up with the polio vaccine improved the world? Humans are constantly working on making things to improve the world, which, if created by a god, leaves a lot to be desired. Otherwise, people would not need to work so hard for making improvements.

I have encountered those who criticize Voltaire for writing Candide as a refutation of Leibniz's idiotic idea that this is the best of all possible worlds, because it does not analyze his arguments. However, I think an analogy is useful in this. Imagine someone writing some verbose and complicated argument that has as the conclusion that it cannot be raining right now.
Okay.

This is a sound, valid argument.
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 15th, 2020, 10:42 pm
Instead of examining the argument, Voltaire points out the window and says, "look at the rain coming down right now."
Okay.
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 15th, 2020, 10:42 pm
When the conclusion of an argument can be demonstrated to be false, one need not look at the argument to discover where it went astray; one will know that it is unsound if one has proof that the conclusion is false.
The shortsightedness and narrowed field of view on this is outstanding and breathtaking.

If one has NOT YET looked at the argument, itself, and is just basing the conclusion on one's one field of view, and/or perspective of things, at that very one moment, then that one could NEVER KNOW where the actual argument, itself, went astray. Therefore, one will NEVER know that that ACTUAL argument is unsound, (or not), just because they have proof that "the conclusion is false" based on their OWN perspective of things, in only one very particular moment.

You appear to be getting more absurd the further we go in this thread.
Jack D Ripper wrote:
October 15th, 2020, 10:42 pm
As for heaven, what do you think the reward is supposed to be, in traditional Christianity? More excrement being dumped on the faithful? If heaven is just more of the same, it really sucks as a "reward".


Regarding your claim that whether this is the best of all possible worlds "depends on what we think is "best"," that seems to suggest that you believe that what is good or bad is subjective. In which case, the claim that God is good is problematic for the reasons stated above more than once, but here is a recent example:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16909&start=105#p369633

Also, it is worth pointing out the fact that one can know that one thing is better than another, without necessarily knowing what other thing would be ideal. The world as it is has a lot of problems, which pretty much everyone knows, until they are faced with this argument, and then some pretend to forget the fact that they know that there is a lot wrong with the world as it is. In other words, many religious people are completely dishonest in their approach to this issue, as they often go on and on about what is wrong with the world when they are not dealing with this question, but when they are faced with the proof that their religion is a steaming pile of excrement, they "forget" what they have been saying about the world being full of evil, and then start pretending that it is the best of all possible worlds. You know this is true, even though many of you will not admit it.

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

Re: Proof there is no God

Post by evolution » October 16th, 2020, 10:40 am

Felix wrote:
October 16th, 2020, 5:44 am
Jack D. Ripper: "And what sort of argument are you making when you allege it is not possible to make a better realm?"
You're missing the point. Certain physical conditions are required to form a material reality that will support the genesis and growth of life. We are aware of some of these conditions, which we call the laws of physics. Omnipotence does not mean being able to do the impossible, but rather being able to do whatever is possible. That is, even an omnipotent God would have to acquiesce to the laws of physical manifestation, e.g., physical light would require a material source of light.
"If a perfect harmonious realm is impossible, that makes hash of the Christian idea of heaven."
No, because Heaven is not considered to be a physical realm, surely you know that?
Who claims Heaven is not considered to be a physical realm, and since when has this came to factual?
Felix wrote:
October 16th, 2020, 5:44 am
"However, Sculptor1 is correct, that things could be better, if there were a god."
Maybe, maybe not. It's a big universe, possibly even infinite, I imagine there are both better and worse habitats than ours, and locales where the residents take better care of their neighbors and neighborhoods.
"Also, it is worth pointing out the fact that one can know that one thing is better than another, without necessarily knowing what other thing would be ideal."
You just torpedoed your own argument.

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

Re: Proof there is no God

Post by evolution » October 16th, 2020, 10:47 am

Terrapin Station wrote:
October 16th, 2020, 8:35 am
evolution wrote:
October 16th, 2020, 7:57 am


Are you STILL BELIEVING this outdated view?

If yes, then how WRONG you ARE, once again.

NOT 'EVERY' endorsement of consensus on such matter is 'argumentum ad populum'. And to think or believe it is, is VERY foolish, indeed.
If you're endorsing that P because there's a consensus (in a given milieu) that P, it's the argumentum ad populum fallacy.
I am NOT endorsing this. So, the rest is moot.
Terrapin Station wrote:
October 16th, 2020, 8:35 am
The only context where it's not an argumentum ad populum is when P is a proposition about what most people say/think/feel/etc.
If this what you BELIEVE is ONLY, then so be it.
Terrapin Station wrote:
October 16th, 2020, 8:35 am
What context were you thinking of where it wouldn't be fallacious?
When you learn to write properly AND correctly, then this will speed up the process of CLARITY, and UNDERSTANDING.

What is the word 'it' here in your sentence refer to, exactly?

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

Re: Proof there is no God

Post by evolution » October 16th, 2020, 10:52 am

Terrapin Station wrote:
October 16th, 2020, 9:04 am
Is this a mania day, evolution?
This is just a day where I get to finally catch up on some light reading, and writing.

But if you want to think or believe it is something else, then that is perfectly fine with me. Please feel free to think and imagine whatever you like.

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4388
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Proof there is no God

Post by Terrapin Station » October 16th, 2020, 10:58 am

evolution wrote:
October 16th, 2020, 10:47 am
What is the word 'it' here in your sentence refer to, exactly?
"It" was a pronoun standing for what's under discussion: argumentum ad populum.

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

Re: Proof there is no God

Post by Sculptor1 » October 16th, 2020, 10:59 am

evolution wrote:
October 16th, 2020, 7:24 am
Sculptor1 wrote:
October 13th, 2020, 6:47 am
Humans have not much developed beyond our primitive ancestors.
Anything that the did not understand; could not account for my material explanations they attributed to it a spirit. Wind, aeolus; the Sea, Posiedon; life energy, Psyche; earth Gaia ad nauseam.
Like modern debt consolidation agencies, the church has placed all the godlings into one convenient easy to dispute single god. But there is still a tendancy to impute to human action the forces of good and evil. Let me tell you, good and evil do not exist.
What is 'good', EXACTLY, which you BELIEVE does NOT exist? And,

What is 'evil', EXACTLY, which you also BELIEVE does NOT exist?
Sculptor1 wrote:
October 13th, 2020, 6:47 am
One man's evil is another's good, and one woman's good is another man's evil. That which pleases us, is good, and that which pleases us not, is evil. And that varies from person to person.
They are not forces of nature.
IF, as you say, "That which pleases us, is good", and, "that which pleases us not, is evil", then how does this align with your BELIEF and proposition that "good and evil do NOT exist"?
1) Why are you shouting?
2) I have no beliefs.
3) I know what I like and I know what I do not like. Some call that good and evil. I rarely use the dichotomy as it is infantile.

Post Reply