Proof there is no God

[Felix]

Jack D Ripper: "You seem to be assuming that having a material world in which things evolve is desirable. That is something for which evidence should be given before anyone believes this."

You need evidence that the universe we live in is more "desirable" than one in which in which life does not evolve beyond simple unicellular life forms?

"You seem to be assuming that the laws of physics could not have been made to be something else. That is something for which evidence should be given before anyone believes this."

There is no dispute about the fact that a precise balance of universal forces must manifest to give rise to stars, planets, and especially to life.

"But even if we grant, for the sake of argument, that the laws of physics must be as they are, the laws of physics do not prevent a god from telling humans how to make a polio vaccine or any other such thing that would have been beneficial if people had them earlier than they did."

Your super santa claus conception of god is too juvenile to even bother about, sorry that I have.

"I am suggesting that saying that "God is good" is supposed to be a description of God, and not a description of what people think or feel about God."

People don't normally describe something as good if they think and/or feel that it is not.

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....

Completely false, by the way, the appendix serves an important immune function and studies suggest that lacking one can depress your immune response.

"For years, the appendix was credited with very little physiological function. We now know, however, that the appendix serves an important role in the fetus and in young adults. Endocrine cells appear in the appendix of the human fetus at around the 11th week of development. These endocrine cells of the fetal appendix have been shown to produce various biogenic amines and peptide hormones, compounds that assist with various biological control (homeostatic) mechanisms. There had been little prior evidence of this or any other role of the appendix in animal research, because the appendix does not exist in domestic mammals.

"Among adult humans, the appendix is now thought to be involved primarily in immune functions. Lymphoid tissue begins to accumulate in the appendix shortly after birth and reaches a peak between the second and third decades of life, decreasing rapidly thereafter and practically disappearing after the age of 60. During the early years of development, however, the appendix has been shown to function as a lymphoid organ, assisting with the maturation of B lymphocytes (one variety of white blood cell) and in the production of the class of antibodies known as immunoglobulin A (IgA) antibodies. Researchers have also shown that the appendix is involved in the production of molecules that help to direct the movement of lymphocytes to various other locations in the body."

[evolution]

What is 'good', EXACTLY, which you BELIEVE does NOT exist? And,

What is 'evil', EXACTLY, which you also BELIEVE does NOT ex
ist?



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?

But I am NOT. I am just emphasizing, SOME words.

2) I have no beliefs.

Okay, so are you OPEN to the fact that God could exist?

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.

You ACTUALLY used the words; "Let me tell you, good and evil do not exist". So, what is 'it', which you call 'good', and, what is 'it', which you call 'evil'?

[evolution]

If the 'absence of evil' would NOT necessarily mean 'a perfectly harmonious world', then what does an 'absence of evil', to you, necessarily mean?



Will you provide some examples?

If yes, then will you discuss them from an OPEN perspective?

If yes, then GREAT.



LOL

The only pain 'you', human beings, feel is the one brought on by the, so called, "adult/grown up" ones.

And, saying, "there is so much death that seems to fall upon the good and evil indiscriminately", is just plain and obviously ABSURD.

Death falls on EVERY one, EQUALLY.

Have you ever thought of taking a breath and reading what people write before you answer a post?

Have you ever considered that I may have read intensely, and have actually then replied very thoughtfully, for a very specific reason, and to achieve a very particular outcome?

[Sculptor1]

Have you ever thought of taking a breath and reading what people write before you answer a post?

Have you ever considered that I may have read intensely, and have actually then replied very thoughtfully, for a very specific reason, and to achieve a very particular outcome?

Yes, and concluded with a horrific view into the working of a fetid mind.

[Sculptor1]

1) Why are you shouting?

But I am NOT. I am just emphasizing, SOME words.

2) I have no beliefs.

Okay, so are you OPEN to the fact that God could exist?

What do you mean "God"?

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.

You ACTUALLY used the words; "Let me tell you, good and evil do not exist". So, what is 'it', which you call 'good', and, what is 'it', which you call 'evil'?

I already told you.

[evolution]

Well, or even better--has he ever thought about trying to not come across like an insufferable a-hole?

We could look at and talk about a 'person', or, we could just stay on the topic of thread.

The former is usually discouraged in "philosophy".

[evolution]

Why were you shocked?

I find the blatant contraction truly humorous.

I was shocked because I was young (a child) and naive. Some of those people were members of the church I attended.

Now, of course, I am not surprised when I encounter Christians who are total hypocrites and who affirm contradictory nonsense. It is almost shocking if one encounters a Christian who is not obviously hypocritical and who does not openly affirm contradictory nonsense.

Have you ever considered that the, so called, "contradictory nonsense" is just due to the way that you and/or them mis/interpret and/or express those views?

[evolution]

...


Through your "argument" you go from majority of people agreeing on the basic principles of morals, and from that general perspective of things there is near universal agreement about, so called, "bad" things happen, "in the world", like, for example; it is bad when children die, agonizingly, from bone cancer, and from there you move to "societies would not be possible" and "standards of conduct".

Conflating 'bad' with children dying in "agonizing deaths" from bone cancer and with morals and standards of conduct is just absurdness in the extreme.

...

If there were an omniscient and omnipotent being, it could prevent all of those things.

Obviously.

Since it obviously does not prevent them, its inaction demonstrates that it is evil (or would, if such a being existed).

LOL The quickness in which you can JUMP TO THIS CONCLUSION (which, by the way, just happens to coincide with the current BELIEFS that you ALREADY HAVE) is extremely funny to observe, and SEE.

When, and IF, you ever learn and understand exactly what thee omniscient and omnipotent Being actually IS, and how It actually works, then you will, also, instantly SEE and UNDERSTAND the absurdness and ridiculousness of what you are 'trying to' argue for, and are concluding here.

When there is a house of fire on the other side of town, I do not call the fire department because I am unaware of it being on fire. An omniscient being must necessarily be aware of it, and consequently it would be in a position to do something. Yet this being, which is also supposed to be omnipotent, which would make it capable of putting out the fire, doesn't even bother to call the fire department. So we may judge this being to be evil, if it existed.

I am AWARE of what you are 'trying to' argue for and about. And, you can keep 'trying' the same ways to say the same thing, which reaffirms your ALREADY HELD BELIEFS as much as you like and with as many different scenarios and analogies as you like, but what thee Truth actually IS just, literally, speaks for Itself.

Also, you appear to have COMPLETELY MISSED my point, or you are just 'trying to' detract from it as best you could. I was pointing out that you went from talking "basic principles of morals" in relation to "bad" and that a, so called, "bad" thing is a child dying, agonizingly, from bone cancer but then 'try to' end up concluding that "standards of conduct", in relation to "bad", as though that would have any thing at all to do with a child dying from bone cancer (with the emotive language of 'agonizing') .

[evolution]

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?

...

So you do not think that parents, who create their children, have any duty to care for them?

You wrote a statement, but put a question mark at the end of it. So, are you writing a statement, (based on an ASSUMPTION), or are you asking me a question, for clarification?

Also, I suggest for later on in our discussions do NOT forget what you wrote here.

That parents have the right to do whatever they want with their children?

Once again, you write a statement, with a question mark added onto the end of it.

So they may set them on fire or eat them or sexually assault them or anything else that they might wish to do with them?

ANOTHER prime example of YOU writing a statement, with a question mark placed at the end of it.

Do you really believe that, or is it that you don't believe your own proposed principle, that a being may do whatever it wants to its creation?

LOL

Once again, ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of a human being ASSUMING one thing, BELIEVING it is true, right, and correct, and then basing further thoughts and discussion on their OWN ASSUMPTIONS and the BELIEF that they are true, right, and correct.

You are SO FAR OFF TRACK, due to the fact that you have followed your OWN ASSUMPTIONS, BELIEVING they are correct, that you have FORGOTTEN to just answer the ACTUAL CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, which I posed, to you.

By the way, your ASSUMPTIONS here are SO WRONG, which means the REST of what you wrote is completely and utterly MOOT.

[evolution]

Is this a mania day, evolution?

It is an arguing tactic to overwhelm one's opponent with a huge pile of crap to try to make it so that the other person will either waste an incredible amount of time, or be left open to the accusation that the person did not deal with some "essential" point.

ONCE AGAIN, YOUR ASSUMPTIONS are TOTALLY WRONG.

It is as simple as that I had, finally, just found some free time to catch up with this thread.

But, you have, once again, appeared to NEVER consider ANY thing else besides what you ASSUME, and have JUMPED TO CONCLUDE, as being true and right.

NOT EVERY thing the, so called, "other" says to you, which counters the points you are 'trying to' make, are a, so called, "tactic". Some are ACTUAL counters to what you claim is true.

And since many of the questions and comments appear to show no understanding of what has been said, or even what the thread is about, we can expect more of the same to any replies that may attempt to address any of the statements made.

LOL Talk about reflecting one's own position or behavior.

This type of argument style is called "Gish Gallop", which you can read about online in multiple places, such as:

https://effectiviology.com/gish-gallop/

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

This type of writing style is just 'detraction.

It can be combined with argumentum ad nauseum [which differs from Gish Gallop in that it is repeating the same thing(s)]:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_nauseam

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/log ... Repetition


It is a strategy anyone can use who has sufficient time to write more things. One can pretend that the one thereby "wins" the argument.

Considering you have NOT said absolutely ANY thing, which actually addresses the points that I make here, then the readers can and will decide if there is a, so called, "winner" or not here.

What can be CLEARLY SEEN throughout this discussion is 'I' am looked at and discussed more than the words 'I' write are.

[evolution]

Have you ever considered that I may have read intensely, and have actually then replied very thoughtfully, for a very specific reason, and to achieve a very particular outcome?

Yes, and concluded with a horrific view into the working of a fetid mind.

Okay, all is good then.

I now wonder WHY such a, self-professed, enlightened one would converse with one such as 'me'?

[evolution]

But I am NOT. I am just emphasizing, SOME words.



Okay, so are you OPEN to the fact that God could exist?

What do you mean "God"?

Thee actual Truth of what God actually IS.

I already told you.

What you told me was, obviously, NOT very specific at all, and could, actually, refer to absolutely ANY thing at all. If you do NOT want to explain specifically NOR in detail what you actually mean, then that is fine. I ALREADY KNOW, and UNDERSTAND WHY, 'you' are still so confused about things here.

[Terrapin Station]

We could look at and talk about a 'person', or, we could just stay on the topic of thread.

The former is usually discouraged in "philosophy".

You never talk about philosophy. You just say that people don't understand what you meant, do know the truth like you do (even though you never actually attempt to relay it), and proclaim that you have no beliefs.

[Terrapin Station]

I am suggesting that saying that "God is good" is supposed to be a description of God, and not a description of what people think or feel about God.

Aside from other issues here, you're just making up that it's "supposed to be" something other than a description of mental states.

When people say, "God is good," they typically do not mean for that to be dependent upon people, they do not typically mean for it to be a description of people (of their opinions) rather than description of God.

You have zero research on what people "typically mean" when they say this. Otherwise produce the research.

Note that I'm not claiming anything about what people "typically mean," by the way.

[Sculptor1]

Yes, and concluded with a horrific view into the working of a fetid mind.

Okay, all is good then.

I now wonder WHY such a, self-professed, enlightened one would converse with one such as 'me'?

I am an educator.

For emphasis use italics. Bold, in online discussions, is taken as shouting.