God Does Not Exist

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary God loves us too much to violate free will

That doesn't answer the question.

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Maybe God likes this reality, wants to see us pull through in the end, a sort of revival in His faith in us, if you follow.

Then he causes suffering to humanity for his own amusement? Hardly omnibenevolent.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary To change the system would be to violate free will. We choose infinite punishment, every sane person knows well enough right from wrong.

Please address my post! If you are, please quote my post. :]

[Kamehameha34]

That's inconceivable. As an omniscient being, He knows that the current system, which involves suffering, is the best way. Even for a benevolent God, suffering is not necessarily indicative of malevolence.

But if he is truly all powerful, he wouldn't have to obey the specifics of a system. He could make any and all objectives achievable with no suffering required. Omni = all, potent = powerful.

Another possible explanation is that perhaps suffering is an inevitability within the whole set of possible optimal systems. To not have suffering is an impossible anomaly for that set. Just as we can't really divide by zero within our given system of numbers, He can't provide a system without suffering within that optimal set. And just because He can't, doesn't mean He's not omniscient. I think if you argued against that, then you'd be sort of arguing the words and be committing a fallacy of equivocation.

An omnipotent god can do anything/all, including create a system, or change current ones.

Also, the definition of the Christian God might not be that He's omniscient. Maybe the definition is that He's the most powerful being. Anselm says that God is "that than which nothing greater can be conceived." There are a variety of definitions.

Weren't you just the one pontifficating on how fallacious it is to redefine gods to circumvent arguments that disprove them?

[Gods_Mercenary]

I'm done here.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Epistemologist That's inconceivable. As an omniscient being, He knows that the current system, which involves suffering, is the best way. Even for a benevolent God, suffering is not necessarily indicative of malevolence.

Suffering is unpleasant, correct? Therefore, a system in which suffering exists is not perfect. An omnipotent god is able to make a perfect system.

Quote by: Epistemologist Another possible explanation is that perhaps suffering is an inevitability within the whole set of possible optimal systems. To not have suffering is an impossible anomaly for that set.

God created all things, including the system in which suffering is inevitable. Hence, if he is omnipotent, he can simply change the system. Omnipotent does not mean most powerful; it means all powerful. Hence, anything is possible for God.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary I'm done here.

For tonight or are you running away? : /

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Castle So God is killing people to make sure that I don't believe in him and am condemned to Hell? Got it

I was giving one example of someone He's trying to target. He's actually targeting all those people.

Quote by: Castle 1) If God is omnibenevolent, he wants maximal good (definition) 2) Knowledge of God's existence contributes to good by allowing people to avoid Hell (premise) 3) Therefore, God wants to let people know he exists (from 1and 2) 4) God, being all-powerful, can do #3 (definition) 5) If a being both could and wanted to do something, it would (premise) 6) God has proved his existence to all (from 3,4, and 5) 7) God has not proved his existence to all (premise) 8) Contradiction; God does not exist (from 6 and 8) Look more rigorous now?

Thanks for this proof, but it's still messed up.

Well, it's still invalid in that the conclusion that God doesn't exist doesn't follow from the premises; the only conclusion I would see that could follow is that God is not omni-benevolent. By the way, you left out the premise that God is omni-benevolent. But still, if we consider the unsoundness of premises such as number five, which is specious, and number three, because perhaps having everyone in heaven is not maximal good in God's perspective. Perhaps there are some people who must go to hell for the maximal good, and He doesn't want them in heaven because maybe they'll cause problems, and that's not benevolent to the majority. Premise one is also flawed because omni-benevolence doesn't necessarily mean intentions of doing good but actually doing good instead.

Quote by: Castle Granted, we have to accept some things on faith. But God's existence need not be one of them, and we ought to keep that number as low as possible (Occam's Razor).

Occam's Razor may have worked in House, but it isn't the solution to everything.

Quote by: Castle And it's OK to condemn all those Middle Eastern people to Hell because of their culture?:eek:

In this sense, I suppose it is. But there's another possible way of looking at it, and that's religious pluralism. John Hick makes an analogy that the Divine Truth, which is basically all correct Knowledge e.g. concerning God's existence, the origins of the universe, etc., is like an elephant, and each of the religions is like a blind man. One blind man might feel the legs and say they're tree stumps, another might feel the nose and say it's a snake or hose, and another might feel the tail and say it's a rope. But basically, he's arguing that all religions are approximating the same thing but are only able to experience specific parts of that thing, which is the Divine Truth.

Quote by: Castle You miss the point. Why the level of evidence available? Why not more, so that it could be proven, or less, so that more faith could be exercised?

Just as only so many questions are put on your exams, only so much evidence is there for the test.

Quote by: Castle As an agnostic atheist (categorically, that is, not about the Christian God), I would like to point out that "agnostic" implies uncertainty, not faith.

No, you misunderstood me. In the conventional sense, yes, "agnostic" means uncertain, but in the philosophical i.e. epistemological sense, it basically means faith (n.b. see Bertrand Russell). The other terms, theist and atheist, only deal with the metaphysics of the existence or non-existence of God. Gnosticism and agnosticism, on the other hand, are at the epistemological level only.

Quote by: Castle Would it not serve the same purpose (and save billions eternal torment) to lie about Hell?

That wouldn't be a true, bona fide test then.

Quote by: Castle That's complete and utter idiocy. First of all, even if we to assume (and we shouldn't) that everyone knows right from wrong, not everyone knows about the eternal punishment thing. Second of all, not everyone agrees with God on what "wrong" is. Not everyone believes that not being Christian is wrong, or that blasphemy is wrong, or that ,say, coveting things is wrong (myself, I think ambition is a good thing)

I guess he was talking about "sane" in the context of all the people being within the same intersubjective frame of reference e.g. the same culture; then, they would share the same conception of God, the same moral construct, and basically share beliefs per se.

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary I like your explanation of why God doesn't change systems

Thanks.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer For tonight or are you running away? : /

Dammit, I knew i'd come back.

No, its just that we've established that this argument is useless an we're still doing it.

[Castle]

Quote by: Epistemologist I was giving one example of someone He's trying to target. He's actually targeting all those people.

Testing someone's faith is:
1) Probably not beneficial (leads them to doubt and such)
2) Not worth killing tons of people over

Quote by: Epistemologist Well, it's still invalid in that the conclusion that God doesn't exist doesn't follow from the premises; the only conclusion I would see that could follow is that God is not omni-benevolent.

Which is the same thing. The Christian God is defined as omnibenevolent; if it's not omnibenevolent, it's not God. This is kind of like saying "You haven't proven that the dog doesn't exist, you've only proven that the dog isn't alive". If it's not alive, it's not a dog. In the same way, if it's not omnibenevolent, it's not God.

Quote by: Epistemologist By the way, you left out the premise that God is omni-benevolent.

I was under the impression that that (as well as omnipotence and omniscience) was understood by definition.

Quote by: Epistemologist But still, if we consider the unsoundness of premises such as number five, which is specious

That desire and ability leads to action? How so?

Quote by: Epistemologist number three, because perhaps having everyone in heaven is not maximal good in God's perspective.

Isn't Heaven eternal good, and the alternative eternal bad? Aren't eternal (and infinite) good or badness the maximum possible values?

Quote by: Epistemologist Perhaps there are some people who must go to hell for the maximal good, and He doesn't want them in heaven because maybe they'll cause problems, and that's not benevolent to the majority.

Heaven: eternal bliss. As in: not problematic.

Quote by: Epistemologist Premise one is also flawed because omni-benevolence doesn't necessarily mean intentions of doing good but actually doing good instead.

It means infinite desire for good (which is then done as much as possible according to one's abilities)

Quote by: Epistemologist But basically, he's arguing that all religions are approximating the same thing but are only able to experience specific parts of that thing, which is the Divine Truth.

Would you agree that Christian doctrine states that all non-Christians go to Hell?

Quote by: Epistemologist Just as only so many questions are put on your exams, only so much evidence is there for the test.

But if faith is so good, why not less evidence, so we'd need more faith?

Quote by: Epistemologist No, you misunderstood me. In the conventional sense, yes, "agnostic" means uncertain, but in the philosophical i.e. epistemological sense, it basically means faith

It most definitely means "unknown". The gnosticism scale deals with certainty of belief, while the theism scale deals with what that belief actually is.

Quote by: Epistemologist That wouldn't be a true, bona fide test then.

Why not?

[Kamehameha34]

An omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient god could not exist. Period.

[Jack]

What is it with this fascination the christian god has with humans? The only thing he is said to be really concerned with is whether or not his people love and worship him.

So what if mankind destroys itself? What if humans cease to exist? Does god then cease to exist as well? Would he supposedly recreate humanity? Would he start demanding love and worship from the cockroaches and other surviving creatures?

His dependence on humans seems short-sighted and foolish.

[Kuldeep]

Very interesting point Isher, I liked that one a good bouncer from you. If humen seize to exist somehow, would God start demanding love from cockroaches!!!! To my mind no God and no demand of love. Only self and its consciousness with infinite levels of understandings exist in this universe only.

This in nut shell means God as separate entitiy can not be a fact. I repeat this universe itself is God by itself. Human mind has such a wonderful imagination power with which he can make anything and everything. He has very well has imagined many types of Gods and fixed certain religious faiths behind his imaginations. Various religions evolved that way.

Many seekers in eastern part of world have concluded that same human minds with some techniques "Patanjali Yoga" for example, could be raised to a consciousness so that the own self would feel ownself in the whole universe and the whole universe within the self. This is termed as true realization of the self, the absolute consciousness.

Concluding that no separate God of any type other than this infinite universe is possible.:( :)

[Gods_Mercenary]

When Humans cease to exist it's called the apocalypse, kinda provided for by the bible, not that I litteraly read revalation.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 An omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient god could not exist. Period.

Why didn't you just say that in the beginning, oh, wait, ya did.

That's why this debate is useless. No one's mind is changed and We theists always dance just out of your range because There are so many nuances to our beliefs that you can't attack them all at once. Plus, I think it's impossible for an atheist to anticipate our arguments because, he has no idea where we're coming from. Anyway, if you did pin us in a corner, we'd just slightly change our defenition of God to wiggle out of it. Manipulative? Yes, but I enjoy infuriating you guys.

This debate has only served to:
1)Further convince atheists that halfway intelligent theists (I like to think I'm one) are fantastically stubborn and ignorant bastards who pretend to believe in God to manipulate logical atheists to fulfill their sadistic fantasies.

2)Further convince Theists that Atheists are unimaginative rodents who are so tied up in their concept of logic they can't see the logic in God possibly existing.

I'm gonna try to not take part in these debates anymore, but I do like annoying you atheists.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary That's why this debate is useless. No one's mind is changed

So, what you're stating is that logical argumentation has no effect on you and that you're not interested in challenging your memetic notions of god. Excellent.

and We theists always dance just out of your range because There are so many nuances to our beliefs that you can't attack them all at once.

Ridiculous. You believe because you are memetically inclined to do so. The nuances of your religion do not cover up the lack of evidence for your claims.

Plus, I think it's impossible for an atheist to anticipate our arguments because, he has no idea where we're coming from.

Where you're coming from is irrelevant.

Anyway, if you did pin us in a corner, we'd just slightly change our defenition of God to wiggle out of it. Manipulative? Yes, but I enjoy infuriating you guys.

What an intellectually honest stance to take. It's good to know that when confronted with the fact your position is untenable, you'll just adjust your faulty assertions into different faulty assertions.

This debate has only served to: 1)Further convince atheists that halfway intelligent theists (I like to think I'm one) are fantastically stubborn and ignorant bastards who pretend to believe in God to manipulate logical atheists to fulfill their sadistic fantasies.

You really should click on the link I have in my sig about memes. They offer another alternative to your conclusions.

2)Further convince Theists that Atheists are unimaginative rodents who are so tied up in their concept of logic they can't see the logic in God possibly existing.

See above.

[Jack]

Plus, I think it's impossible for an atheist to anticipate our arguments because, he has no idea where we're coming from.

You fail to appreciate how many of us were once theists. We know all about "where you're coming from". On the other hand, theists who have never been atheists don't seem to have much of a clue about atheism.

halfway intelligent theists (I like to think I'm one) are fantastically stubborn and ignorant bastards who pretend to believe in God to manipulate logical atheists to fulfill their sadistic fantasies.

Like I said...

[Gods_Mercenary]

Theists when you were children? You believed in Santa when you were a kid too.

People have been explaining what atheism is to me forever. You just won't accept that you have just as little basis for your beliefs as I do.

[KillerArgument]

a) God would know about, be able to stop, and want to stop needless suffering

K: God knows about suffering, Jesus tortured on the cross certainly knows about pain and suffering. God allows suffering because it is the logical result of sin. Suffering is painful, but it is also often just. Hell is the painful glory of God on those who thought they could defy God Almighty. God's answer, in effect, is: NO. I AM GOD. YOU WILL SUFFER FOREVER FOR YOUR DEFIANCE AGAINST ME, FOR YOUR EVIL AND FOR YOUR SIN. YOU WERE WRONG, AND YOU WILL ALWAYS BE WRONG. SAYS WHO? SAYS ME--GOD ALMIGHTY.

a) Knowing that God exists is important to making an informed decision about Hell and accepting Jesus
b) God could provide proof of his existence
c) He has not done so
d) God does not exist

>K: Nonsense. The entire creation is proof of God's existence. There is no human who does not know that God exists. There is no human who is not accountable to God.


The Argument From 'Hell sucks'
a) Hell's only purpose is to increase unhappiness
b) God would not create something whose only purpose was to increase unhappiness
c) God does not exist

>K: Hell's purpose is the glory of God forced upon those who reject Him. Hell is the punishment for sin. God's justice involves giving unhappiness to those evil people who have sinned, and pain to those who think they can defy God and spit in His face with impunity.

God's grace is full forgiveness to those who believe in Jesus, our substitute sacrifice. Jesus is your only hope. Today is the day of salvation.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Now here's a guy you can debate the perfect un thinking, fundementalist, sermon espousing, Christian who will be demolished by your argument.

[KillerArgument]

Mercenary,

I have not presented an unthinking post.

But I think you have.

How about putting some thought into your next post before you hit the send button?