06-20-2002, 07:41 AM | #361 |
Hobbit
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 41
|
Atheological objections to the belief that there is such a person as God come in many varieties. There are, for example, the familiar objections that theism is somehow incoherent, that it is inconsistent with the existence of evil, that it is a hypothesis ill-confirmed or maybe even disconfirmed by the evidence, that modern science has somehow cast doubt upon it, and the like. Another sort of objector claims, not that theism is incoherent or false or probably false, but that it is in some way unreasonable or irrational to believe in God, even if that belief should happen to be true. Here we have, as a centerpiece, the evidentialist objection to theistic belief. The claim is that none of the theistic arguments-deductive, inductive, or abductive-is successful; hence there is at best insufficient evidence for the existence of God. But then the belief that there is such a person as God is in some way intellectually improper-somehow foolish or irrational. A person who believed without evidence that there are an even number of ducks would be believing foolishly or irrationally; the same goes for the person who believes in God without evidence. On this view, one who accepts belief in God but has no evidence for that belief is not, intellectually speaking, up to snuff. Among those who have offered this objection are Antony Flew, Brand Blanshard, and Michael Scriven. Perhaps more important is the enormous oral tradition: one finds this objection to theism bruited about on nearly any major university campus in the land. The objection in question has also been endorsed by Bertrand Russell, who was once asked what he would say if, after dying, he were brought into the presence of God and asked why he had not been a believer. Russell's reply: "I'd say, 'Not enough evidence, God! Not enough evidence!'" I'm not sure just how that reply would be received; but my point is only that Russell, like many others, has endorsed this evidentialist objection to theistic belief.
__________________
Oh you look like the little T.V leprocan i will be looking forward to getting your lucky charms. "Ahh my brain" |
06-20-2002, 12:15 PM | #362 |
The Original Corruptor
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,881
|
"What evidence would be sufficient for you to believe in God?"
I get that question often. About once a month. Now, what is the object of the belief? The JC god. What do we know about the JC god? Omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent. Omniscient: God knows exactly what evidence is sufficient. Omnipotent: If God wants to, he can meet these requirements. Benevolent: God loves us all, and wants us to be happy. Giving an illogical requirement is pointless. We could say that "a square circle hovering in mid-air" is sufficient evidence. But can this happen? No. We could say that God must create "a rock so big that he cannot lift it", and that would be sufficient evidence. But it is illogical, and cannot happen. Therefore, if we want to be fair, and allow for the possibility of the requirement being met, it should be something that can happen (however minute the chances of it happening are), which means it must be logical. So, God, as an omnipotent being, is powerful enough to meet any logical requirements for belief. Now we look to benevolence. A completely benevolent being wishes only "good" on others. Here is where my thought lies. In Christian theology, after a person dies, they will end up either in Heaven, or in Hell. Now, Hell has been described as many things: eternal hellfire, or eternal separation from God, or eternal torture, etc. How it is possible for a completely benevolent being to want anybody to receive such a fate is beyond me. To say that God does not want that (ie people going to Hell) would mean that nobody will go to Hell, because anything that is desired by God, is achieved (unless there is a greater desire - more on this later...). God desires, as a completely benevolent being, only "good". To intentionally "send" one to Hell, is probably the most non-benevolent act that I can think of (assuming that Hell is what certain Christians say it [eternal torture]). If one understands Hell as a place that is separated with God, it would still be a non-benevolent act (although somebody needs to explain to me exactly what it would be like to be separated from God, because I cannot imagine a scenario different to the one we currently find ourselves in...). However, as God is omnipresent, it is impossible to seperate himself from anywhere. If one says that he can create a place that he does not in any way inhabit, he would then not be omnipresent, and ofcourse this goes against his other characteristic - immutability. But whatever concept of Hell is put forward, we can be sure that it is not a "good" place. Therefore, the intention to have one exist in such a place is a non-benevolent intention, which a completely benevolent being cannot possess. Now we come to free will. It is argued that "God gave us free will" so that we may choose our fate. Now, if this is the case, it would mean that God takes a back seat, and allows the result of our use of free will to determine our future location. It would seem then, that God's benevolent desires are overridden by His desire to maintain the law with regards to the admission requirements (which he put forward in the first place). But maintaining, and applying the law is a desire of neutrality. Neither benevolent nor malevolent. This desire seems to be the greatest desire of God. But if so, God's character is not one of complete benevolence, but one of neutrality, in which he takes no position (ie lenient/vindictive) - he merely judges according to the rules as set (by himself). So, it would now seem that there is either a conflict in the attributes of God, or his attribute of neutrality, being "greater" or "overriding" benevolence, takes precedence. If we are to say that God is just (neutral), then we must once again look at what we know about this deity: Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Just. When examining the essence of this "justness", we must be aware that his actions are only classified as just, because God is defined as being just, and whatever God does is just. In other words, if God decides to shoot a lightning bolt at Jar Jar, it is a just action. Jar Jar deserved to be hit by lightning, multiple times. However the act looks to observers, it must be perceived as just, because whatever God does is just. As you can all see, my little afternoon ramble is falling apart rapidly, partly because I can't remember what it is that I was trying to get across. Perhaps I'll remember it later. Anyway, from what I have said, there are some useful conclusions, namely, God is not benevolent, because he is just, and benevolence requires non-neutrality. Or, if one still wishes to maintain that God is both benevolent and just at the same time (as equal magnitude characteristics), we have incoherency, it is the duty of that person to show how both attributes can be present simultaneously. But just remember: If God is completely benevolent, he would not want anyone to experience a place such as Hell. It is that simple. And if benevolence takes precedence (over justness), then God would not have created any such place as hell in the first place, since the creation of said place is non-benevolent. Umm, anyway, I'll run along now, and gather my thoughts. I cannot concentrate at all. PS. Please, anyway, bring all inconsistencies, contradictions, fallacies, and nonsense in the above post to my attention. It will only help me. |
06-20-2002, 12:41 PM | #363 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Darkness
Posts: 1,211
|
BAh. Azathoth owns j00!
And that's my helpful contribution to this thread.
__________________
I have harnessed the shadows that stride from world to world to sow death and madness... Queer haow a cravin' gits a holt on ye -- As ye love the Almighty, young man, don't tell nobody, but I swar ter Gawd thet picter begun ta make me hungry fer victuals I couldn't raise nor buy -- here, set still, what's ailin' ye? ... |
06-20-2002, 04:59 PM | #364 |
Elven Warrior
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: La La Land
Posts: 309
|
Okay, yes, God is benevolent. But He is also just. Here's my explanation.
God put people on this earth in a paradise: Eden. He gave them one rule: DOn't eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The penalty is eternal separation from God. The people ate: they screwed it up for themselves and everybody else. Now we must have a sacrifice in order to redeem ourselves. But God saw no need to cause all this death and suffering every year, so he sent an ultimate sacrifice: His Son. When Christ was sacrificed, all we had to do was accept the fact that we are hopelessly lost in our sin and cannot do anything to return to communion with God. Then, we realize that Christ allows us to do so. Now, Hell is meant as separation not only from God, but from everything else as well. And yes, God is in Hell. He's the head honcho. Satan does not rule hell: he's just another prisoner. As for the creation of hell, God made it as a punishment for the Angels (Lucifer and his one third) that defied him. It was never meant for people. But, when people disobeyed Him, God had to punish them. NOw this punishment may seem a bit harsh, but wouldn't you be harsh on a subordinate who broke the one and only rule you gave them? As for the rest of what you said, well, GOd can be benevolent and just at the same time, because He's GOd. One mistake i see is that you're applying the human necessity to distinguish to an omnipotent God. For example.it is humanly impossible to understand exactly how Jesus Christ was 100% man and 100% God at the same time. BUt he was. Now, when you've gathered your thoughts, you can ask me any questions you have.
__________________
It is the failed skydiver who leaves an impression upon the earth. "But what about the R.O.U.Ses?" Yours Truly, The Tisroc -You forgot to say "May he live forever" -That's because I don't want him to live forever! - The Horse and his Boy--C.S. Lewis |
06-20-2002, 05:03 PM | #365 |
the Shrike
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA <3
Posts: 10,647
|
NOT this thread again... Okay, get ready for some serious ass whomping. I bite.
What I really want to know, is where is the archaeological evidence for this tree? PS Nariel - What makes you so arrogant to assume that YOU'VE gathered your thoughts and we haven't?
__________________
"Binary solo! 0000001! 00000011! 0000001! 00000011!" ~ The Humans are Dead, Flight of the Conchords |
06-20-2002, 08:17 PM | #366 | ||
The Fleet-Footed
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 913
|
Quote:
And someone else posted something about how do we know how old or young the earth really is, and what I believe is that from the time God created the earth to the time it was said that Adam & Eve (the created humans) sinned and ate the forbidden fruit, that time period could have been anywhere between one and one hundred trillion years - or more! I am a Christian and believe all that the Bible says and yet I have no problem with the scientest who think the earth is billions of years old! Humanity and civilization may have only been recorded back about 7000 years, but before that, who know how long people had lived on earth - or how long earth was extant? Quote:
And if God is perfect and cannot be able to be near sin, how can he "rule" over all of the sinners, and Satan who is the ultimate representation and manifestation of sin? If God is ruler over Hell, then how can he enjoy eternity in Heaven with his believers and faithful servants? Wouldn't God want to not have to worry about evil after the final judgement?
__________________
Jesus saved me "To remain ignorant of things that happened before you were born is to remain a child" (Cicero, 106-43 B.C.) "Art is a lie which makes us realize the truth" (Picasso) |
||
06-20-2002, 09:40 PM | #367 | |
the Shrike
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA <3
Posts: 10,647
|
Quote:
I, or any other poor b*stard, will give further evidence if required, for an older "humanity". At the moment, I can't be arsed, I've already given tonnes of evidence on the anti-theist thread.
__________________
"Binary solo! 0000001! 00000011! 0000001! 00000011!" ~ The Humans are Dead, Flight of the Conchords |
|
06-20-2002, 11:44 PM | #368 |
Elf Lord of the Grey Havens
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 2,381
|
Why o why is this thread still open? Flogging the poor dead thing when it's evil twin, the anti-theist thread was laid to rest is just not right. What more could possibly be said that hasn't already? You could spend days just reading the two threads.
__________________
There exists a limit to the force even ther most powerful may apply without destroying themselves. Judging this limit is the true artistry of government. Misuse of power is the fatal sin. The law cannot be a tool of vengance, never a hostage, nor a fortification against the martyrs it has created. You cannot threaten any individual and escape the consequences. -Muad'dib on Law The Stilgar Commentary |
06-21-2002, 12:56 AM | #369 |
the Shrike
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA <3
Posts: 10,647
|
Some people like overly flogging the beast, I guess. I'll do the yard work if I have to, but I'm hoping for some fresh ideas/imput, and I'll only do it in those conditions. Otherwise as far as I'm concerned, this thread can die a horrid death like it's evil twin.
*mutters something about sex and drugs and rock and roll...*
__________________
"Binary solo! 0000001! 00000011! 0000001! 00000011!" ~ The Humans are Dead, Flight of the Conchords |
06-21-2002, 03:23 AM | #370 | |||||||||||
The Original Corruptor
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,881
|
Quote:
Quote:
Now, you are saying that benevolence and justness can operate at the same time: Quote:
However, if the judge is lenient (benevolent), he will judge that the criminal owes X-Y. Because he is lenient, the fine will always be less than is deserved. So, what you are telling me is that the judge will fine the crimal X and X-Y at the same time. I hope you can see the problem. By putting the authority of the law above his benevolence, God, as the judge, therefore fines the criminal X. Additionally God cannot be benevolent, because there will always be justness that God must adhere to. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
1) Sacrificing your son is not benevolent. 2) Jesus was God incarnate. What exactly was it that God sacrificed? Is it something that God can never get back? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Or, he is not omnipresent, in that he is not in Hell. But he is still near the sin on Earth... Also, sin occured in Heaven. Last edited by Andúril : 06-21-2002 at 03:26 AM. |
|||||||||||
06-21-2002, 03:30 AM | #371 |
Hoplite Nomad
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 3,931
|
well we can just spam and go off topic are claim discrimination because this thread was open and the anti-theist thread was closed.
__________________
About Eowyn, Does anyone know what her alias Dernhelm means? She was kown as dernhelm because of her exclaimation when she realized that the rider's headgear was heavy and obscured her sight. 'Dern Helm" Culled from Entmoot From Kirinski 57 and Wayfarer. |
06-21-2002, 04:17 AM | #372 | |
The Original Corruptor
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,881
|
Quote:
For instance, the average human (sucking this out of my thumb) lives to be about 70. If you are sent to Hell, you are there for eternity. Not 1000 years, not even 100000000000000 years. If you could take a 1, and put as many 0's as you think atoms make up the earth, that would not be anywhere NEAR to eternity. In fact, even if you take this number to the power of itself 999 gazillion times, this number, even if it represented eons, would not be a fraction of itself of eternity. Eternity in Hell is harsh. Just a bit. Or, you could say that there is no time in Hell. Kind of like a static place. I wonder how one's senses can operate in a static environment... Last edited by Andúril : 06-21-2002 at 04:19 AM. |
|
06-21-2002, 06:08 AM | #373 |
the Shrike
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA <3
Posts: 10,647
|
Did somebody say SPAM?! Or we could join hands and sing the sperm song... Oh the sacriledge!
__________________
"Binary solo! 0000001! 00000011! 0000001! 00000011!" ~ The Humans are Dead, Flight of the Conchords |
06-21-2002, 10:02 AM | #374 |
Elf Lord of the Grey Havens
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 2,381
|
There are Jews in the world.
There are Buddhists. There are Hindus and Mormons, and then There are those that follow Mohammed, but I've never been one of them. I'm a Roman Catholic, And have been since before I was born, And the one thing they say about Catholics is: They'll take you as soon as you're warm. You don't have to be a six-footer. You don't have to have a great brain. You don't have to have any clothes on. You're A Catholic the moment Dad came, Because Every spam is sacred. Every spam is great. If a spam is wasted, God gets quite irate. CHILDREN: Every spam is sacred. Every spam is great. If a spam is wasted, God gets quite irate. GIRL: Let the heathen spill theirs On the dusty ground. God shall make them pay for Each spam that can't be found. CHILDREN: Every spam is wanted. Every spam is good. Every spam is needed In your neighbourhood. MUM: Hindu, Taoist, Mormon, Spill theirs just anywhere, But God loves those who treat their Semen with more care. MEN: Every spam is sacred. Every spam is great. WOMEN: If a spam is wasted,... CHILDREN: ...God get quite irate. PRIEST: Every spam is sacred. BRIDE and GROOM: Every spam is good. NANNIES: Every spam is needed... CARDINALS: ...In your neighbourhood! CHILDREN: Every spam is useful. Every spam is fine. FUNERAL CORTEGE: God needs everybody's. MOURNER #1: Mine! MOURNER #2: And mine! CORPSE: And mine! NUN: Let the Pagan spill theirs O'er mountain, hill, and plain. HOLY STATUES: God shall strike them down for Each spam that's spilt in vain. EVERYONE: Every spam is sacred. Every spam is good. Every spam is needed In your neighbourhood. Every spam is sacred. Every spam is great. If a spam is wasted, God gets quite iraaaaaate!
__________________
There exists a limit to the force even ther most powerful may apply without destroying themselves. Judging this limit is the true artistry of government. Misuse of power is the fatal sin. The law cannot be a tool of vengance, never a hostage, nor a fortification against the martyrs it has created. You cannot threaten any individual and escape the consequences. -Muad'dib on Law The Stilgar Commentary |
06-21-2002, 10:10 AM | #375 |
the Shrike
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA <3
Posts: 10,647
|
Sacriledge! You spam-idised it!
__________________
"Binary solo! 0000001! 00000011! 0000001! 00000011!" ~ The Humans are Dead, Flight of the Conchords |
06-21-2002, 10:32 AM | #376 | |
Elf Lord of the Grey Havens
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 2,381
|
Quote:
Oh, by the way, I am god. Question me and you will burn for enternity. I have spoken.
__________________
There exists a limit to the force even ther most powerful may apply without destroying themselves. Judging this limit is the true artistry of government. Misuse of power is the fatal sin. The law cannot be a tool of vengance, never a hostage, nor a fortification against the martyrs it has created. You cannot threaten any individual and escape the consequences. -Muad'dib on Law The Stilgar Commentary |
|
06-21-2002, 10:40 AM | #377 |
the Shrike
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA <3
Posts: 10,647
|
Waitaminute. I thought I was God. Can it be a pantheon of gods, or are you going to be possesive and illogical about this?
__________________
"Binary solo! 0000001! 00000011! 0000001! 00000011!" ~ The Humans are Dead, Flight of the Conchords |
06-21-2002, 10:51 AM | #378 | |
Elf Lord of the Grey Havens
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 2,381
|
Quote:
*thinks... a goddess would be nice* OK, but your it. Everyone else... ON YOUR KNEES!
__________________
There exists a limit to the force even ther most powerful may apply without destroying themselves. Judging this limit is the true artistry of government. Misuse of power is the fatal sin. The law cannot be a tool of vengance, never a hostage, nor a fortification against the martyrs it has created. You cannot threaten any individual and escape the consequences. -Muad'dib on Law The Stilgar Commentary |
|
06-21-2002, 11:04 AM | #379 |
the Shrike
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA <3
Posts: 10,647
|
You heard the man! On your knees! Worship me in my heavenly manifestation.
__________________
"Binary solo! 0000001! 00000011! 0000001! 00000011!" ~ The Humans are Dead, Flight of the Conchords |
06-21-2002, 11:18 AM | #380 |
Elf Lord of the Grey Havens
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 2,381
|
Behold!
I annointest thy head with petroleum! I enlighten thee with the radience of my cathode ray tube! I fill the lands with great cathedrals of fabulous merchandise! I uploadeth thy soul into the holy data haven!
__________________
There exists a limit to the force even ther most powerful may apply without destroying themselves. Judging this limit is the true artistry of government. Misuse of power is the fatal sin. The law cannot be a tool of vengance, never a hostage, nor a fortification against the martyrs it has created. You cannot threaten any individual and escape the consequences. -Muad'dib on Law The Stilgar Commentary |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
REAL debate thread for RELIGION | Ruinel | General Messages | 1439 | 04-01-2005 02:47 PM |