-
Steam recently changed the default privacy settings for all users. This may impact tracking. Ensure your profile has the correct settings by following the guide on our forums.
God Talk
- Thread starter Seth
- Start date
Moose
Meta Moose
Slasher
Suck It
Ahh, the Epicurean Paradox... 
The concept of misanthropy should be considered. I got this from wikipedia, but it does a great job of explaining it: The problem of evil is often phrased "Why do bad things happen to good people?" Some religions answer that good people simply do not exist. For example, some forms of Christianity teach that all people are inherently sinful and that only God is good. Therefore, humans, being imperfect, must live in an imperfect world, and in an imperfect world, bad things happen, caused both naturally (e.g. disasters) and by humans (e.g. crimes).
I think what should be realized with that quote is that both good and evil are human constructs. We use these concepts of good and evil to make a plethora of good and evil distinctions every day without even thinking of it. WE created evil. I don't believe it's God who creates or prevents evil, it's us... Mankind. Good and evil can likewise sometimes be considered as contrasts of each other. One is not permitted without the other.
Another thing I think that should be understood is the distinction between a defense and a theodicy in this context. A theodicy tries to justify God's permitting evil by explaining why God allows evil, whereas a defense tries to give a logically possible reason God could have for allowing evil. Re: Plantiga's well known 'Free Will Defense'. Plantinga's defense does not claim that God permits evil for the sake of free will but that it is logically possible that he allows evil for the purpose of free will.
Some also argue that God allows evil to exist only so that humans can have free will.
- Free will requires the potential to do anything one chooses.
- Thus, free will requires the potential to do evil.
- Thus, removing the potential to do evil would remove free will.
Having concluded that potential for evil is a prerequisite for free will, they argue that favoring the presence of free will over an absence of evil is consistent with the concept of a powerful, benevolent god.
Am I willing to prevent my children from falling and getting hurt, but not able? I am willing, and certainly able if I coddle them enough.
I am not impotent.
Am I able, but not willing?
I am able, but not willing because they need to stumble so they can learn on their own.
I am not malevolent.
I am able, and willing...but this will teach them nothing but to rely on me.
To prevent evil with mankind, would make god a dictator, and us his puppets with no free will of our own, which is his greatest gift to us.
If we were coddled, and evil stripped of this world, would we have purpose anymore?
I also think that this is pretty relevant to the discussion:
If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts - i.e., Materialism and Astronomy - are mere accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It's like expecting the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.
- C.S. Lewis
If God were small enough to be understood, He would not be big enough to be worshiped.
- Evelyn Underhill
Personally, I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't; than live my life as if there isn't and die to find out there is. Not out of blissful fear of being damned for the rest of eternity, but out of doing what I personally believe to be the right thing to do.
The concept of misanthropy should be considered. I got this from wikipedia, but it does a great job of explaining it: The problem of evil is often phrased "Why do bad things happen to good people?" Some religions answer that good people simply do not exist. For example, some forms of Christianity teach that all people are inherently sinful and that only God is good. Therefore, humans, being imperfect, must live in an imperfect world, and in an imperfect world, bad things happen, caused both naturally (e.g. disasters) and by humans (e.g. crimes).
I think what should be realized with that quote is that both good and evil are human constructs. We use these concepts of good and evil to make a plethora of good and evil distinctions every day without even thinking of it. WE created evil. I don't believe it's God who creates or prevents evil, it's us... Mankind. Good and evil can likewise sometimes be considered as contrasts of each other. One is not permitted without the other.
Another thing I think that should be understood is the distinction between a defense and a theodicy in this context. A theodicy tries to justify God's permitting evil by explaining why God allows evil, whereas a defense tries to give a logically possible reason God could have for allowing evil. Re: Plantiga's well known 'Free Will Defense'. Plantinga's defense does not claim that God permits evil for the sake of free will but that it is logically possible that he allows evil for the purpose of free will.
Some also argue that God allows evil to exist only so that humans can have free will.
- Free will requires the potential to do anything one chooses.
- Thus, free will requires the potential to do evil.
- Thus, removing the potential to do evil would remove free will.
Having concluded that potential for evil is a prerequisite for free will, they argue that favoring the presence of free will over an absence of evil is consistent with the concept of a powerful, benevolent god.
Am I willing to prevent my children from falling and getting hurt, but not able? I am willing, and certainly able if I coddle them enough.
I am not impotent.
Am I able, but not willing?
I am able, but not willing because they need to stumble so they can learn on their own.
I am not malevolent.
I am able, and willing...but this will teach them nothing but to rely on me.
To prevent evil with mankind, would make god a dictator, and us his puppets with no free will of our own, which is his greatest gift to us.
If we were coddled, and evil stripped of this world, would we have purpose anymore?
I also think that this is pretty relevant to the discussion:
If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts - i.e., Materialism and Astronomy - are mere accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It's like expecting the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.
- C.S. Lewis
If God were small enough to be understood, He would not be big enough to be worshiped.
- Evelyn Underhill
Personally, I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't; than live my life as if there isn't and die to find out there is. Not out of blissful fear of being damned for the rest of eternity, but out of doing what I personally believe to be the right thing to do.
These can explain away wars, murders and any other evil actions. But no good comes from fatal incurable diseases or natural disasters that have killed billions.
To live our great happy lives without fear, then spend eternity in heaven with our creater. Surely this is what you would want for your children, why doesn't god want this for us?
Pascal's Wager - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
But there is a huge problem with this idea, you can't decide to believe in something just for some gain. You either believe do or you don't.
Chathurga
Active Member
We have no purpose as it is, so we spend and infinitely small portion of our lives on Earth so that god can judge us and either grant us an eternity in heaven... or in hell?
Makes a whole lot of sense to me. Why doesn't god just cut out the middle man (Earth) anyway? Would make more sense, he already knows exactly how we'll live our lives.
All seems a bit trivial (and pointless) to me.
Slasher
Suck It
I'm sure you've heard the phrase "God works in mysterious ways", so perhaps there's an underlying purpose to incurable diseases and natural disasters. Much like I said another thing to consider is that everything good naturally contrasts something bad. Perhaps incurable diseases and whatnot are simply a way of balancing out what mankind has created? It's a really deep thing to think about, which I don't think can merely be labeled as 'God allowed these diseases/natural occurrances' to run rampant so he must be evil or a false entity.
I think earth is somewhat of a proving ground. That's why I think it exists. Be as kind & caring as you can possibly be, versus being a self-centered arrogant prick.
As far as Pascal's wager goes, I don't believe in god for the purposes that he outlined. Once again, much like I said, "Not out of blissful fear of being damned for the rest of eternity, but out of doing what I personally believe to be the right thing to do.". Pascal on the otherhand notions the belief in god simply because it's beneficial to believe in him, opposed to gaining nothing at all if you don't. I don't believe in him for these reasons. The acknowledgement of God for me is because I truly believe in some type of creator/force created earth with some sort of purpose(whether we know it or not), it would only make sense for me to believe than not to believe. It has nothing to do with a self-beneficial gain for me at least.
It certainly does seem quite trivial from that perspective. First, just to clarify things for both myself and others, is it generally accepted that God knows all ahead of time and has a pre-planned schedule for each and every one of us? If that is what is accepted, then I personally don't believe that. That is why there's free will; to chart your own course and make your own life decisions. This is the purpose of earth on my books, to make your own decisions that hopefully bring good to those around you. Which would then give earth quite a definitive purpose, wouldn't it?
Chathurga
Active Member
This is where the idea of the modern god just doesn't work in my book.
There are two things almost all Christians will accept as fact:
- God knows everything (omniscient)
- All humans have free will
We perceive our actions as our choice but god knew exactly what we were going to do, didn't we only really had the illusion of free will then?
Like if a fruit seller asks you do you want a banana or an orange. You aren't fond of oranges and they are aware of this, so you obviously pick the banana which was what the seller knew you'd do.
Sure you technically had a choice but the fruit vendor knew exactly what you were going to pick so was it really a choice at all?
Theres a very obvious answer to this and it has come up a few times before. But I'll see what Slasher says before posting anything
Slasher
Suck It
Theres a very obvious answer to this and it has come up a few times before. But I'll see what Slasher says before posting anything
Slasher said:
Chathurga just basically explained what I said.
~
But then again, what if time isn't merely as we experience it to be? God could still know virtually everything(since he apparently created it), but maybe the future as we know it isn't foreseeable?
Wait a moment! Thats exactly what i just said a few pages back and was flamed for!
Anyway, Slasher, your actually the only person up till now in this topic, that i agree with. Hats off to you mister.
Slasher
Suck It
Who are you to tell me what's wrong to believe? You're extremely ignorant, and I find that quite offending.
Watch what you say.
"You say it's not out of fear but it sounds like that's exactly what you're doing."
No, it's not; and I've explained my belief why.
gr34t3st
New Age Retro Hippie
Actually I'm not one to tell you what's right but you should still consider it.
I'm just telling you from what I've learned at Church and from the Bible, that IS the wrong reason to believe in a religion. In my viewpoint that almost makes the religion pointless.
Also. How am I ignorant?
Slasher
Suck It
/biggiganticfuckingfacepalm
I'll requote myself one last time for you, so please bother reading what I say.
This is pertaining to what I said
Slasher said:
And you came across as ignorant for telling me that I was believing in something for the wrong reason, when you quite clearly failed to even read my reason. You're extremely quick to assume and place perceptions into my viewpoint that I don't even agree with. You say I believe in it out of fear, even after I explain myself quite explicitly why I DON'T take the pascal viewpoint.
Hi, folks. I'm back.
BTW, the concept of free will is entirely a philosophical one. When you get down to the nitty gritty of science, everything is deterministic. We might think we're freely making choices, but at the end of the day it all comes down to our biology. It doesn't take anything away from the importance of making macroscopic choices, but we don't get some special exemption from the laws of the universe that govern everything else in entirely deterministic ways.
It is not a case of it coming down to faith. Science and religion are not non-overlapping magisteria as Gould would have us think.
In science, until something is demonstrated to actually exist, the default assumption is nonexistence.
To use the kind of explanations you gave - about God being paternalistic and wanting to use our suffering as a teaching tool - you're redefining the subject of the conversation. The only way to make any sense out of God is to continuously redefine him or bestow him with new attributes that conveniently work around the irrationality of his previous incarnations. Why should I accept any of those changes if they're made in response to a logical flaw, rather than assumed from the outset? What reason would you provide for accepting the new description of God as more valid than the previous one?
Cop-out. Basically it means that whatever happens, God wanted it to happen that way. You could equally validly say that whatever happens, the Keebler elves wanted it to happen that way. It's a meaningless statement - nothing more insightful than saying "whatever happens, happens."
By what means of reasoning have you come to this conclusion?
Actually, the complete inaction of a deity is good evidence that a deity isn't there. Nothing miraculous happens. Therefore, there is no reason to infer a maker of miracles.
Why not? Because he doesn't want to, or because he is unable? Then he is either not omnipotent, or not omnibenevolent.
That's nonsensical reasoning. You're according to God all the good deeds performed by humanity and conveniently leaving out all the evils we do. Why infer that our actions are caused by God at all? And if God is working through us, that's a direct interference with free will.
How do you know the hope comes from God?
Then why is it at all logical or rational to claim a deity is involved, if they can be explained quite parsimoniously without one?
Then what's the point of calling him God? If all God is is a subjective feeling and experience, why even assume there's an objective reality to it?
Quite frankly, no, they don't.
Give me your address and I will send you delicious cake.
BTW, the concept of free will is entirely a philosophical one. When you get down to the nitty gritty of science, everything is deterministic. We might think we're freely making choices, but at the end of the day it all comes down to our biology. It doesn't take anything away from the importance of making macroscopic choices, but we don't get some special exemption from the laws of the universe that govern everything else in entirely deterministic ways.
The only that would be true is if God never revealed himself to us as is claimed. That's a direct attempt to influence free will.
Why do those things require a god?
Then your idea of God makes him out to be a huge asshole. He'll arbitrarily make us suffer because of some plan that he alone has deemed proper? Why on earth would you worship something like that?
You are claiming the existence of a deity. This is a scientific claim. Either it exists or it doesn't, and if it exists, there will be objective evidence to support its existence.
It is not a case of it coming down to faith. Science and religion are not non-overlapping magisteria as Gould would have us think.
In science, until something is demonstrated to actually exist, the default assumption is nonexistence.
Which god?
To think that a deity that is supposedly omnibenevolent could only achieve its purposes by tormenting its creations is to postulate a deity not worthy of worship.
It's a much more rational assumption than to twist the logic around into an irrational explanation.
To use the kind of explanations you gave - about God being paternalistic and wanting to use our suffering as a teaching tool - you're redefining the subject of the conversation. The only way to make any sense out of God is to continuously redefine him or bestow him with new attributes that conveniently work around the irrationality of his previous incarnations. Why should I accept any of those changes if they're made in response to a logical flaw, rather than assumed from the outset? What reason would you provide for accepting the new description of God as more valid than the previous one?
Except, it does. You said you would rather "live [your] life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't; than live [your] life as if there isn't and die to find out there is." Could you describe what it means to "live [your] life as if there is a God"? Why would you bother to actively decide to live differently at all, unless you want to get something out of it?
I think you mean "arrogant."
gr34t3st
New Age Retro Hippie
I'm reading this book called The God Delusion.
It's pretty much about Atheism and how ridiculous any religion is. It's pretty funny in the way that it bashes theists pretty badly. Some of the theories and analogies are good too. I recommend it to everyone from people that are 100% atheists to theists that are having doubts. It's a great book.
It's pretty much about Atheism and how ridiculous any religion is. It's pretty funny in the way that it bashes theists pretty badly. Some of the theories and analogies are good too. I recommend it to everyone from people that are 100% atheists to theists that are having doubts. It's a great book.
ChurchedAtheist
Your resident psycho hobo
It is a good book, although I dislike his 'religion should be wiped out' poit of view. I see no reason to hate religion if it isnt causing problems(such as groups that support gay rights and science, including evolution)
in fact, if we could get rid of the "the world is 6000 y/o and gays are TEH EVILZ" religious people, and just have rational thinking religious people and rational thinking atheists/agnostics the world would be 1000000x better.
I'm currently reading it as well
1. We shouldn't be forced to accept all the negative things religion is used for just to get the comparably small benefits it provides.
2. I think the phrase "rational thinking religious people" is an oxymoron. Literally. On some level, religion requires a denial of rational thought.
Two things I disagree with here:
1. We shouldn't be forced to accept all the negative things religion is used for just to get the comparably small benefits it provides.
2. I think the phrase "rational thinking religious people" is an oxymoron. Literally. On some level, religion requires a denial of rational thought.