How Can Anyone Believe in God?

[Gamer4Fire]

I think someone just got smacked with the dictionary.

I also don't see the connection between scientific method = deity.

 

[snex]

the whole "naturalism -> supernaturalism" thing is just another argument from ignorance, which theists love ever so.

it goes like this: "the odds (that i cant show you the calculations for) of naturalism being correct on its own are so small that only a magical explanation will suffice."

we never get to hear the odds of that magical explanation being correct, naturally.

lets assume that the odds of naturalism are indeed small. lets say that there are x fundamental constants that must be within y variance for the universe as we know it to exist, and lets also assume that the universe as we know it is the only one that can support intelligent life. if x is larger than 4 and y is very close to 0, then the odds of naturalism will be very very small.

so lets posit a magical explanation. well now what have we got? all weve done is add 1 to x! now the odds of "naturalism + magic" are EVEN SMALLER than naturalism alone. magic doesnt solve the problem.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

The odds of winning the lottery are one in a few billion, a statistical impossibility. Yet there are dozens of people who have won the lottery. Going from natural to supernatural turns it from a statistical impossibility to a practical impossibility.

 

[adumbrodeus]

More of the same.

You can't justify anything you are saying with anything. You want me to prove the universe exists. The universe is defined as everything that exists. If even one atom of anything exists, then so does the universe. Do you exist? If you do then so does the universe. The evidence for the existence of the universe is the existence of anything. Go ahead, deny existence. Claim there is no evidence for existence. See how far that gets you with anything. The universe must exist for us to be sitting here having this stupid debate. If you are describing the universe as some sort of place that we are in, then I would offer as evidence that you simply look up. Yeah, there it is.

It should be telling that I can not find one article, not one link in several google searches questioning whether or not the universe exists. I did find one debate on a philosophy board concerning the topic and it was mostly full of the same useless armchair "logic" you have been spouting here.

I feel like I am arguing with a 6 year old. I give some piece of information and get an endless chain of "Why?" questions to every answer I give. That is all this amounts to.

And I am not missing your point. I am rejecting it outright as foolishly improbable. There is not a 50/50 chance that any deity exists as perfectly described by the completely naturalistic evolution of some religion. Even if god did exist, the odds of a tribe of people forming a religion over time starting with sun worship and ending with a complex, convoluted, contradictory, and often wrong, AND true religion is completely ludicrous. Yes I get that a deity existing or not has no bearing on the origins of a religion, but that isn't my point. My point was that the origins of a religion by naturalistic means, statistically could not match with the actual history of any deity that may or may not exist, meaning that any god that might be out there IS NOT a god that any religion describes. Since that is the case, the CHRISTIAN GOD DOES NOT EXIST if one is using the naturalistic origins of christianity as their premise, as I was doing.


I really don't want to bother responding to the rest of your arguments. The complete waste of time this has been so far is wearing me out.

And again, I would ask you to offer any evidence to support one side or the other in this debate. Not because I want to know what side you are on, but only to see if, using your own set of rules, it is even possible to offer evidence that would satisfy you. It seems you have a built in response to anything that disagrees with your view. But being that that response can be turned on anything and everything, it is just easier for you to not formally take a side.

In other words, you can't prove anything so you are resorting to personal attacks and ridicule... how very mature.




Look I was not suggesting that you ignor the existance of the universe, merely point out that there is no evidence to substantiate it, therefore it is something we take on faith. It's existance has by no means satisfied the "observation" requirement to be the null hythopethis, and certainly cannot be derived from any other principals. It's simply not a problem either man or science is equipped to handle, and since it's not a practical issue, it's ignored except in philosophical circles.


The origin story that you have isn't naturalistic by definition. It is anthropological, describing a gradual evolution of religion. If a diety exists it could have non-naturalistic interference at every stage which would make sure that instead of any of the other possible evolutionary paths it would take this path. The point being that the fact that current religions fit neatly into the anthropological framework for religious evolution proves nothing about their correctness.


I'm "wearing you out"? So the fact that I'm pointing out that your logic is poor is a bad thing?


Perhaps the reason I've taken to defending the null hypothesis is because I've recognized that there IS NO EVIDENCE which satisfies logical standards on this issue? Again, these are mathmatical (and by extension, scientific) standards.

 

[snex]

The point being that the fact that current religions fit neatly into the anthropological framework for religious evolution proves nothing about their correctness.

actually it does, because a key tenet of those religions is that they do NOT fit into the anthropological framework for religious evolution. since religions themselves are the ones choosing to tie their correctness to their own origin stories, they cant cry foul when we say that disproving the origin stories disproves the religion.

we all know that the story about joseph smith and his golden plates is bunk, so we know that mormonism as a whole is also bunk, because mormonism *depends on* the golden plates story being true.

and your complaints about there being no evidence for the universe existing are nonsense... if you can make the complaint, then a universe necessarily exists, because you can only make complaints inside a universe.

 

[AltF4]

Adumbrodeus:

There is plenty of evidence for the existence of the universe. There is, however, no "proof" in the philosophical sense of universal doubt.

We can hold a belief that the universe exists because, despite a concrete proof, there is sufficient evidence. What many people in this thread are saying is that any kind of god doesn't even have any evidence at all indicating its existence.

Big foot has more evidence than god. At least big foot has a shady and questionably legitimate videotape, what does god have?

 

[adumbrodeus]

Adumbrodeus:

There is plenty of evidence for the existence of the universe. There is, however, no "proof" in the philosophical sense of universal doubt.

We can hold a belief that the universe exists because, despite a concrete proof, there is sufficient evidence. What many people in this thread are saying is that any kind of god doesn't even have any evidence at all indicating its existence.

Big foot has more evidence than god. At least big foot has a shady and questionably legitimate videotape, what does god have?

I was referring to valid evidence, in other words, evidence that doesn't rely on begging the question and assuming the universe is really and the evidence given is valid.


The rest of your response bore no relation to my argument, real or implied so I will refrain from responding.

actually it does, because a key tenet of those religions is that they do NOT fit into the anthropological framework for religious evolution. since religions themselves are the ones choosing to tie their correctness to their own origin stories, they cant cry foul when we say that disproving the origin stories disproves the religion.

we all know that the story about joseph smith and his golden plates is bunk, so we know that mormonism as a whole is also bunk, because mormonism *depends on* the golden plates story being true.

and your complaints about there being no evidence for the universe existing are nonsense... if you can make the complaint, then a universe necessarily exists, because you can only make complaints inside a universe.

The whole point I was making was "in and of itself the anthropoligical framework doesn't disprove the origin stories".

The framework is far too generalized, it doesn't give any of the details whereas those details are what makes the origin stories true or false.


Again, I am not saying that the origin stories are true, merely that the anthropological argument doesn't disprove them and is thus, invalid in disproving religion.



As for the reality of the universe, that only proves one thing exists, which is me in some form, and that only proves it to me. Your ability to observe this only proves that you exist in some form, and only to yourself because I cannot confirm that you observed anything.

We went over this already...

 

[snex]

As for the reality of the universe, that only proves one thing exists, which is me in some form, and that only proves it to me. Your ability to observe this only proves that you exist in some form, and only to yourself because I cannot confirm that you observed anything.

which is entirely irrelevant. since i know that *i* exist, and the universe is the set of all things that exist, then the universe is necessarily a non-null set.

 

[AlcyoNite]

Gamer4Fire, I've combatted everything you claim to be true already. No reason for me to acknowledge that you are right when I just debated with Kur. We had brought up the same points and came to our individual conclusions, which I believe, are both acceptable. IMO, you're still a troll.

EDIT: Sorry for previous sig.s

 

[Crimson King]

Yeah, don't close the topic. I'd rather just keep any future arguments for this topic in here.

 

[adumbrodeus]

which is entirely irrelevant. since i know that *i* exist, and the universe is the set of all things that exist, then the universe is necessarily a non-null set.

I was using it in the colloquial sense, however I'm fine with using set theory. However, since the concepts I'm trying to put across are slightly different when "the universe" is define via set theory, recognize that I'm saying the exact same thing, the changes in place are there only to account for the change in definition.

Obviously then "the universe" exists, since it is not anything in and of itself, it is merely a set. If we define the set as the set of all things that exists, yes we can establish that it has at least one element, namely myself. We can also establish that it has all metaphysical concepts, since ideas are only required to be conceptualized, therefore the observer can prove that any idea he can think of is in the set. However, nothing physical can be proven.


Of course, that isn't the proper definition of "universe". The universe, in set theory, is the set of all things which physically exist. Since the observer cannot prove that he/she/it/potato physically exists (exists in some form is not the same as physically existing), nor that anything else physically exists, there is no proof that the universe is not the null set.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Yeah, don't close the topic. I'd rather just keep any future arguments for this topic in here.

Gotcha. This is the all purpose god topic.

Premise: God is all loving, all powerful and all knowing.
Premise: God loves us and wouldn't want us to suffer.
Premise: God has the power to stop all suffering.
Premise: God is aware of any and all suffering in the world.
Premise: There is suffering in the world.
Conclusion: God lacks at least one of the characteristics of love, power or knowledge.

 

[mzink*]

I find that a lot of unwavering christians (or any type of religion) are people that have had religion ingrained in them as a child, (ie) they went to a religious school or their parents are very religious, so it would be much harder for them to let go of. It would be like second nature to them, nomatter what reasoning you give them. They weren't given the experience of free thinking.

 

[snex]

Of course, that isn't the proper definition of "universe". The universe, in set theory, is the set of all things which physically exist. Since the observer cannot prove that he/she/it/potato physically exists (exists in some form is not the same as physically existing), nor that anything else physically exists, there is no proof that the universe is not the null set.

there is no difference between "existing" and "existing physically."

 

[lonejedi]

I find that a lot of unwavering christians (or any type of religion) are people that have had religion ingrained in them as a child, (ie) they went to a religious school or their parents are very religious, so it would be much harder for them to let go of. It would be like second nature to them, nomatter what reasoning you give them. They weren't given the experience of free thinking.

I find actually the opposite. Most of the people that leave Christianity are those who start out young. For example, many of the athiests on this site like Snex started out in the religion, then decided to leave it. I find alot of people who convert when they are older, stay in it.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

People, people, please stop posting with the sigs now.

I'd have to say that I've seen how evangelicals brainwash their children in believing the tripe they force down their throats and that it is a injury to mankind.

I think everyone should watch the movie "Jesus Camp" just to see the sheer horror that bible belief brings.

 

[snex]

I find actually the opposite. Most of the people that leave Christianity are those who start out young. For example, many of the athiests on this site like Snex started out in the religion, then decided to leave it. I find alot of people who convert when they are older, stay in it.

thats an invalid inference.. the reason most people that leave christianity are those who start out young is because most people who are ever christians at all start out young.

the reason people tend to stick to it if they convert later is because they are the ones making the decision, and however bad the reasons are, the reasons are their own.

youll find the exact same pattern with all religions. what you should be wondering about is why so many adults deconvert from religions and so few atheists ever find religion. even though atheists have one of the lowest birth rates, the position of atheism is the fastest growing one in the western world.

 

[mzink*]

I find actually the opposite. Most of the people that leave Christianity are those who start out young. For example, many of the athiests on this site like Snex started out in the religion, then decided to leave it. I find alot of people who convert when they are older, stay in it.

I see your point but still most of the christians I know are christian because they were brought up that way. But then I went to a church where kids were pulled out of school at an early age so their focus would only be on the church without outside influence of "worldly" people. Most of their waking hours were spent at the church and all of the friends I had there are still with that church even though they are now in their 20's and early 30's. They barely know any difference of life. I was lucky that I had a parent that was not religious in any way so I was able to get away from that place fairly early. I was the only one that left that parent to live with the other and all my brothers and sisters are still devoted to that church.

On another note, people tend to run to christianity for a new start in life or for redemption from past actions or their past way of living. They think they need jesus in order to change their actions.

 

[adumbrodeus]

there is no difference between "existing" and "existing physically."

Ideas exist, but they do not physically exist, again that's why the set of everything that exists includes all ideas, but you'd be hard-pressed to say, for example, love has a physical form.


Only those things which are composed of matter and/or energy and the physical constants that constrain them have physical existance.

Gotcha. This is the all purpose god topic.

Premise: God is all loving, all powerful and all knowing.
Premise: God loves us and wouldn't want us to suffer.
Premise: God has the power to stop all suffering.
Premise: God is aware of any and all suffering in the world.
Premise: There is suffering in the world.
Conclusion: God lacks at least one of the characteristics of love, power or knowledge.

I feel the need to answer this...

Counter-example: suffering is good for humanity as a whole.

 

[NoriakiZ]

I think that there is someone or something that made us, Big Bang or God...

 

[yossarian22]

I'm afraid I don't follow you, yossarian. If my wikipedia based research is correct, "methodological naturalism" is just the belief that the scientific method is the right way to go, and that there's no such thing as supernatural beings or events. I fail to see how that belief requires a deity.

Or in fact why ANY belief needs to reconcile anything with itself. If a belief contradicts itself... then it's wrong.

I figure this bears some mention, but if methodological naturalism is defeated, then metaphysical naturalism (takes sciences and sticks it into philosophy) is also killed.
Anyhow...
One of the fundamental tenets of methodological naturalism is that our perceptions of the universe is correct. Evolution (ironically used as a case for methodological naturalism) puts this premise into major doubt. Our survival does not depend in the slightest about how correct our beliefs are or even what they are.

Lets say I see a very hungry looking tiger in the woods. I doubt the existence of that tiger, and instead sense a unicorn prancing behind me. I like unicorns, so I run to it. The result would be the same if I saw that tiger and ran the hell away because it looked hungry.

Theistic evolution (evolution guided by a deity) provides a nice workaround to this. The naturalist has some options. Do correct beliefs really matter? Considering that we can never figure out what reality is, couldn't we simply settle for beliefs that are consistent? This is all well and good, but it prevents naturalism from being asserted to others. You cannot know what satisfies their form of consistent.

edit: the workaround conveniently provided by a theistic deity is not a true workaround. The central premise of naturalism (the natural is all there is) runs into trouble unless you assert that god is natural. Unfortunately, that assertion causes naturalism to contradict itself yet again. The rejection of the supernatural is based solely off of the irrelevance of the supernatural. It is trivial to make a reduction to the absurd from there.

there is no difference between "existing" and "existing physically."

Any proofs of this that do not beg the question?

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Premise: God is all loving, all powerful and all knowing.
Premise: God loves us and wouldn't want us to suffer.
Premise: God has the power to stop all suffering.
Premise: God is aware of any and all suffering in the world.
Premise: There is suffering in the world.
Conclusion: God lacks at least one of the characteristics of love, power or knowledge.

Counter-example: suffering is good for humanity as a whole.

You have any evidence to support that idea? I don't see how a harlequin baby is a good thing for anyone.

It sure doesn't prove my argument is wrong either.

 

[Crimson King]

Yeah, after tonight at midnight my time, I'll just delete your signatures.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Thanks for the heads up. Are you going to manually delete them all or is there an option to not allow them? Also, do you like how adumbrodeus just says that suffering is good for people without any explanation. That's about as good an argument as saying **** is good for women as a whole, therefore women should stop complaining about ****.

 

[adumbrodeus]

You have any evidence to support that idea? I don't see how a harlequin baby is a good thing for anyone.

It sure doesn't prove my argument is wrong either.

Suppose for a minute that succeeding in spite of suffering (or even surviving) increases humans' mental maturity.

Not always, but I would say that in general you would agree with that, isolating people from suffering generally gives them an immature and sheltered outlook, right?


And it's a universal argument, one counter-example does prove it wrong.

Thanks for the heads up. Are you going to manually delete them all or is there an option to not allow them? Also, do you like how adumbrodeus just says that suffering is good for people without any explanation. That's about as good an argument as saying **** is good for women as a whole, therefore women should stop complaining about ****.

*sigh*

No, they're certainly not equivalent. Your argument supposed that no form of suffering ever helped anyone (generally in the long term), which you were required to prove. I was just off-handily pointing that out.

It was in no way equivalent to saying that **** is good for women, and certainly did not suggest that anyone stop complaining about anything.


Nice Red Herring.



PS. I think he means that he'll universally disable them for the debate hall.

 

[Crimson King]

I am sure there is a way to universally disable them, but I don't feel like bothering the uppers about it, so I'll just do it manually, which will increase my irritation.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Suppose for a minute that succeeding in spite of suffering (or even surviving) increases humans' mental maturity.

Given that most suffering does not do this or is needless, it destroys premise 3, that god is all powerful. Otherwise it is not in his power to remove unnecessary suffering or to create us so that we can mature without it.

Not always, but I would say that in general you would agree with that, isolating people from suffering generally gives them an immature and sheltered outlook, right?

Same as above. You are saying that the people who do not suffer are being denied maturity. This destroys premise 4, that god is all knowing.

No, they're certainly not equivalent. Your argument supposed that no form of suffering ever helped anyone (generally in the long term), which you were required to prove. I was just off-handily pointing that out.

Quite the contrary, there are many women who become stronger because of being *****, so it fits with your example of becoming better because of suffering. However, the vast majority of all **** victims are worse off because of it. Which, because god is all knowing, must mean that god is not all loving, destroying premise 2 and annihilating premise 1. God must want most women to suffer and only a few select to become better because of it.

Because god knows which ones can handle it and which can't he has the power to make sure that only those who could benefit from suffering would suffer. But since even the weak suffer, we must conclude that god must not know, have the power to change it or he doesn't love us. He cannot have all three of these characteristics.

It was in no way equivalent to saying that **** is good for women, and certainly did not suggest that anyone stop complaining about anything.

But you said that suffering is good for us. If it is god's will that we suffer, then we shouldn't complain. That would be heresy.

 

[RDK]

I'm afraid I don't follow you, yossarian. If my wikipedia based research is correct, "methodological naturalism" is just the belief that the scientific method is the right way to go, and that there's no such thing as supernatural beings or events. I fail to see how that belief requires a deity.

Or in fact why ANY belief needs to reconcile anything with itself. If a belief contradicts itself... then it's wrong.

Unless that belief's contradiction is cancelled out by some heavenly deus ex machina (God). Then you have Christianity, a.k.a. Doublethink.

Edit @ Gamer:

The point he was probably trying to make was some garbage about how suffering is good for us, but that doesn't mean everyone takes it the right way. According to Christians, suffering should bring us closer to God, or some other tripe like that. No doubt his next response will be something along the lines of "Just because the majority of responses to suffering aren't for the better doesn't mean that suffering is bad."

 

[yossarian22]

Unless that belief's contradiction is cancelled out by some heavenly deus ex machina (God). Then you have Christianity, a.k.a. Doublethink.

Not quite Christianity. You retain the fundamental core of science (minus the complete and utter rejection of the supernatural), so dogmatic religion is out. Some variant of Deism or Pantheism perhaps. Anyhow, it seems you must introduce a deity to keep science consistent with itself.

 

[Dexter Morgan]

There a many Christians out there who wouldn't know what Christianity is all about and don't know God from a leprechaun. They don't know God simply because they have not bothered to try and get to know Him but just follow the crowd. (If everyone's doing it well it must be right) They give us a bad name but what can you do? The fact that there is male and female proves in favor of Adam and Eve rather then evolving from singles celled animals that split in two to reproduce. There would never be a need for two sexes, for the process would remain consistent. Yet all animals are male and female. We were all created by our parents and they there own parents, so forth and so on, until we come to the first cause. Creation is a fact and happens in nature all the time. Even one person needs another to reproduces and cannot do it alone. It only stands to reason that the first person needed a creator to exist. I almost think that Atheists are prejudice against God and Christians that they would come up with anything to try and prove Christianity wrong. But I wonder why?

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

The fact that there is male and female proves in favor of Adam and Eve rather then evolving from singles celled animals that split in two to reproduce. There would never be a need for two sexes, for the process would remain consistent. Yet all animals are male and female.We were all created by our parents and they there own parents, so forth and so on, until we come to the first cause. Creation is a fact and happens in nature all the time. Even one person needs another to reproduces and cannot do it alone. It only stands to reason that the first person needed a creator to exist.

I think you need to do some more reading. You talk about asexually reproducing single celled animals and then say all animals are male and female in the very next sentence. At some point in the past, organisms evolved to reproduce sexually. We can see different stages of this evolution today. Some lower animals can reproduce both sexually and asexually. Most plants can produce both ways as well. Ultimately the ancestor of humanity (and likely all sexually reproducing organisms) was probably some organism that could reproduce both ways, and then later some of them evolved in such a way that it lost the asexual reproduction ability. Reproduction isn't quite as simple as this though but you can do the reading if you care.

I almost think that Atheists are prejudice against God and Christians that they would come up with anything to try and prove Christianity wrong. But I wonder why?

So if the evidence doesn't support what you believe, we're just making it up?

 

[Crimson King]

The fact that there is male and female proves in favor of Adam and Eve rather then evolving from singles celled animals that split in two to reproduce. There would never be a need for two sexes, for the process would remain consistent. Yet all animals are male and female.

Do some actual studying before making such an outrageous claim. There are numerous and numerous instances where human beings are born with BOTH male and female genitals. It's called "hermaphrodite." This pretty much disproves your entire argument because it happens naturally in nature.

Plus, it's impossible to reproduce asexually for humans, I believe, because we are so complex. Science people: what is the large asexually reproducing organism? I believe it'd be a plant of some type, and we are much more complicated than a plant.

Also, the problem with arguing with a creationist is simple: the believe the earth is only a few thousand years old. In that time span, evolution would never work, so thusly, it's kind of easier to see why evolution is so hard for them to see.

 

[CivicSmash]

Oh please guys....there wasn't a long protracted evolutionary process.........it was a talking snake in a tree.....we all know that. And god watched dinosaurs crap and piss for several million years. These scientists with their theories and there facts.....hahahahahhaha.

 

[RDK]

There a many Christians out there who wouldn't know what Christianity is all about and don't know God from a leprechaun. They don't know God simply because they have not bothered to try and get to know Him but just follow the crowd. (If everyone's doing it well it must be right) They give us a bad name but what can you do? The fact that there is male and female proves in favor of Adam and Eve rather then evolving from singles celled animals that split in two to reproduce. There would never be a need for two sexes, for the process would remain consistent. Yet all animals are male and female. We were all created by our parents and they there own parents, so forth and so on, until we come to the first cause. Creation is a fact and happens in nature all the time. Even one person needs another to reproduces and cannot do it alone. It only stands to reason that the first person needed a creator to exist. I almost think that Atheists are prejudice against God and Christians that they would come up with anything to try and prove Christianity wrong. But I wonder why?

Why should it stand to reason that the first person was created by a Creator? That doesn't stand to reason at all.

Also, "creation" isn't a fact, and doesn't happen in nature--at all. Things aren't "created" out of thin air. Animals don't pull their babies out of their @sses (well, technically they do, but you get the point). That's why Christians have such a hard time with the abortion issue. Conception isn't the act of creation; it's a continuation of the life cycle. Cells are always cells--there's no soul injection period during the birth process.

Your point about there being male and female proves that the first organisms must have been male and female is utterly ********. That's like if I said "Today we have asexual organisms that are neither male nor female, so that MUST mean that the first organisms were soley asexual." While that's more than likely true, you understand how exclusive and brash that statement sounds?

And atheists don't actively seek out Christianity to prove it wrong. We see logical fallacies and impossibilities in Christian arguments, so we refute them, just like any other concept that makes no sense.

 

[McCloud]

I accept that there is no proof that God exists.

Simply put, God has no logical nor tangible evidence.

But I believe anyway. Because that is where faith comes in.

Dictionary.com's definition of faith:

Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence

Thus it is an act of my choosing to believe in something that might possibly not exist. Whether or not it is true in the end, who knows. I don't do it out of fear of going to hell or desire to go to heaven, though they are good incentives offered. I do it because it just happened. There's no logical explanation as to why I, or any other person who believes in something other than the physical world, choose to believe in something that has no clear evidence.

River Tam: Bible's broken. Contradictions, false logistics. Doesn't make sense. So we'll integrate non-progressional evolution theory with God's creation of Eden. Eleven inherent metaphoric parallels already there. Eleven. Important number. Prime number. One goes into the house of eleven eleven times, but always comes out one. Noah's ark is a problem.
Book: Really?
River Tam: We'll have to call it early quantum state phenomenon. Only way to fit 5000 species of mammal on the same boat.
Book: River, you don't fix the Bible.
River: It's broken. It doesn't make sense.
Book: It's not about making sense. It's about believing in something, and letting that belief be real enough to change your life. It's about faith. You don't fix faith, River. It fixes you.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=xNhzjzH5XBE Clip for amusement.

Thusly put by Joss Whedon and the Firefly crew.

Also, I'm too lazy to find it in the Bible, but the story of Doubting Thomas is key here too.

I find that arguments between atheists, agnostics, and the religious rarely come to any good because the religious all believe that their faith is fact and the others are all focused on logistics. Strangely enough, for years I argued on the side of logic.

*goes to shepherd some sheep*

 

[adumbrodeus]

Given that most suffering does not do this or is needless, it destroys premise 3, that god is all powerful. Otherwise it is not in his power to remove unnecessary suffering or to create us so that we can mature without it.


Same as above. You are saying that the people who do not suffer are being denied maturity. This destroys premise 4, that god is all knowing.

That was not a be-all end-all suggestion. It was merely meant to make a point. That point being that you are making a for-all argument. For it to hold you must proof that there is no possible benefit to suffering that fits into this framework.

Quite the contrary, there are many women who become stronger because of being *****, so it fits with your example of becoming better because of suffering. However, the vast majority of all **** victims are worse off because of it. Which, because god is all knowing, must mean that god is not all loving, destroying premise 2 and annihilating premise 1. God must want most women to suffer and only a few select to become better because of it.

Ah, so it wasn't attempting to equate two distinct concepts, it was an attempted application illustrated because it was distasteful...

Appeal to emotion fallacy, distasteful to talk about doesn't mean incorrect.

But you said that suffering is good for us. If it is god's will that we suffer, then we shouldn't complain. That would be heresy.

I don't quite think you're clear on the definition of heresy...

It's not heresy, it's complaining, and who says one cannot complain about "God's will".

 

[snex]

Any proofs of this that do not beg the question?

you are stuck on wanting proofs before you even have a coherent idea of what "existence" is. the only meaningful definition of "existence" necessitates physicality.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

That was not a be-all end-all suggestion. It was merely meant to make a point. That point being that you are making a for-all argument. For it to hold you must proof that there is no possible benefit to suffering that fits into this framework.

No, I don't. You have asserted that suffering provides an overall benefit, therefore the burden of proof is on you to give evidence that suffering is beneficial.

Ah, so it wasn't attempting to equate two distinct concepts, it was an attempted application illustrated because it was distasteful...

Appeal to emotion fallacy, distasteful to talk about doesn't mean incorrect.

It wasn't an appeal to emotion, although its good to see that you are trying (failing actually) to increase your vocabulary. Fact, women get *****. Fact, some women become stronger because of it. Fact, most women do not. Fact, it is a form of suffering. It illustrates that suffering is not overall beneficial.

I don't quite think you're clear on the definition of heresy...

Your book of fables, not mine.

It's not heresy, it's complaining, and who says one cannot complain about "God's will".

God is perfect, therefore his will is perfect, therefore anything that happens to you is perfect. By complaining about his perfection you commit heresy against that perfection. In the case of the **** victim, James 5:9 says to not complain about what people do to you, for the lord is at the door ready to judge you. So at least **** victims shouldn't complain about getting ***** otherwise they will be judged harshly by god. They should just shut up and take it.

Your holy book is funny that way.

 

[yossarian22]

of course they physically exist. theyre in your brain. no brains = no ideas. your claim is equivalent to asserting that mario doesnt exist physically because we cant open up the gamecube and easily point to him.

you are stuck on wanting proofs before you even have a coherent idea of what "existence" is. the only meaningful definition of "existence" necessitates physicality.

Eh, that shows us the code. Show us Mario in the physical world. Not some representation of Mario. The concept of Mario itself. Maybe I read Adumbrodeus' statement wrong, but he seems to be going off the circular nature of language.
Mario is an admittedly poor example. Show me Freedom, or Justice in the physical world. Reductionists have been dodging those questions for centuries though.

Anyhow...

"Meaningful" is a ridiculously loose criterion. Besides being subjective to the point of absurdity, it is entirely disjoint from coherent. An incoherent statement would be similar to "I am an empiricist and my senses are somehow incorrect" (empiricist in the philosophical sense of course).

Sure, I can accept that physical existence is the only meaningful form of existence, but it does not follow that the other forms are somehow incoherent. You have to show that.

And where is that proof?

 

[AltF4]

Eh, that shows us the code. Show us Mario in the physical world. Not some representation of Mario. The concept of Mario itself. Maybe I read Adumbrodeus' statement wrong, but he seems to be going off the circular nature of language.
Mario is an admittedly poor example. Show me Freedom, or Justice in the physical world. Reductionists have been dodging those questions for centuries though.

Anyhow...

"Meaningful" is a ridiculously loose criterion. Besides being subjective to the point of absurdity, it is entirely disjoint from coherent. An incoherent statement would be similar to "I am an empiricist and my senses are somehow incorrect" (empiricist in the philosophical sense of course).

Sure, I can accept that physical existence is the only meaningful form of existence, but it does not follow that the other forms are somehow incoherent. You have to show that.

And where is that proof?

I've had a similar argument before with people. (With myself being a Computer Scientist) Does a program exist in a physical sense? Of course it does, it just doesn't have the appearance that you normally associate with it.

Mario does in fact exist in a physical sense. He is encoded into bits on hardware that can be seen and touched. If you looked at those bits, however, you might not recognize Mario. But that's just because you're not used to seeing him that way.

But the bits are his natural form, the true identity. How you "see" him on the TV screen is just an arbitrary way of representing those bits by a computer.


Things that are strictly ideas like "freedom" do not exist in a physical way, however. The word freedom is just a construct that we humans use to describe how an object behaves. The behavior itself does not have a physical manifestation.

It is only an unfortunate property of the English language (but probably others) that we say things like ideas "exist", when they really don't.