God or No God - that is the question (for atheists)

Your free-will needs to have an environment to express itself. A board on which to play the game. The Universe and it's laws of phycics are the board. You get to play the 'game' within the limits of the rules of the game (eg: laws of nature). Free-will doesn't mean you get to play God. He is the one who decided what the board looks like. Like it's not that the tapestry of choice is a meagre on now is it?!You are right in that there is lots of different choices which all would fall within the bounds that are 'good'(eg: will I give $10 or $20 dollars to a charity) The 'game' allows us to make choices for good (or choices that agree with God's will). But if I want to make a choice against Gods will. What then. What if I don't want to give anything to charity? If I'm not allowed but can only conform to what he likes then = Robot. I agree on reduction of choice and that this arises from a murderers (individual) choice. But this pre-supposes that death brings with it some kind of loss of choice. It does on the human scale but what then? That arguement can be used to say that death of any type if unfair because we don't choose to die means no free will. Back to the limits of the game of life.Why assume free-will is all it's about? What if free will was God's way of supplying a means to an end. That is, choices made by us are pieces in another puzzle, a more important goal which he has in mind God of the Bible is not necessarily the God posited in the opening post - hence my Catch-22 remark. If you want to falsify God of the Bible as a way to provide a focused framework then I think that's a good idea. If you do falsify God of the bible, then I'll accept without question that you can falsify all other gods and have thus provided a logical basis for athiesm.One remark though. God of the Bible is not necessarily God of Roman Catholicism or Prostestantism or Baptistism or Methodistism etc. That's Religion. Hence talk of Crusades and Inquisitions are I suggest irrelevant. It's what's in the Bible not what different Religions say is in the Bible. This works to the advantage of both of us.Also,it's "the Bible is the inerrant word of God and I'll falisfy him on the basis of what he says". Not quoting the Bible one minute as his word then the next saying that we don't even know if the Gospels weren't made up in the 3rd century. It's either one or the other not both ways. That's what I meant about Catch-22.If you are going to quote then the quote itself would be helpful so that we are sure we're discussing the same thing. Ta..

Hey crashfrog,I've seen you and others use the term falsify or falsified in other threads concerning God's existence.I never understood what you all were talking about. I found this on FalsificationismIs this what you all are referring to?If yes, then concerning your statement:

quote:

---

Nonetheless there are many Gods that we can falsify

---

What gods have been falsified and how?What is the theory or statement made about the Christian God that can't be falsified?Sorry about all the questions, I just never understood if some gods could be falsified why the Christian god can't be.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

Just because there is a few choices you can't make doesn't mean there are no choices you can make. You've simply handwaved my argument away without addressing it.Constriction of choice to a certain set of rules doesn't result in robots. We're bound to the laws of physics with no meaningful reduction of will. Why could we not also be bound to moral laws, as well?And furthermore, this is all for love, as you say? How selfish of God. We're supposed to suffer the vast inequities we regularly visit upon each other simply because God has a need for our love? I don't call that "benevolent", I call that "abusive." Your God is like an abusive boyfriend. He's simply not benevolent. Of course it does. The dead don't make choices. I didn't assume that. You're the one that brought up free will. If you're abandoning that line of argument I don't blame you; it's completely fruitless for your position. Woah, wait. Now you're changing Gods, too? Moving the goalposts? Might I remind you of your own words:

quote:

---

I'm only talking about God of the Bible so if you can falsify him then fine.

---

Why would you accept that I've done something that I literally said I couldn't do? Falsifying the God of the Bible falsifies one god. Not all gods. Who says the Christians have it right? Or did you forget that the majority of religious believers on the planet are not Christian? I don't remember making the second claim.This debate is not going to progress much father until you're able to both effectively grapple with my claims and successfully defend - and remember - your own. So far I'm not terribly impressed with your intellectual honesty.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there are some gods who are defined in such a way that their stated characteristics are not consistent with the state of the universe as we observe it. If we define God as a being with unlimited power and unlimited goodness then either this universe does not exist or that god does not.We observe the universe to exist, so we know that god does not. I consider that a falsification of that idea of god. God is either nonexistent, nonpowerful, or nongood, or some combination of all three. Since it seems to me that a "worthwhile" god, i.e. one who we might give a damn about, must possess all three of those characteristics, I don't see that there are any gods worth bothering with.It's an effective proof because terms like "omnipotent" and "benevolent" allow no room for mitigating circumstances. For instance we can't say that God would like to help but is prevented somehow; if God can be prevented he's no omnipotent.Does that help? If the existence of God as we've defined him would unavoidably necessitate a different reality than the one we percieve then God simply does not exist as we've defined him. And I see only one definition of God that's truly "Godly".

I think before we go much further CF it's necessary for us to decide terms of reference. Read the original post. It said nothing about God is good/bad, his possible motives, his precise purpose etc. These things can't be presumed about God by someone who doesn't know him (ie: an athiest). Which is who the post is addressed to. Athiests, if they want to presume any characteristic of God would need to make a case for doing so.Note: your first post sidestepped this and began a proof that 'supposed' God to be good and used the existance of evil as evidence that God doesn't exist. But you didn't say how you arrived at attaching this characteristic to the God your trying to falsify.In letting some ungrounded assumption run, I am attempting to allow the discussion to develop with some 'givens'. The Biblical God is the one I offer. But not defined by any old means, religion or opinion. That'd become a messTake your pick. "Bible-only, as the infallible word of God" style God (NIV version - if there's dissention). In this case it will be relatively easy to introduce element such as good/evil, free will etc. which would form entry points for discussion. Or you can deal with the opening post which posits none of these things and work from there. Your choice

quote:

---

These things can't be presumed about God by someone who doesn't know him (ie: an athiest).

---

Who knows him?

People who believe in His death for their sins, believe what the Bible says about Him, have given their lives to Him to follow Him.

You still working on that agnostic-position argument CK? There hasn't been much activity on the Athiest one so far so I may be posting it sooner rather than later I'm with Faith by the way - what she describes is a consequence of coming to the conclusion that the thesis in post 1 is correct and then doing the only remaining thing one can do to find out if he exists (which is kind of obvious really) Ya gotta ask him!Good name that. "Faith"...not exactly hiding your light under a bushel are you?

Neither did my post in response. It was you who restricted the discussion to the God of the Bible, remember? Your OP made it pretty clear that nobody can have knowledge about God, so I'm not sure what you're trying to do here. Are you trying to claim superior knowledge? That your interpretation of the Bible will be necessarily better than mine?Don't forget that I was a Christian for many years as well, and it was during that time, not as an atheist, that I developed these interpretations of the Bible and these ideas about God. So, indeed, my knowledge of God is equal to yours because these are the things I came to realize while I knew him. The Bible. Remember? It was you who told us to concentrate on the God of the Bible. That's the only conception of God we're discussing, as per your instructions. No, it was your choice, and you made it. You said we're talking about the God of the Bible. I don't understand why I have to keep reminding you of that.I'm not your nanny, iano. I'm not going to wetnurse you through this discussion. When are you going to get serious about this?

Erm...your very first post CF. "Benevolent". Your words...your assumption. And a biblical-style assumption at that. Offer to discuss a Biblical God is withdrawn.If you'd like to debate "most important question"/"proof no God"/"thesis" by all means do so. Do restrain from using insults CF...I won't be taking another one from you.

I made it absolutely clear that I was giving the example of one form of God, not referring to an exhaustive list of gods, or that I'll only discuss that one god. Your attempt to misrepresent me in this thread proves exactly what I suspected. Truly the dishonesty of the militant theist knowns no bounds. Then define whatever God you prefer. As I said it's not my responsibility to wetnurse you through your own thread. Your refusal to seriously commit to the debate, your attempt to level these false accusations at me, and your constant backtracking and dissembling is an insult to my intelligence and to the dignity of this forum.

You are making an action judgement about what evil is through human eyes. You are seeing the pressence of evil as evidence of no God.Take a look at the situation from a different perspective.My crazy wife is training for a marathon right now. She goes out and runs long courses, and attempts to sprint at intervals through the course, and then culminates by sprinting the last 7% of any given run. I put ice water out for her and when she staggers into the house, she sometimes is on the verge of puking. She is over heating, fatiqued and exhausted. From my perspective, she is killing herself. If there were such a thing as intellegence in the female human gender, this kind of behavior would not occur.But from her grander perspective, the goal that she is working for is worthy of the pain and suffiring. She is a prime example of a human practicing delayed gratification. And only by this method will she achieve the highly coveted result of the satisfaction of a completed marathon in under 4 hours.In the same way, the evil that is visible in the universe today is in a grander sence, proof that the God of the Bible is working his purpose towards an end goal which includes us as a valuable component. We can no more see it from our perspective than ant could try to make sence of a tapestry being woven by observing it from the floor looking up at the weave. From the back of of the tapestry, it looks somewhat ugly, confused and disorganized. But come around to the front of it and you see it from the perspective of the weaver and it all falls together.The Bible is God's way of giving us a momentary flash glimpse of what he is doing from his perspective while allowing us to stay firmly planted on Earth with the perspective of being below the loome looking up at the back side of his work.

I'm using judgement that Christian teaching informs me is the same as God's judgement about what is evil.You're welcome to dispute that position, but you cannot do so Biblically. Of course the relevance of the Bible to this discussion is current in dispute.Either way, I'd prefer the discussion proceeded from a basis of words actually having meaning, not simply being defined however is convinient to let God off the hook. If evil is good to you, or you believe that evil is good to God, then I'm not sure from what basis we can continue the discussion, since you've stopped speaking English. And what is that purpose? In what way is suffering an irreplacable component of that plan and purpose?Or am I just supposed to take your word on those things because that's the only way to let God off the hook? Can you understand why I might refuse to believe these things just because you said to? So take me to the front of it. What's the purpose of evil, and why is it necessary to the plan?

quote:

---

There hasn't been much activity on the Athiest one so far

---

What type of activity were you looking for?You didn't even address my posts (Message 14 and Message 28)I even asked you some questions:Why do you think we are the most exquisite thing on the planet?How are the standards of the God of the Bible higher than ours?Gods do not exist outside the texts and imaginations of mankind.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

well it's like this - religious systems I've encountered to this point - No god (human construct).Religious systems I'm yet to encounter - maybe? who knows?ABE: opps - meant for Iano.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 07-Aug-2005 06:12 PM