Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What would you have God do?
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 61 of 104 (103769)
04-29-2004 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by crashfrog
04-29-2004 12:26 AM


I know that you think that I disbelieve in God just to be an ass, or something, but that's far from the truth. I'm amienable to the existence of God. It's just that God doesn't exist.
Lol, stop being as stubborn as me - he does exist!
I don't think you're an ass - far from it, your just an impeccable slime ridden butt slug of discontent.
If life were perfect, I imagine that the presence of God would be irrefutable - not just because things were perfect, but because God's presence would be just as substantial as my wife's,
Do you have a wife? - Or a canadian girlfriend?
I still think you dismiss the fact that if imperfection = no God then perfection, or good things = God. You say there is suffering = No Go, but there is plenty of none-suffering also, is there not. Are you going to let evil win? By letting the woes of the world rid God from your mind. It intrigues me that you once believed, what is such a huge difference between then and now? It must just be your mind set. Ho hum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by crashfrog, posted 04-29-2004 12:26 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Unseul, posted 04-29-2004 2:52 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 64 by crashfrog, posted 04-29-2004 4:52 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
Unseul
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 104 (103800)
04-29-2004 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by mike the wiz
04-29-2004 1:45 PM


I think that a lot of people who once believed and then stopped werent people that thought they had a personal experience. They were the more normal joes that went along with religion. But still felt that it was true, they did believe. Then at some point in there life something happened that made them really consider their belief. If they come down on the side of athiesm like myself it would probably take another important event to take place in which it seemed eminently more likely that god did exist. Once you decide that god doesnt exist life doesnt get any harder, in some ways it becomes easier (not going to church on sundays, so still having a lie in ) and so you see little point in starting to believe, and even less evidence as such.

Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by mike the wiz, posted 04-29-2004 1:45 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 104 (103833)
04-29-2004 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by crashfrog
04-27-2004 6:37 PM


I think perhaps what you meant is that there is nothing that this entity could do that you could prove to other people is convincing.
Actually Crash, that isn't even true - you could ask the voice to convince you and give you the ability to convince other people
PE

404 Not Found

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by crashfrog, posted 04-27-2004 6:37 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 64 of 104 (103836)
04-29-2004 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by mike the wiz
04-29-2004 1:45 PM


Do you have a wife?
According to the State of Minnesota and the Nicollet County records office.
then perfection, or good things = God.
Perfection would = God, yes. But the mere presence of some good things happening, sometimes, to good people, is not enough to establish that perfection exists.
The existence of any suffering whatsoever is enough to prove that an all-powerful, benevolent entity doesn't exist.
It intrigues me that you once believed, what is such a huge difference between then and now?
The realization that God doesn't exist. Like I said, it's pretty simple.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by mike the wiz, posted 04-29-2004 1:45 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by mike the wiz, posted 04-29-2004 6:22 PM crashfrog has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 65 of 104 (103876)
04-29-2004 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by crashfrog
04-29-2004 4:52 PM


Okay - I'll stop hounding you about this - for now, then I'll come back and preach some more.
Perfection would = God, yes. But the mere presence of some good things happening, sometimes, to good people, is not enough to establish that perfection exists.
But it does exist - it's the small town of perfection where el-blanco the graboid lives.
Ahem,....But you do say that misery and suffering = No God. By that logic I must deduce that no misery/no suffering = God. Be fair, you can't have it both ways. And this is all without mentioning satan - who has slipped the net.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by crashfrog, posted 04-29-2004 4:52 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by crashfrog, posted 04-30-2004 2:12 AM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 68 by Dr Jack, posted 04-30-2004 9:37 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 66 of 104 (104065)
04-30-2004 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by mike the wiz
04-29-2004 6:22 PM


By that logic I must deduce that no misery/no suffering = God.
Well, that's been my point all along. The existence of your God = no misery or suffering. I don't understand why you think you've trapped me in an inconsistency by pointing out something I've been saying all along.
In the world we live in, pain and suffering exist. This is logically inconsistent with the existence of your God. Therefore, your God does not exist.
If pain and suffering did not exist anywhere, there would be no barriers to the logical existence of your God.
(Oh, and you need to check your basic logic. Just because "If P, then Q" is true, doesn't make "If not-P, then not Q" (the inverse) true. Nor does it make "If Q, then P" (the converse) true. The only thing you know that is true is "If not-Q, then not-P" (the contrapositive). This is elementary symbolic logic, but people make this mistake a lot, like you just did.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by mike the wiz, posted 04-29-2004 6:22 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by mike the wiz, posted 04-30-2004 4:56 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 73 by mike the wiz, posted 04-30-2004 7:31 PM crashfrog has replied

  
RingoKid
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 104 (104105)
04-30-2004 9:06 AM


how many times...???
nothing is perfect
in the space where nothing exists
will one find perfection
the perfect nothing
seek...
define>>nothing>>perfection>>space>>find/seek>>in>>one>>exist...then apply it to a place and a thing and give it a consciousness
of course God doesn't exist to Crash because he doesn't want it to but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist to others who do...
In this day and age it's all about ME...My Evolution
accept NOTHING as fact
question everything
determine your own truth
define your own reality
I could go on about personal truth vs absolute truth and personal reality versus ultimate reality but when it comes right down to it...some of us can't handle the truth or reality choosing instead to live a lie and deny everything else
It's your choice as to what you choose to believe and by that you define what is real to you, therefore to Crash, God is not real and doesn't exist but that's just his opinion as is anybody elses who begs to differ
BTW Crash, there is nothing broken about this world or universe, everything is as it is meant to be and everything will be as it should...it's just you applying your subjective observations to a preconcieved notion of what a perfect world and the ideal man should be
and besides God's got better things to do or maybe it's the sabbath day of rest in heaven and has been for 13.7 billion years...
<<(EDIT)>>forgot to define >>exist...without that "nothing matters"
[This message has been edited by RingoKid, 04-30-2004]

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by crashfrog, posted 04-30-2004 5:13 PM RingoKid has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 68 of 104 (104109)
04-30-2004 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by mike the wiz
04-29-2004 6:22 PM


Ahem,....But you do say that misery and suffering = No God. By that logic I must deduce that no misery/no suffering = God. Be fair, you can't have it both ways.
Tut, tut, Mike, that's not logic at all. a=>b does not impy ~a=>~b. For example my paying on Wednesday implies my bank account receives a nice credit, does not being paid on Thursday imply my bank account not receive a nice credit?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by mike the wiz, posted 04-29-2004 6:22 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 69 of 104 (104302)
04-30-2004 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by crashfrog
04-30-2004 2:12 AM


You say misery and suffering = My God doesn't exist.
But that is only logical if there is only misery and suffering, and also, if there is no satan mentioned in the bible, and also if disease and suffering = God - in the bible. However, Christ said he came to cast out satan. So - my God says he heals ills and satan is the cause of them. You are missing out that there is also joy and no suffering, which, if misery and suffering = no God (assumption) - the opposite must evidence God, or you can not assume that ills = no God.
So then, I can now believe because of the joy in the world = My God exists, by your logic. I myself am not miserable or suffering. You also have completely missed out the present joy and perfection of many people's lives. So, even if there is logic to your logic, it is at best far too simplistic and one-sided. If misery = no God, what does joy equal>??
The fact is, misery does not = no God. There is a complete explanation for misery in the bible. Christ himself suffered and died in misery. So misery can NOT logically mean that MY GOD doesn't exist - unless the bible doesn't say these things.
As for q's an p's you'll have to show me what they mean, I usually fail IQ tests. I cannot remember the letters without any meaning to them = bad short term memory.
This is elementary symbolic logic, but people make this mistake a lot, like you just did.)
There's no point in lying - no matter how many times I read your P's and q's I can't remember because of they are too boring or lack meaning. I don't know what your on about. But I don't think misery = no God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by crashfrog, posted 04-30-2004 2:12 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by crashfrog, posted 04-30-2004 5:10 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 70 of 104 (104310)
04-30-2004 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by mike the wiz
04-30-2004 4:56 PM


But that is only logical if there is only misery and suffering
Not at all. How do you come to that conclusion? In a world of chance, with no God, we would expect some good and some bad, just from randomness. Which is exactly what we find.
The presence of some good is insufficient to substantiate God's existence, because we would expect some good to just happen by itself, at random.
As for q's an p's you'll have to show me what they mean, I usually fail IQ tests.
They just stand for statements that can be true for false, like "it is raining" or "I am holding an umbrella." They're just symbols - it doesn't matter what they mean, because it's the relationship that we were looking at.
I'll explain with words, then. Presume that this statement is true:
If it is raining, then I will take an umbrella.
From that statement, without knowing anything else, which of the following can we know to be true?
1) It is not raining, therefore I will not take an umbrella. (the inverse)
2) I took an umbrella, therefore it must be raining. (the converse.)
3) I did not take an umbrella, therefore it is not raining. (the contrapositive.)
The answer is 3. That's the only one we know to be true, because dependancy only works one way in logic. If you answered 1, you committed the Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent. If you answered 2, you committed the Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent.
Now, if I had said that "If and only if it is raining, then I will take an umbrella", then all 3 derivatives would be true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by mike the wiz, posted 04-30-2004 4:56 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by mike the wiz, posted 04-30-2004 7:25 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 71 of 104 (104312)
04-30-2004 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by RingoKid
04-30-2004 9:06 AM


of course God doesn't exist to Crash because he doesn't want it to
No, I do very much want God to exist. Why wouldn't I? It would mean an end to suffering and pain for the entire universe.
After all, I only came to the conclusion that God doesn't exist while I was a Christian. So it's ludicrous to say that I didn't want God to exist - I very much do.
The problem is that God doesn't exist, regardless of my wants.
Crash, there is nothing broken about this world or universe, everything is as it is meant to be and everything will be as it should...it's just you applying your subjective observations to a preconcieved notion of what a perfect world and the ideal man should be
Reminds me of a joke: "The optimist believes this to be the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is so."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by RingoKid, posted 04-30-2004 9:06 AM RingoKid has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 72 of 104 (104385)
04-30-2004 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by crashfrog
04-30-2004 5:10 PM


1) It is not raining, therefore I will not take an umbrella. (the inverse0
He could take it, he hasn't said whether he would/wouldn't when there is no rain. Am I right?
2) I took an umbrella, therefore it must be raining. (the converse.)
He could have took when it was not raining, because he hasn't said if he would take it in the dry. Am I right?
3) I did not take an umbrella, therefore it is not raining.
Yes, I see the point.
But Crash, I only claimed to use your logic don't forget. You say I made a mistake - what mistake, explain please. I only presumed that joy = God because you said misery = no God. You can only conclude that a world without misery = God using your logic.
You assume that chance would have joy happen and misery = no God, But how does any misery = no God? - Logically?
Chance might allow misery and joy. God might also allow it. You must show why you assume misery alone is relevant to God's existence.
In this world we have joy and misery. If you say any misery = no God, couldn't I say any joy = God? Misery is induced as significant to God's existence by you remember. Therefore, how would misery = no God? - Please explain. Surely I can argue that any joy = God, and how does "chance" = No God? We have to allow the possibility that God would "let" things happen according to the designated laws of the universe. God could still create the universe and "watch" or "allow" the same joy and misery outcome.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by crashfrog, posted 04-30-2004 5:10 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by crashfrog, posted 04-30-2004 7:48 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 73 of 104 (104390)
04-30-2004 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by crashfrog
04-30-2004 2:12 AM


mike the wiz writes:
By that logic I must deduce that no misery/no suffering = God.
Crashfrog writes:
Well, that's been my point all along. The existence of your God = no misery or suffering.
So - total joy = Existence of my God. Therefore you have now allowed joy to = God and misery to equal no God.
Logically, any joy will = God. By your logic which I have used. And what is to stop me from saying any joy = God, if any misery = no God?
I think - personally that joy/misery bare no logical relevance to God's existence. Do we agree?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by crashfrog, posted 04-30-2004 2:12 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by NosyNed, posted 04-30-2004 7:47 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 76 by crashfrog, posted 04-30-2004 7:49 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 74 of 104 (104398)
04-30-2004 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by mike the wiz
04-30-2004 7:31 PM


Relevance
I think - personally that joy/misery bare no logical relevance to God's existence. Do we agree?
It appears, Mike, that there isn't anything that bares any logical relevance to God's existance. Everything ends up just like the joy/misery discussion. Seems to me anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by mike the wiz, posted 04-30-2004 7:31 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by mike the wiz, posted 04-30-2004 8:39 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 75 of 104 (104399)
04-30-2004 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by mike the wiz
04-30-2004 7:25 PM


I only presumed that joy = God because you said misery = no God.
Right. You're taking the inverse of my statement, which is logically fallacious, as I tried to show you. (Good job following along on the rain examples, though.)
You must show why you assume misery alone is relevant to God's existence.
I assumed that was obvious. A benevolent, all-powerful God would never allow misery to occur, by definition of the words "benevolent" and "all-powerful."
Misery occurs. This is inconsistent with the existence of a benevolent, all-powerful God. Therefore we conclude that such a God does not exist. It's really very simple, Mike, no matter how you persist in trying to make it complicated. There's no "my" logic and "your" logic here, just logic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by mike the wiz, posted 04-30-2004 7:25 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by mike the wiz, posted 04-30-2004 8:26 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024