The Case Against the Existence of God

So what? There's still nothing to suggest either one.Regardless, you're wrong. While Hal Jordan, Green Lantern of Earth, did not create the universe, the story itself covers it. A renegade Guardian named Krona performed forbidden experiments to peer back to the dawn of time, whereupon his violation of That Which Man Was Not Mean to Know resulted in a time paradox, in which a portion of creation was responsible for creating the multiverse as we know it, through the release of antimatter into the infinite void.So there you go. Do you have a case against the existence of Green Lantern? *scratches head*You know the internet is all monotone, right?Regardless, I have no contempt for those who believe in God. I think it's kind of silly, but whatever makes them happy, long as they don't hurt anyone.

---

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

I didn't get all that sci-fi stuff, but if you are saying that Green Lantern created the universe, then "Green Lantern" is just another name for God. Your argument is trivial. What difference does it make about the name?This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-06-2006 11:31 AM

Well no, I'm not. You see... Green Lantern is a comic book character.I find the idea of believing in Green Lantern to be fairly silly, just like I find the idea of believing in the God you defined in the OP to be fairly silly. But it meets your criteria for demanding a serious counter-argument: it contains a creation myth.

---

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

Ahh gotcha, something along the lines of "Why has God created a universe which the majority of is not going to be seen by anybody alive because the majority of it is massively lethal to life, or at least prohibitively distant."

But again, does that not presuppose that the purpose of the Universe is dependant on humans seeing or experienciencing it? That to me is assigning some human centric limitations on GOD.IMHO GOD did not create the universe simply as a playground for man. What Her purposes were or might be I don't know, but it does seem somewhat Human centric to think that GOD is but an agent of man.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

I've heard this type of reasoning before, and it won't do. Green Lantern is a different type of entity than God (if we think of God as the creator of the universe). Green Lantern is by definition a totally extraneous entity, having arisen from nature. The concept of God is quite different.

---

Actually this will do perfectly considering that you made up the attributes of the God in the OP.Where did you pull the attributes from for your God of the OP?How can anyone make a case against your God when you haven't told us what your God does or did or is supposed to do.You say he is all-knowing, all-good, and all powerful and totally objective. But is he here, was he here? He can be all those things and be in another galaxy.Attributes don't mean anything unless he does something with them.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

The Western monotheistic Catholic/Protestant/Orthodox Christian one?
Not to exclude Jews and Muslim concepts of a Monotheistic entity? (as opposed to Pantheistic union with all matter or some other non-monotheistic concept, right?) One thing that I may point out is this:Father Christmas, the Easter Bunny, The Green Lantern, Loki the trickster or any other manmade stories may have a spiritual component to them in the realm of human mythology.What we are discussing here, IMHO, is the Creator of the vast cosmos and the origin of all rational thoughts, ideas, emotions, perceptions, and the very universe itself.In my opinion, the case against the existance of God must logically explain the validity and common sense approach of a universe without a Creator that is only explained to us by our own human wisdom.In short, if God is not the origin and the source, our own human wisdom is the origin and the source for explaining all that is.I did not become a believer through logic and common sense, but I remain one due to logic and common sense. (Emotions optional! )

Strange indeed.Everyone does not believe in lots of things for no good evidence exists, yet for some reason a few people think that a non-belief in God needs to be justified.I suppose that this could be turned around and we could ask why we need to justify a non-belief in God? Well, it does seem that this is being discussed on this thread, but no one is really making a good case that God is different from any other non-existing entity.

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

Hi Phat.I must admit, often I hear of the phrase "common sense" but rarely, if ever, is a definition attached to it. Both sides of the debate appear to use it, but what is your definition?P.S. The only definition of common sense I remember is Einstein's: "Common sense is the accumulation of prejudices by age 18"; or something along those lines.

I wasn't thinking along those lines, but that would be a good point. I was thinking of the accidental nature of life: Lack of design, lack of order. Existence is like a haphazard junkyard.

If this is the reason why God qualifies for special treatment, then your case against the existance of Green Lantern must also logically explain the validity and common sense approach of a universe without Green Lantern that is only explained to us by our own human wisdom.Get crackin'.

---

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

robinrihan It is not pretense at all. It is dealing with reality as we individually see fit. This makes perfect sense since it allows for any point of view to be implemented by people. Thus we have those societies that differ from our own and we have thousands of different interests to which not all agree are meaningful but that which some do, some do not.

The fact that I feel pain negates an all-good, all-powerful God.

So the all-good. all-powerful god would be one that didn't give you a sense of pain? Huh?The all-good god would rather you just leave your hand in the fire until it burns off?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

He was not an atheist. Here is something I found: I think Einstein had views along these lines. I think there is a good chance Phat would characterize Spinoza as a pantheist but I'm not sure that his philosophy meets the technical definition of that word.lfen