|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Case Against the Existence of God | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
docpotato Member (Idle past 5076 days) Posts: 334 From: Portland, OR Joined: |
o 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? All-good, all-powerful would have no need to create a world in which my hand could either touch the fire or burn off.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
The fact that I feel pain negates an all-good, all-powerful God. There's a logical problem with this argument. See message #14.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
docpotato Member (Idle past 5076 days) Posts: 334 From: Portland, OR Joined: |
I'm not convinced that because something is subjective it has no meaning.
Let me go further: Even if the meaning of my pain is objectively meaningless, it is still subjectively meaningful to me. This message has been edited by docpotato, 04-06-2006 12:21 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The fact that I feel pain negates an all-good, all-powerful God. I still don't understand that reasoning. Challenge is always interesting, usually good. But as in all of these discussions, in the end it comes down to two points. One is that different people hold different beliefs. The second is that attempts to prove or disprove GOD are fated to fail. If GOD exists, She exists reagrdless of any evidence that shows She does not exist. If GOD does not exist, then It does not exist reagardless of any evidence that He does exist. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
If GOD exists, She exists reagrdless of any evidence that shows She does not exist. Your God appears to be female. What are the metaphysical implications of that? Is that why you say HER views on morality are subjective? Is that a comment about femininity?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
docpotato Member (Idle past 5076 days) Posts: 334 From: Portland, OR Joined: |
still don't understand that reasoning. Challenge is always interesting, usually good. An all-powerful God has the ability to determine what is or is not good. Because we, in this universe, feel satisfaction in overcoming obstacles does not mean that the universe has to be set up in such a way that we have obstacles in order to feel the exact same satisfaction.
The second is that attempts to prove or disprove GOD are fated to fail. If GOD exists, She exists reagrdless of any evidence that shows She does not exist. If GOD does not exist, then It does not exist reagardless of any evidence that He does exist. I agree with this, but it doesn't hurt to examine our beliefs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Read on.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 445 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
Okay. *looks around* *sees nothing* So, what's for lunch? Sees nothing? Your never more than 3 feet from a bible. Oh wait that's a spider.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4706 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
The concept of God is quite different. I'm running out of time this morning and my work schedule gets busy for the next couple of weeks dang it, as this is a very good question and does incite me to much thinking. "God" is a word, a concept, and I think it's function is as an explanation for all manner of things. Would you then be interested in reframing your question to asking about the validity of different explanations for the Universe, consciousness, etc? Religion is also about the authority of the tribe, city state, nation, empire etc. God is on our side as the ultimate validation of the rightness of our actions whether we support the status quo or challenge it. God is ubiquitous. To ask if God exists asks about the validity of the explanation of Y being explained by X. We would need to examine what explanations are and what it is to assert existence. Cleary God as explanation exists and refers to various phenomena some of which I accept as existing. Would you be interested in reasoning back from What Is to see if the notion even of a source of What Is is neccesary? The Universe is huge and contains huge energies. We know that mathematics demonstrates infinities as properties of certain sets such as integers. Is it important that God is all powerful or simply the most powerful by a wide magin but still mathamatically finite? I'm taking it that you aren't so much interested in what any particular ancient manuscript asserts as you are in the abstract concept of the explanation? lfen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
Sees nothing? Your never more than 3 feet from a bible. I've also got an issue of Green Lantern in my messenger bag. "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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Would you be interested in reasoning back from What Is to see if the notion even of a source of What Is is neccesary? Oh, sure, I'm interested. By "necessary" I take it you mean logically necessary?
I'm taking it that you aren't so much interested in what any particular ancient manuscript asserts as you are in the abstract concept of the explanation? Exactly. ps.: Spinoza's ideas are interesting: I don't know what I think of them yet. This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-06-2006 03:01 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Even if the meaning of my pain is objectively meaningless, it is still subjectively meaningful to me. True, but if it's subjective it can't serve as evidence for anything. Say I prefer red to blue. That cannnot serve as evidence that red is in fact superior to blue. Now, subjective preferences are ultimately arbitrary. There is no reason to select one preference over another. I prefer red to blue, but I might as well prefer blue to red. There's no basis for preferring either. If there were a basis, then my preference would not be merely subjective. If our morality is subjective, then our judgments cannot serve as evidence for anything.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
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. This God created the universe. Now if Green Lantern created the universe, then Green Lantern is another name for God. If Green Lantern did not create the universe, but rather is a product of the universe, then he is a different type of entity, an extraneous entity. In that case, the concept of "Green Lantern" is not the same kind of concept as the concept of "God." All these entities are either different names for God or are totally unnecessary, by definition, since they derive from nature. The concept of "God" is different. God does not derive from nature but rather created nature. There are only two choices: 1. An eternal Being (eternal by definition) created nature.2. nature has always existed (in some form). All other choices can be reduced down to these two. All other beings, except this Being who created nature, are extraneous. There is no logical reason to choose either 1 or 2--if we don't consider the nature of this universe but only the fact of creation. Dan's reference to Green Lantern or whatever is no argument at all. What it appears to be is a sarcastic slur on belief. That might work fine as rhetorical pathos; but good logos it's not. This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-06-2006 03:14 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3486 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:You're missing the point. You aren't presenting a God from belief. You are concocting a God and adding rules as you go along. On what do you base these rules, attributes, or choices?
This God created the universe. God does not derive from nature but rather created nature. All these entities are either different names for God or are totally unnecessary, by definition, since they derive from nature. All other choices can be reduced down to these two. All other beings, except this Being who created nature, are extraneous. Plus the attributes in the OP. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
If Green Lantern did not create the universe, but rather is a product of the universe Actually, the example I gave both created the universe, and is a product of the universe. I refer you to the seminal theological tract, Crisis on Infinite Earths. (As well as post 31.) Now while Green Lantern is, and has always been intended as, a silly example, it still shows the false dilemna you're setting up. There is no need for a monolithic choice between "God" and "Eternal Universe." If nothing else, "I don't know" is always an acceptable third option.
What it appears to be is a sarcastic slur on belief. Please. If I was actually making fun of belief, I'd be whipping out much funnier material than this. "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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024