Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Case Against the Existence of God
docpotato
Member (Idle past 5048 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003


Message 46 of 301 (301599)
04-06-2006 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by jar
04-06-2006 2:09 PM


Re: Not sure I understand that reasoning
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by jar, posted 04-06-2006 2:09 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by jar, posted 04-06-2006 2:21 PM docpotato has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 301 (301601)
04-06-2006 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by docpotato
04-06-2006 2:06 PM


The fact that I feel pain negates an all-good, all-powerful God.
There's a logical problem with this argument. See message #14.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by docpotato, posted 04-06-2006 2:06 PM docpotato has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by docpotato, posted 04-06-2006 2:18 PM robinrohan has replied

docpotato
Member (Idle past 5048 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003


Message 48 of 301 (301602)
04-06-2006 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by robinrohan
04-06-2006 2:16 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by robinrohan, posted 04-06-2006 2:16 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by robinrohan, posted 04-06-2006 3:50 PM docpotato has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 49 of 301 (301604)
04-06-2006 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by docpotato
04-06-2006 2:14 PM


Re: Not sure I understand that reasoning
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by docpotato, posted 04-06-2006 2:14 PM docpotato has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by robinrohan, posted 04-06-2006 2:25 PM jar has replied
 Message 51 by docpotato, posted 04-06-2006 2:28 PM jar has not replied
 Message 78 by robinrohan, posted 04-07-2006 4:37 AM jar has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 301 (301610)
04-06-2006 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by jar
04-06-2006 2:21 PM


Re: Not sure I understand that reasoning
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by jar, posted 04-06-2006 2:21 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by jar, posted 04-06-2006 2:29 PM robinrohan has not replied

docpotato
Member (Idle past 5048 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003


Message 51 of 301 (301612)
04-06-2006 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by jar
04-06-2006 2:21 PM


Re: Not sure I understand that reasoning
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by jar, posted 04-06-2006 2:21 PM jar has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 52 of 301 (301614)
04-06-2006 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by robinrohan
04-06-2006 2:25 PM


Re: Not sure I understand that reasoning
Read on.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by robinrohan, posted 04-06-2006 2:25 PM robinrohan has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 53 of 301 (301634)
04-06-2006 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Dan Carroll
04-06-2006 9:53 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-06-2006 9:53 AM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-06-2006 3:39 PM riVeRraT has replied

lfen
Member (Idle past 4678 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 54 of 301 (301664)
04-06-2006 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by robinrohan
04-06-2006 12:01 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by robinrohan, posted 04-06-2006 12:01 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by robinrohan, posted 04-06-2006 3:43 PM lfen has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 301 (301667)
04-06-2006 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by riVeRraT
04-06-2006 3:02 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by riVeRraT, posted 04-06-2006 3:02 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by riVeRraT, posted 04-07-2006 8:36 AM Dan Carroll has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 301 (301669)
04-06-2006 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by lfen
04-06-2006 3:33 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by lfen, posted 04-06-2006 3:33 PM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by lfen, posted 04-06-2006 10:14 PM robinrohan has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 301 (301672)
04-06-2006 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by docpotato
04-06-2006 2:18 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by docpotato, posted 04-06-2006 2:18 PM docpotato has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 301 (301683)
04-06-2006 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by purpledawn
04-06-2006 1:08 PM


Re: Robin's God
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by purpledawn, posted 04-06-2006 1:08 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by purpledawn, posted 04-06-2006 4:26 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 60 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-06-2006 5:06 PM robinrohan has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 59 of 301 (301686)
04-06-2006 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by robinrohan
04-06-2006 4:13 PM


Re: Robin's God
quote:
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.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by robinrohan, posted 04-06-2006 4:13 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by robinrohan, posted 04-07-2006 4:30 AM purpledawn has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 301 (301695)
04-06-2006 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by robinrohan
04-06-2006 4:13 PM


Re: Robin's God
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by robinrohan, posted 04-06-2006 4:13 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by robinrohan, posted 04-06-2006 5:18 PM Dan Carroll 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