Originally posted by MontaguesWell, if you ask a freethinker, they will tell you that is makes perfect logical sense if you look at the statistics for each team. If you ask me though, it was the will of God. 😀
If Rangers are the greatest football team on earth? What happened against FC Copenhagen
😀
But the main reason why I disagree is that neither of the two alternatives (there is a god, vs. the universe spontaneously generated us on this marvelous little rock) have been proven or disproven in any rigorous manner. Thus, it would be irrational to conclude that someone favouring one alternative over the other is irrational.Richjohnson
Good Thinking , Free Thinker !!
IvanH.
Originally posted by OmnislashOn the contrary, the existence of apparently unneccessary suffering is evidence that there is no creature out there with the properties of omnipotence (the ability to do anything that is logically possible), omniscience (God believes a proposition if and only if it is true) and omnibenevolence (moral perfection). If you want to claim that it is the last of these properties that is problematic, that's fine, but think about what would follow from not attributing this property to God. If what God thinks is morally right bears no resemblance to what good Christians think is morally right, then Christians are left with no moral foundation. For any act they think they ought do, it's possible that God disagrees. How would they go about trying to puzzle out what they ought to do, given this potential disconnect between their moral perspective and God's. Any attempt at reconcilliation would involve trying to figure out what God wants to be done, but this, of course, would involve attributing moral beliefs to God and thus holding "God to a moral level of our own". You can't have it both ways. Either God is morally perfect in the way good Christians take Him to be, or Christians have no reason to think that their good faith efforts at being moral actually track the will of God.
I must agree with you in the sense that the bible does not support the theory of God creating the universe and then lets is run of its own accord.
However, I understand that the point he was trying to make was that the existence of suffering has no bearance upon the existence of God. I understand where you are coming from in your point about it, but to ...[text shortened]... it does not fit your personal moral code is based purely upon your own discernment of morality.
Originally posted by ivanhoeThe question is not whether either of these alternatives have been proven in a rigorous manner, if you think a rigorous proof would have to be some type of deduction from self-evident premises. Rather, the question is what the evidence supports, and which theory is more parsimonious, elegant, has more explanatory depth, predictive efficacy, etc. By these criteria of theory choice, the theory that there is no God (and by God I'm referring to a creature who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent) is clearly lacking.
But the main reason why I disagree is that neither of the two alternatives (there is a god, vs. the universe spontaneously generated us on this marvelous little rock) have been proven or disproven in any rigorous manner. Thus, it would be irrational to conclude that someone favouring one alternative over the other is irrational.Richjohnson
Good Thinking , Free Thinker !!
IvanH.
Originally posted by FeivelWell, if the God of the Jews ordered the slaughter of men, women and children, as he did when Joshua was committing genocide in Canaan, then he is clearly not morally perfect. Since he doesn't have the property of moral perfection, no problem of evil arises. But I wonder, if god is not morally perfect, then why is he deserving of worship? To quote "the mole", my favorite character from the South Park movie "Bigger, Longer and Uncut": "God....He's the biggest b!@$% of them all".
Blah, blah, blah? I really should catch up on my reading 🙂 Reading your statement about God's only begotten..., you seem to be focusing on ONLY the Christian concept. You, I and quite a few people here will agree that that concept is in error. But you must take into account that there exist concepts about God that are not contained in (or even close) to the ...[text shortened]... (in my opinion) rule out being a Freethinker.
Amici Sumus
Feivel the HardcoreFreethinker
Originally posted by bbarrThank you for that explanation, Bennett. A couple of things:
Of course I don't mind, Mark. Hume's basic claim was that the antecedent probability that a miracle has occurred is incredibly small, since miracles are violations of laws of nature. So, any testimony to the effect that a miracle has occurred will be in all probability incorrect. It is always more probable that the person(s) testifying to the occurrance o ...[text shortened]... es here surrounding the establishment of antecedent probability, problems common to Bayesianism.
First of all, I'm glad I'm in good company here (Mr. Hume etc.), because I think the question of the existence of God is better replaced by the question of whether anything represented by the concept of god can meddle in physical phenomena. A god that commits no "acts of god" in a physical sense exists only in the minds of believers, a type of existence which I certainly don't question. The physical world is what we as humans have in common; we all observe it. To clarify, if god is powerless to change the state of the physical world, then he is unverifiable empirically, and totally unobservable, and thus not part of the "common ground of humanity". Therefore, he may exist only as an idea for individual humans (maybe even all humans), but still can't have an independent existence.
Second, I think it is germane to mention that any god megalomaniacal enough to turn people into pillars of salt would not create beings capable of questioning his existence, as we are doing. Ergo, no Judeo-Christian or similarly nasty god 😉.
Third, is the Bayes of Bayesianism the same Bayes of Bayes' Theorem in probability?
I'll start by assuming God. On the subject of omnibenevolence, as far as I can see you can take this several ways:
1. Take God as your definition of good, thus omnibenevolence is automatic. Even if there is a God, we might well decide that His morals cannot and should not be imitated (consider the phrase 'playing God'😉, and therefore we are still left in the dark as to how to live a morally sound life.
2. Assume that all acts of God are good. This is a weaker axiom, and allows for a separate definition of good for human beings. However, since we have no control over God, the goodness of His actions is pretty irrelevant; what's done is done.
3. Devise a definition of good, and then compare God's actions with it. There certainly exist definitions of good which would make God omnibenevolent, but I am not aware of any which I'd be comfortable with (preventable suffering etc.)
4. Everything God tells you to do is good, everything He tells you not to do is bad. This is not a complete definition of good; more seriously, if you cannot be sure what God wants you to do, it doesn't help at all. If nothing else, the conflicting demands of different religions and sects make this a difficult one to actually implement, even if you can prove the existence of God in the first place.
Originally posted by bbarrOK, forget about the triple-O Christian concept of God. What about a God who is only two of the three (e.g. omniscient and omnibenevolent)?
The question is not whether either of these alternatives have been proven in a rigorous manner, if you think a rigorous proof would have to be some type of deduction from self-evident premises. Rather, the question is what the evidence supports, and which theory is more parsimonious, elegant, has more explanatory depth, predictive efficacy, etc. By these cri ...[text shortened]... m referring to a creature who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent) is clearly lacking.
ps- I assume that you meant to type "the theory that there is a God (...) is clearly lacking"
The silliest question ever asked... "Is There A God?"
Who cares. If you live as well as you can, always treat other people as you want to be treated then the following conditions exist as to the silly question:
If A) "Yes" then go outside and look at the few hundred stars you can see. Think of our galaxy and it's few hundred billions of stars. Multiply that by 50 billion. Does the thing that is capable of creating that frighten you? If so you have a serious problem of scale. Be frightened only if you keep records on the bacterium inhabiting your body.
If B) "No" then no harm done. You are a good person.
"On the contrary, the existence of apparently unneccessary suffering is evidence that there is no creature out there with the properties of omnipotence (the ability to do anything that is logically possible), omniscience (God believes a proposition if and only if it is true) and omnibenevolence (moral perfection)." Bbarr.
Hi Bbarr,
"that there is no creature out there "
I assume that the word "creature" in that sentence, is a slip of the pen
because God , whatever you might think about His existence or non-
existance, is not a creature but a Being !
If He were a creature, that would generate consequenses of truly
gigantic proportions for our discussions here.Don't you agree ?
IvanH.
Originally posted by ivanhoeYou seem to be throwing around definitions of God that are rather unsubstantiated. What properties distinguish a Being? Remember an object is that which can be uniquely determined by its properties.
"On the contrary, the existence of apparently unneccessary suffering is evidence that there is no creature out there with the properties of omnipotence (the ability to do anything that is logically possible), omniscience (God believes a proposition if and only if it is true) and omnibenevolence (moral perfection)." Bbarr.
Hi Bbarr,
"that there is no ...[text shortened]... quenses of truly
gigantic proportions for our discussions here.Don't you agree ?
IvanH.
I don't think such quibbling is in the spirit of this discussion.
Originally posted by ivanhoeI'm not even gonna get into this but to say....
"On the contrary, the existence of apparently unneccessary suffering is evidence that there is no creature out there with the properties of omnipotence (the ability to do anything that is logically possible), omniscience (God believes a proposition if and only if it is true) and omnibenevolence (moral perfection)." Bbarr.
Hi Bbarr,
"that there is no ...[text shortened]... quenses of truly
gigantic proportions for our discussions here.Don't you agree ?
IvanH.
Creature - A being of anomalous or uncertain aspect or nature.
Phla-