Contradiction of God's Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omnibenevolence

[Johann]

And I will say: God is non-existent.

Suppose the total life span of the universe to be tens of billions of years. Suppose also that during the whole of that time span, the probability of God existing is very small but greater than zero (I think even the most rabid atheist would concede this). Now consider this: except for about 100 years, during billions and billions of years the probability of God existing is higher than the probability of you existing.

I once told this to someone, and for a brief moment I thought he was about to quit being an atheist. But then he asked me what I thought that meant and I said, "I have no idea". He was rather disappointed

 

[kcballer21]

Suppose the total life span of the universe to be tens of billions of years. Suppose also that during the whole of that time span, the probability of God existing is very small but greater than zero (I think even the most rabid atheist would concede this). Now consider this: except for about 100 years, during billions and billions of years the probability of God existing is higher than the probability of you existing.

I once told this to someone, and for a brief moment I thought he was about to quit being an atheist. But then he asked me what I thought that meant and I said, "I have no idea". He was rather disappointed

And what if your friend suddenly decided to believe in God, then what? How does his life change? Does he become hopeful for an eternally blissful afterlife, or fearful of a tormented one? Does his moral philosophy change, how about his priorities? Was his life without purpose before, and now it would have meaning? My point is whether or not God exists, he ain't talking to me, or giving me any reason to believe that he does exist, and until he does (blatant break in the known laws of physics, say) I'll just assume it's myself and the rest of us.

Oh, i'll also accept the spontaneous dissappearance of cancer throughout the children of the world as evidence of a God (who's interested in the affairs of humans of course.)

 

[Amp1]

Even though god cares...

Why should god just GIVE MAN CARD BLANCHE to eternity.

We do some times cause pain on oursevles but unforseen events also happen to cause pain. That is not to say or imply that there is a 'God' or 'Devil' is the underlying cause behind such events, chance/probability is something that is necessary in order for free will to exist.

Something as tragic as cancer or MS also happens, its a component of life's downs and ups. Please, God forbid anyone close to anyone of us developing an incurable ailment. I don't wish it on anyone. But my cousin died from cancer, I accepted this. A friend of mine has it, I must accept this also. Another cousin has bone cancer, I must accept that. They still did and do their best to enjoy this life. And their perserverance is inspirational, how can I complain when I break a nail when they must face far worse.

 

[nameless]

1. If God is all knowing and all loving, He knows of the pains of the world and would want to stop them. Therefore He is not all powerfull.
2. If God is all powerful and all loving, He has the capability to stop pain and suffering. Therefore he is not all knowing.
3. If God is all powerful and all knowing, He knows of the pains of the world and can stop them. Therefore he is not all loving.

Sounds like selfish anthropomorphization! If some god knows that you are uncomfortable, which is really what you're whining about, awww pain and suffering 8( that this 'god' must for some reason wish to spare you these uncomfortable feelings and wave it's godly hand and make the 'boogey man' go away?

all powerful, all knowing, and all loving.

Besides, wouldn't YOU have to be 'all-knowing', 'all loving', 'all whatever...' to;
1) recognise these qualities in 'another', and
2) to be able to 'know' what another 'all knowing, etc...' being would do in those circumstances? You assume your personal 'understandings and values' as your god's. Exactly who creates whom?
Your questions are flawed from the outset.

 

[Doc Al]

Sounds like selfish anthropomorphization! If some god knows that you are uncomfortable, which is really what you're whining about, awww pain and suffering 8( that this 'god' must for some reason wish to spare you these uncomfortable feelings and wave it's godly hand and make the 'boogey man' go away?

You miss the point. The typical characterization of "god" as "all powerful, all knowing, and all loving." is not Jameson's. Jameson is critiquing that characteriztion as self-contradictory.

 

[nameless]

It would seem to me that merely accepting the whole 'omni' routine is error on its face as (again) wouldn't one need to 'be it' to 'recognise it'?

His critique was full of the same cognitive errors. Too many ass-umptions for my taste. I was critiquing the critique as error ridden.

I don't think that I missed the point, except, of course, if he was being facetious in his 'argument' to point out the cognitive fallacies of the agerage 'goddists'. But the replies didn't indicate this was the case.

And if I truly miss the point, it certainly wouldn't be the first time!
*__-

 

[devil-fire]

i agree with jameson even after looking over all the replys. the idea that we can complain about pain not being fixed by god because we don't know what's really good for us is something i disagree with.

if god let's mass sufferings happening (such as genocide) how could he be all-loving unless he is all-loving of something other then the victim? genocide is good for us? no. i don't buy that, if that's true then we have nothing to thank that god for.

maybe god cares about the species instead of the individual and Hasn't given us free will because he has made those who make others suffer for a cause they do not willingly support, the cause of the species.

if god gave us free will, he gave us the ability to fight his will and prevent it from being done (since everything is his will). if we can fight his will and prevent its effects, he is not all powerful. if his will is that we fight his power, then he can not be all loving because he is letting us make each other suffer. what is the reason behind letting those who can better themselves by the suffering of others continue to prosper?

 

[nameless]

i agree with jameson even after looking over all the replys. the idea that we can complain about pain not being fixed by god because we don't know what's really good for us is something i disagree with.

Is that not what the 'goddists' tell us? God knows best? "Let go and let god"?

if god let's mass sufferings happening (such as genocide) how could he be all-loving unless he is all-loving of something other then the victim?

On second thought, perhaps because 'love' is a man invented concept (like god, I guess, at least our concept of 'it'), which we cannot even agree on a consensus definition, I was going to ask how we can assume that god's 'understanding' is equivalent to ours. But if you are going to assume that god is loving as is claimed, than I guess that you'll also have to swallow the 'gods ways are above our ways' sideways shuffle. I don't remember god ever defining love in scripture (even if he did write it all him/itself). So, we do not have sufficient data to challenge god on the subject. If we anthropomorphise, than he cannot be all loving because he would have to conform to our concepts.

genocide is good for us? no. i don't buy that, if that's true then we have nothing to thank that god for.

When I was a Xtian, the local doctrine at church was to thank god for everything, even the painful, as god knows best and is in control of our surrendered/sacrificed lives... see above 'sideways shuffle'. You can't have your cake and eat it too...

if god gave us free will, he gave us the ability to fight his will and prevent it from being done (since everything is his will).

Can't be much of a god...

if we can fight his will and prevent its effects, he is not all powerful.

Perhaps it is his 'will' that you think that you have 'free will' and are capable of thwarting gods 'will'?

if his will is that we fight his power, then he can not be all loving because he is letting us make each other suffer.

Suffering is of our own making, as is the end of suffering. We won't find one without experiencing the other. To allow us to grow, through the rain, can be considered 'loving'.

what is the reason behind letting those who can better themselves by the suffering of others continue to prosper?

It seems to me that 'suffering' is on a strictly individual basis to be dealt with as such. I can be in pain, and not suffer. Or I can. It is relating to my state of consciousness. Which will not ever evolve if 'suffered' to live a life of comfort and ease. Perhaps your 'loving father' knows this too?

I feel more and more that I must be missing the point. Are we attributing attributes to our concept of a god and claiming that It displays these attributes poorly due to what we conceive of as It's 'behavior'? Is this what we are doing?

 

[EnumaElish]

You miss the point. The typical characterization of "god" as "all powerful, all knowing, and all loving." is not Jameson's. Jameson is critiquing that characteriztion as self-contradictory.

Sure, but all he has "proven" is that this specificly anthromorphic god is really easy to disprove. Rationalists, feylesufs, mystics (e.g. sufis) and kabbalists wrestled with this kind of statements for centuries; it is as if Jameson has reinvented Flintstones' wheel and it has four corners.

 

[nameless]

Ohhhhhhhhh...
Never mind.
*__-

Wait a min. If god is supposed to be all loving, and its in His contract, and 'he's' not delivering.. Should we sue 'him'? Put 'him' on trial? Has 'he' lived up to his 'omniscience clause'? Sue! The only devil's advocate position I could imagine would be to be god's defence. Jeeeez! That would be a stretch for me, but.. I'd try it. I say put 'him' on the stand and make 'him' answer! If found wanting, we could cancel 'his' contract and send 'him' to another planet.. in another galaxy! Of course, if he actually proves to actually be 'omni', well, he can do as he pleases I guess. ;)
What say ye?

Oh, about that square wheel? It's still as rickety as it ever was. Why drag that nonsense out of the garage?

 

[Doc Al]

Sure, but all he has "proven" is that this specificly anthromorphic god is really easy to disprove.

And yet, most theists still profess a belief in just such a charmingly quaint notion.

 

[StykFacE]

Sure, but all he has "proven" is that this specificly anthromorphic god is really easy to disprove.

No one has disproved God nor will they ever.

here's a few words...

The creator must be loving: the simplicity, balance, order, elegance and beauty seen throughout the world demonstrates this. everything is perfect and predictable, that's what science is all about.

God doesn't stop terrible things to happen for a reason. even though God "knows of the pains of the world and would want to stop them", for him to do such a thing is to prohibit the very thing that makes us human: free will. say a friend of mine was killed by an overdose of heroin, for God to step in and physically take it away would deny that individual the choice he has made. even tho it was a fatal choice, and would pain me very much.

Same with parents and children... since when do parents make ALL their child's decisions? there comes a certain point you let them make their own choices.

Also, it helps discard the good from evil. for those who believe in heaven/hell and afterlife, theoretically we can still mess up heaven, because God doesn't seize free will and choice when you carry on your next life after this one, so only the true good souls will be able to pass on. Take Earth as a "trial" period if you will... lol.

 

[EnumaElish]

And yet, most theists still profess a belief in just such a charmingly quaint notion.

In fact, some of the thinkers I mentioned above have long sought to reconcile these seemingly human qualities with the non-human (in fact, non-creation) essence of God. Even if God is not one of the creation, an anthropomorphical God may be the only way that humans can ever relate to "it."

 

[nameless]

And yet, most theists still profess a belief in just such a charmingly quaint notion.

But with due fairness, theists have the ability and the right to adorn their universe with any 'quaint notions' that they like, after all, doesn't everyone? The only problems seem to arise when the 'ego virus' grows out of control, when one takes one's 'subjective quaint notions' and insists that his 'quaint notions' are now the only 'quaint notions' allowed (allowed by society, mommy, etc..) as reality for anyone!
So, other than when 'they' try to remove our own 'quaint notions' to put up their's, who is to 'judge' the 'quaint notions' of others? Is there really a difference, essentially, between one 'quaint notion' and the next?

 

[StykFacE]

But with due fairness, theists have the ability and the right to adorn their universe with any 'quaint notions' that they like, after all, doesn't everyone? The only problems seem to arise when the 'ego virus' grows out of control, when one takes one's 'subjective quaint notions' and insists that his 'quaint notions' are now the only 'quaint notions' allowed (allowed by society, mommy, etc..) as reality for anyone!
So, other than when 'they' try to remove our own 'quaint notions' to put up their's, who is to 'judge' the 'quaint notions' of others? Is there really a difference, essentially, between one 'quaint notion' and the next?

good post... both parties in debate are guilty of choosing sides. and censorship as well.

 

[nameless]

...an anthropomorphical God may be the only way that humans can ever relate to "it."

That appears to be the case. The only way that we can 'relate' to 'something else' is to construct within mind, human mind, 'seperation'; Me - You, Up - Down, Is - Is Not.
Duality.
So since 'god' can only be conceptualized at all (and all concepts would fall under the category of IDOLATRY! No?) in a human mind, the 'concepts and constructs can only be in the 'parameters' of the 'conceptualizing mind.

Thus Faith was 'born' to represent the knowledge of the disolution of the 'illusion of dualism' and the subsequent experience of the primal 'oneness' of that which 'Is' (even Is is a poor descriptor as Is is within the realm of duality, as are all words.. Nothing, no one, no words can 'describe' that which cannot be described. (Renee Guinon said that.. "To speak is to lie." I'd guess this is why.).

After Faith, in religion (as a metaphor, as is everything...), comes the Sacrifice. No, not a sheep or a goat (damned priestcraft!), (perhaps a 'sacred cow' or two?) but our ego. We as a special, seperate, personality with a 'me' to view the world 'out there', having/being a body distinct from (the illusion/fiction/mental construct of) the rest of the omniverse must sacrifice all this and more be able to crash through the 'brick sh!thouse' of our ego which upholds the illusion of seperation, transcending 'body centered consciousness' into 'uncentered consciousness'... beyond universal...

Perhaps this is one way one can interpert the saying that "God has 'existence' within mind only." Everthing has 'existence' within mind only and if we are going to 'thing-ise' god, the mind is where 'It'll' 'live'. The human mind will conceptualize according to it own parameters and paradigm.

So, anthropomorphically is really the only that we can 'create' a god. Hopefully we are wise enough to recognise metaphor...

 

[nameless]

No one has disproved God nor will they ever.

Of course not.
One cannot 'disprove' that which has never been 'proven'.
So I'd say that your's is a pretty safe statement, as nothing has ever been ultimately, absolutely 'proven' and hence would be just as impossible to 'disprove'.
The individual subjective concept of God represents no special case here.

 

[nameless]

good post... both parties in debate are guilty of choosing sides. and censorship as well.

Thank you.
The problem with the (poor) process of 'debate' is that people MUST 'choose sides'. There are more 'productive methods of interpersonal communication.
I think that is why debate is not necessarily the best way to come to a 'better' understanding. Winner, loser.. all egoic; obfuscating reasonable perspectives with ego and subsequent emotion. Perhaps two can share their own experience, try to understand where the other is coming from, and perhaps, as a consequence of honestly examining the 'data', improve one's own 'understanding', (Borg-like) by incorporating something newly realized into ones own 'hypothesis of life'. If there are no words that have 'meaning' after honest investigation, then one's 'life hypothesis' will remain unaltered. There is a giant source of 'data' from whence we might 'profit', people and their varying perspectives. Do with the 'data' what you will! Everyone wins.

 

[Blahness]

God CANNOT be all loving AND all-powerful; He allows evil.
God CAN be all powerful, OR all-knowing, OR all-loving, but not all 3 at the same time.

Proof in first post of topic.

 

[StykFacE]

God CANNOT be all loving AND all-powerful; He allows evil.
God CAN be all powerful, OR all-knowing, OR all-loving, but not all 3 at the same time.

Proof in first post of topic.

God allowing evil allows us to contain free will. If God takes away evil, he takes away our choice, and our chance of eternal life.



God is all powerful - - He created the entire existence we know: time, matter, space.

God is all knowing - - We're talking about the Creator of all, nothing in our world is against him.

God is all loving - - (quoted from above) The simplicity, balance, order, elegance and beauty seen throughout the world demonstrates this.

 

[Blahness]

Disease, please.

Why would he be all-loving to have disease? We don't exactly choose to have disease, now do we?

What about accidents? Those aren't chosen.

Natural disasters? Seems non-loving to me.

About all-powerfulness - Can he create something He cannot destroy?

About all-knowingness - If he knows all that we do, how do we truly have a choice in going to heaven or hell by believing, since there is no point in choosing?

And as a last-offtopiceditpost:

DO YOU REALIZE HOW BORING BEING ALL-KNOWING WOULD BE?

 

[nameless]

Proof in first post of topic.

What is the point, please?
One creates an 'artificially fictional mental construct, complete with attributes' and proceeds to examine it from a particular point of view where it appears 'illogical' and proclaim, "A hah! Proof of 'illogicality'!" (when looked at, of course, from this particular 'perspective.)
What is the point of such a non-exercise in futility?

"All statements are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense." A public service clarification by the Sri Syadasti School of Spiritual Wisdom, Wilmette.

 

[scrappychic]

Besides, wouldn't YOU have to be 'all-knowing', 'all loving', 'all whatever...' to;
1) recognise these qualities in 'another', and
2) to be able to 'know' what another 'all knowing, etc...' being would do in those circumstances? You assume your personal 'understandings and values' as your god's. Exactly who creates whom?
Your questions are flawed from the outset.

That's a good point. How can we know what ontological reality is without taking a "God's eye" perspective. I do not know any humans that can take such a perspective without, by definition, being "God" (nobody I know actually fits that bill, but I know a lot of people that think they do-haha). I suppose, since we can never really know, whether or not God exists (although some believers would argue that they have proof), is it not better to play it on the safe side?

Afterall, if one thinks that God exists, and one is correct, the result is eternal life in heaven or if one is wrong, the result is ?

If one thinks that God does not exist and is wrong, the result is hell, however, if one is correct the result is ?

What is the penalty for living according to the commandments? Is it such a bad thing?

--I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, I am just throwing some ideas out there...

 

[scrappychic]

Wait a min. If god is supposed to be all loving, and its in His contract, and 'he's' not delivering.. Should we sue 'him'? Put 'him' on trial? Has 'he' lived up to his 'omniscience clause'? Sue! The only devil's advocate position I could imagine would be to be god's defence. Jeeeez! That would be a stretch for me, but.. I'd try it. I say put 'him' on the stand and make 'him' answer! If found wanting, we could cancel 'his' contract and send 'him' to another planet.. in another galaxy! Of course, if he actually proves to actually be 'omni', well, he can do as he pleases I guess. ;)
What say ye?

Wow! That's an awful bold statement, I sure hope you're right about God. I do want to point out that God never promised an easy ride. And if love = keeping the loved one out of pain, then I must really hate my chemistry students! They should sue me because I make them work hard to learn, even though I promised them that I cared about them...See where I'm going with this one?

 

[Evo]

But there is no hell for those that don't buy into the Christian myth. That's the point. Christian's believe it, non-christians don't.

The Almighty Trout God says if you don't believe in him, you will be doomed to suffer eternally. So isn't it better to believe in the Almighty Trout than to say he doesn't exist?

Ok, you Christians are rolling your eyes and thinking to yourselves "there is no such thing as a Trout God, that's ridiculous, I'm not going to suffer for not believing in him". Yep, I'm thinking the same thing about your God.

 

[scrappychic]

So I guess what I was saying is that no matter who is right or wrong, there is no conceivable consequence for being Christian, but there is a possible, even if non-Christians think it is remote or non-existant, chance that there will be a consequence for not believing.

I do see your point in the Trout God, but I would venture so far as to say that there is some, albeit debatable, evidence available that God exists. If there were absolutely no evidence, then I would definitely not believe in a God.

 

[nameless]

... is it not better to play it on the safe side?

God reserves the lowest pits in Hell for those who felt that way!
Coward!

Afterall, if one thinks that God exists, and one is correct, the result is eternal life in heaven or if one is wrong, the result is ?

If I were god, I wouldn't want such an insincere dishonest hypocrite in MY heaven! *__-

What is the penalty for living according to the commandments? Is it such a bad thing?

Living your life in fear and delusion, 'other' directed, IS a 'bad thing'.

What you are referring to here is Pascal's Wager. It is an erroneous hypothesis due to several fallacies. If interested, read about Pascal's Wager Refuted http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/pascal.htm.

Aww, hon, your argument is so weak and tenuous.. Would you believe in an Elephant that lives in the sun that will put you into hell if you don't believe in him if I told you that He was real? Same thing! Theres a possibility that I would be correct! Do you see? Just be honest to yourself. Be who you are, not who you think someone real powerful (or anyone else for that matter) 'wants' you yo be. Live an authentic life. The Earth that the meek inherit might be just six feet deep. Fear? Don't 'sell your soul' out of fear, grow some backbone! Ignorance is the 'manure' in which grow the weeds of fear! Be ye not afraid.

"Say what you know to be 'true', do what you know to be 'right', and leave, with faith and patience, the consequences to God." -F.W. Robertson

 

[nameless]

I would venture so far as to say that there is some, albeit debatable, evidence available that God exists. If there were absolutely no evidence, then I would definitely not believe in a God.

The 'debate' is millennia old. What it boils down to is that if you have a desire/need to 'believe' in a god, or whatever, you will find satisfactory 'evidence' to support your 'need'. If you have no desire/need to believe, there is no acceptable 'evidence' to be found upon which to base a 'belief'. We can both be looking at the same cloud and you'll see god, and I'll see a cloud. Goddists see their emotionally believed god in the strangest places, the mould on a tree, window frost, well Mother Mary anyway.. a smear on a wall... The point is that there is no hard and fast evidence good for one and all. It is not about that. If 'believing' keeps you behaving nicely and respectfully within your community, by all means, continue with your beliefs. Imagine a 'redneck' with no 'fear of god'? Hahahahaha...

 

[nameless]

Until evolution is proven true and God is proven wrong... there is a Creator.

With all due respect for your emotionally held 'beliefs', evolution is a fact.
It 'is'. Period! It has been observed in many instances. It is testable and repeatable. It is a scientific fact. HOW it works is theory, hypothesis. But that it is and works, is non-debatable in the mundane world.
'Creation science' is an oxymoron.
Get over it.

And God can never be 'proven' not to exist. It is impossible to prove a negative. That is a cognitive fallacy. Besides, God has never been proven to exist (other than in your mind), so the onus would be on you to make that proof first before fallaciously falling into the error of requiring the impossible to 'disprove'.

I wonder why people seem to need and seek 'logical and empirical evidence' of their personal subjective 'beliefs'? Could it be that something deep down in us abhores living in 'delusion'?
Looking around, it doesn't seem so...

For instance, why not just say that "I find beauty in my universe with all those pink unicorns flying around and I don't give a damn whether you can see them, or believe or not! I know and that's all that matters to me!"? Where's the problem with that?
*__-

 

[Blahness]

Here, want your agreeable solution?

God is NOT omnipotent, omniscient, or whatever omni-word means all-loving.
He only SEEMS omnipotent in relation to us, when he actually has limitations, however high they might be.

Solution for the paradoxes, no need for beliefs to be refuted to prove correctedness(lol).

That, and evolution can be disproved, but it can also BE proved.

Have fun guys! ^_^

 

[nameless]

...and evolution can be disproved, but it can also BE proved.

Evolution is already in EVIDENCE!
There is no longer the ability to empirically 'dis-prove' (as if anything can be 'dis-proven' once evidenced)
Go ahead an dis-prove what is already in evidence..
I'd LOVE to hear this one..
I guess that your 'perspective' has something to do with it...

"All statements are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense." A public service clarification by the Sri Syadasti School of Spiritual Wisdom, Wilmette.

 

[nameless]

Any good scientist should be willing to bend and destroy his previous 'understanding' in the face of new 'evidence', no matter how 'counter-intuitive' it appears to be. Reality IS completely 'counter-intuitive'!

Why don't you just Google up 'evolution' and educate yourself. Then you can have the best of both worlds. You can 'believe' with the 'believers' and also discuss with the science crowd.. *__-
The quotes you offer are referring to evolutionary THEORY, HYPOTHESIS.
That evolution 'exists' is a fact.
If you spent as much time examining the scientific 'facts' as opposed to trying to support/validate your 'beliefs' you might have a bit more understanding what evolution really is. Religion can teach you nothing of science. Do rabbits chew their cud? Is the Earth 6,000 years old? It is a different universe entirely, founded on different principles. There are also physicists/scientists who 'believe' in the devil, heaven, hell, all the emotional nonsense of 'beliefs'. What does that prove except, when emotionally held 'beliefs' are involved, intellect suddenly closes down, the eyes glaze over, and, hypnotically, dogma is recited. I've seen it over and over again. 'Beliefs' have nothing to do with the rational world. They are actually ANTI-rational, ANTI-logical from a 'scientific' perspective. Of course, they are perfectly 'rational' within a perspective of 'religion and belief'. YOUR 'BELIEFS' CAN NEVER BE PROVEN OR DISPROVEN, THEY ARE YOUR 'BELIEFS'. The problem arrises when they are examined by scientific rigor. I don't think that is the reason or purpose of 'beliefs'. I think that it is error to place your 'beliefs' in that context. Trouble and agitation always seems to result.
Peace...

 

[quantumdude]

Evolution is already in EVIDENCE!
There is no longer the ability to empirically 'dis-prove' (as if anything can be 'dis-proven' once evidenced)
Go ahead an dis-prove what is already in evidence..

That's not true at all, any scientific theory can be disproven. Newton's dynamics was in very good evidence, but better evidence eventually showed that Newton is not correct outside of a limited regime.

Evolution could indeed be supplanted by a better theory in the future. Of course, any new theory meant to replace evolution would have to match (or better yet, improve upon) the predictions of the latter wherever the latter is known to be good.

 

[Blahness]

I'm an atheist, and I know that evolution has a ton of proof for it.

It's also disprovable, though. As I said. x.x

 

[quantumdude]

It's also disprovable, though. As I said. x.x

Indeed it is. If it weren't, it wouldn't be scientific.

 

[Iacchus32]

Hey, is existence disprovable? Or, perhaps I've missed something here? How would we go about "proving" that we don't exist? Indeed, even in our attempts to prove that we didn't, would prove that we did. Because who is that's doing the proving? Obviously we can't prove that we didn't exist if, it required that we exist in order to do so.

 

[nameless]

That's not true at all, any scientific theory can be disproven.

Perhaps I am lacking in making myself clear, I'll try once more.
'Evolution' is an observable, repeatable, empirical FACT!
Just like the hand at the end of your arm (assuming that there IS one there).
HOW it works is theory, hypothesis.
It sounds to me that you are confusing hypothesis/theory with 'evidence'. You are caught in a semantical error; define your terms.
Do you understand the difference?
No one told Newton that his 'apple' did not 'exist', the theory was 'how', 'why'.
Yes, hypotheses and theories are constantly being revised and adjusted according to new data received.
The apple remains on the table. Evidence. Why it remains on the table? Theory/hypothesis.
I'm afraid that I can't make it any clearer than this.
But we do tend to 'believe' what we like/need, for our own reasons...

 

[quantumdude]

Perhaps I am lacking in making myself clear, I'll try once more.
'Evolution' is an observable, repeatable, empirical FACT!

If by "evolution" you are referring to specific instances of evolutionary behavior exhibited by biological systems, then of course I agree.

But if you mean the theory of evolution as taught by biology professors around the world, then no that is not a fact. That is a theory that is intended to generalize the known facts and to predict new facts.

Based on your examples of my arm and Newton's apple, I'm thinking that you meant the first one.

 

[SkepticJ]

To do so would reduce us to clockwork machinery - something that can't be loved.

I disagree with this. I love knowledge, technology ect. What is technology but mechanism? What is knowledge but tested ideas?

I know I'd fall if I jumped off a cliff, I don't have to try it myself, and die, to find out. Why, in a universe made by a loving God would lessons, ethics etc. even have a need? An omnipotent being could prevent any behavior that isn't good to do, or just protect the beings from their own actions. This quickly gets into "Why does God create anything?", to the theists here, why? What does it need things for? If it doesn't have a need for things, then why does it create them? Wants them? A want is something that is desired, why does God have this desire? Humans and other life desire things because we need them to survive or pass our genes on to the future. An immortal God can't die so has no need for reproduction, food or emotions. An omniscient God knows all, so can't have the desire for knowledge. An omnipotent God can't want more control. etc.

 

[nameless]

If by "evolution" you are referring to specific instances of evolutionary behavior exhibited by biological systems, then of course I agree.

Thank 'god'!
Hahahahaha..

But if you mean the theory of evolution as taught by biology professors around the world, then no that is not a fact.

Aren't you painting with a rather broad brush? What if our professor friend is teaching about, "specific instances of evolutionary behavior exhibited by biological systems"? Like you might do? *__-

That is a theory that is intended to generalize the known facts and to predict new facts.
Based on your examples of my arm and Newton's apple, I'm thinking that you meant the first one.

Thank you.

 

[Kerrie]

I think this has a formal name, to which I do not know, so I will try my best to explain these statements which I argue to be a contradiction of God.



Define "God" as all powerful, all knowing, and all loving.

Premise: Their is pain and suffering in the world

1. If God is all knowing and all loving, He knows of the pains of the world and would want to stop them. Therefore He is not all powerfull.
2. If God is all powerful and all loving, He has the capability to stop pain and suffering. Therefore he is not all knowing.
3. If God is all powerful and all knowing, He knows of the pains of the world and can stop them. Therefore he is not all loving.


Sorry if this isn't formal enough. I'm curious to hear everyone's thoughts on this. I want to see another side of thinking besides my own.

Jameson

Here is the original starter post of this thread. Any more posts that do not maintain the subject will result in this thread being locked.

 

[jim_990]

not a very good argument

much as I may agree to a degree, You cannot dismiss god by what he doesn't do. These accidents that he doesn't prevent may be necessary to save more life in the future. For instance, if you could go back and kill hitler, would it be wise, much worse may happen if you did.

 

[Doc Al]

For instance, if you could go back and kill hitler, would it be wise, much worse may happen if you did.

But we're not talking about us doing it, but an "all powerful" god. Surely such a being could prevent the rise of hitler and other disasters without making things worse.

 

[Jameson]

But we're not talking about us doing it, but an "all powerful" god. Surely such a being could prevent the rise of hitler and other disasters without making things worse.

Exactly.