God's What?

  • Thread starter Jameson
  • Start date
  • #76
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.
 
  • #77
153
0
scrappychic said:
... 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 here.

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 dont 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
 
Last edited:
  • #78
153
0
scrappychic said:
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...
 
  • #79
153
0
StykFacE said:
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 thats all that matters to me!"? Where's the problem with that?
*__-
 
Last edited:
  • #80
106
0
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! ^_^
 
  • #81
153
0
Blahness said:
...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.
 
  • #82
153
0
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...
 
Last edited:
  • #83
Tom Mattson
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,500
8
nameless said:
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.
 
  • #84
106
0
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
 
  • #85
Tom Mattson
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,500
8
Blahness said:
It's also disprovable, though. As I said. x.x
Indeed it is. If it weren't, it wouldn't be scientific.
 
  • #86
2,225
0
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #87
153
0
Tom Mattson said:
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...
 
Last edited:
  • #88
Tom Mattson
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,500
8
nameless said:
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.
 
  • #89
244
1
DaveC426913 said:
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.
 
  • #90
153
0
Tom Mattson said:
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.
 
  • #91
Kerrie
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
827
15
Jameson said:
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.
 
  • #92
35
0
not a very good argument

much as I may agree to a degree, You cannot dismiss god by what he doesnt do. These accidents that he doesnt 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.
 
  • #93
Doc Al
Mentor
45,010
1,286
jim_990 said:
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.
 
  • #94
789
4
Doc Al said:
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. :approve:
 

Related Threads on God's What?

  • Last Post
3
Replies
65
Views
6K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
61
Views
5K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
8K
  • Last Post
18
Replies
444
Views
32K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
Top