Children that God neglected

Post Reply New Topic

Sure you can.

ΑΒΓΔΕΖΗΘΙΚΛΜΝΞΟΠΡΣΤΥΦΧΨΩαβγδεζηθικλμνξοπρςστυφχψω

Yes, they can, but mine happen to be on target I´m not sure what alternate construct you are referring too, as I believe that I have made it clear that I am an atheist who does not deny anyones faith, but denies that it can be logically justified in a coherent manner.

What made me lose my faith? The need to have the world make sense in a way that does not contradict itself. The reason I keep saying that faith cannot be logically justified in a coherent manner is that when that happens, atheists are created. To put the world on sound logical footing is to lose your faith.






"Yet does that keep you from describing them and your interactions with them?" This argument makes no sense, yes I describe them and my interactions with them, but they could be wrong. How many times have we heard the phrase, "I never saw that side of him", I never knew he was capable of that, etc. The BTK killer lived with his wife for over twenty something years, did she know him? This is also a comparison that cannot be made, as I interact with these people, I ask them questions, they answer, your dialouge with God is only a one way street. You did not respond to my bridge example, which is the main point against this argument.

And i did not say that we cannot describe it, just that a half description is dangerous, and for all you know, its not even a hundreth of a description. If I am hanging out with my parents for 99 percent of the time, it is surely more sure that I know them more than someone who I have never met, nor talked too, but only inferred from indirect experience. Also, we only speak of our parents in ways that conform to our understandings, you make points based on your lack of understanding about God. I can only argue for my parents goodness from what I know, you argue for God´s goodness based on what you don´t know. I would not go into court and argue someone is a good person from what I don´t know, only from what I know. "No, no Your Honor, you see it´s everything that I don´t know about him that makes me a good character reference."

And, as stated, you only experience God subjectively, thus it cannot prove his objective existense, and you have not answered my objecting to the ontological model you have proposed. i am a direct objective experience, not a indirect subjective experience.




You run two different questions together, the causes of my moral system may not be known, but I know my moral system completely. There is no question as to who I am, why I am that way is a different question altogether. One cannot be used to disqualify the other. You are not only making statements as to why God does things, but that he does them. When you cannot defend that he does them, you defense is to say you don´t know why he does them. You deny that you have knowledge of either (sometimes here, sometimes there), I claim I have complete knowledge of the latter, which is all that is needed to know oneself. Who I am is different from why I am this way. This is why people go to psychologists, to learn why they are that way, because they already know who they are and they want to stop it. There is a difference. My logic is perfectly coherent.



The value of the philosphical arguments are based on reason, not first hand accounts. Their value is in their thought, not what they saw (as in an empiracle sense). Did Napolean rampage across Europe?, I don´t know, I wasn´t there. And the bible as an authority? I think that enough has been said about that.





Then why write, "my faith is founded on reason" in the first passage you wrote. It obviously was not a mistake, you only refute the sentence now that I have shown it to be false. Also, you wrote, "Answering these questions would determine my faith background perhaps, but not the essence or being of my nature, which is what I percieve you really want to deduce." so you yourself believe that these answers provide clues to your faith, yet you claim here that they have nothing to do with them. You have still not answered my objection to how your essence can be different from your points of view either.

And if you have not ventured into the realm of faith, why say, "Since I am honestly not trying to argue, I will make a concession – you state that I’m religious. OK, I can be religious. I don’t see it that way, but in your paradigm that’s who I am. Compared to you, I’m the pope. So as far as we’re concerned for the duration of these discussions, I’m religious." Was this a concession based on a half truth, or an outright lie?




You claim to abhor common descriptions of words because they dont apply to you, now you want to use one to make a point? I don´t get it. Also, I said that theology is studied in philosphy, but I am not a theoligist. Again, i ask you why did you say, "my faith is founded on reason" first, then deny it when the position became logically incoherent? We do not make mistakes when we describe parts of ourselves that are the "essence" of who we are as you claimed. If this was a mistake, it would have been pointed out right away, not now, when it has been shown that this is a devastating quote to hang over your head in this debate.



Being a parent has nothing to do with it, its all about who we hold responsible and who we don´t. If a normal man let a person fall over the niagra falls without diving in, we would not hold him responsible, but if superman stood by and watched him go over, we surely would hold him responsible. Yet, there is no one who has ever been superman, but we can make that declaration that he would be responsible.

Your second part gets into the whole, "when things go differently than intended argument", which I have already answered. It also still punishes innocent children for the acts of others which are out of their control. An all loving God would not let people suffer for crimes others have committed. This is just another form of the same argument.




I mean, perfect, as in no imperfections, all loving, all knowing, all powerful. NO EXCEPTIONS. If you do not believe that God is perfect, then we are arguing about nothing. However, if you believe that he can be perfect wtih exceptions, then you are logically incoherent. It is like this dialouge:

Jane: So, Sarah, is everyone invited to your party?

Sarah: Yes, everyone but Susie.

Jane: So, everyone is NOT invited to your party?

Sarah: No, no, everyone is invited.........but not susie.

Jane: So, you are saying that EVERYONE IS NOT INVITED?

Sarah: No, no, you are getting me all wrong, everyone IS invited...........except susie.

This is the impression that I get from you, as if you simply believed that God was not perfect, or he was, you would not have refused to answer my question the first time I asked. Instead, what you wanted to say was, no, no, God is perfect, ............but just in a way that is logically coherent. And, since you are using the ontological argument as your prime argument that God exists, then you cannot deny that you are using the word perfect as described above, because thats how the argument goes. So, are still using the ontological model, or have you changed your mind?




What do I believe? I believe that the glass is both half empty and half full. There is evil, injustice, suffering, hate, in this world, but, there is also good, justice, joy, and love. This is just for me though, I recognize that some people do not experience the latter, they never get a chance, they get dealt a bad hand right off the bat. Some poeple only experience the latter, they are born "lucky", they never will experience the former. This imbalance in opportunity makes it impossible to me that a perfect creator should preside over this parade. If this was my creation, i would be embarrassed to call it the "best I could do", because frankly, i could do it better. Give me an infinite amount of time, with an infinite amount of power, with an infinite amount of knowledge to run paradigms in my head without having to ever create one atom, and I assure you I will come up with something better. If I could not, then I would not make a world where people have to suffer so others should feel joy. After all, should no one exist, then no one is the wiser, and no one loses out. There are no losers if there is no creation. Now, one naturally wants to say here, but "i" would lose out and my life is precious to me, I surely would want to be created. Well, thats only because you were created, if you were not created, it would not matter to you.

Does this help a little?

I am not sure that I want to discuss the religious views you have presented as we will just keep going around in circles. I still maintain that your logic is incoherent, and you will not accept any arguments from me that do not fit your conclusion. One can keep adding ad-hoc defenses forever, so we will never get anywhere. Notice how your ad-hoc defenses never make any more progress, yet the answers I have provided to your arguments stop the discussion? I make progress, you don´t. You just keep presenting new arguments for me to refute and ignore the fact that I have refuted others. I have not seen you completely refute one of my arguments yet. Also notice that you keep contradicting yourself with your own words, something that I fail to do. You simply say my argument is flawed, while I point out that you contradict yourself. The stylelistic and coherence differences are apparent.

As I said, the only way to come up with a logically coherent system is to become an atheist, and thats what happens to everyone who needs logical coherence. Ask most people why they became an atheist, and they will say, "because it makes more logical sense", not because, "it brings me more comfort". Who would deny that being in a relationship with God is more comforting? Its just that some people need logical coherence over comfort. If you want to discuss something like the construct of a better world or something like that, then I´m in. Other than that, i don´t see how there is anything left to discuss.

Last edited by jonathan79 on 01 Jul 2006, 4:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

The origin of the universe is the one scientific question that science will probably never answer. There's simply no way to obtain the empirical evidence necessary to prove any one theory. However we can explain how the universe unfolded moments after it began. What Stephan Hawking and other Cosmologists have done is a form of reverse-engineering.

Interesting!

Last edited by MMM on 01 Jul 2006, 9:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Hello Johnathon79,

You don’t want to discuss this with me anymore? So, just ‘cause not everybody agrees with you, you’re going to take your ball and go home?

That might be for the better, because I think your last post proves that we have different agendas. I’m wanting to dialogue and if what you throw out in this last posting is any indication, you’re just wanting to “win” an argument at any cost – even that of claiming a victory where there is none.

This last post was the flimsiest of your argrumentations. I’m disappointed. Are you showing off for someone or do you really have to win that badly? It’s not like your atheism is in jeporady, is it?

Perhaps it is, because your “reasoning” for being one seems awfully shallow from what you’ve shared and gives me cause to chuckle at your rejection of the Ontological formula. You’ve stated that you became an atheist because you couldn’t imagine a perfect god creating such a messed up world. You’re using the same argument in reverse.

This reply halfway makes me wonder if you are even reading my posts before you respond. I haven’t said I don’t know why god does things (I wasn’t arguing that he does them) – except perhaps in that I’ve said that since I’m not God I don’t know the total mind of God. I wasn’t arguing that he does them – these illnesses like cancer brought upon the innocent. I believe I’ve demonstrated that the things you call imperfect are a result of our actions or the actions of other humans, not God’s. Just because you’re using stale rebuttals, don’t imagine that I’m using the logic of those whom you’ve discussed this with before. I wish you’d at least have addressed my comments instead of your issues you seem to have with Christians here – or at the very least admitted that’s what you’re doing. Are you aware it’s what you are doing?

Continuing on this comment: You have perfect knowledge of self? Really? I’m impressed! You have demonstrated that you think highly of yourself – that your individual rationalizations determine whether or not God exists, but now I realize that you might actually really believe that. Following Neitchze’s model, then in your mind you are god, right? Wow. You do think highly of yourself. Your line of thought above also suggests that your actions are all that you are – I’d suggest you’re selling yourself short on that one, especially if you’re as good as you seem to think you are. Even if you’re not.

You seem to be real good at describing me, even though you don’t know me. You never addressed how you can describe others if you don’t know them fully. And yet you’ve stipulated I have to know God completely to describe Him at all.

I would suggest that just because you can’t imagine this god, doesn’t make this god nonexistent. If every “man” was an island of existence unto himself, then your arguments might fly. But you know the saying…



You would suggest this is a “common” definition? This is the definition purported by Schliermacher in his series of debates with Heidegger about the nature of god. A definition I assumed you would like, since it was refuted by Heidegger in numerous rebutals. You claim to reject philosophers and philosophies out of hand that you don’t have a grasp of, which is becoming more apparent the further we go.

You claim multiple times (indeed it seems to be your sole remaining rant) that I’ve backtracked and said my faith isn’t grounded in reason. Hello? This whole discussion began because I was talking about a four-fold test of truth, including the test of one’s faith. Reason is one of the four pillars, but as I’ve said since my very first post, it also includes tradition, authority and experience. If you haven’t gotten that, then you aren’t even reading – you’re just arguing for the sake of arguing.



Your definition of perfect was exactly what I expected it to be – imperfect.

You define perfect as not imperfect – “no imperfections”. Surely you realize that you can’t use a word in its own definition. Have you not spent more time contemplating perfection than that? What you go on to explain is not even perfection – it’s fairness. Just as I suspected, you aren’t arguing for a perfect god – you’re arguing for a perfectly fair god. It sounds like you’re mad that life hasn’t treated you or someone else fairly. What are you mad about? What has happened that has caused you to reject the system around you that you observe? If we knew that, we’d know the real reason you claim atheism. Fairness is not a prerequisite of perfection.

Your proof of lack of Being stems from your ill-thought out definition of perfection. Reality isn’t what you think it should be, therefore it’s imperfect. Therefore there’s no god??? I don't buy it.



From what you’ve shown us of your system, it deals more with deontology than ontology (I should have guessed that when you threw out Locke’s name earlier). The existence of Being, then for you boils down to utilitarianism vs. humanitarianism?

I bypassed a few of your earlier comments out of politeness, but if we are finished with this thread then I would like to point out a few areas that it might benefit you to work on for next time.

You stated earlier on that philosophers don’t meddle into theology and vice versa – and that you won’t hear a theologian presenting at a philosophical presentation or see the reverse happening, except on rare occasions. This statement is not grounded in reality, except perhaps in your limited one. Rather than get into the “my schools are more renowned than your schools” banter, let me suggest you look at the literature produced from lectures on the topic by noted scholars in each field. Heidegger’s, “Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion” comes to mind (oh, I forgot – you don’t like Heidegger, so his writings and the way they’ve impacted philosophy don’t count). Charles Hartshorne edited a wonderful series of volumes entitled, “Philosophers Speak of God” that is like a Who’s Who of modern philosophers which presents their foremost essays on the subject.

Alfred North Whitehead – upon whose philiosophic principles of Being and reality Einstien bases his mathematical principles of general and specific relativity – notedly a philosopher of the highest order and yet he and his peers maintain a rational argument for the existence of Being as a foundation of existence and reality. I could go on and on and on in this vein. Philosophers do speak of God. Even Neitchze has to deal with God (who, by the way, is one of my favorite writers – he’s got a hysterical sense of humor).

This said, your comments about philosophy having pretty much “universally recognized that they (classic philosophers arguing for god’s existence) were wrong” is still in serious question. You can’t defend this statement with any sort of authority. When I ask for validation of this statement - who “they” are that have “universally” done this, you state that you don’t have to name names – that the names of philosophers who have invalidated centuries of philosophy aren’t important. I suggest to you that you don’t name names because you can’t. Which leads me to believe I’m not discussing philosophy, but have inadvertently gotten into an argument with someone who pretends to discuss philosophy. Perhaps we have wasted our time here.

You have used faulty logic. You have provided no real alternative to any suggestion I have presented. And in the end, your argument for lack of being is just a reversal (and an incomplete one at that) of the very argument you told me was incoherent. It’s a smokescreen and I'm not buying it.

If we could ever get past the, “My philosophy’s better than your philosophy” malarkey, we could probably have a good discussion. But we haven’t. And since it’s coming from your end and you’re telling me it’ll just keep going in circles, then I’m guessing for now that discussion has stopped. I am sorry it ended this way – I was looking forward to meaningful dialogue.

And Jonathon79, for the record – if you would like to continue this or another discussion where we really talk about what we think instead of just one-upping each other with every post – I would love to do so. I didn’t start the assault – that happened when you jumped into one of my posts, remember? I’m here to discuss, to theorize, but most importantly to fellowship with others who care about the same things and ask the same questions I’m asking.

If there is anyone else who would like to continue this thread with me – I would enjoy continuing it in a less combative and a more relational dialogue. Let’s have the kind of discussion that two people or a group might have over a couple of beers – talking, sharing, being real as we together discuss reality. I look forward to future discussions.

COOL!! ! How did you do that?

Perhaps you've heard the Best Possible Universe argument. "If we have an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent God, this is the best of all possible universes." "There are terrible problems (like kids with cancer) with this universe." "Therefore, this is not the best possible universe." "Therefore we do not have an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent god."

Note, for those questioning the logic of this argument, note that one could have the best possible universe without a supergod, but the way this argument goes, if you have a supergod, this HAS to be the best possible universe. On another note, maybe we do have a god that is lacking in one of the three qualities needed for this best possible universe. Maybe our god is not omnibenevolent, a god akin to that of the Old Testament who would punish people for refusing to knock up their dead brother's ex-wives (Genesis), would punish his tribes for failure to commit Genocide (Joshua), etc. Who knows?

I found your last post quite amusing I must say. At least now we know the whole, I will only discuss and not attack thing was not true. It is obvious that you have resorted to insulting me to initiate more debate, and I will not provide a response to dignify these actions. If you can quote one insult from me, I would be interested (in fact, read through all my posts and see if you can find one), but you can´t, because I only intensely debate, i do not insult. Why? Because an insult proves nothing. You may think that I have been insulting you, but its just that people just get angry when flaws in their logic has been pointed out.

Also, as I have stated before, there is no surer sign that an argument is being put out of reach than when the other person responds with personal attacks. I find it even more pertenent in this case because you explicity stated that you do not engage in that kind of behavior. I mean, after all, if your logic was enough, there would be no need for insults, but apparently you need to use insults to make your points. One does not call in reinforcements where it is not needed. For the record, I will state that you have won, and that your philosphy(?) is better than mine, happy? See how I do not get angry? Its because you have not pointed out any flaws in my logic. But, please, since you´re so good at insulting people, don´t stop, please continue

I will let the arguments up until now stand for themselves, hey, you can even have the last rebuttal. The only reason that I entered into this debate was because you agreed with my analysis of religious beliefs, yet said that you were different, which intrigued me very much (I have not participated in any other debates of this sort, check my post log and you will see). But now, the people can decide for themselves, although I am sure that whoever agreed with our positions in the beginning still have not changed their minds. I have stated at the beginning that I will not discuss, I will debate, and I will debate intensely, without resorting to personal attacks. You have explicity agreed that my intense debating style was not a personal attack just one post ago, what changed? It obviously was not my style, because that has not changed, so it must be your frustration with me (rightfully) pointing out your inconsistencies. If I was just some hack, there would be no reason to be angry. I will not discuss in these instances because discussion leads to concession, and the truth makes concessions for no one. And, if you read though my posts, it is obvious that I do not have anything against the Christians here, in fact, I consistanly urge them not to put their faith on logical grounds because that only leads to atheism, and I have stated before (here and to others) that if I could put aside my logic, I would happily do so in order to believe in God. Again, I will state for the record that you have won, and your philosphy is better than mine, i will even write letters of recommendation if you want.

As Karl Popper once said, "I may be wrong and you may be right, but by golly if we work together then we can find out the truth". The truth can only be found in debate. A dialouge is only meaningful if we get to the heart of the matter. I could write out a lengthy rebuttal to point out all of your contradictions, but it would be a waste of time. Once the positions have been laid out, then debate becomes futile, and we´re just running around in circles. If you want to run around some more, thats fine, you don´t need me to do it, but I think there has been sufficient arguments presented to show each others positions (and character).

I think some of this might qualify for the "Arrogant Cristian Comment" thread.

Start>Programs>Accessories>System Tools>Character Map. That is if you're using Windows. If you're not, then I dunno.

I'll post this again to make my point.

quote: Perhaps you've heard the Best Possible Universe argument. "If we have an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent God, this is the best of all possible universes." "There are terrible problems (like kids with cancer) with this universe." "Therefore, this is not the best possible universe." "Therefore we do not have an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent god."


Can someone explain to me why this is assumed to be true? I think it is a faulty conclusion.

Also, I do not think that "Arrogant Christian Thread" is an apt title for any discussion here.
The arguments will stand or fall on their own merit.

The "best possible universe" argument is based on the "problem of evil" which I have repeatedly posted. No christian I have ever met has succesfully answered it.

1) god is omnipotent
2)god is omnibenevolent
3)evil exists

Two of these statements put together cancel out the third. So which statement is false??

The "Arrogant Christian Comment Thread" IS an appropriate title due to the fact that that christian belief is inherently dogmatic. Christians often can't smell the stink of their own $hit because the claim to be followers of the almighty. The thread was intended to stick their noses in it.

disclaimer: I am not trying to enter this debate because I have never studied argumentation and debate, nor logic and rhetoric, nor philosphy; at least not sufficiently to argue in the eloquent manner that some do on this forum.

I am just curious as to why you believe that if God is omipotent and benevolent than the world has to be perfect. Why can't he decide to give humans a free will and "let the chips fall" where they may?

This is a common complaint among people who do not believe in God.


Far from religious superiority, I sense much intellectual snobbery here, which is no better.

Disclaimer noted:

The reasoning for this argument is that if God does not actively particpate in this world, then he is relegated to being the first cause. This has been explicity rejected by theists, because thats what theism is (God actively participates in the world), if you take this view (let the chips fall where they may), then you become a diest, or a form of agnosticism (God created the world, but does not intervene). This would render prayer obsolete because God is not able to help humans out. Thus, any type of claim to see God in everday actions is an illusion, miracles would be eliminated. This goes against everything that Christianity stands for. In order to "see" God at work he must be an active particpant, not the creator who went away. Hence, the logical difficulties that arise.

Because humans don't have 100% free will. Free will only exists within certian parameters in humanity. "God" should be in controll of that which exists outside of "free will" but he's not.


It's a legitimate issue.




The "intellectual snobbery" has empirical evidence backing up it's statements. Religious superiority does'nt.