I don't see how God could plausibly exist (Christian definition of God)

[entropie]

That much is true, I am afraid.

Haha yeah, our history teacher always used the whole lesson to explain offside in soccer if you asked for it .

I let you big boys go on here alone, I dont get the feeling my opinion is really valued nor needed.

 

[Lark]

Im having a hard time believing in a God that does mistakes. A God that has to sacrifice a piece of himself to set things straight. But again, that might be our connection with him.

And whats the appropriate punishment for eternal life in eden? There is none, any punishment is insignificant. He must forgive us, he must be. so then.. why did he not just say that we would be forgiven for fuck ups in the beginning?

and so on, and so on i go.

Just some of my thoughts.

Yeah but wasnt that Satan's error?

God created the angels which where perfect, then mankind, which where different, more perfect, apparently in some respects but less perfect in others and Satan totally had a fit about who was the favourite and mankind was a disappointment anyway because mankind was imperfect? Could be wrong though.

 

[Red Herring]

When I first read somebody mention the "problem of evil" on here I was very suprised to see the direction this conversation took, because my first association was not so much free will and the supposed independence of evil from an all benign divinity (though I once knew a guy working on his PhD in theology in Cambridge, a pious protestant, argue that the idea of the all loving farther was a naive NT idea and that he went with the OT version of a god that encompassed everything and was neither good nor evil, he just was. period. this is similar to the concept of a famous German theologian who sees the image of the hindu god Shiva as a necessary conceptual complement to understand the biblical god), it was earthquakes and babies dieing from horrible deseases, pain and suffering that was not caused by free will or distance from god but by chance. And so far I have never found a single convincing explanation from any believer. Just as an aside comment.

Don´t get me wrong. I was raised as an atheist, but always had a lot of respect for believers as long as they don´t become aggressive missionaries. I never tried to convince a believer of my position as long as he or she left me in peace. When I was in my early twenties, I had something like a spiritual crises. I saw the benefits of faith, I knew the limits of logic. I talked to a several believers. Nothing. They were friendly and compassionate and wished me good luck. When I said I needed a burning bush because my head could not break through the wall of reason that stood between me and faith one guy said he had seen his burning bush after years of disbelieve and wished me mine. So far I haven´t seen it. A test desperate test prayer didn´t work, I just felt dishonest and alone. I did a lot of reading. And since I saw the path of logic and reasoning as the only solution in my case and I set my hopes and the already mentioned Thomas Aquinas, I started reading up on the arguments in favor. Since I wanted a monotheistic version but (at least for the moment) independence from christianity, I read Moses Mendelssohn´s Phaedon, Maimonides´s Guide for the Perplexed, etc. Nothing. Maybe I´m overestimating my reasoning skills, but I found fault with every single argument in their chain of reasoning. And not just them. It became too frustrating. I wanted to believe, I really wanted to, but my instinctual automatic reasoning approach just wouldn´t allow it and I couldn´t switch that off (and prefer the idea that there is a path through reason anyway). At some point I gave up and decided to call myself an agnostic in theory (i.e. the problem of prooving a negative) and an atheist in practice. I am highly skeptikal whenever I smell a hint of religion/spirituality/esoterics/you-name-it anywhere, but at the same time move with more respect than many believers when I enter a church.

 

[KDude]

^I have enough "INTP" in me where I can identify with some of what you're saying. I'm bothered by a lot inconsistencies too. Unfortunately, I'm also like that guy you met who had his "burning bush" experience and couldn't help you. That said, I'm not sure a "burning bush" would help anyways. It hasn't in my case (and I don't want to get into the particulars).. Burning bushes are absurd. What it's done is made me ask more questions. Before that, I wasn't delving into the subject as much, and sometimes I wish I was that way again.

 

[InsatiableCuriosity]

^I have enough "INTP" in me where I can identify with some of what you're saying. I'm bothered by a lot inconsistencies too. Unfortunately, I'm also like that guy you met who had his "burning bush" experience and couldn't help you. That said, I'm not sure a "burning bush" would help anyways. It hasn't in my case (and I don't want to get into the particulars).. Burning bushes are absurd. What it's done is made me ask more questions. Before that, I wasn't delving into the subject as much, and sometimes I wish I was that way again.

I can identify with you there!!

Each must come to their own conclusions and I am afraid that if I encounter anyone trying to ram their version of traditional dogma down my throat I cannot get away fast enough.

What I find intriguing and very sad is the fact that most religions have fundamentally the same sets of rules and teachings, but dogma seems to have crept in and the true messages such as "love one another as yourself" seem to have been lost in the translation of self-righteous priggishness and exclusivity in most of the mainstream religions - and I don't mean just Christianity.

That aside, sub-atomic electrical theory and the power of prayer in numbers taught by most major religions is even more intriguing, as is the natural application of the Golden Mean (Phi) as a fundamental principle of symmetry, balance and perception of beauty, from quantum sized objects to the shapes of the galaxies makes one wonder!

 

[JAVO]

My perspective on the problem of evil is simply, "why is it a problem?" Natural and biological processes and laws have been put into place, and we're limited by these as part of our existence in this physical world.

Everyone dies eventually. Is death evil? Most would say yes, but I think death is neutral. It's a simple part of life. Our emotional reaction to it is what makes it appear evil.

Life is neutral too. What we do with it is what makes it good or evil.

God is omnipotent, so much so that he has chosen to limit himself in what he can do.

 

[Red Herring]

i agree with your view on life and death, what I was referring to was pain and suffeing. Thatls sort of negative by definition.

 

[Lark]

I can identify with you there!!

Each must come to their own conclusions and I am afraid that if I encounter anyone trying to ram their version of traditional dogma down my throat I cannot get away fast enough.

What I find intriguing and very sad is the fact that most religions have fundamentally the same sets of rules and teachings, but dogma seems to have crept in and the true messages such as "love one another as yourself" seem to have been lost in the translation of self-righteous priggishness and exclusivity in most of the mainstream religions - and I don't mean just Christianity.

That aside, sub-atomic electrical theory and the power of prayer in numbers taught by most major religions is even more intriguing, as is the natural application of the Golden Mean (Phi) as a fundamental principle of symmetry, balance and perception of beauty, from quantum sized objects to the shapes of the galaxies makes one wonder!

For me this makes interesting reading, it also reminds me of my own views or oft repeated opinions from when I was 17 through to about when I was 20 or 21, around about this time I think I was downright apologetic about my religious beliefs, too thoughtful, reflective and sceptical for many of the more dogmatic or "plain and simple" believers I knew and too credulous, traditionalist or religious for the non-believers but one thing I will say is that while I myself would say things such as "dogma seems to have crept in and the true messages such as "love one another as yourself" seem to have been lost in the translation of self-righteous priggishness and exclusivity in most of the mainstream religions" all the time it wasnt essentially true.

I never actually met anyone who was that "priggish" or honoured "exclusivity", there are examples in the media or profiled by non-believers who resent belief some how, as there are the opposite, the more balanced equilibrium cases arent interesting enough or dont fufil the expectations.

I only knew one individual who considered me, despite being a believer, and others who did not share their beliefs as condemned somehow, she, although she wouldnt have used the same precise words to describe herself, was a believer in the protestant ascendency and Lutheran evangelism, ie that practicing RCs where in error, that everyone should experience a very vaguely defined but personal revelation possibly on the back of a crisis about the live they had lived until that point. She may or may not be representative of her faith community but I do believe there's a lot of cultural factors there which perhaps dont travel, if they do then its a shame because there are plenty of sources, religious and other which provide a kind of generations of reflection upon that kind of thing which should be appraised. Ultimately I dont think its tenable at all, a lot of it I believe is founded upon the history, and in particular the personal histories of key individuals, before and during the reformation which I wouldnt expect every single individual to experience or have to experience.

Its been attacked as sectarian by many but I give some credience to the views of RCC authorities which suggest that the protestant reformation unleashed forces which in turn provoked and gave rise to the more violent strains of athiest and secular protest as a reaction, I see a similar thing in more recent developments such as aggressive US Christian evangelism, in things like the alpha course, and its opposite number in the new athiesm.

Personally, I myself, see much of what has gone into the rise and rise of US evangelism to be cultural in character, the controversies about science, origins, ideological battles with naturalists, I see as closely associated with traditions of mainly rural anti-intellectualism and a certain sort of skepticism. So I wouldnt consider it to be representative. In a way even if it where I wouldnt consider it a case that you had to conform to it or be in congruence with those things to engage in some truth finding of its sources and precepts.

 

[Lark]

God is omnipotent, so much so that he has chosen to limit himself in what he can do.

This point is totally for the win when it comes to supposed problems of evil.

 

[Nicodemus]

This point is totally for the win when it comes to supposed problems of evil.

Why would he do that?

 

[Arthur Schopenhauer]

Actually she doesn't win...but she did make me realize something. Her argument is that evil is a possible consequence of free will, but it doesn't necessitate evil. Essentially she's saying that evil is a creation of man, not god?

Interesting...because in eating of the fruit of knowledge...that is, developing enough intellect to seperate ourselves from housecats and pigs...we (men) created the concept of evil to apply to perfectly natural things, like sex.

Awesome. Thanks for inadvertantly pointing out just how much the Bible self-negates. It's as though the secret message in the Bible is, "HELLO HUMAN INTELLECT MADE ALL THIS UP." It's all there in chapter one.

Suckers.

Oh, I was being sarcastic when I said "you win."

Free-will necessitates evil, not as an act, although evil actions are in some senses impossible not commit, but as an element of our existence. I don't know how she came to this conclusion about my sentences... I was trying to re-state that god created evil - which was the original point of our argument. Man did not create evil, he only selects the paths available to him.

 

[Arthur Schopenhauer]

But I am bored with this now.

 

[Zarathustra]

Oh, I was being sarcastic when I said "you win."

Free-will necessitates evil, not as an act, although evil actions are in some senses impossible not commit, but as an element of our existence. I don't know how she came to this conclusion about my sentences... I was trying to re-state that god created evil - which was the original point of our argument. Man did not create evil, he only selects the paths available to him.

I do understand what you are saying, but she does actually have an out on this one...

One could suppose that God creates the possibility of evil, but it's still up to human choice to either commit it or not, and, thus, God's creation of the possibility of evil does not necessitate the existence of evil, but rather, it is human beings and their choices that cause evil to move from a possibility to a reality.

She's still wrong on her point about God knowing what is going to happen but it not being predetermined, though. That's simply a contradiction. And not a particularly awe-inspiring paradoxical one, either. Just a plain old factual one that must be dealt with seriously by anyone contemplating the existence of God.

Why would he do that?

In light of the second sentence above, and the song I posted earlier: for the comparisons.

 

[Arthur Schopenhauer]

I do understand what you are saying, but she does actually have an out on this one...

One could suppose that God creates the possibility of evil, but it's still up to human choice to either commit it or not, and, thus, God's creation of the possibility of evil does not necessitate the existence of evil, but rather, it is human beings and their choices that cause evil to move from a possibility to a reality.

I fail to see where my thinking has gone wrong.

The 'out' is only an 'out' so long as you ignore the fact that god created free-will, as well as everything else.

See: the bolded section of words.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

A better method?
Why doesn't god tell us what that better method is, if he cares anything about us?

God has told us what the better method is. That is one reason that religion is universal. The real question is, "Why does anyone insist on using an inferior method, when superior methods obviously exist?"

And if he is indifferent, why do we pray to him?
The question is: does this god interact with ordinary matter? If yes, his effect is measurable. If not, he isn't different from any ghost, fairy or tachyon rider I can imagine...

I could say that every measurement is measuring God's interaction with ordinary matter. However the problem would be differentiating these measurements from measurements which do not originate from God. Essentially this goes back to the original problem of trying to measure something which is infinite. I have already answered this question.

I guess not all atheists are the same I don't agree with the assertion of "no free will". Actually, I think there is a big mistake in the reasoning you're quoting here. "I haven't observed any cause for it, so it can't exist"??? I haven't observed any cause for the universe. Do I really have to say now that the universe doesn't exist? Come on!
No, my stance is simpler than that. "I have observed the universe so it exists." I haven't observed a cause for it, but that doesn't stop the universe from existing.

You are right that free will clearly exists. Generally people still ask the question "why". The best explanation for the existence of free will is that it comes from God. However if you don't need to know "why" then that is certainly your choice. I admit that to me that seems strange coming from someone who talks about science so much. Isn't science greatly concerned with asking questions like "why"?

The "causality argument" is actually an answer to theists. If you (theists) are allowed to believe there exists a god without needing a cause for that, I am allowed to believe there exists a universe without needing a cause.

Things which exist outside the boundaries of time do not need a beginning. Everything else does. (As an aside: the popular scientific view nowadays is that the universe does have a cause.)

I really didn't mean this to be cynical. If it sounds like that, my apologies.
My point is: I lay the cause for religion in human nature, not in an external cause. Humans are quite similar all over the world (well we are of the same species!)
If you're offended by the examples I gave, please look a bit closer to them. They aren't as silly as they look on first sight.
The "sacrifice idea" has been (and still is) part of most religions. Incense, wine and water have taken the place of animal or human sacrifices, but the goal is the same. Make the powerful being (god, saint,...) happy in order that he doesn't destroy your crops/wreck your ship/...
The "manure idea" probably sounds the silliest of all to some primitive human who doesn't know about fertilizer... but that one actually works. You can divide your field in two, add manure to one half and no manure to the other, and look which half of the crops grows the best.
The "stirring idea" - maybe you haven't heard of this one and yes, than it sounds silly. It was not my intention. I myself have believed it for +/- ten years. I believed it because my mother told so. My mother was right about the cooking plate being hot and the knife being sharp. She has been right about that awful tasting liquid which made the pain in my throat go away. So I trusted her. At one point I forgot it and stirred both ways - it's quite natural for me to do so, as I'm ambidexterous and if one arm gets tired, I change hands. I remembered when the cake was in the oven - and it came out fine! Turned out my mother was wrong on that one...

Ok, I misinterpreted your earlier post. If I understand you now correctly you see the purpose of religion as to explain the natural world. If this is true, then I would agree that there would be no point to religion anymore. Because the purpose of science is to explain the natural world, and it does a better job at it.

And I can see where you might get this view from, because in ancient religions the priests were often the only scholars, so they performed all of the roles that a scholar should perform. Not only were they the scientists, but they were also historians and keepers of law. And they did not perform these functions separately, but they wholistically put them all together, because being a priest (or shaman or whatever you want to call it) naturally included all of these things so there was no reason to separate them out.

However there are other functions that religion performs that are still important today.
1) It helps people to understand their place in the world.
2) It guides people toward living a wise life.
3) It provides a way for people to deal with the fear of death.
4) It helps people to connect with that which transcends the "here and now".

And point #4 is really what we are discussing in this thread. Universally people have a need to connect with something "more" than we can readily observe. Something transcendent. I would say people have this need, because there really is something transcendent out there. But it could also be the case that people have this need for an entirely different reason. Either way I would say that it is foolish to ignore that this need exists.

That is why I say it is important for each person to go out and look for God themselves. Even if they never find what they are looking for, we all have a need to look within us.

 

[Zarathustra]

I fail to see where my thinking has gone wrong.

Well, that tends to be the case with people who are wrong.

The 'out' is only an 'out' so long as you ignore the fact that god created free-will, as well as everything else.

Apparently you don't understand the idea of free will.

See: the bolded section of words.

That bolded section of words doesn't do anything for your argument, but, based on the above two quotations, I surmise it's because you don't seem to understand the concept of free will and its corollaries.

Giving the God and free will argument the strongest possible position, one need only realize that God does not create evil as a reality, but only as a possibility.

Human beings, by use of their free will to make a decision/choice, are the ones who decide/choose what possibility becomes a reality.

As such, it is God that creates the possibility for evil, but it is human beings that create the reality of evil.

Responsibility for evil, therefore, lies on the human beings who choose to make it a reality.

 

[Arthur Schopenhauer]

Giving the God and free will argument the strongest possible position, one need only realize that God does not create evil as a reality, but only as a possibility.

Incorrect, he has created it both as reality and possibility - both abstract and tangible.

Human beings, by use of their free will to make a decision/choice, are the ones who decide/choose what possibility becomes a reality.

Selectivity, a concept created by god, was given to humans by god and all possible outcomes that may result from these selective decisions are simply manifestations of what god has made capable of manifesting. In other words, it is impossible to do what has not been created by god, aka, what does not exist. Therefore we must agree that both the possibilty and reality of evil are devices entirely composed by god.

As such, it is God that creates the possibility for evil, but it is human beings that create the reality of evil.

Responsibility for evil, therefore, lies on the human beings who choose to make it a reality.

No.

 

[Arthur Schopenhauer]

Maintaining the concept that god exists, I will add this:

It is obvious that our will is not entirely free. Only god is entirely free.

We are limited by our nature - which was composed by god.

 

[Zarathustra]

Incorrect, he has created it both as reality and possibility - both abstract and tangible.

Incorrect.

He has created it only as a possibility.

Selectivity, a concept created by god, was given to humans by god and all possible outcomes that may result from these selective decisions are simply manifestations of what god has made capable of manifesting. In other words, it is impossible to do what has not been created by god, aka, what does not exist. Therefore we must agree that both the possibilty and reality of evil are devices entirely composed by god.

Wrong.

Free will is the God-given part human beings play in turning the possibilities of existence into the realities of existence.

That part is out of God's hands and in human beings'.

No.

Yes.

Nicodemus: it is because of examples like these that I did not give you the benefit of the doubt earlier... once again, I'm sorry for mistaking you in this way.

It is obvious that our will is not entirely free. Only god is entirely free.

We are limited by our nature - which was composed by god.

I agree that we are not free of many things, in the sense that we are not all powerful beings with no limitations, but that does not mean that we are not free to respond in the way that we so choose to our situation and existence.

The freedom is in our choice.

The nature we are partially limited by also includes free will.

If you want to succumb to the illusion that you have no freedom whatsoever, in order to deny your responsibility over your existence, go read some Foucault and be done with it.

 

[Nicodemus]

He has created it only as a possibility.

Are you merely playing or do you indeed believe that?