|
On May 15 2009 05:38 PH wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2009 05:16 travis wrote:On May 15 2009 04:37 DreaM)XeRO wrote:On May 14 2009 04:49 seppolevne wrote:On May 13 2009 21:58 georgir wrote:On May 13 2009 14:24 PH wrote:
Empirically proving or disproving the existence of something considered above natural law and rationality in its premise is retarded. This is the most interesting statement on this thread, and I am so sad that I missed it when initially reading through. So with my previous post, I suggested exactly that it should be possible to empirically prove the existance of "violations" to the natural law. Now I am retarded  I really would like to know more about what you meant here. Is your point that we would simply change our understanding of "natural law" once we discover the violations so that it incorporates them? And what if that is not rationally possible? I can see it already... 44929th law of PH: an atom exposed to high ionising radiation for any amout of time will not be affected by it if and only if the atom is part of the body of a person who followed the bible's fasting prescriptions all his life or he has said hail mary three times last night.  Seriously, I really want to understand you. We would not change our natural law, as we would not be able to discover these violations. God is above something as simple as being physically measured. omg please die. "God is above something as simple as being physically measured". Isn't that extremly conveniant for the masses. The simple answer of "you can't measure God". FUCK YOU. Know why? God doesnt interact in my daily life. God doesn't help nor does he hurt me. Therefore : 1) There is no God 2) God does not take part in my daily life therefore i find no reason to worship said god. If there was an allloving omnipotent father figure living in the sky, why did he create us. If he is "perfect" as he said, he would have no need to create "humans" or "us". Perfection is a state in which there are no flaws. Look me in the eye and say that humans are flawless because if you do i will rip your eyes out. Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? ~Epicurus if you see no reason to worship or believe in god that is fine. if you think it is stupid to believe in him fine. but to claim that if such an entity existed, something outside of the scope of our awareness, that it would be playing by the same rules that we do is absurd. to use an argument like "god doesnt exist because there is suffering", which is basically that epicurus quote, is silly. who the fuck are we to judge how things operate in the grand scheme of things. do you judge a contest before it is over? no, because that would be silly and ignorant. so fine, not believing in god because you see no evidence makes sense. but not believing in god because he doesn't fit into the scheme that for whatever reason you and countless others have deemed to be the rules he should operate by is ridiculous. I actually like your reply better than mine...lol.
well I like you better than my post!
|
PH and travis summed up my reply.
|
On May 15 2009 05:16 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2009 04:37 DreaM)XeRO wrote:On May 14 2009 04:49 seppolevne wrote:On May 13 2009 21:58 georgir wrote:On May 13 2009 14:24 PH wrote:
Empirically proving or disproving the existence of something considered above natural law and rationality in its premise is retarded. This is the most interesting statement on this thread, and I am so sad that I missed it when initially reading through. So with my previous post, I suggested exactly that it should be possible to empirically prove the existance of "violations" to the natural law. Now I am retarded I really would like to know more about what you meant here. Is your point that we would simply change our understanding of "natural law" once we discover the violations so that it incorporates them? And what if that is not rationally possible? I can see it already... 44929th law of PH: an atom exposed to high ionising radiation for any amout of time will not be affected by it if and only if the atom is part of the body of a person who followed the bible's fasting prescriptions all his life or he has said hail mary three times last night. Seriously, I really want to understand you. We would not change our natural law, as we would not be able to discover these violations. God is above something as simple as being physically measured. omg please die. "God is above something as simple as being physically measured". Isn't that extremly conveniant for the masses. The simple answer of "you can't measure God". FUCK YOU. Know why? God doesnt interact in my daily life. God doesn't help nor does he hurt me. Therefore : 1) There is no God 2) God does not take part in my daily life therefore i find no reason to worship said god. If there was an allloving omnipotent father figure living in the sky, why did he create us. If he is "perfect" as he said, he would have no need to create "humans" or "us". Perfection is a state in which there are no flaws. Look me in the eye and say that humans are flawless because if you do i will rip your eyes out. Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? ~Epicurus if you see no reason to worship or believe in god that is fine. if you think it is stupid to believe in him fine. but to claim that if such an entity existed, something outside of the scope of our awareness, that it would be playing by the same rules that we do is absurd. to use an argument like "god doesnt exist because there is suffering", which is basically that epicurus quote, is silly. who the fuck are we to judge how things operate in the grand scheme of things. do you judge a contest before it is over? no, because that would be silly and ignorant. so fine, not believing in god because you see no evidence makes sense. but not believing in god because he doesn't fit into the scheme that for whatever reason you and countless others have deemed to be the rules he should operate by is ridiculous.
You don't understand what Epicurus was saying.
:|
|
On May 15 2009 06:30 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2009 05:16 travis wrote:On May 15 2009 04:37 DreaM)XeRO wrote:On May 14 2009 04:49 seppolevne wrote:On May 13 2009 21:58 georgir wrote:On May 13 2009 14:24 PH wrote:
Empirically proving or disproving the existence of something considered above natural law and rationality in its premise is retarded. This is the most interesting statement on this thread, and I am so sad that I missed it when initially reading through. So with my previous post, I suggested exactly that it should be possible to empirically prove the existance of "violations" to the natural law. Now I am retarded I really would like to know more about what you meant here. Is your point that we would simply change our understanding of "natural law" once we discover the violations so that it incorporates them? And what if that is not rationally possible? I can see it already... 44929th law of PH: an atom exposed to high ionising radiation for any amout of time will not be affected by it if and only if the atom is part of the body of a person who followed the bible's fasting prescriptions all his life or he has said hail mary three times last night. Seriously, I really want to understand you. We would not change our natural law, as we would not be able to discover these violations. God is above something as simple as being physically measured. omg please die. "God is above something as simple as being physically measured". Isn't that extremly conveniant for the masses. The simple answer of "you can't measure God". FUCK YOU. Know why? God doesnt interact in my daily life. God doesn't help nor does he hurt me. Therefore : 1) There is no God 2) God does not take part in my daily life therefore i find no reason to worship said god. If there was an allloving omnipotent father figure living in the sky, why did he create us. If he is "perfect" as he said, he would have no need to create "humans" or "us". Perfection is a state in which there are no flaws. Look me in the eye and say that humans are flawless because if you do i will rip your eyes out. Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? ~Epicurus if you see no reason to worship or believe in god that is fine. if you think it is stupid to believe in him fine. but to claim that if such an entity existed, something outside of the scope of our awareness, that it would be playing by the same rules that we do is absurd. to use an argument like "god doesnt exist because there is suffering", which is basically that epicurus quote, is silly. who the fuck are we to judge how things operate in the grand scheme of things. do you judge a contest before it is over? no, because that would be silly and ignorant. so fine, not believing in god because you see no evidence makes sense. but not believing in god because he doesn't fit into the scheme that for whatever reason you and countless others have deemed to be the rules he should operate by is ridiculous. You don't understand what Epicurus was saying. :|
then explain it to me
I am very, very confident that I understand what he is saying. I think it's more likely you that don't understand what I was saying.
|
On May 15 2009 07:12 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2009 06:30 Mindcrime wrote:On May 15 2009 05:16 travis wrote:On May 15 2009 04:37 DreaM)XeRO wrote:On May 14 2009 04:49 seppolevne wrote:On May 13 2009 21:58 georgir wrote:On May 13 2009 14:24 PH wrote:
Empirically proving or disproving the existence of something considered above natural law and rationality in its premise is retarded. This is the most interesting statement on this thread, and I am so sad that I missed it when initially reading through. So with my previous post, I suggested exactly that it should be possible to empirically prove the existance of "violations" to the natural law. Now I am retarded I really would like to know more about what you meant here. Is your point that we would simply change our understanding of "natural law" once we discover the violations so that it incorporates them? And what if that is not rationally possible? I can see it already... 44929th law of PH: an atom exposed to high ionising radiation for any amout of time will not be affected by it if and only if the atom is part of the body of a person who followed the bible's fasting prescriptions all his life or he has said hail mary three times last night. Seriously, I really want to understand you. We would not change our natural law, as we would not be able to discover these violations. God is above something as simple as being physically measured. omg please die. "God is above something as simple as being physically measured". Isn't that extremly conveniant for the masses. The simple answer of "you can't measure God". FUCK YOU. Know why? God doesnt interact in my daily life. God doesn't help nor does he hurt me. Therefore : 1) There is no God 2) God does not take part in my daily life therefore i find no reason to worship said god. If there was an allloving omnipotent father figure living in the sky, why did he create us. If he is "perfect" as he said, he would have no need to create "humans" or "us". Perfection is a state in which there are no flaws. Look me in the eye and say that humans are flawless because if you do i will rip your eyes out. Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? ~Epicurus if you see no reason to worship or believe in god that is fine. if you think it is stupid to believe in him fine. but to claim that if such an entity existed, something outside of the scope of our awareness, that it would be playing by the same rules that we do is absurd. to use an argument like "god doesnt exist because there is suffering", which is basically that epicurus quote, is silly. who the fuck are we to judge how things operate in the grand scheme of things. do you judge a contest before it is over? no, because that would be silly and ignorant. so fine, not believing in god because you see no evidence makes sense. but not believing in god because he doesn't fit into the scheme that for whatever reason you and countless others have deemed to be the rules he should operate by is ridiculous. You don't understand what Epicurus was saying. :| then explain it to me I am very, very confident that I understand what he is saying. I think it's more likely you that don't understand what I was saying.
to use an argument like "god doesnt exist because there is suffering", which is basically that epicurus quote, is silly.
That is not what Epicurus was saying at all. He was arguing only against a particular conception of the divine.
In addition, Epicurus is one of the earliest philosophers we know of to have raised the Problem of Evil, arguing against the notion that the world is under the providential care of a loving deity by pointing out the manifold suffering in the world.
Despite this, Epicurus says that there are gods, but these gods are quite different from the popular conception of gods. We have a conception of the gods, says Epicurus, as supremely blessed and happy beings. Troubling oneself about the miseries of the world, or trying to administer the world, would be inconsistent with a life of tranquility, says Epicurus, so the gods have no concern for us. In fact, they are unaware of our existence, and live eternally in the intermundia, the space between the cosmoi. For Epicurus, the gods function mainly as ethical ideals, whose lives we can strive to emulate, but whose wrath we need not fear.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/epicur.htm#SH3e
|
On May 15 2009 07:20 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2009 07:12 travis wrote:On May 15 2009 06:30 Mindcrime wrote:On May 15 2009 05:16 travis wrote:On May 15 2009 04:37 DreaM)XeRO wrote:On May 14 2009 04:49 seppolevne wrote:On May 13 2009 21:58 georgir wrote:On May 13 2009 14:24 PH wrote:
Empirically proving or disproving the existence of something considered above natural law and rationality in its premise is retarded. This is the most interesting statement on this thread, and I am so sad that I missed it when initially reading through. So with my previous post, I suggested exactly that it should be possible to empirically prove the existance of "violations" to the natural law. Now I am retarded I really would like to know more about what you meant here. Is your point that we would simply change our understanding of "natural law" once we discover the violations so that it incorporates them? And what if that is not rationally possible? I can see it already... 44929th law of PH: an atom exposed to high ionising radiation for any amout of time will not be affected by it if and only if the atom is part of the body of a person who followed the bible's fasting prescriptions all his life or he has said hail mary three times last night. Seriously, I really want to understand you. We would not change our natural law, as we would not be able to discover these violations. God is above something as simple as being physically measured. omg please die. "God is above something as simple as being physically measured". Isn't that extremly conveniant for the masses. The simple answer of "you can't measure God". FUCK YOU. Know why? God doesnt interact in my daily life. God doesn't help nor does he hurt me. Therefore : 1) There is no God 2) God does not take part in my daily life therefore i find no reason to worship said god. If there was an allloving omnipotent father figure living in the sky, why did he create us. If he is "perfect" as he said, he would have no need to create "humans" or "us". Perfection is a state in which there are no flaws. Look me in the eye and say that humans are flawless because if you do i will rip your eyes out. Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? ~Epicurus if you see no reason to worship or believe in god that is fine. if you think it is stupid to believe in him fine. but to claim that if such an entity existed, something outside of the scope of our awareness, that it would be playing by the same rules that we do is absurd. to use an argument like "god doesnt exist because there is suffering", which is basically that epicurus quote, is silly. who the fuck are we to judge how things operate in the grand scheme of things. do you judge a contest before it is over? no, because that would be silly and ignorant. so fine, not believing in god because you see no evidence makes sense. but not believing in god because he doesn't fit into the scheme that for whatever reason you and countless others have deemed to be the rules he should operate by is ridiculous. You don't understand what Epicurus was saying. :| then explain it to me I am very, very confident that I understand what he is saying. I think it's more likely you that don't understand what I was saying. Show nested quote +to use an argument like "god doesnt exist because there is suffering", which is basically that epicurus quote, is silly. That is not what Epicurus was saying at all. He was arguing only against a particular conception of the divine. Show nested quote +In addition, Epicurus is one of the earliest philosophers we know of to have raised the Problem of Evil, arguing against the notion that the world is under the providential care of a loving deity by pointing out the manifold suffering in the world.
Despite this, Epicurus says that there are gods, but these gods are quite different from the popular conception of gods. We have a conception of the gods, says Epicurus, as supremely blessed and happy beings. Troubling oneself about the miseries of the world, or trying to administer the world, would be inconsistent with a life of tranquility, says Epicurus, so the gods have no concern for us. In fact, they are unaware of our existence, and live eternally in the intermundia, the space between the cosmoi. For Epicurus, the gods function mainly as ethical ideals, whose lives we can strive to emulate, but whose wrath we need not fear. http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/epicur.htm#SH3e Seriously? People invoke theodicy all the time as an argument for the nonexistence of God. It isn't what he said or meant, it's how people are using it these days. Just because some dead Greek dude said something doesn't mean people can't take it in a completely different direction. I mean, clarification does help on the matter if we were looking at the original context, but in this one all it does it makes you look like a smartass trying to show off how intelligent you are.
|
On May 15 2009 07:20 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +to use an argument like "god doesnt exist because there is suffering", which is basically that epicurus quote, is silly. That is not what Epicurus was saying at all. He was arguing only against a particular conception of the divine. Show nested quote +In addition, Epicurus is one of the earliest philosophers we know of to have raised the Problem of Evil, arguing against the notion that the world is under the providential care of a loving deity by pointing out the manifold suffering in the world. so far it seems like I understood it just fine.... Show nested quote +
Despite this, Epicurus says that there are gods, but these gods are quite different from the popular conception of gods. We have a conception of the gods, says Epicurus, as supremely blessed and happy beings. Troubling oneself about the miseries of the world, or trying to administer the world, would be inconsistent with a life of tranquility, says Epicurus, so the gods have no concern for us. In fact, they are unaware of our existence, and live eternally in the intermundia, the space between the cosmoi. For Epicurus, the gods function mainly as ethical ideals, whose lives we can strive to emulate, but whose wrath we need not fear.
well this is interesting... but I don't think it is relevant to know what epicurus believes there is or isn't outside of the quote. even if in context the quote is only arguing against the notion of a "caring/loving" god, my reply to it still stands without modification.
|
On May 13 2009 16:22 PH wrote:
WOW FUCK THIS THREAD I HAVE AN ESSAY TO WRITE.
ROFLMAO.
I could try and write a big explanation about why God isn't real. But they say a picture is worth a thousand words: + Show Spoiler +
|
On May 15 2009 07:48 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2009 07:20 Mindcrime wrote:to use an argument like "god doesnt exist because there is suffering", which is basically that epicurus quote, is silly. That is not what Epicurus was saying at all. He was arguing only against a particular conception of the divine. In addition, Epicurus is one of the earliest philosophers we know of to have raised the Problem of Evil, arguing against the notion that the world is under the providential care of a loving deity by pointing out the manifold suffering in the world. so far it seems like I understood it just fine....
Despite this, Epicurus says that there are gods, but these gods are quite different from the popular conception of gods. We have a conception of the gods, says Epicurus, as supremely blessed and happy beings. Troubling oneself about the miseries of the world, or trying to administer the world, would be inconsistent with a life of tranquility, says Epicurus, so the gods have no concern for us. In fact, they are unaware of our existence, and live eternally in the intermundia, the space between the cosmoi. For Epicurus, the gods function mainly as ethical ideals, whose lives we can strive to emulate, but whose wrath we need not fear.
well this is interesting... but I don't think it is relevant to know what epicurus believes there is or isn't outside of the quote. even if in context the quote is only arguing against the notion of a "caring/loving" god, my reply to it still stands without modification.
|
|
|
On May 15 2009 08:01 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2009 07:48 travis wrote:On May 15 2009 07:20 Mindcrime wrote:to use an argument like "god doesnt exist because there is suffering", which is basically that epicurus quote, is silly. That is not what Epicurus was saying at all. He was arguing only against a particular conception of the divine. In addition, Epicurus is one of the earliest philosophers we know of to have raised the Problem of Evil, arguing against the notion that the world is under the providential care of a loving deity by pointing out the manifold suffering in the world. so far it seems like I understood it just fine....
Despite this, Epicurus says that there are gods, but these gods are quite different from the popular conception of gods. We have a conception of the gods, says Epicurus, as supremely blessed and happy beings. Troubling oneself about the miseries of the world, or trying to administer the world, would be inconsistent with a life of tranquility, says Epicurus, so the gods have no concern for us. In fact, they are unaware of our existence, and live eternally in the intermundia, the space between the cosmoi. For Epicurus, the gods function mainly as ethical ideals, whose lives we can strive to emulate, but whose wrath we need not fear.
well this is interesting... but I don't think it is relevant to know what epicurus believes there is or isn't outside of the quote. even if in context the quote is only arguing against the notion of a "caring/loving" god, my reply to it still stands without modification.
ok so what am I missing? please be patient with me.
I really can't conclude anything other than that epicurus was arguing against a god that had any sort of personal link to mankind.
what I am saying is that my reply to the quote remains the same.
|
On May 15 2009 08:24 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2009 08:01 Mindcrime wrote:On May 15 2009 07:48 travis wrote:On May 15 2009 07:20 Mindcrime wrote:to use an argument like "god doesnt exist because there is suffering", which is basically that epicurus quote, is silly. That is not what Epicurus was saying at all. He was arguing only against a particular conception of the divine. In addition, Epicurus is one of the earliest philosophers we know of to have raised the Problem of Evil, arguing against the notion that the world is under the providential care of a loving deity by pointing out the manifold suffering in the world. so far it seems like I understood it just fine....
Despite this, Epicurus says that there are gods, but these gods are quite different from the popular conception of gods. We have a conception of the gods, says Epicurus, as supremely blessed and happy beings. Troubling oneself about the miseries of the world, or trying to administer the world, would be inconsistent with a life of tranquility, says Epicurus, so the gods have no concern for us. In fact, they are unaware of our existence, and live eternally in the intermundia, the space between the cosmoi. For Epicurus, the gods function mainly as ethical ideals, whose lives we can strive to emulate, but whose wrath we need not fear.
well this is interesting... but I don't think it is relevant to know what epicurus believes there is or isn't outside of the quote. even if in context the quote is only arguing against the notion of a "caring/loving" god, my reply to it still stands without modification. ok so what am I missing? please be patient with me. I really can't conclude anything other than that epicurus was arguing against a god that had any sort of personal link to mankind. what I am saying is that my reply to the quote remains the same.
Epicurus certainly did believe that the gods had no personal link to mankind. However, the problem of evil is an argument only against the existence of a god that is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. On what basis do you still dismiss it as "silly"?
|
On May 15 2009 08:36 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2009 08:24 travis wrote:On May 15 2009 08:01 Mindcrime wrote:On May 15 2009 07:48 travis wrote:On May 15 2009 07:20 Mindcrime wrote:to use an argument like "god doesnt exist because there is suffering", which is basically that epicurus quote, is silly. That is not what Epicurus was saying at all. He was arguing only against a particular conception of the divine. In addition, Epicurus is one of the earliest philosophers we know of to have raised the Problem of Evil, arguing against the notion that the world is under the providential care of a loving deity by pointing out the manifold suffering in the world. so far it seems like I understood it just fine....
Despite this, Epicurus says that there are gods, but these gods are quite different from the popular conception of gods. We have a conception of the gods, says Epicurus, as supremely blessed and happy beings. Troubling oneself about the miseries of the world, or trying to administer the world, would be inconsistent with a life of tranquility, says Epicurus, so the gods have no concern for us. In fact, they are unaware of our existence, and live eternally in the intermundia, the space between the cosmoi. For Epicurus, the gods function mainly as ethical ideals, whose lives we can strive to emulate, but whose wrath we need not fear.
well this is interesting... but I don't think it is relevant to know what epicurus believes there is or isn't outside of the quote. even if in context the quote is only arguing against the notion of a "caring/loving" god, my reply to it still stands without modification. ok so what am I missing? please be patient with me. I really can't conclude anything other than that epicurus was arguing against a god that had any sort of personal link to mankind. what I am saying is that my reply to the quote remains the same. Epicurus certainly did believe that the gods had no personal link to mankind. However, the problem of evil is an argument only against the existence of a god that is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. On what basis do you still dismiss it as "silly"?
on the basis that it is "silly" for us to assume we know everything(let alone anything) about the absolute role of good and evil in the world, and it is "silly" for us to act like we know limitations of what is or is not possible. What if this is the best even an all-powerful god can do? How would any of us know?
Beyond that, what if suffering has a role to play that we don't understand? Without having experienced everything, we are absolutely not in a position to objectively judge what is or is not just in this life.
|
Once again you don't know shit about God. If he does exist we certainly don't know his designs and to say that he is evil because there is evil in the world is retarded. If you were to make a universe wouldn't you put evil in it? I think it would be boring as shit without a little tragedy. [german accent]VVWE KNOW NOTHING![/german accent] Just because humanity has created a depiction of God does not make that depiction accurate. you're all silly.
|
On May 15 2009 04:37 DreaM)XeRO wrote:
God doesnt interact in my daily life.
God doesn't help nor does he hurt me.
Therefore :
1) There is no God
2) God does not take part in my daily life
I rather like this point of view. Regardless of whether there is a God or not, everything that happens to me has a logical explanation and reason. I do not pray, I do not worship, I simply live the life I was given. I haven't witnessed or been apart of any miracles or divine interactions, so even if there were, I feel no connection to God whatsoever.
I've never truly understood why some believe you must believe in God, or accept some form of religion to be admitted into heaven. I did not choose to be born, to be a living person, it simply happened, I had no choice in that. I don't really understand the rationale of a God who would create life and then demand that said life acts according to it's rules, or be eternally punished.
I was talking to a friend of mine, who is Christian, and I was curiously asking that if I didn't believe in a God, yet lived my life as a 'good' person by today's ethical standards, would I be going to hell or heaven; assuming those were the only options. He replied hell, because as he said, I didn't seek out religion and seek out truth about God, therefore I was deserving of eternal pain and sadness. I had to laugh because I found this ridiculous. I wasn't given a choice of being born, I was born and I've been living my life. As I said, personally I feel no connection to God if there is one, and why should I? Does that make me deserving of hell? If someone could explain this I would appreciate it.
|
On May 15 2009 11:54 DeathSpank wrote:
Once again you don't know shit about God. If he does exist we certainly don't know his designs and to say that he is evil because there is evil in the world is retarded. If you were to make a universe wouldn't you put evil in it? I think it would be boring as shit without a little tragedy. [german accent]VVWE KNOW NOTHING![/german accent] Just because humanity has created a depiction of God does not make that depiction accurate. you're all silly.
I hate this point of view...throwing words around about "god's plan"...that is a horrible circular argument that defeats itself.
On May 15 2009 13:46 Salv wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2009 04:37 DreaM)XeRO wrote:
God doesnt interact in my daily life.
God doesn't help nor does he hurt me.
Therefore :
1) There is no God
2) God does not take part in my daily life
I rather like this point of view. Regardless of whether there is a God or not, everything that happens to me has a logical explanation and reason. I do not pray, I do not worship, I simply live the life I was given. I haven't witnessed or been apart of any miracles or divine interactions, so even if there were, I feel no connection to God whatsoever. I've never truly understood why some believe you must believe in God, or accept some form of religion to be admitted into heaven. I did not choose to be born, to be a living person, it simply happened, I had no choice in that. I don't really understand the rationale of a God who would create life and then demand that said life acts according to it's rules, or be eternally punished. I was talking to a friend of mine, who is Christian, and I was curiously asking that if I didn't believe in a God, yet lived my life as a 'good' person by today's ethical standards, would I be going to hell or heaven; assuming those were the only options. He replied hell, because as he said, I didn't seek out religion and seek out truth about God, therefore I was deserving of eternal pain and sadness. I had to laugh because I found this ridiculous. I wasn't given a choice of being born, I was born and I've been living my life. As I said, personally I feel no connection to God if there is one, and why should I? Does that make me deserving of hell? If someone could explain this I would appreciate it.
I've repeated this like three times in this thread, but there's a reason why that view doesn't hold...and that is that the effects a god entity would have on the universe wouldn't necessarily be immediately apparent, or potentially even apparent at all.
It's impossible to conclude for sure until our knowledge of the natural world (or physicalism), is complete. That's quite a ways off.
Beyond that, for instance, something along the lines of the Big Bang is I think the most popular theory on the formation of the universe. Any credible scientist will immediately admit that what happened before the Big Bang is outside the realm of science. The sciences are all empirical disciplines. They cannot apply to something that cannot be somehow observed, immediately or otherwise.
A god entity, by definition, is a being above and/or beyond the physical. If you accept this definition of a god, then you have to work with that in disproving or proving one.
So...because because our picture of the natural world is incomplete and by premise, our understanding of the supernatural cannot be completed, you can neither prove nor disprove the existence or the effects of a god like being in such a way.
|
On May 14 2009 04:12 DreaM)XeRO wrote:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able, and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
~Epicurus
I think I've seen you post this before in religion threads. I would just like to clarify (if you didn't know already) that epicurus did believe in the existence of a god. In fact he thought the existence of a god was proven by the fact that everyone seems to have knowledge of this god. For Epicurus God, however, did not have any influence on the world. He was just drifting through outer space somewhere in complete autonomous happiness, so there was really no reason to fear him.
Of course you can still use his quote, although I do think a christian would pick number 3 and come up with an explanation for the origin of evil.
edit: oh this was already posted
|
On May 15 2009 18:44 PH wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2009 11:54 DeathSpank wrote:
Once again you don't know shit about God. If he does exist we certainly don't know his designs and to say that he is evil because there is evil in the world is retarded. If you were to make a universe wouldn't you put evil in it? I think it would be boring as shit without a little tragedy. [german accent]VVWE KNOW NOTHING![/german accent] Just because humanity has created a depiction of God does not make that depiction accurate. you're all silly. I hate this point of view...throwing words around about "god's plan"...that is a horrible circular argument that defeats itself. Show nested quote +On May 15 2009 13:46 Salv wrote:On May 15 2009 04:37 DreaM)XeRO wrote:
God doesnt interact in my daily life.
God doesn't help nor does he hurt me.
Therefore :
1) There is no God
2) God does not take part in my daily life
I rather like this point of view. Regardless of whether there is a God or not, everything that happens to me has a logical explanation and reason. I do not pray, I do not worship, I simply live the life I was given. I haven't witnessed or been apart of any miracles or divine interactions, so even if there were, I feel no connection to God whatsoever. I've never truly understood why some believe you must believe in God, or accept some form of religion to be admitted into heaven. I did not choose to be born, to be a living person, it simply happened, I had no choice in that. I don't really understand the rationale of a God who would create life and then demand that said life acts according to it's rules, or be eternally punished. I was talking to a friend of mine, who is Christian, and I was curiously asking that if I didn't believe in a God, yet lived my life as a 'good' person by today's ethical standards, would I be going to hell or heaven; assuming those were the only options. He replied hell, because as he said, I didn't seek out religion and seek out truth about God, therefore I was deserving of eternal pain and sadness. I had to laugh because I found this ridiculous. I wasn't given a choice of being born, I was born and I've been living my life. As I said, personally I feel no connection to God if there is one, and why should I? Does that make me deserving of hell? If someone could explain this I would appreciate it. I've repeated this like three times in this thread, but there's a reason why that view doesn't hold...and that is that the effects a god entity would have on the universe wouldn't necessarily be immediately apparent, or potentially even apparent at all. It's impossible to conclude for sure until our knowledge of the natural world (or physicalism), is complete. That's quite a ways off. Beyond that, for instance, something along the lines of the Big Bang is I think the most popular theory on the formation of the universe. Any credible scientist will immediately admit that what happened before the Big Bang is outside the realm of science. The sciences are all empirical disciplines. They cannot apply to something that cannot be somehow observed, immediately or otherwise. A god entity, by definition, is a being above and/or beyond the physical. If you accept this definition of a god, then you have to work with that in disproving or proving one. So...because because our picture of the natural world is incomplete and by premise, our understanding of the supernatural cannot be completed, you can neither prove nor disprove the existence or the effects of a god like being in such a way.
If you mean to say that one can make a sensible, clear-cut division between metaphysics and science I have to disagree. Science is filled with metaphysical assumptions. Saying that science is only concerned with the empirical and doesn't have anything to do theorizing at a higher level is quite naive.
Oh and I would just like to say that the 'you can't prove or disprove god's existence' argument is often used in a kind of ignorant way. Strictly speaking it is, of course, very true, but you can't just ignore the aspect of probability. You can say exactly the same thing about ANYTHING. Even if you can't disprove god's existence, you can still dismiss it because it does not compute with current scientific views of the universe and it does a worse job at explaining everything.
|
On May 15 2009 08:47 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2009 08:36 Mindcrime wrote:On May 15 2009 08:24 travis wrote:On May 15 2009 08:01 Mindcrime wrote:On May 15 2009 07:48 travis wrote:On May 15 2009 07:20 Mindcrime wrote:to use an argument like "god doesnt exist because there is suffering", which is basically that epicurus quote, is silly. That is not what Epicurus was saying at all. He was arguing only against a particular conception of the divine. In addition, Epicurus is one of the earliest philosophers we know of to have raised the Problem of Evil, arguing against the notion that the world is under the providential care of a loving deity by pointing out the manifold suffering in the world. so far it seems like I understood it just fine....
Despite this, Epicurus says that there are gods, but these gods are quite different from the popular conception of gods. We have a conception of the gods, says Epicurus, as supremely blessed and happy beings. Troubling oneself about the miseries of the world, or trying to administer the world, would be inconsistent with a life of tranquility, says Epicurus, so the gods have no concern for us. In fact, they are unaware of our existence, and live eternally in the intermundia, the space between the cosmoi. For Epicurus, the gods function mainly as ethical ideals, whose lives we can strive to emulate, but whose wrath we need not fear.
well this is interesting... but I don't think it is relevant to know what epicurus believes there is or isn't outside of the quote. even if in context the quote is only arguing against the notion of a "caring/loving" god, my reply to it still stands without modification. ok so what am I missing? please be patient with me. I really can't conclude anything other than that epicurus was arguing against a god that had any sort of personal link to mankind. what I am saying is that my reply to the quote remains the same. Epicurus certainly did believe that the gods had no personal link to mankind. However, the problem of evil is an argument only against the existence of a god that is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. On what basis do you still dismiss it as "silly"? on the basis that it is "silly" for us to assume we know everything(let alone anything) about the absolute role of good and evil in the world, and it is "silly" for us to act like we know limitations of what is or is not possible.
For an omnipotent god, anything would be possible.
What if this is the best even an all-powerful god can do?
Omnipotence is, by definition, unlimited power. If you place limits, any limits, on a god's power he ceases to be omnipotent.
Beyond that, what if suffering has a role to play that we don't understand? Without having experienced everything, we are absolutely not in a position to objectively judge what is or is not just in this life.
So evil and suffering exist so that the greater good can be achieved? An omnipotent god could achieve the greater good without suffering if he so chose and an omnibenevolent god would choose that option if he could.
|
On May 15 2009 22:16 ManBearPig wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2009 04:12 DreaM)XeRO wrote:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able, and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
~Epicurus I think I've seen you post this before in religion threads. I would just like to clarify (if you didn't know already) that epicurus did believe in the existence of a god. In fact he thought the existence of a god was proven by the fact that everyone seems to have knowledge of this god. For Epicurus God, however, did not have any influence on the world. He was just drifting through outer space somewhere in complete autonomous happiness, so there was really no reason to fear him. Of course you can still use his quote, although I do think a christian would pick number 3 and come up with an explanation for the origin of evil. edit: oh this was already posted
The Bible says that god creates evil, so that casts some doubt his willingness to do away with evil. :/
Isaiah 45: 7 KJV
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://newmedia2.funnyjunk.com/pictures/633629611182527374-thistext.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b6/Davehal9K/Morals.jpg)
