Yet how does an act of special creation entitle one to be obeyed let alone worshiped? Is this ‘Bob’ a Benevolent or DeSadian style god and how can you tell the difference considering the power imparted to most ideas of god?
I generally find myself leaning toward the ignostic definition of Rabbi Wine. (I wrote his org to verify the info on this link). celebatheists.com/entries/ambiguous_9.html#4
(an atheist by virtue of indifference definition)(?).
I feel that the belief in god or a disbelief of god seems to provide no real difference in the actions of a person, myself included. Of course following from that I don’t think a lack of religion would be more of paradise then a theocracy.
I have been taught an answer to this problem of evil. In order to love God there must be free will. With free will comes choice, and choice, a chance to choose evil. But as Aquias says, God can bring good even out of evil.
I have been taught an answer to this problem of evil. In order to love God there must be free will. With free will comes choice, and with choice, a chance to choose evil. But as Aquias says, God can bring good even out of evil.
An Imaginary Man quoting an unknown source (i somehow refrain from adding: “In a galaxy far, far away”)
I would claim imperfect analogy on that one. It is true that i don’t know whether Bill is in the room or not. But in this case i know who bill is, i have seen him, know how he walks, what beer he likes. But how do you define the unknowable? People say, “Do you believe in God?” but they never ask the prerequisite question, “What is God?” Of course i can have no knowledge of that which remains undefined! Just as mathematically i can have no knowledge of 0/0. I do not believe in God for the same reason that i don’t believe in Santa Claus or 10 horned zorbians that piss hydrochloric acid.
Love, peace, and chicken grease.
my real name writes:
So God created creatures that can choose evil? Is that how God launders evil?
There is no answer, but love your fellow man anyway.
SideshowBob, the id is the set of primitive instincts for humans. Existence of primitive instincts can be proven with empirical evidence when studying humans. God, as defined by natural theology, is a being who created all and who is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipresent, immutable, eternal, transendent, and bunch of other stuff, I’m sure. Where’s God’s empiric, scientific evidence?
Did you read my posts or are you trying to be retarded of my position? I don’t know who brings me my mail but that doesn’t mean that God brings it. I don’t know who or what or what group of beings created the universe. To claim knowledge of that, like tentative says, would be arrogant. Hence the arrogance of all religionists and positive atheists.
An Imaginary Man, you wrote:
I’m not saying that a unicorn cannot exist, where a unicorn is an animal, with the head, neck and body of a horse, a beard like that of a goat, the legs of a buck, the tail of a lion, and a long tapering horn, spirally twisted, in the middle of the forehead. I’m just saying that unicorns don’t exist. Unicorns can exist in some galaxy unknown to us but until I have empirical, scientific evidence I won’t believe in them.
tentative, I understand your point of view and I apologize for being so insistent but I believe that the word ‘atheist’ deserves proper treatment. I respect your position for mine, although different, is very similar.
my real name, you wrote:
I’m sorry but are you saying that God has no power over his creation? Your counter argument was very very weak. Be careful in responding.
Theists, you cannot defend that which is out reason. Especially with reason. Just accept that there is no reason for your beliefs. Just accept that your beliefs are completely irrational and non-sensical. Just accept that you are believing in a man-made creation, a lie.
You cannot find God, because everything is God. Everything. You look for God, saying, where is God? You don;t see God because God is everywhere and everything. There is nothing that is not God. Even you yourself, you are God. This is like digginf in a mountain, you say that you are looking for gold but you canot find any gold becuase all you find is this sihney yellow metal rock. the entire mountain is gold, and you cano seperate the gold form the notgold because it is all gold.
Hombre, excuse me for being direct, but you are just not handling the best arguments for the existence of God. I recommend you go research the matter and come back with arguments and not pure-faith statements of your own personal faith – athiesm.
I ask you again, what do you think about the argument from design evident in the world? Or should I elaborate the argument for you?
Let your mind touch the world and let it be your empiricism!
hombre,
I think that this “discussion” is getting into some emotional argument.
Don’t you actually believe that this will help at anything? Maybe the problem is that you think that you were born all-knowing:
I don’t know if you know the saying of “finding the fifth leg of a cat.” This can work both ways, for someone who is desperate of believing or someone who doesn’t. I think that there is an overthinking of this topic. In the end the only person who can convince you of anything is yourself, no one can make you actually believe in God. Saint Augustine wrote in his Confession book something that is useful to this (paraphrased): you know God by looking for him, since you are not born knowing God. I’m sure that if you don’t want to know Him, then you will never find Him.
Hi prophile,
what do you mean by
? Is this a New Age belief? I think I have heard of it sometime before.
One thing that has always bugged me was the trait of transendence for the God of natural theism. If God is transendent then how do you claim to know all the other traits?
prophile, you’re insane. Tell me what your God is and give me a reason to believe in him and I’ll start listening.
my real name, faith is defined as knowledge without reason. I have reason for atheism. You have no reason for theism.
By the way, what ever happened to that argument about evil?
Why bother me with such a silly argument for the existence of God. To entertain you I won’t give you the reason why that argument is circular. Instead I’ll use a fun analogy:
How long is it before we can take The Sims and program a sprite to be self-aware and able to understand the concept of design? The Sim would see his world and say, “There is obviously a God.” But is there a God? No. The creators of his reality is a team of programmers, none who are omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omnipresent, immutable, eternal because they are human. Maybe they’re transendent.
Point is that you don’t know who’s on the other side of that door. To say it is the God of natural theism or any other God is arrogant.
rafhdl, you reuse the age old silly argument, “Only by believing in God can you actually find evidence for him.” I’m sorry but to me this translates to, “Lie to yourself long enough and you’ll start believing in Him.” It also translates to insanity.
The trasition of Catholicism to atheism was very rough for me but it was worth every moment. Religion is a madness and reason is the cure. I think that the belief in God part of an inherent desire to believe in him. That and mass conditioning. I explain my theory on human nature here. I also argue against Catholisism, hell, sin, and it’s harmful effects on the last post of this thread. For some reason it went unrefuted.
I’m going away for a few days. Don’t miss me too much.
I don’t think that is a fair definition for faith. A more fundamental definition of faith is putting your trust in something. Now there are blind faiths and educated faiths. We in the Catholic Church have educated faiths.
You mean the one with Mr. McDaniel?
Do you mean He should be able to have free will without anyone choosing evil?? It didn’t even make it past the first two persons!
Thank you for entertaining my obviously boring question.
Wouldn’t the programmers have those types of powers seem by the fictional world they created? And to show my point, wouldn’t the Sims have taken their intelligence from the creator/s of the program?
But, i would say, necessary, piety being a virtue and man’s happiness being dependant on virtuous behaviour – both mental and moral.
I’ll start this post with an apology because it is nothing but a rant.
Would someone please tell me why it’s so damned important to ‘know’ God or the lack thereof? What the hell is so difficult in accepting the notion that we CAN’T know, and then getting on with it?
NOT KNOWING is our state of being, whether by divine design or statistical accident, it is where we find ourselves.
I suppose playing with the infinite possibilites is entertaining, but so is masturbation.
The incessant blather about is/isn’t doesn’t take us anywhere.
This type of discussion take’s away any appreciation of the paradox/ mystery that lies before us. Does God exist? Damned if I know, and that is the best part. It leave’s me in awe of all that is, and humble in the understanding that I will never understand. It’s such a relief to know that I will never have to be a God. Who would want that kind of responsibility?
And so we are thrown back upon ourselves. The mystery is still there, but the need is no longer to question the unquestionable, it is rather to construct a rational explanation that serves all of us.
No, masturbation is much more fun! I wished to say this in an earlier post but considered it anti-thematic at that juncture. The question, “Does God exist?” is similar in that respect to “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” It will always say more about ourselves (which is the only meaning in the question) than it will probably ever say about God. You are right. We are thrown back onto ourselves and some of us wind up beside ourselves with ecstasy while some end up confused. Intelligence consists in seeing both sides of the problem at once and prejudging the problem only serves to preclude us from the solution in that that becomes so many fewer perspectives for us to view the problem from. Indeed! One must almost have a God’s-eye view to correctly see the problem!
Although not knowing can not be taken in a general sense in that i wouldn’t know that i don’t know, within the specific context of the original question, “Does God exist?” it indeed makes sense.
Just disregarding something because there isn’t any solid, scientific proof is problematic. Gravity, electrons , Pluto…all existed 1000 years ago. Could they be scientifically proven? Of course not because science had not progressed that far.
Your logic is typical of the ‘know it all’ scientific thinking of today; pretentious and not considering the fact that our science today may not even barely scrape the surface of our reality. Science has neither proven nor disproven a God in any form, but merely possibly dispelled some Christian/Judaism/Muslim/Pagan etc. myths. Just because the myths are up for questioning, the idea of a supreme being is not neccessarily out ruled. And who’s to say science is 100% right? Aren’t we now questioning the once widely accepted theory on Black Holes?
Good point Shadowandlight. But would there have been any rational reason for people to believe in the existence of Pluto prior to any other planet’s discovery?
But you see believing in something or not has no bearing on it’s actual existence. My point was that something can exist outside of our realm of scientific reasoning, and apparantly outiside of even our beliefs.
To extend the limitations and boundaries of, (what basically amounts to nothing more than,) a personal reply/opinion, [I do not know whether god exists or not] (to a difficult question,) outside its domain into the realm of a dogmatic, (and embellished,) assertion on the nature of the human condition, i.e., to mix terms thus smacks of fallacious inductive reasoning!
Now, if you’d said, ‘unknowing,’ rather than, ‘nor knowing,’ that would have been acceptable. But then that would have been the statement of one who believes in god!
('Unknown,’ as you probably know, is one of the many names of god.)
