1109 replies to this topic

[Ireth]

You have emprircally proven that Christ is not god?  An all-powerful, all-loving god does have a defense; man's free-will.

[proletaria]

Ireth, on 26 October 2012 - 04:59 PM, said:

You have emprircally proven that Christ is not god?

I have no more need to do so than to prove there is no tea-pot orbiting the moon. The claim is meaningless unless you further assert the plethora of judeo-christian theological baggage which is empirically and logically bankrupt.

Ireth, on 26 October 2012 - 04:59 PM, said:

An all-powerful, all-loving god does have a defense; man's free-will.

Free-will is contrary to the concept of an all-powerful, benevolent, and loving being. If this god actually knew humans were capable of such evil, the fact it allows for free will is a violation of that absolute benevolence. if it is not capable of micromanaging everyone to the extent that free-will does not exist, then it is not all-powerful.

The logic is fairly simple. You can run as many examples of that thought-experiment through your head as you like, the conclusion is always the same. All-loving and all-powerful divine being constructs do not wash. If you want to posit an all-loving god, it has to be absolutely powerless to act (not very godlike) in this universe. If you want to posit an all-powerful god, it has to be capricious, disinterested in the universe, or possibly evil.

Thankfully, there's no empirical evidence for either of those things.

Edited by proletaria, 26 October 2012 - 10:51 PM.

[Ireth]

Free will is not a violation of absolute benevolence.  Does a parent not punish his child to teach them right from wrong?  Does a parent not allow his child to fail so that the child can handle future failures?  What is a life of suffering compared to eternal happiness?

The truth is that free will is a gift.  If you think we would be better off following the will of a all-loving god, then I would encourage you to do just that.

[proletaria]

Ireth, on 29 October 2012 - 11:22 PM, said:

Free will is not a violation of absolute benevolence.  Does a parent not punish his child to teach them right from wrong?  Does a parent not allow his child to fail so that the child can handle future failures?  What is a life of suffering compared to eternal happiness?

Leaving aside the horror of an eternal paternalistic great leader, A parent is ultimately powerless to prevent bad things from happening to their child. This is not a trait shared by an omniscient and all-powerful deity. I think the better question to pose would be: Why is there no empirical evidence for eternal happiness, the suffering of life all around us, when the eternal deity has supposedly created us (logic and appreciation for evidence and all) to live such a life?

I assume your next step will be to insist that the almighty works in mysterious ways, but a simpler explanation is that we have no such omnibenevolent figurehead.

Ireth, on 29 October 2012 - 11:22 PM, said:

The truth is that free will is a gift.  If you think we would be better off following the will of a all-loving god, then I would encourage you to do just that.

The truth, as far as we can empirically discern it now, is that free will is more illusory than we've traditionally imagined. Profundity at the expense of muddying or elaborating on our developing knowledge of neurology doesn't support the existence of a divine being.

If you think we would be better off following anything without question, and in the total absence of empirical evidence, I encourage you to consider how poorly that logic follows in every other aspect of your life.

[Syronicus]

Illythia, on 06 October 2011 - 11:14 PM, said:

Well this is a recipe for disaster.

Look at it this way. Religion is about faith.

/end thread

[proletaria]

Syronicus, on 30 October 2012 - 01:12 PM, said:

Illythia, on 06 October 2011 - 11:14 PM, said:

Well this is a recipe for disaster.

Look at it this way. Religion is about faith.

/end thread

Thanks for the bump.

[VasAnNox]

God is always here, when u r not lookin.

[proletaria]

VasAnNox, on 09 November 2012 - 07:46 PM, said:

God is always here, when u r not lookin.

The fact this is reminiscent of Santa Clause ought to indicate something to you.

[Slayerviper]

proletaria, on 10 November 2012 - 02:06 AM, said:

VasAnNox, on 09 November 2012 - 07:46 PM, said:

God is always here, when u r not lookin.

The fact this is reminiscent of Santa Clause ought to indicate something to you.

I thought it was funny, why so curious

[Kaeron]

oh these threads, can only end well.

[proletaria]

Kaeron, on 13 November 2012 - 06:51 PM, said:

oh these threads, can only end well.

In fairness, it started with a Snoop Dogg last supper gif, so there was little chance of it going anywhere but down from that dizzying height.

[LinkX]

Ireth, on 29 October 2012 - 11:22 PM, said:

Free will is not a violation of absolute benevolence.  Does a parent not punish his child to teach them right from wrong?  Does a parent not allow his child to fail so that the child can handle future failures?  What is a life of suffering compared to eternal happiness?

The truth is that free will is a gift.  If you think we would be better off following the will of a all-loving god, then I would encourage you to do just that.

To compare god/allah/yahweh/jesus/whatever to a parent is, to put it kindly, misleading. What parent would burn a child alive for misbehaving? What parent would throw their own child into a lake of lava for not doing as the child is told.

If anything, it is, to paraphrase Mr. Christopher Hitchens, a celestial North Korea, except that when you die, it only gets worse.

As for free will, it isn't a gift, its a requirement for the kind of universe we live in. This four dimensional universe that we happen to inhabit requires that living beings have free will, or at least the free will that you seem to imply.

[proletaria]

I think that all we can currently say, with much empirical certitude, about free will is that the term doesn't have as much meaning as we traditionally liked to attribute to it. We may debate just how many of our neurological "decisions," are made prior to our more advanced cognition of the stimuli involved; however, we don't really have a good control for an experiment.

It appears, to the best of my knowledge, that our mental faculties are a combination of choices and non-choices. So if that is what we are using as the definition of "free will," then I would submit that the moniker is misleading at best. Clearly what we have is not entirely a choice-dominated mentality. There are many ways to prove that some thoughts are governed vastly, or entirely, by subliminal response.

TL;DR: I think "free will," is just one of many convenient semantic toys used to defend an illogical point of view (such as theism). It would be akin to arguing that "free physics," exists because of X. As Link mentioned, some degree of "free will" (like physics), is simply a property of our universe.

[Ranje]

why prove ? i dont believe anything and im good

[TwilightRealm]

I believe God exists from FAITH but because I believe my faith is more probable and rational than an atheistic view.

There are many arguments I could use to elaborate but I think an argument from morality is a great foundation.

Why is something good or right compared to bad or wrong? What makes something good or right compared to bad or wrong?
Before I give my explanation, I would like to hear some explanations from you guys.

[proletaria]

TwilightRealm, on 08 December 2012 - 07:46 PM, said:

I believe God exists from FAITH but because I believe my faith is more probable and rational than an atheistic view.

The "atheistic view," is simply a semantic game. Rational thought is the standard for everyone, regardless of their religion or lack of it.

TwilightRealm, on 08 December 2012 - 07:46 PM, said:

There are many arguments I could use to elaborate but I think an argument from morality is a great foundation.

Then you should make them. Morality from divinity is invalid if you haven't established the divinity in the first place.

TwilightRealm, on 08 December 2012 - 07:46 PM, said:

Why is something good or right compared to bad or wrong? What makes something good or right compared to bad or wrong?
Before I give my explanation, I would like to hear some explanations from you guys.

The social backbone of our species, and the mutual concern of most social animal like us, is the rule of universally preferably behavior and non-aggression against your fellows. Something is "wrong," if the actor would not prefer that his action be used against himself. Someone is "bad," if they habitually use violence (except in self-defense).

The natural problem is that tribalism dilutes this social adhesive in large groups; however religion, being a form of tribalism itself, is not an answer to that problem unless you suggest the conversion or genocide of everyone not in that religion. I should also mention: religious schisms are inevitable, so even the aforementioned extremity (converting or killing everyone into your religion) is no promise of a uniform tribe.

Edited by proletaria, 09 December 2012 - 12:42 AM.

[Jamoose]

We are lucky to have you among us Proletaria! your insight is always inspiring and informative.

[proletaria]

Thanks!

[TwilightRealm]

proletaria, on 08 December 2012 - 11:44 PM, said:

Something is "wrong," if the actor would not prefer that his action be used against himself. Someone is "bad," if they habitually use violence (except in self-defense).

So then "right" and "wrong" are subjective to each person, rather than abiding by some absolute standard. And the only things that makes someone bad is if they are violent (except in self-defense)?

Would you agree that Truth is absolute? Regardless of our beliefs, biases, knowledge - Truth stands as a separate entity which is transcultural (such as 2 + 2 = 4) and unchanging. Would you agree?

[Dzomlija]

TwilightRealm, on 24 December 2012 - 04:43 AM, said:

proletaria, on 08 December 2012 - 11:44 PM, said:

Something is "wrong," if the actor would not prefer that his action be used against himself. Someone is "bad," if they habitually use violence (except in self-defense).

So then "right" and "wrong" are subjective to each person, rather than abiding by some absolute standard. And the only things that makes someone bad is if they are violent (except in self-defense)?

Would you agree that Truth is absolute? Regardless of our beliefs, biases, knowledge - Truth stands as a separate entity which is transcultural (such as 2 + 2 = 4) and unchanging. Would you agree?

Truth is not absolute. Did people not once believe it true that the Earth was the center of the universe? Or that the Sun revolved around the Earth? Or that if you sailed far enough over the oceans, you'd fall off the edge of the Earth?

The point I'm trying to make is that truth is indeed a subjective thing. That which we hold true and undeniable today, may well be proven wrong sometime in the future.

Some more recent examples of so-called "truths" that have been proven absolutely false are the end-of-the-world prophecies, such the millennium doomsday belief that had many people thinking the world would come to an end at midnight on 31 December 1999, or that the end of the Mayan calendar at 2012-12-21 would bring about the Apocalypse.

Yeah, right!