God and the World, what do you think? [Does God Exist II]

[Sun Wukong]

Wouldn't a non-caused event be prove of a transcendent being?

Well there's a non sequitur. No.

[Jute]

Wouldn't a non-caused event be prove of a transcendent being?

Well there's a non sequitur. No.

Isn't that the ontological argument?

[Jute]

Uh... Christianity says God gave humans free will, so he is anything but dictating what happens in your life. Most terrible things in the world are either man-made (wars and hate, for example) or naturally caused (illnesses, natural catastrophes etc.) Would you rather have God change everyone's mind so they are like characters on a children's show, where arguments usually are about harmless things (like how to organize a party or what do at a sleepover) and all the villains are either not human and can be defeated and destroyed, or reformed to be "good"?

god is ultimately to blame for both man made awful shit and naturally caused awful shit, becaus ehe created them with full knowledge of their proclivity of being able to cause awful shit!

tolerating and condoning evil is still an evil in and of itself.

Well, that's the trade-off for giving humans free will, I guess? And who says preventing natural catastrophes or other terrible things wouldn't be worse in the end, theoretically at least? You would need to account for any sort of possible butterfly effect when contemplating divine intervention.

[The Creepoc Infinite]

god is ultimately to blame for both man made awful shit and naturally caused awful shit, becaus ehe created them with full knowledge of their proclivity of being able to cause awful shit!

tolerating and condoning evil is still an evil in and of itself.

Well, that's the trade-off for giving humans free will, I guess? And who says preventing natural catastrophes or other terrible things wouldn't be worse in the end, theoretically at least? You would need to account for any sort of possible butterfly effect when contemplating divine intervention.

the trade off is that we have an asshole god? that's not a good trade off for temporary free will.

[Jute]

Well, that's the trade-off for giving humans free will, I guess? And who says preventing natural catastrophes or other terrible things wouldn't be worse in the end, theoretically at least? You would need to account for any sort of possible butterfly effect when contemplating divine intervention.

the trade off is that we have an asshole god? that's not a good trade off for temporary free will.

Not temporary, eternal free will.

[Fralinia]

why would you WANT god to exist?

i'm not exactly gonna be excited if there is an all powerful genocidal asshole in a bad mood dictating what happens in my life.

Uh... Christianity says God gave humans free will, so he is anything but dictating what happens in your life. Most terrible things in the world are either man-made (wars and hate, for example) or naturally caused (illnesses, natural catastrophes etc.) Would you rather have God change everyone's mind so they are like characters on a children's show, where arguments usually are about harmless things (like how to organize a party or what do at a sleepover) and all the villains are either not human and can be defeated and destroyed, or reformed to be "good"?

Well, it's certainly not a bad thing. God would be capable of anything, and so he would have some way of inspiring us to creative and intellectual thinking without war and hardship to drive our passions. Such a world would be just fine by me. No war, no famine, no hate, and I'm sure that everyone would worship their perfect Creator, as well. Why God chose to include this level of evil in our world, short of "it'll spice things up", eludes me.

[The Creepoc Infinite]

Uh... Christianity says God gave humans free will, so he is anything but dictating what happens in your life. Most terrible things in the world are either man-made (wars and hate, for example) or naturally caused (illnesses, natural catastrophes etc.) Would you rather have God change everyone's mind so they are like characters on a children's show, where arguments usually are about harmless things (like how to organize a party or what do at a sleepover) and all the villains are either not human and can be defeated and destroyed, or reformed to be "good"?

Well, it's certainly not a bad thing. God would be capable of anything, and so he would have some way of inspiring us to creative and intellectual thinking without war and hardship to drive our passions. Such a world would be just fine by me. No war, no famine, no hate, and I'm sure that everyone would worship their perfect Creator, as well. Why God chose to include this level of evil in our world, short of "it'll spice things up", eludes me.

maybe because he doesn't exist??

[Arbolvine]

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Not temporary, eternal free will.

Do evil acts take place in heaven?

If not, why not?

[United Marxist Nations]

I don't personally believe in a god, particularly a religious one who actively interacts with his creation; however, I would not be particularly opposed to the idea of a god or gods as a "clockmaker".

[Zottistan]

why would you WANT god to exist?

i'm not exactly gonna be excited if there is an all powerful genocidal asshole in a bad mood dictating what happens in my life.

Uh... Christianity says God gave humans free will, so he is anything but dictating what happens in your life. Most terrible things in the world are either man-made (wars and hate, for example) or naturally caused (illnesses, natural catastrophes etc.) Would you rather have God change everyone's mind so they are like characters on a children's show, where arguments usually are about harmless things (like how to organize a party or what do at a sleepover) and all the villains are either not human and can be defeated and destroyed, or reformed to be "good"?

Naturally caused things are god's responsibility. He's got a lot of explaining to do, really.

[The Rich Port]

(Image)

If only it were this easy for theists...

[Risottia]

why would you WANT god to exist?

i'm not exactly gonna be excited if there is an all powerful genocidal asshole in a bad mood dictating what happens in my life.

Uh... Christianity says God gave humans free will, so he is anything but dictating what happens in your life. Most terrible things in the world are either man-made (wars and hate, for example) or naturally caused (illnesses, natural catastrophes etc.)

"Naturally caused" catastrophes, within a setting featuring an omnipotent and omniscient creator deity, would be entirely that deity's fault.
As for, again, omnipotent and omniscient creator deities who just happen to sit by and watch as, dunno, the Nazis march millions of people to the gas chambers, guilty again for knowing it, being able to stop it, and refusing to do so.

Would you rather have God change everyone's mind so they are like characters on a children's show, where arguments usually are about harmless things (like how to organize a party or what do at a sleepover) and all the villains are either not human and can be defeated and destroyed, or reformed to be "good"?

At least that deity would be consistent with its own claim of benevolence, omnipotence and omniscience.

Anyway, no, thank you. Ni Dieu ni maitre.

[Neutraligon]

Is it possible for an omniscient god to forget something?

[Conscentia]

Is it possible for an omniscient god to forget something?

If you forgot something, then I think that qualifies as losing any claim to omniscience you had.

[Risottia]

Is it possible for an omniscient god to forget something?

Only if it's omnipotent.

[The Rich Port]

Is it possible for an omniscient god to forget something?

Only if it's omnipotent.

Moar liek omni-incompetent, amirite.

[Neutraligon]

Is it possible for an omniscient god to forget something?

Only if it's omnipotent.

But then how would it be omniscient?

[Shaggai]

In the same way that "there are no black swans" would be a positive claim.

Isn't that a negative claim as well?

You're probably more knowledgeable on this than I am, so I'll try to avoid snark.

Err actually pretantia there is a pretty big difference between claiming that something doesnt' exist and claiming that something can't exist. Claiming that something can't exist assumes there is a logical reason as to why it cannot exist. The lack of evidence to support it's existence is insufficient to make a negative claim about the possibility of it's existence. Stated frankly, you cannot make this claim logically.

It's the opposite claim to,"X can exist." I still don't see how it's positive.

The default for the probability of any hypothesis is 50%, weighted by complexity and normalized over all possible hypotheses. A claim that something cannot exist is saying that the probability of that hypothesis is 0%. This is lower than the default, so you are claiming that the probability of that hypothesis should be changed. Any change in probability requires evidence.

[Genivaria]

the trade off is that we have an asshole god? that's not a good trade off for temporary free will.

Not temporary, eternal free will.

I don't see how stopping bad people from doing bad things is a violation of free will.
Do cops have a power god doesn't?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Isn't that a negative claim as well?

You're probably more knowledgeable on this than I am, so I'll try to avoid snark.

It's the opposite claim to,"X can exist." I still don't see how it's positive.

The default for the probability of any hypothesis is 50%, weighted by complexity and normalized over all possible hypotheses. A claim that something cannot exist is saying that the probability of that hypothesis is 0%. This is lower than the default, so you are claiming that the probability of that hypothesis should be changed. Any change in probability requires evidence.

The concept, devised by unknowledgeable ancient people, is a powerful immaterial being capable of manipulating energy in ways that defy logic and basic physics. I'd say that's a 0% chance.

[Grave_n_idle]

Wouldn't a non-caused event be prove of a transcendent being?

No.

In fact, I'll go further. Not only does it not prove it, it doesn't even suggest it. Quite the contrary - a non-caused event doesn't require a cause (the clue is right there), whether that 'cause' be a transcendent being or otherwise.

And that's where you keep falling down - you keep assuming that things that happened 'before' our universe's laws applied must be governed by those laws... and you keep assuming that a 'god' needs to be shoehorned into any paradigm, whether or not it is needed, or even fits.

[Jack O Land]

(Image)

They're not whipping it out in public, they're doing it in the privacy of their own forum. I think we can all agree that this is one of the best possible places for theological debate outside an academic setting.

Guys, I have a question, and I think it's relevant to the argument:

Do you think humans are inherently rational beings?

[Neutraligon]

(Image)

They're not whipping it out in public, they're doing it in the privacy of their own forum. I think we can all agree that this is one of the best possible places for theological debate outside an academic setting.

Guys, I have a question, and I think it's relevant to the argument:

Do you think humans are inherently rational beings?

To an extent. We are not computers, our emotions can and often do override or take precedence, but we are capable of being rational.

[Sun Wukong]

(Image)

They're not whipping it out in public, they're doing it in the privacy of their own forum. I think we can all agree that this is one of the best possible places for theological debate outside an academic setting.

Guys, I have a question, and I think it's relevant to the argument:

Do you think humans are inherently rational beings?

Depends on what you mean.

Humans have inherent cognitive biases. But those biases conform to evolutionary rationality.