Is there a God?

[Allistair Union]

If there is no evidence that supports the existence of a higher power who has nothing but power and goodness, who watches over us with judgement and benevolence, then there is no god. We have continued to discover over human history that the world and universe that we live in was not cast out by some magic but through a natural complex combination and expansion of matter and energy over billions and billions of years and there is evidence for this almost everywhere around us when we walk outside and look around. Scientists keep an eye on planet earth and on the universe (as much as they are capable of watching) 24/7 and still to this day we have continued to find out that the existence of a single god or higher power is very unlikely, and that whatever it was that lead to the creation of the universe is probably beyond human comprehension, in fact IT IS beyond human comprehension because there was nothing, before there was nothing, and based on logic we all know that something cannot come from nothing, which is why our universes origins and how we came about, or what lead us to this theory of a "big bang" remains beyond our human capacity. Whatever it was that started this all, I don't believe it was a god because the real world does not match up to what it technically is supposed to be based on religious texts, this was all definitely driven by something similar to the laws of nature, but much bigger and complex, and probably something we will never discover as humans.

[Neanderthaland]

Parasitic wasps.

Your inability to perceive a purpose, does not mean a purpose does not exist.

This is the fundamental problem with your argument. Any flaws are handwaved away with "well, it must just be something we don't know." It's not an honest debate style, because you're not really addressing the problems, you're just referring them upwards.

It's not all that different from a Creationist who answers every question about "how could this geological formation possibly exist if the world is only 6,000 years old?" with "God did it."

Normally. Though I'm willing to throw "inflicting suffering needlessly" under that umbrella as well. In the end, the motivation doesn't matter as much as the pointlessness of it.

But again, the operative word there, "Needlessly."

I mean, I can't think of a single way in which parasitic wasps impact the human experience. Other than they seem to have inspired one fairly famous horror movie. If you're argument is that God needed to create them because he's a huge fan of Ridley Scott, I question your priorities.

If your argument, is "I don't know the answer, but there must be one." Then that's not really an argument at all. It's just planting your head in the sand.

[Kiu Ghesik]

That's fair, I'd need to think about it more. I do recall Christian theology at least focusing on redemption through the overcoming of obstacles, persecution, and suffering, but I don't remember well enough right now to think about it.

On the parasitic wasps, I would ask another question I think got lost up above. If a god created the mechanism of evolution, and that mechanism led to the wasp's existence, as it filled a niche in its environment, then is that god still responsible for the actions of the mechanism it created but does not necessarily still direct?

An omniscient and omnipotent God would be aware of the evolution of the parasitic wasps, as an omniscient god and would be able to stop their creation, as an omnipotent god. Therefore, an omniscient and omnipotent God must have let the parasitic wasps be created intentionally.

If that god created a logical and internally consistent system, and valued the internal consistency of that system, what reason would it have to force that system to create an illogical outcome?

[Allenstadt]

Soo, if god created suffering to test us, than he's not very smart or fair.

Let's say life is like an exam. If you pass, you go to heaven.
In a really fair exam, everyone should have no advantages.
But if we take someone who lives in Yemen, who's malnourished, lost both of his/her parents, has no education, and has had to flee from opposing forces by foot
vs.
someone who grew up middle-class in Britain, went to a good school with a good education, easily got into college, and got a good job

How is that a fair test? If, say the guy from Yemen had to do something 'sinful' in order to survive, he'd go to hell, while th guy from Britain could easily avoid committing that bad deed.

[Tarsonis]

So Evil that no good thing can come of it? I can't say such things don't exist, but there's also no way of making that determination on a any one thing.

Well, we can't know your God's moral compass, but for him to be omnibenevolent and omnipotent/omniscient, it means that if we judge every single thing against the God's moral compass, they all have to pass muster (the evil of the original action must not surpass the eventual good, if any).

That's a pretty strong assertion.

The problem there, is that while God is Omniscient, we are not. Thus there are threads, eventualities, and possibilities we don't know, and have no way of determining.

It's the time travel issue right? Say you go back in time and strangle baby hitler in his crib. Patting yourself on the back, you hop in your time machine to return to the present only to find a barron nuked out husk of a planet, because since operation barabarosa never happened, a certain political officer didn't die in Stralingrad, succeeded Stalin instead of Khrushchev, bungled the Cuban missile crisis and the world got nuked to shit. You, in your desire to do good ultimately doomed to the world, but you had no way of knowing that would happen.


God being all knowing would know these things.

[Neanderthaland]

Ah, well in that case:

Who am I NOT to say it?


Must we be so philosophical that we can't even condemn sadism? Can't even agree that pointlessly inflicting suffering on another being is wrong?

We can absolutely agree. But that doesn't change the fact that it is a subjective idea, not a mandate of the universe.

It doesn't need to be a mandate of the universe.

[Tarsonis]

We can absolutely agree. But that doesn't change the fact that it is a subjective idea, not a mandate of the universe.

It doesn't need to be a mandate of the universe.

But if it's not a mandate of the universe, then it begs the question: Why?

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

Well, we can't know your God's moral compass, but for him to be omnibenevolent and omnipotent/omniscient, it means that if we judge every single thing against the God's moral compass, they all have to pass muster (the evil of the original action must not surpass the eventual good, if any).

That's a pretty strong assertion.

The problem there, is that while God is Omniscient, we are not. Thus there are threads, eventualities, and possibilities we don't know, and have no way of determining.

It's the time travel issue right? Say you go back in time and strangle baby hitler in his crib. Patting yourself on the back, you hop in your time machine to return to the present only to find a barron nuked out husk of a planet, because since operation barabarosa never happened, a certain political officer didn't die in Stralingrad, succeeded Stalin instead of Khrushchev, bungled the Cuban missile crisis and the world got nuked to shit. You, in your desire to do good ultimately doomed to the world, but you had no way of knowing that would happen.


God being all knowing would know these things.

That may hold true for some things, but I doubt that it does for everything.

Since you assert we can't know your god's morality, we can't say anything definite about this, but just using Occam's Razor, I personally believe that not all evil has an equivalent silver lining.

[Neanderthaland]

It doesn't need to be a mandate of the universe.

But if it's not a mandate of the universe, then it begs the question: Why?

Alright, well it's the law that I have to break out the Hogfather speech for that.

But beyond that, it's an odd standard. There are a ton of rules which I abide, knowing that they are purely artificial. And it doesn't bother me that they aren't ingrained into the fabric of the universe itself. There's no natural law that demands I make drink runs for my coworkers, or that I condemn people who slow down on a yellow even though we both could have made it (If any gods are listening, that one SHOULD be a natural law), I just do it.

[Tarsonis]

Your inability to perceive a purpose, does not mean a purpose does not exist.

This is the fundamental problem with your argument. Any flaws are handwaved away with "well, it must just be something we don't know." It's not an honest debate style, because you're not really addressing the problems, you're just referring them upwards.

But that's a legitimately rational deduction. Humans are limited by their perception, limited both to their individual lives and to the present. God, should He exist, transcends the entirety of creation. By nature then, God would see things beyond human comprehension.

It's not all that different from a Creationist who answers every question about "how could this geological formation possibly exist if the world is only 6,000 years old?" with "God did it."

Also a legitimate deduction, since God created, well, creation. However it would be illegitimately applied if the evidence said the world is 4 billion years old, and the creationist asserts "nope 6000, the bible says so."

But again, the operative word there, "Needlessly."

I mean, I can't think of a single way in which parasitic wasps impact the human experience. Other than they seem to have inspired one fairly famous horror movie. If you're argument is that God needed to create them because he's a huge fan of Ridley Scott, I question your priorities.

If your argument, is "I don't know the answer, but there must be one." Then that's not really an argument at all. It's just planting your head in the sand.

More, We don't know the answer but we have faith that there is one.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

If there is a God, God is not the one described in the Bible or Quran.

[Kiu Ghesik]

If there is a God, God is not the one described in the Bible or Quran.

>half of the world's population disliked that

[Borderlands of Rojava]

If there is a God, God is not the one described in the Bible or Quran.

>half of the world's population disliked that

Tough

[Allistair Union]

If there is no evidence that supports the existence of a higher power who has nothing but power and goodness, who watches over us with judgement and benevolence, then there is no god. We have continued to discover over human history that the world and universe that we live in was not cast out by some magic but through a natural complex combination and expansion of matter and energy over billions and billions of years and there is evidence for this almost everywhere around us when we walk outside and look around. Scientists keep an eye on planet earth and on the universe (as much as they are capable of watching) 24/7 and still to this day we have continued to find out that the existence of a single god or higher power is very unlikely, and that whatever it was that lead to the creation of the universe is probably beyond human comprehension, in fact IT IS beyond human comprehension because there was nothing, before there was nothing, and based on logic we all know that something cannot come from nothing, which is why our universes origins and how we came about, or what lead us to this theory of a "big bang" remains beyond our human capacity. Whatever it was that started this all, I don't believe it was a god because the real world does not match up to what it technically is supposed to be based on religious texts, this was all definitely driven by something similar to the laws of nature, but much bigger and complex, and probably something we will never discover as humans.

Also, when we consider the possibility of an infinite multiverse, what then? Are we just going to say that there are infinite all-powerful magical gods who are good and benevolent? This aspect of goodness and benevolence also would be contradictory because the universe is the most destructive and deadliest thing humans have ever known, there is more destruction in the universe that we live in than there is this magical creation of things that religions speak of.

[Tarsonis]

But if it's not a mandate of the universe, then it begs the question: Why?

Alright, well it's the law that I have to break out the Hogfather speech for that.

But beyond that, it's an odd standard. There are a ton of rules which I abide, knowing that they are purely artificial. And it doesn't bother me that they aren't ingrained into the fabric of the universe itself. There's no natural law that demands I make drink runs for my coworkers, or that I condemn people who slow down on a yellow even though we both could have made it (If any gods are listening, that one SHOULD be a natural law), I just do it.

That's not what I mean. If morality were just a brute fact of the universe, it wouldn't need to be substantiated. Since morality is not a brute fact of the universe, and is rather subjectively instituted, then it it does need to be substantiated.

Which brings us back to, Yes we agree that sadism is evil. But the question still remains, why?

[Neanderthaland]

This is the fundamental problem with your argument. Any flaws are handwaved away with "well, it must just be something we don't know." It's not an honest debate style, because you're not really addressing the problems, you're just referring them upwards.

But that's a legitimately rational deduction. Humans are limited by their perception, limited both to their individual lives and to the present. God, should He exist, transcends the entirety of creation. By nature then, God would see things beyond human comprehension.

There's something more than a little bit dishonest about the argument, "we can't possibly know the truth of the matter... but I'm sure whatever it is, it supports my argument!"

And that is precisely what you are doing.

I mean, I can't think of a single way in which parasitic wasps impact the human experience. Other than they seem to have inspired one fairly famous horror movie. If you're argument is that God needed to create them because he's a huge fan of Ridley Scott, I question your priorities.

If your argument, is "I don't know the answer, but there must be one." Then that's not really an argument at all. It's just planting your head in the sand.

More, We don't know the answer but we have faith that there is one.

If you're just going to fall back on faith, then why even argue the point? Clearly you can't support it with reason.

[Tarsonis]

If there is a God, God is not the one described in the Bible or Quran.

>half of the world's population disliked that

It's fairly possible, and ironically one that the early Christian Fathers might actually concede to a point. Everything we supposedly know about God is something that has been revealed, but even revelation is subject to human perception and understanding.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

>half of the world's population disliked that

It's fairly possible, and ironically one that the early Christian Fathers might actually concede to a point. Everything we supposedly know about God is something that has been revealed, but even revelation is subject to human perception and understanding.

Idk if there's a God, but I don't believe a human could even begin to comprehend the will of a higher power.

[Tarsonis]

But that's a legitimately rational deduction. Humans are limited by their perception, limited both to their individual lives and to the present. God, should He exist, transcends the entirety of creation. By nature then, God would see things beyond human comprehension.

There's something more than a little bit dishonest about the argument, "we can't possibly know the truth of the matter... but I'm sure whatever it is, it supports my argument!"

And that is precisely what you are doing.

I'm not, I'm saying that because we don't know, does not mean there isn't one. I have faith that there is, but i can't claim to know that there is, or what it is. I can speculate, but that's just an educated guess.

More, We don't know the answer but we have faith that there is one.

If you're just going to fall back on faith, then why even argue the point? Clearly you can't support it with reason.

Because your reasoning doesn't support your position nor does it invalidate mine.

[Kiu Ghesik]

It's fairly possible, and ironically one that the early Christian Fathers might actually concede to a point. Everything we supposedly know about God is something that has been revealed, but even revelation is subject to human perception and understanding.

Idk if there's a God, but I don't believe a human could even begin to comprehend the will of a higher power.

It could tell ya.

[Tarsonis]

It's fairly possible, and ironically one that the early Christian Fathers might actually concede to a point. Everything we supposedly know about God is something that has been revealed, but even revelation is subject to human perception and understanding.

Idk if there's a God, but I don't believe a human could even begin to comprehend the will of a higher power.

No they coudn't. Only what God has revealed to them, could they understand.

[Neanderthaland]

Alright, well it's the law that I have to break out the Hogfather speech for that.

But beyond that, it's an odd standard. There are a ton of rules which I abide, knowing that they are purely artificial. And it doesn't bother me that they aren't ingrained into the fabric of the universe itself. There's no natural law that demands I make drink runs for my coworkers, or that I condemn people who slow down on a yellow even though we both could have made it (If any gods are listening, that one SHOULD be a natural law), I just do it.

That's not what I mean. If morality were just a brute fact of the universe, it wouldn't need to be substantiated. Since morality is not a brute fact of the universe, and is rather subjectively instituted, then it it does need to be substantiated.

Which brings us back to, Yes we agree that sadism is evil. But the question still remains, why?

We could answer this with everything from consequentialism to deontology, and still have some reasons left over. But it's largely a moot point. We do agree that sadism is a wicked impulse. And as we agree, we can set that as a moral axiom and elaborate from there.

[Necroghastia]

If there is a God, God is not the one described in the Bible or Quran.

In addition, a god can be omnipotent or omnibenevolent, but not both.

[Tarsonis]

That's not what I mean. If morality were just a brute fact of the universe, it wouldn't need to be substantiated. Since morality is not a brute fact of the universe, and is rather subjectively instituted, then it it does need to be substantiated.

Which brings us back to, Yes we agree that sadism is evil. But the question still remains, why?

We could answer this with everything from consequentialism to deontology, and still have some reasons left over. But it's largely a moot point. We do agree that sadism is a wicked impulse. And as we agree, we can set that as a moral axiom and elaborate from there.

But even we agreeing on it, doesn't make that mandative, or even correct. And even with all those arguments, doesn't make them true, just makes them convincing and agreed upon. What really is "true morality?"

[Neanderthaland]

There's something more than a little bit dishonest about the argument, "we can't possibly know the truth of the matter... but I'm sure whatever it is, it supports my argument!"

And that is precisely what you are doing.

I'm not, I'm saying that because we don't know, does not mean there isn't one. I have faith that there is, but i can't claim to know that there is, or what it is. I can speculate, but that's just an educated guess.

If you're just going to fall back on faith, then why even argue the point? Clearly you can't support it with reason.

Because your reasoning doesn't support your position nor does it invalidate mine.

I point out that there is suffering in nature that is unrelated to human free will, and that does not appear to serve any constructive purpose.

Your argument is that it might serve a constructive purpose, because you believe that it does.

These are not equal opposites. Your argument is not a good-faith response to mine.