God, free will, and evil

[tonyrey]

Can you show your mind exists?

I’m not a solipsist nor does my question imply that I am.
Can you show that your mind exists? If so how?

How does that make me impartial??

It doesn’t and you’re not - as you have demonstrated.

Do facts depend on recognition?

When it comes to facts derived from human concepts, who knows?

How do you determine which are and which aren’t?

Ignorance does not entail non-existence.

How would anybody know?

Nobody would know but that signifies nothing!

It’s not just “Meat or stones.”

The other option?

You are begging the question!

No - just asking one. And you can’t answer it.

It is unanswerable, being based on a false premise.

It’s not relevant to the questions I asked you.

Why not relevant? No doubt you will evade that…

Do you regard your existence as valueless?

That’s irrelevant…

It’s amusing how you dismiss as irrelevant any questions you wish to evade.

All these fact claims you make about God’s nature are not fact claims at all, they’re just your opinions.

I could just as easily say the same. What are the facts you** know **to be facts?

Matter can be proven to exist.

Who and what prove that matter exists?

If nothing else, that makes my position infinitely stronger than yours, as yours is predicated on the existence of a magic indetectable superman that can’t be distinguished from “nothing.”

In fact your position is infinitely weaker because your “proof” presupposes the existence of a rational mind - unless you renounce that privilege and downgrade yourself to a mindless body.

Do you use dust to show that dust exists?

More valueless solipsism?

It is the dust that is valueless without the mind.

QUOTE]A vast multitude of atomic particles is somewhat less economical than one Being.

Yes - you clearly think that economy is purely a product of quantity. Your unsubstantiated statement does not alter the indisputable fact that one Being is the most economical explanation: entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

Identifying that you’ve made an arbitrary assumption doesn’t magically put the onus on me to prove an alternative explanation.

Not arbitrary and no alternative! The only rational explanation is that we are created with the capacity for love and self-determination.

I just pointed out that if he does exist, the fact of reality does not correlate with him being both omnipotent and good.

Without producing one jot of evidence you are presuming it is possible to create a universe without any defects or limitations.

Assuming he must be omnipotent if he’s God, then he’s not good, unless he has a very complex rationale for allowing bad things to happen to good people, and vice versa.

Far from being complex the rationale is that the immense value of life outweighs its drawbacks. You take advantage of life - like Ivan Karamazov - yet you return the ticket even without actual knowledge of designing a universe.

…saying God is good is no different from saying that a serial killer is also good.

You are confusing ultimate with direct responsibility. A serial killer is the direct agent of death whereas God permits death as necessary for the biocycle - without which you wouldn’t exist and be able to condemn it.

I just can’t see how 250-year old philosophy carries any weight.

You simply reveal your unawareness of his influence on modern thought.

You’re still not telling me what the connection is.

A result is a connection.

You won’t be negative!

Could you give me an answer that actually adds value, and maybe explains something?

My answer is valuable because your rejection of the value of life is due to excessive emphasis on its negative aspects. If you were consistent you would agree with Schopenhauer that it would be better if life had never appeared on this planet…

You’re confusing the aim of life with the process of existence.

You think life has no aim. It just** is**.

That must be a lower purpose - not least because it dispenses with purpose altogether.

…the absence of a proven answer to that question does not automagically prove the existence of a higher purpose.

Another lacuna. Your fragile scheme of things consists of so many gaps it resembles a house of cards likely to collapse at any moment.

So we only exist because the universe is beautiful, and because it’s beautiful, it must be designed? What amazing logic!

That is your deduction not mine. Your fault-finding zeal has rebounded on yourself.

No - the God hypothesis cannot be refuted, because it’s been placed beyond the realm of investigation.

Then why have you been attempting to discredit it?

The ID argument however, is easily refuted - and has been, comprehensively and repeatedly.

Easier said than done.

Well, I could invent the “Wanstronian Ratio,” and say that length must be exactly 4.5 times width.

“Why this ratio of 1.618? This ratio provides the flower petals and leaves with maximum exposure to sunlight and allows rain drops to flow down to the root in the most effective manner. The sunflower positions its seeds in a Golden Ratio spiral because it is the most effective manner of having as many seeds in a given amount space possible and allowing them to remain un-crowded within that space.”

photoinf.com/Golden_Mean/Edwin_Leong/Camera_Hobby_-e-Book_on_the
Golden_Ratio.htm

Two examples out of many. Not objective?

 

[wanstronian]

That is the only way to put an end to all conflict, interference, failure and frustration.

You seem very sure of that - what’s your reasoning?

Another weak analogy! As if designing a world is comparable with designing an aeroplane…

The point is that you said it’s impossible because nobody’s ever done it. I showed, very easily, how that is not a reasonable qualifier for impossibility. It’s up to you now to come back with a more robust reason why it’s impossible. And show further, why it’s impossible for an omnipotent God. Or concede that he can’t be omnipotent.

Omnipotence is not a carte blanche for absurdity or inconsistency. Can you suggest how the world can remain orderly if the laws of nature are constantly suspended?

Of course I can’t. What does that prove though? If God is omnipotent, he can do it. Omnipotence is absolute. God doesn’t need to constantly suspend them, he can change them, can’t he?

By using my intelligence…

That’s not much of an answer. Your proposed rationales are only valid if you can show that God is both benevolent and omnipotent. So your intelligence has entrapped you within a circular argument.

You obviously don’t know what love presupposes - or you don’t want to admit it!

You can make whatever assumptions you like, but the point is that you changed the subject instead of answering my question. You may want to divert the discussion, but I’d like to stay on track.

I believe it is because love happens to be more important than everything else. Can you suggest a greater priority?

Breathing, eating, drinking, procreating…

Or you could refer to Maslow. In any event, such prioritisation is subjective. But thank you, I now understand your subjective reasoning, even if I don’t agree with it.

Let me repeat: I believe it is because love happens to be more important than everything else. Can you suggest a greater priority?

Okay, I understand that you believe it. I don’t dispute your belief!

I believe God gave us free will because it didn’t pop up out of the blue by chance!

So you think those are the only two options? God or chance? Why do you think that?

What is your explanation?

I think you know my opinion, and I’m happy to discuss it again if you start another thread. It’s not relevant to this one.

You believe in the magical power of Chance - or blind physical Necessity - to produce everything - including yourself…

Well, that’s a misrepresentation of non-theistic thinking of course, but even if it weren’t - we have evidence of chance, but not of God. So even a cursory glance shows that chance is the more likely answer. And there’s nothing “magical” about chance - your loaded words are noted.

It’s ironic that you believe your vaunted rationality is derived from irrational processes. Do you really believe that is an adequate explanation?

It’s not an explanation at all. No explanation yet exists. I am at least mature enough to admit when I don’t have an explanation. A lack of scientific explanation is NOT a good reason to insert a supernatural, undetectable, untestable entity. It’s your favourite fallacy again - the argument from ignorance!

You mean you can’t explain because in your scheme of things human beings and dogs are fundamentally the same. You can choose to fulfil an obligation or act in accordance with a general principle whereas a dog cannot.

Well, no actually I mean that you can’t explain. Or at least you haven’t done so. You’ve said that I decide he’s going to walk around the garden. How do I achieve this, when he’s home alone and I’m at work?

The more likely explanation, is that he is as ‘free to choose’ to walk around the garden as I am. This is supported by observable evidence: he gets up, walks out into the garden, walks around for a bit, then does something else. It’s also supported by the overwhelming evidence of our common ancestry, which obviously includes mental capability.

Yet you have claimed he has no free will. So who, or what, makes him walk round the garden? And why do you even claim he has no free will? What’s your evidence of this?

It is quite clear that it is you who are yet again unable to substantiate one of your claims - this time, that non-human animals have no free will.

They aren’t so rare as you think.

That makes not one iota of difference. Anybody who claims that they absolutely “know,” either way, is simply wrong, and probably also lacking the intellect to understand why they are wrong.

I have no evidence, but I would put money on the fact that there are far more theists that say they “absolutely know” that God exists, than there are atheists who say they “absolutely know” that he doesn’t. It would be an interesting survey if done properly, and I would speak volumes about the intellectual integrity of the respondents.

“no God” is a categorical denial which implies certainty.

My position is that I believe there is no God, although I don’t know for sure. I am an agnostic atheist.

 

[wanstronian]

You are forgetting that my original post is a reply to a Catholic who is searching for an explanation of why God allows moral evil to happen but isn’t responsible for sin. I stated what Catholics believe and drew a logical conclusion:

1. Love is more important than anything else.
2. God gives us free will because without free will we are incapable of love.
3. Evil exists because we abuse the gift of free will.
4. God is justified in permitting evil because it would be a greater evil not to create anyone capable of love.

Which part is “what Catholics believe,” and which part is “logical conclusion?” To what ultimate end are we made capable of love? You must be able to answer this, as you have made a comparison between the benefit and the drawback. Is your ability to love more important than the suffering of an innocent at the hands of a torturer? What’s your justification?

Irrelevant! You mean you find it inconvenient. Is a father responsible for his offspring’s crimes?

Well, if that father was able to see the crimes his offspring would commit, and had the power to prevent them, and failed to do so, then yes - he’d by guilty by consent.

You’re wrong - I don’t find it inconvenient, I find it irrelevant, as I said. If God can do anything, then the nature of the evil is unimportant. It’s ultimately caused by God, who is supposed to be benevolent.

I have already pointed out that laws cease to be laws if they are constantly suspended.

Well, if the laws are unjust, then it is right to suspend, and ultimately repeal them. God allegedly has the power to do this, but chooses instead to let innocent people suffer.

The comparison of a web page and a world are worth a laugh rather than a rebuttal!

So you implicitly concede that your criterion for what’s possible and what’s not, is inadequate? Then please, try again to answer my original question: How do you know that it’s impossible for God to design a world where innocent people don’t suffer?

On the contrary. You are the one who is struggling and failed to answer my question.
Here it is again:
Can you present a detailed blueprint of a feasible system which meets your expectations?

Well, actually I did answer it, by implication. But if you need a categorical answer, I can easily provide one: No I can’t.

So what we’ve established is that God is no more omnipotent than I am - because you seem to be implying that my limitations are equal to those of God. I’m flattered that you think I’m his equal, knowing how much you think of him!

This is your standard reply when you are incapable of explaining something. You regard it as a virtue on your part and a vice on the part of your opponent. There doesn’t seem much you can explain!

It’s a “standard reply” when you commit this fallacy, which is often. If you didn’t keep committing it, I wouldn’t keep pointing it out. My reply has nothing to do with whether I can explain something; on the contrary, it is predicated on the your inability to provide an explanation for your claims! Your “standard reply” snipe serves only to reinforce your lack of awareness of the fallacy you so regularly commit.

You make one valid point though - on the subjects that we discuss, I can’t explain much. Nobody can - that’s the point. Those with intellectual integrity just admit we don’t know the answer (and a subsection of us work on a solution). Those with limited or suspended intellectual integrity, insert an arbitrary non-existent deity that has no explanatory power whatsoever, and sit there smugly thinking that they’re right because any old answer is better than none.

I count myself in the first group, and you in the latter. I know which group I’d rather belong to.

I’m not a solipsist nor does my question imply that I am.
Can you show that your mind exists? If so how?

Please refer to the many past threads where I’ve answered this question for you. There’s no room here - your question-dodging has already resulted in the necessity of four-post responses. Or start another thread if you really want to go over all this again. It’s not relevant to this thread.

It doesn’t and you’re not - as you have demonstrated.

Ah - more word games. I’m disappointed but not surprised. Or maybe you didn’t bother to actually read the thread leading up to my comment, and have taken it out of context again. Who knows?

How do you determine which are and which aren’t?

That’s a good point - it would be subjective. Throwing your hypothesis even further out of kilter!

Nobody would know but that signifies nothing!

If it signifies nothing, then so does your point that “murder, rape and torture are evil even when they are not recognised as evil.” If nobody recognises them as evil, we can’t know that they are. Once upon a time, nobody recognised slavery as evil (except maybe the slaves). This was particularly true in biblical times, and is even sponsored by your God. So is slavery evil? Was it evil then, even though it wasn’t recognised as such?

The other option?

Er… vegetables? Ever heard of 'em?

It is unanswerable, being based on a false premise.

A false premise? How so? I asked who decides the rights of animals. What’s the false premise? You can either answer “X, Y and Z decide the rights of the animals,” or you can claim that animals have no rights.

Let me remind you, this came about because of your declaration of three specific acts being evil. I asked whether another specific act is evil and if no, why not? You haven’t answered this question, which is perfectly reasonable.

 

[wanstronian]

Why not relevant? No doubt you will evade that…

No doubt you will see my response as evasion; that’s the way your mind seems to work. However, I’m happy to answer that question in the appropriate thread. I’m not saying that origin, context and consequences are not important - I’m saying they’re irrelevant to the questions I’m asking you because for the purpose of this discussion, we agree that the specific events I mentioned can be classed as evil.

I really think you’re rabbit-holing furiously here - it’s like we agree that grass is green, but you won’t answer the question as to whose lawn it is because you’re concerned about who invented the word ‘green.’ It’s nonsensical.

If you want to discuss the origin, context and consequences of those things that we agree are ‘evil,’ please start an appropriate thread and I’ll be right along. I’m not evading the question, I’m just trying to get answers to the questions I asked you.

It’s amusing how you dismiss as irrelevant any questions you wish to evade.

It’s amusing how you accuse me of evading questions that you have asked purely to evade answering the questions that I asked you first!

I could just as easily say the same. What are the facts you know to be facts?

There you go again. Another Tu Quoque, as if that somehow adds credibility to your guesswork about God. In answer to your question, I generally consider facts to be facts when they can be substantiated appropriately to the magnitude of their claim.

There are many facts, I can’t list them all so that’s a reasonable rule of thumb. Do you agree?

Who and what prove that matter exists?

Do we really have to go through all this again? We’ve had this conversation before - it went multi-post then so I don’t think we can tag it on here, even if it did make a difference.

In fact your position is infinitely weaker because your “proof” presupposes the existence of a rational mind - unless you renounce that privilege and downgrade yourself to a mindless body.

And your ‘proof’ doesn’t presuppose that rational mind? Not that it matter, because the existence of such minds is not a point for contention.

It is the dust that is valueless without the mind.

That’s true - the value of dust is entirely dependent on the opinion of the person who can use it. Dust is valueless to someone cleaning their house, but may be a life-saver to someone who has a water-tight bag and needs to fill it with something to plug a leak that threatens to drown them.

But yet again, you are dragging the conversation away from the questions that you are unable to answer. Can we get back to them, or are you determined to draw attention away from your credulous thought processes?

Your unsubstantiated statement does not alter the indisputable fact that one Being is the most economical explanation: entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

It can’t be the most economical explanation. It can’t be the least economical explanation. It explains NOTHING AT ALL.

You continue to mis-use Occam’s Razor, it just exposes your lack of understanding. Firstly, Occam’s Razor is not about the number of “things” involved. Secondly, you seem determined to ignore the “beyond necessity” clause. It really is pathetic - what you’re saying is, “God is only one being, therefore he’s the best explanation.” This is a catastrophic failure of logic and understanding.

Not arbitrary and no alternative! The only rational explanation is that we are created with the capacity for love and self-determination.

Okay, well you seem to have abandoned any attempt at substantiating your claims. You’re just chucking baseless assertions out now. Clearly going for quantity rather than quality.

Without producing one jot of evidence you are presuming it is possible to create a universe without any defects or limitations.

I’m not presuming anything of the sort. Has your brain been on holiday throughout this thread? I don’t think it’s possible to do anything of the sort. But theists claim that God is omnipotent - he can do anything that is not logically contradictory. I can’t see how a universe free of defects - specifically evil - is logically contradictory, therefore God should be able to achieve it. But he hasn’t, so either he’s not omnipotent or he’s not benevolent.

Far from being complex the rationale is that the immense value of life outweighs its drawbacks. You take advantage of life - like Ivan Karamazov - yet you return the ticket even without actual knowledge of designing a universe.

What value of life? Value to whom? Us? Or God? If it’s the former - why should God care? And why should he care about some, but not others? Why did he bother? If it’s the latter - what value do we serve for God? And how do you know?

You are confusing ultimate with direct responsibility. A serial killer is the direct agent of death whereas God permits death as necessary for the biocycle - without which you wouldn’t exist and be able to condemn it.

How do you know that “God permits death?” Granted, death is necessary. But horrible, painful, terrifying death of innocent people? Is the manner in which people die somehow important to the ‘biocycle?’ You’re piling lots more assertions on top of the ones you have already failed to substantiate.

 

[wanstronian]

A result is a connection.

Can you be specific? You’re not really explaining anything.

My answer is valuable because your rejection of the value of life is due to excessive emphasis on its negative aspects. If you were consistent you would agree with Schopenhauer that it would be better if life had never appeared on this planet…

I have no opinion on whether it would have been better. If it had never occurred I wouldn’t be around to care. You have no idea what my opinion of life is - why do you think I have “excessive emphasis on its negative aspects?”

You think life has no aim. It just is.

True. I think that individuals can have aims in life. But I see no evidence that life has a purpose beyond its own perpetuation.

Another lacuna. Your fragile scheme of things consists of so many gaps it resembles a house of cards likely to collapse at any moment.

And you’re right there, ready to fill those gaps with good ol’ God! Your statement reveals your outlook - you consider a gap in knowledge to be a sign of frailty, of weakness, of under-achievement! You’re far happier to smugly assert that “God did it.” Me, I’d rather know the truth. And if I can’t know the truth in my lifetime, I’d still rather be happier not knowing, than believing in superstitions nonsense.

That is your deduction not mine. Your fault-finding zeal has rebounded on yourself.

If I’ve got it wrong, maybe you could explain it. Because tracking back through your comments, it seems pretty clear cut.

Then why have you been attempting to discredit it?

It cannot be refuted, that doesn’t mean it’s correct, nor that it’s intellectually or logically sound. Russell’s teapot cannot be refuted either. But you’d be an idiot to believe it exists, without positive evidence. I admire and support rational thought and critical analysis of claims, rather than blind acceptance without appopriate evidence.

Easier said than done.

But it has been done. And I believe you know this, even if you don’t want to believe it.

“Why this ratio of 1.618? This ratio provides the flower petals and leaves with maximum exposure to sunlight and allows rain drops to flow down to the root in the most effective manner. The sunflower positions its seeds in a Golden Ratio spiral because it is the most effective manner of having as many seeds in a given amount space possible and allowing them to remain un-crowded within that space.”

photoinf.com/Golden_Mean/Edwin_Leong/Camera_Hobby_-_e-Book_on_the_
Golden_Ratio.htm

Two examples out of many. Not objective?

Your source of information is a photography site? Please. The Golden Ratio is often quoted as being seen in nature. In reality, this is not the case - there is a huge variation in measurements. The GR is aesthetically pleasing to most humans, and certain credulous individuals go cherry-picking examples from nature that they claim show that this ratio is intrinsic in biology. The fact is, it’s not. These cherry-picked examples represent a very small fraction of the overall number of ratios that could be demonstrated. Just looking at the sunflower pics on the site you link, shows that the spirals are neother uniform nor mutually consistent. As the guy on the website says, “I am sure I have offended the logical readers who actually know about this stuff with my most basic of descriptions for the Golden Ratio.” He’s clearly grasping at straws with his appeal to emotion.

 

[tonyrey]

If you were consistent you would agree with Schopenhauer that it would be better if life had never appeared on this planet…

“no opinion”! That tells us a great deal about your attitude to life…

I think that individuals can have aims in life. But I see no evidence that life has a purpose beyond its own perpetuation.

If the sole purpose of life is its own perpetuation all aims must be derived from that purpose - which is hardly credible. That purpose itself also remains to be explained…

You’re far happier to smugly assert that “God did it.”

“God created everything” corresponds incomparably more closely to our personal experience than “inanimate matter created everything”.

I admire and support rational thought and critical analysis of claims, rather than blind acceptance without appropriate evidence.

You have direct, testable, repeatable evidence within yourself of an intangible, creative mind but none whatsoever of creative matter.

But it has been done.

When, where, how and by whom?

And I believe you know this…

I know the hypothesis but I certainly don’t believe it.

The Golden Ratio is often quoted as being seen in nature. In reality, this is not the case - there is a huge variation in measurements

Your scepticism collapses in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence - ranging from ants to galaxies:

maths.surrey.ac.uk/hosted-sites/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibnat.html

I’m not saying that origin, context and consequences are not important - I’m saying they’re irrelevant to the questions I’m asking you because for the purpose of this discussion, we agree that the specific events I mentioned can be classed as evil.

The **nature **and significance of evil are determined by its origin, context and consequences.

In fact your position is infinitely weaker because your “proof” presupposes the existence of a rational mind - unless you renounce that privilege and downgrade yourself to a mindless body.

And your ‘proof’ doesn’t presuppose that rational mind?

Of course it does because that is our primary datum. Rational minds are explained more intelligibly by a Supreme Mind than by mindless matter.

It is the dust that is valueless without the mind.

That’s true - the value of dust is entirely dependent on the opinion of the person who can use it. Dust is valueless to someone cleaning their house, but may be a life-saver to someone who has a water-tight bag and needs to fill it with something to plug a leak that threatens to drown them.

A valuable life-saver is not a matter of opinion but an objective fact!

Your unsubstantiated statement does not alter the indisputable fact that one Being is the most economical explanation: entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

It explains NOTHING AT ALL.

On the contrary one Being explains everything.

Firstly, Occam’s Razor is not about the number of “things” involved.

entia = ? Occam’s Razor certainly applies to the number of causes.

Secondly, you seem determined to ignore the “beyond necessity” clause.

Your notion of necessity is physical necessity - based on physicalism.

The only rational explanation is that we are created with the capacity for love and self-determination.

You’re just chucking baseless assertions out now. Clearly going for quantity rather than quality.

It’s rather bizarre to regard love and self-determination as quantity! Are they totally insignificant in your scheme of things?

Without producing one jot of evidence you are presuming it is possible to create a universe without any defects or limitations.

I don’t think it’s possible to do anything of the sort.

Why not?

I can’t see how a universe free of defects - specifically evil - is logically contradictory, therefore God should be able to achieve it.

We are concerned with **any **universe but our universe with strictly defined laws and physical constants.

Far from being complex the rationale is that the immense value of life outweighs its drawbacks.

What value of life? Value to whom?

To everyone.

Why should God care?

Because He created us.

And why should he care about some, but not others?

The sun shines and the rains falls on all alike…

If it’s the latter - what value do we serve for God?

Do you regard yourself as valueless?

And how do you know?

To create implies belief in the value of what is created.

How do you know that “God permits death?”

Because it occurs!

Granted, death is necessary.

That is a remarkable concession!

But horrible, painful, terrifying death of innocent people?

Precisely how could all such events be prevented?

 

[mangy_dog]

Sorry for some reason, I cannot find a thread I devoted to this topic so I have to start a new one here.

Basically, God allows moral evil to happen but isn’t responsible for sin. I have always wondered how this happened and I can’t come up with a good answer on my own.
The reason why is because of this:

If God allows evil to happen, then hasn’t he “caused” evil to happen? (Of course the counter to this is that if I don’t stop a virgin from having sex, have I had sex? Of course not so my idea of cause has to be somewhat faulty -but what other definition of cause could there be except “that which contributes to an effect”?)

Second if God allows evil to happen but doesn’t cause it, then again, in what manner can it be said that he causes all things? Since he evidently doesn’t cause sin and yet sin is a thing?

Finally about evil; it is a privation. But then how could anything be said to be evil, since evil can’t really be a “thing”. Then people say that evil is the disordered use of good things -then how is evil still a privation?

pre-emptive thanks for any replies

Notice how James in Chapter 1 verses 13 thru 16 he states that [we are drawn away and enticed by their own concupiscience] some versions say “their own passions”.

We tend to forget that God created us (and the angels in heaven) with free will. Free will would’ve been sufficient in and of itself (without the help of Lucifer) to concieve sin and hence fall from grace.

It was no different for Lucifer and his angels. Especially after the revelation of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity becoming man. And having to serve.

Lucifer is a spiritual being who refused to serve who ended up being nothing. And so he and the fallen angels, once they were expelled from heaven, went to wage war on the rest of humanity.

So you see, God doesn’t cause sin or temptation because God cannot be tempted. We, of our own free will are enticed by our passions and concieve sin…sin gives birth to death.
Free will is necessary to love God freely and not imposed. Free will is a gift…a dangerous one mind you because of how we use it.

 

[wanstronian]

“no opinion”! That tells us a great deal about your attitude to life…

It tells us far more about your tendency to jump to conclusions and misunderstand what you read.

If there had been no life, I would not be here to care. I don’t know whether the universe would be a “better” place without life - indeed, without life, “better” ceases to have meaning.

None of which means that I’m not glad to be alive. I value life - both mine and that of other animals. I just don’t believe it has objective universal value, or “higher purpose.” Why not? No evidence.

I’m still waiting for you to explain your statement that I have an “excessive emphasis on [life’s] negative aspects.”

If the sole purpose of life is its own perpetuation all aims must be derived from that purpose - which is hardly credible. That purpose itself also remains to be explained…

Why is it not credible? And why do you think there must be a higher purpose for the survival and reproduction instincts of all living things? Is it just that you’re unable to imagine otherwise? You’re blinded by your own dogma here, unable to even consider that there might not be an ultimate purpose.

“God created everything” corresponds incomparably more closely to our personal experience than “inanimate matter created everything”.

Clearly this is false. My personal experience is unadulterated by the belief that “God created everything.” And our bodies are made of inanimate matter. Take a body apart, atom by atom, until there’s nothing left. Everything you remove will be inanimate - you’ll end up with a little pile of atoms. Atoms are atoms - you don’t get “animate” atoms and “inanimate” atoms. The animation comes from the structure and interaction of these atoms.

By your example, water can’t be wet because hydrogen atoms aren’t wet, and neither are oxygen atoms. Does God arbitrarily grant water its “wetness,” do you think?

You have direct, testable, repeatable evidence within yourself of an intangible, creative mind but none whatsoever of creative matter.

My mind is not intangible, it’s inside my skull. My brain is creative matter, made from billions of cells interacting through physical, electro-chemical processes. Contrary to your assertion, there is abundant evidence - about 6.5 billion separate examples in humans alone, before even starting on non-human animals.

When, where, how and by whom?

Many times, lots of books and internet sites, using simple logic, and by many different people who are able to think critically. You have been involved in threads where the citations are given. Don’t pretend you know nothing of them.

I know the hypothesis but I certainly don’t believe it.

No, which just shows your lack of rational thought. You don’t believe the documents pointing out the clear and horrendous flaws in the ID hypothesis, but you believe in a God for which no evidence, physical or logical, has ever been demonstrated!

Your scepticism collapses in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence - ranging from ants to galaxies:
maths.surrey.ac.uk/hosted-sites/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibnat.html

I’m afraid I can do nothing about your unthinking credulity - you seem to have no interest in improving your thinking skills. The Golden Ratio does not exist in any proportion in nature, other than that explainable by statistical coincidence. The link you provide is meaningless, associated as it is with the Templeton Foundation. I surely don’t need to remind you what they’re about.

The nature and significance of evil are determined by its origin, context and consequences.

I’m done with this rabbit hole.

Of course it does because that is our primary datum. Rational minds are explained more intelligibly by a Supreme Mind than by mindless matter.

That’s just another assertion that you can’t support. You can’t explain rational minds by positing a “supreme mind,” you’re just abstracting any potential explanation beyond investigation. Your comment is just dogmatic fluff.

A valuable life-saver is not a matter of opinion but an objective fact!

You seem to have missed the point that I agree with you - you just can’t help disagreeing with me on principle! Another sign that your thinking skills are undeveloped. However, that we agree on the subjectiveness of value is irrelevant - you still evaded the point that we can show that dust exists, but we can’t do the same for a deity.

On the contrary one Being explains everything.

Okay, well we’ll have to agree to disagree on that. You clearly have a unique definition of the word, “explain.” For me, saying that “God did it” doesn’t really explain anything. It doesn’t tell me when, why, how, where. It doesn’t provide any evidence, it doesn’t give any value. I don’t know any more about the world as a result. For an uninquisitive mind like yours however, “God did it” is clearly sufficient.

entia = ? Occam’s Razor certainly applies to the number of causes.

Okay, there’s no need to keep demonstrating your misunderstanding! It’s getting embarassing!

Your notion of necessity is physical necessity - based on physicalism.

The only kind of necessity we can demonstrate. With any other kind of subjective, conjured-up “necessity,” all bets are off and nothing can be shown to be true or false. It’s nebulous nonsense on a tragic scale, and it’s tripe like this that conveniently puts God behind the safety barrier of disprovability.

 

[wanstronian]

It’s rather bizarre to regard love and self-determination as quantity! Are they totally insignificant in your scheme of things?

I’ve often wondered whether you’re being deliberately obtuse - with this comment I have my answer. You’re simply unable to understand what you read, aren’t you! I never said, nor implied, anything about regarding love and self-determination as a quantity. I was referring to the large number of unsubstantiated assertions that you fling out, presumably in an attempt to deflect attention away from the previous raft of assertions.

Why not?

I believe the universe is too complex to be designable. I also believe it has too many irrelevant artefacts to be the result of design. The only decent existing explanation for the complexity of the universe is the physical laws that have shaped it, and that we can see and test.

We are concerned with any universe but our universe with strictly defined laws and physical constants.

Fine - if you say God isn’t able to create a Universe free from evil, I have no problem with that. It’s one solution - he’s benevolent, but not omnipotent. That at least is not a logical contradiction.

To everyone.

Have you spoken to everyone? How else can you form the opinion that the bad things that happen to people are outweighed by other people’s free will?

It sounds a little like you’re just repeating dogma that someone’s fed you, without actually thinking about. And it still doesn’t explain natural disasters. They aren’t about evil vs free will.

Because He created us.

In your opinion. Okay.

The sun shines and the rains falls on all alike…

More valueless rhetoric to cover your ignorance. I can always tell when you’ve abandoned any attempt at rational thought and ducked behind your veil of condescending arrogance, because you finish your sentences with ellipses, like this…

Do you regard yourself as valueless?

No. I asked what value we serve for God. Do you have an answer or not?

To create implies belief in the value of what is created.

So you don’t know. Okay.

Because it occurs!

Oh - so I permit the rain to fall, because it occurs? Interesting perspective!

That is a remarkable concession!

That is remarkable condescension!

Precisely how could all such events be prevented?

It’s funny - you often ask “precisely how X,” yet when it comes to your own claims, you are the epitome of vagueness!

The answer, of course, is that I don’t know. Again, I’m flattered that you think God no more capable than me. In fact, your message all the way through seems to have been that God is incapable of removing evil from the world - that he’s far from omnipotent. Which makes me wonder exactly what you imagine God to actually be.

I’d like to draw things to a close now. I eventually managed to get, or derive, all the answers to my original questions. They were as I suspected. Thanks for your time.