It doesn’t matter what I believe. All that matters is that it’s conceivable that they’re lying and I have no way of knowing definitively if that’s the case. The reason that I believe people aren’t lying about the continents is basically derived, as you’ve read, from psychoanalysis (and because I doubt such a variety and quantity of resources could be accumulated within this one continent, but it’s still possible that they’re lying about certain continents).
But is it reasonable for me, a person who hasn’t experienced Antarctica and probably won’t visit it, to trust the authorities and assume it exists? It’s not enough to be able to validate something–if I don’t seek to validate my claims by visiting other continents and by subjecting my medications to chemical analysis, am I justified in my assumptions?
Nonsense, you’re simply refusing to see the similarities.
it is a false analogy because in the situation of G-ds morality, there is no physical evidence to consider, and in the matter of antartica there is, there is a difference in the substance of the situtation. you use this difference to claim that that its ok to draw draw conclusions in the face of the evidence you have. however if there were no physical evidence for the existence of antartica, then you would be in the same boat as before and it would be just as invalid then to draw conclusions. consider if we replaced antartica with atlantis, would you then be justified in saying its ok to claim that atlantis exists? of course not.
not that its important because you still cant draw valid conclusions from insufficient information. your trying to show why thats ok, using a false analogy, but it still doesnt affect the bare fact that drawing conclusions on insufficient informtion results in invalid conclusions.
Yes, I think they’re making it up. Unlike the proposal of other continents, they have reasons to lie about their religious experiences; usually they’re attempting to make you subordinate to some sort of religious institution
why is that a problem? what are you doing that the Church condemns?
or they persist to maintain the delusion that the world is a happy place (or, rather, that it will be a happy place) watched over by a loving god who wouldn’t allow for death to cause eternal slumber (a lack of consciousness). No, that reality would be too harsh to accept as even a possibility to many Christians.
there is no harshness in a reality in which there is no afterlife, life would be much easier if we didnt have to follow rules that restrict our ability to act in any way we chose. i could bed who i wanted, party all the time and feel great about it. once you decide we are nothing but bags of chemicals there is no harshness to life because you are free to act as you please and not worry about consequences.
this idea you have that somehow religion makes life easier is demonstrably false.
and i could just as well say the power companies want you to believe electrons exist because they have a financial interest in such a belief.
They may not lack evidence, but I still do, since another person’s allegation that something is true is never sufficient evidence. Just ask any judge what happens when someone expects to win a case in court with their own testimony as their only defense. They’d be lucky not to be the laughingstock of the town.
Again: is it acceptable for me to use my trust of another as a justification for a belief?
no, so why do you believe that antartica exists? because you trust the people with the physical evidence, thats why. do you believe atlantis exists? some people claim it but they dont have physical evidence, yet you dont believe them. see the contradiction?
One more time, Pete: if God is omnipotent, he does not need to produce any undesired effects, by definition. If suffering is an effect that displeases God, yet he doesn’t eliminate it, it would seem that he’s not omnipotent or that he possesses conflicting desires. If he can remove suffering, but doesn’t, he is (a) sadistic, (b) he doesn’t care about our suffering, or (c) possesses conflicting desires. Every possibility excludes him from being praiseworthy, in my opinion.
i understand the argument, but the problem is that it is only your opinion that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent G-d wouldnt allow suffering. a child who suffers from touching a hot stove benefits from that suffering in that he now knows not to touch a hot stove, clearly suffering can be beneficial. a loving omnipotent G-d would do the best thing for us, that may well include suffering. as the OP shows, there is always a possible reason for any event of suffering to be justified.
The Summa (I’ve read some of it, but not all) offers five “proofs” of God. Obviously, if we can’t prove that God exists, everything that is derived from that “fact” is an assumption. But most people admit that Aquinas’ proofs are not airtight (which actually would exclude them from being considered proofs) and that they only cushion the belief of those who already believe in God. They are not meant to be persuasive or irrefutable. They are meant only for reinforcement.
St. Thomas assumes the necessary being to be the Christain G-d, the arguments are pretty much air tight for a god, the leap to the Christain G-d is the assumption you are refering to, but at the time it wasnt an issue, however i can make the leap mathematically from convergent prophecy. a unique and mathematically undeniable feature exclusive to Christianity. the only denial being a gigantic conspiracy spanning thousands of years and thousands of people, for no apparent reason, as many of the conspirators suffered lives of deprivation, and eventual martyrdom.
they do not however assume the existence of G-d in the actual arguments. you apparently didnt examine them further than that.
atheism is symptomatic of a lack of knowledge about what we believe and why, your demonstrating the truth of that here.
Now, if only we could all agree on what matters pertain solely to objects and which rely partly on emotions.