There is no God

[kev7]

EnterTheBowser:

The above statement is false. Let’s take a look at a case other than God. Do I need to know whether there actually is an apple on top of the Empire State Building to determine whether it is possible for there to be an apple there? No. It is possible for an apple to be there regardless of whether or not there is actually an apple there.

A is not the same as B - see below - and neither of them are values of C, whatever it is that C is.

As I recall, this bit about logic started with the ontological argument; can you tie your statements into some attack on my rebutall of that argument? Furthermore, I don’t think what you mean by C is something that can be turned into a well-formed formula. The first two can, however. Let’s just say that x has the property G iff x is God (G(x) <–> x is god), and we also have to use modal logic. It’s fairly clear what the sentences are:
(possible)(there exists an x) G(x)
(possible)(for every x) ~G(x)
I don’t know how to phrase C; can you give it a try?

WOW… I’m so glad that you agree that it isn’t possible to phrase C. C is undefined. I’m saying that in order for your sentances to have any worth you can’t omit C, but until you can define it don’t waste your time.

Just as I said your formulas omit the concept of the trinary variable. C is the undefined universal set from which both your sentances are derived.

Again your range of possible solutions should not just include False and true. They must account for a thrid value of undefined.

You can’t even perform a logical operation if one of your possible values is undefined.

As for your apple statement.

A is the building
B is the apple
C is all the possble locations of apples

No. you don’t need to know that there is an apple up there but you do need to know that the top of the building is a possbile location for an apple. In other words you need to know what the unversal set of locations for apples are.

The problem with your logic is that you continue to define the universal set C in correctly or omit it completely

The same is true with god.

Since we can’t define what the universal set of the universe is the value for C remains undefined.

First define all possible forms of existance before you calim that God does not exists.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Do you mean that C is what I’ve been calling the logician’s universe?

 

[kev7]

EnterTheBowser:

Do you mean that C is what I’ve been calling the logician’s universe?

What I’m saying is that C is undefined.

In order to do anything with logic you must first define your universal set. Since all possibilities are derived from it.

The universal set should contain all forms of existence.
After all the question is one of existance.

Since we don’t know anything about existence apart from what we can perceive with our senses we have to conclude that that universal set that we have to work with is undefined.

Therefore we can’t make any logical conclusions.

We first need proof that there are no other forms of existance other then what we can perceive with our senses.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

kev7:

What I’m saying is that C is undefined.

In order to do anything with logic you must first define your universal set. Since all possibilities are derived from it.

The universal set should contain all forms of existence.
After all the question is one of existance.

Since we don’t know anything about existence apart from what we can perceive with our senses we have to conclude that that universal set that we have to work with is undefined.

Therefore we can’t make any logical conclusions.

We first need proof that there are no other forms of existance other then what we can perceive with our senses.

[grumble]This would have been so much easier if you’d just said that you meant by C what I had been calling the logician’s universe or the universe of discourse from the get-go.[/grumble]

Anyways, that being the case, all these arguments are precisely that: attempts to figure out what is in the universe and what is not, and in that way define at least part of it.

And as I previously argued, there are good reasons to suppose that talk of those things which we cannot gain knowledge of, directly or indirectly - those things which have no effect on us and no effect on things which affect us - is meaningless. I posted these reasons; you attacked them; I responded; but after that I do not recall any posts which bore on the subject.

 

[Vir_Dei]

EnterTheBowser:

In that case, why does a loving God allow the extreme suffering we see in the world around us?

You are limiting God when God is something that cannot be limited. When people say that God is loving, do not hold that statement to mean He is only loving, or mainly loving. That would imply that the God of which we speak isn’t perfect, and by definition, He is. Therefore, as much as He is loving, He is just and merciful.

Now that the above is established, your question remains - how is giving someone an ailment like pancreatic cancer loving, just, and merciful?

One way or the other, the soul will be purified. “Nothing unclean will enter the Kingdom of God,” or so the scripture goes.
Thus, suffering in this life can attain the salvation of the one suffering as well as others in/out of the church. God could let us roam the Earth without suffering, but how many of us would then lead good lives? How many moments that pushed ordinary men/women to sainthood would be lost if it were not for suffering? Through suffering we temper the soul and ready it; suffering humbles us in a way that nothing else can. It is merciful and loving then, for God to let us to suffer in this life of choice.

If you will acknowledge our definition of God in order to apply your point, you must accept our other views as Catholics to also apply. Point being, we believe we had our shot with Adam and Eve. We had a chance to live without suffering, and we blew it. It is now in complete justice that we suffer.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

In what way is it just to punish the children for the sins of their forebears? Is it fair to punish someone for something that they have not, in fact, done?

That aside, the more important argument is: God allows suffering because it improves people. First of all, would you accept such reasoning from a person - when you caught someone in that act of rape, would an acceptable excuse be “Well, it’s going to make her a better person in the end.”? Secondly, couldn’t an all-powerful, all-knowing God have figured out some way to allow us to become better people with even a little less suffering?

 

[MrWhy]

As demonstrated by the length and variety in this thread, the number of divergent arguments is beyond what can be assimilated for any conclusion. Some structure is necessary to restrain the scope, or progress is impossible. The original post was “There is no God”, and this would seem to put the burden of proof on that claim. I suggest that “proof” in this area is not realistic. Instead we could think in terms of “burden of evidence”, since some evidence is available for almost any argument. It’s then a matter of quality and quantity, and the use of reasonable judgment.

The prime question always comes back to “Does god exist?”, and that’s where this debate began. At sometime in the distant past of most cultures someone introduced the idea that a god or gods were responsible for unexplained events. No one could have started this debate with “god does not exist” until someone else first proposed that one did, and there lies the burden of evidence. The burden does not shift until conclusive evidence is produced. The burden also does not shift because one side is more popular than the other. Atheists are waiting for adequate evidence that a god exists. I am aware of most of the arguments that are claimed to be evidence, but none are very convincing. My goal is to narrow the debate to this one simple issue. Until someone comes up with sufficient evidence for a god, we should not believe one exists. Ancient religious scripture, religious experiences, billions of believers, and unanswered questions about cosmology are not evidence. Adequate evidence would be one or more supernatural events that are beyond coincidence, or human ability. Such events would require a great deal of validation, corroboration, and documentation.

doesgodexistanswer.net

 

[Kristina_P]

EnterTheBowser:

In that case, why does a loving God allow the extreme suffering we see in the world around us?

I’d have to say that I’m really not up to articulating that, especially in the limited context of this message board. It’s not that I don’t hold an opinion or that I don’t think you’re worth the effort, it’s just that I really don’t think I can do the subject matter justice. Also, if you’ve been engaged in this kind of discussion long, you’ve probably heard versions of my position before. I hold pretty much the view espoused by C.S. Lewis in his short book, “The Problem of Pain.” There are other books out there, but I really can’t think of their names or authors as such information is currently being pushed out by microbiology and pathology. I apologize, but it’s just not something I feel up to right now.

 

[Vir_Dei]

EnterTheBowser:

In what way is it just to punish the children for the sins of their forebears? Is it fair to punish someone for something that they have not, in fact, done?

Humor me, I’ll answer that if you answer this - what did Jesus do to deserve his life of suffering?

That aside, the more important argument is: God allows suffering because it improves people. First of all, would you accept such reasoning from a person - when you caught someone in that act of rape, would an acceptable excuse be “Well, it’s going to make her a better person in the end.”?

Will it? It is up to her virtue and patience if anything good will come out of it at all. I can only say the woman suffers because of man’s free will.

Secondly, couldn’t an all-powerful, all-knowing God have figured out some way to allow us to become better people with even a little less suffering?

He did - prayer.

 

[davewan]

A close friend of mine whose work puts him in close contact with young people who do not believe there is a God who loves them, let alone a God at all, frequently is asked, “Why do you believe in God?”

His answer is very simply, “Because it’s better than the alternative.”

Faith, of course, is believing in that which we cannot see. When I posed the question of believing in something that cannot be seen to my 5-year old daughter, she wisely replied, “You mean like air?”

And a child shall lead them.
Dave :thumbsup:

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Vir Dei:

Humor me, I’ll answer that if you answer this - what did Jesus do to deserve his life of suffering?

I really don’t know too much about the Bible. If you’re asking me what he did wrong to warrant whatever pain he might have experienced, there probably wasn’t anything. Keep in mind that I am answering this question from an atheist’s perspective.

Will it? It is up to her virtue and patience if anything good will come out of it at all. I can only say the woman suffers because of man’s free will.

In that case: are there instances of suffering that do not make people better? And I am not asking why this woman suffers. I’m asking if you’ll accept the God’s justification in the case of a human.

He did - prayer.

So why do people suffer again?

 

[EnterTheBowser]

davewan:

A close friend of mine whose work puts him in close contact with young people who do not believe there is a God who loves them, let alone a God at all, frequently is asked, “Why do you believe in God?”

His answer is very simply, “Because it’s better than the alternative.”

Faith, of course, is believing in that which we cannot see. When I posed the question of believing in something that cannot be seen to my 5-year old daughter, she wisely replied, “You mean like air?”

And a child shall lead them.

Dave :thumbsup:

Two responses: although we might not be able to see air, we can certainly detect the stuff using our senses. I don’t get the analogy. Faith is not believing what you can’t see with your eyes; I think faith is believing something without or despite evidence.

Second, is the “Because it is better than the alternative” a good argument? Let’s put it this way:
1- Life only has meaning if God exists
2- Life having meaning is better than life not having meaning
3- Therefore God exists

To begin with, it’s not a valid argument - this should be clear. And there’s some support necessary for 1 as well. How does God make life meaningful?

 

[MacroTheeMay]

I can prove there is a God. He created atheists. Who but God would have ever thought of that? HMMMMMMMMMM.

“The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’”

Without God, there would be no need for atheists.

Merry ???

 

[EnterTheBowser]

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” The wise man says it to the world.

 

[Vir_Dei]

EnterTheBowser:

In that case: are there instances of suffering that do not make people better?

Exactly! There are.

And I am not asking why this woman suffers. I’m asking if you’ll accept the God’s justification in the case of a human.

God did not cause it.

So why do people suffer again?

You are limiting God when God is something that cannot be limited. When people say that God is loving, do not hold that statement to mean He is only loving, or mainly loving. That would imply that the God of which we speak isn’t perfect, and by definition, He is. Therefore, as much as He is loving, He is just and merciful.

Now that the above is established, your question remains - how is giving someone an ailment like pancreatic cancer loving, just, and merciful?

One way or the other, the soul will be purified. “Nothing unclean will enter the Kingdom of God,” or so the scripture goes.
Thus, suffering in this life can attain the salvation of the one suffering as well as others in/out of the church. God could let us roam the Earth without suffering, but how many of us would then lead good lives? How many moments that pushed ordinary men/women to sainthood would be lost if it were not for suffering? Through suffering we temper the soul and ready it; suffering humbles us in a way that nothing else can. It is merciful and loving then, for God to let us to suffer in this life of choice.

If you will acknowledge our definition of God in order to apply your point, you must accept our other views as Catholics to also apply. Point being, we believe we had our shot with Adam and Eve. We had a chance to live without suffering, and we blew it. It is now in complete justice that we suffer.

 

[davewan]

My post was not intended to argue with you. And frankly, there is no way for a human being to absolutely pursuade you of God’s existence. People may point to the evidence they believe compelling, but in the end such evidence is but a seed. Whether it takes root in you is not up to me.

I have no idea if your inquiry is a genuine searching, or if, rather you are attempting to pursuade people to your position. If the former, terrific. If the latter, that’s terrific too because I interpret that to mean that God is using you to sharpen our iron by causing us to think.

BTW, the friend to whom I refer is a Harvard educated, top-of-his class attorney. He’s not going to argue in a circular or nonsensical fashion. In fact, I’ve heard him refuse to argue the point of belief versus unbelief in an attempt to pursuade someone to believe in God. He simply explains his point and allows the inquirer to ask questions or reflect on his explanation. But he sees little use in arguing the point.

The way you interpreted it is not the way my friend explains it. At its foundation, his statement is that either God exists or He doesn’t. If God does not exist and yet I live my life as if He does and do what I sincerely believe to be His will for my life by caring for my fellow man, my life will have had value to my fellow man. When I die, I will not know that God has never existed because I will be dead and that is that.

On the other hand, if God does exist and I live my life as if He doesn’t by indulging my own selfish desires, then when I die and find that I have lived a life not pleasing to God, then I will have been the most pitiable of men.

So, believing in God and choosing to live my life according to what I sincerely believe to be His will is better – to me – than the alternative of not believing and living my life selfishly.

I am not suggesting that if one does not believe in God that it is impossible to live a life of virtue. The Church doesn’t teach that either. What I am suggesting is that absent the acceptance of the existence of God, it is far easier for a person to justify a life lived without virtue.

Good luck in your search. Or, at worst, thanks for inviting thoughtful discussion.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Vir Dei:

Exactly! There are.

And why does a just and loving and omniscient God allow these things to happen?

God did not cause it.

Again, I am not saying that this act of rape constitutes evidence for the nonexistence of a loving God. But I am asking if you’ll accept the justification you’ve used to explain God’s allowance of suffering when it’s coming from a human.

You are limiting God when God is something that cannot be limited. When people say that God is loving, do not hold that statement to mean He is only loving, or mainly loving. That would imply that the God of which we speak isn’t perfect, and by definition, He is. Therefore, as much as He is loving, He is just and merciful.

Now that the above is established, your question remains - how is giving someone an ailment like pancreatic cancer loving, just, and merciful?

One way or the other, the soul will be purified. “Nothing unclean will enter the Kingdom of God,” or so the scripture goes.
Thus, suffering in this life can attain the salvation of the one suffering as well as others in/out of the church. God could let us roam the Earth without suffering, but how many of us would then lead good lives? How many moments that pushed ordinary men/women to sainthood would be lost if it were not for suffering? Through suffering we temper the soul and ready it; suffering humbles us in a way that nothing else can. It is merciful and loving then, for God to let us to suffer in this life of choice.

If you will acknowledge our definition of God in order to apply your point, you must accept our other views as Catholics to also apply. Point being, we believe we had our shot with Adam and Eve. We had a chance to live without suffering, and we blew it. It is now in complete justice that we suffer.

Dialogue is good. Would you find it acceptable for me to merely copy and paste points I had already made and which had already been attacked?

The question is: if there are ways that the soul can be purified without suffering, why does a loving God allow suffering?

 

[EnterTheBowser]

davewan:

My post was not intended to argue with you. And frankly, there is no way for a human being to absolutely pursuade you of God’s existence. People may point to the evidence they believe compelling, but in the end such evidence is but a seed. Whether it takes root in you is not up to me.

I have no idea if your inquiry is a genuine searching, or if, rather you are attempting to pursuade people to your position. If the former, terrific. If the latter, that’s terrific too because I interpret that to mean that God is using you to sharpen our iron by causing us to think.

BTW, the friend to whom I refer is a Harvard educated, top-of-his class attorney. He’s not going to argue in a circular or nonsensical fashion. In fact, I’ve heard him refuse to argue the point of belief versus unbelief in an attempt to pursuade someone to believe in God. He simply explains his point and allows the inquirer to ask questions or reflect on his explanation. But he sees little use in arguing the point.

I try to avoid making the following appeal: Smart people have been atheists and smart people don’t make bad arguments, so therefore there are good reasons for being an atheist. One sound argument is worth a planet of geniuses.

The way you interpreted it is not the way my friend explains it. At its foundation, his statement is that either God exists or He doesn’t. If God does not exist and yet I live my life as if He does and do what I sincerely believe to be His will for my life by caring for my fellow man, my life will have had value to my fellow man. When I die, I will not know that God has never existed because I will be dead and that is that.

On the other hand, if God does exist and I live my life as if He doesn’t by indulging my own selfish desires, then when I die and find that I have lived a life not pleasing to God, then I will have been the most pitiable of men.

So, believing in God and choosing to live my life according to what I sincerely believe to be His will is better – to me – than the alternative of not believing and living my life selfishly.

This sounds somewhat like Pascal’s Wager. I think your friend has formulated it slightly differently, however, to work on virtue rather than reward.

----------------God exists-------------God does not exist
Virtuous life-----Good person-----------nil
Vice------------Bad person--------------nil

Nevertheless, it suffers from what is probably the biggest problem with Pascal’s Wager: which God? And there are so many and they all have different lists of virtues and vices. Furthermore, as you point out, leading a virtuous life is not logically linked to theism, nor is leading a vicious life logically linked to atheism.

I am not suggesting that if one does not believe in God that it is impossible to live a life of virtue. The Church doesn’t teach that either. What I am suggesting is that absent the acceptance of the existence of God, it is far easier for a person to justify a life lived without virtue.

Good luck in your search. Or, at worst, thanks for inviting thoughtful discussion.

As a note, I do this sort of thing for two reasons:
1- I enjoy it
2- I want to test my beliefs

I’m also curious if you have some reasons for suggesting that it is easier to justify a sinful lifestyle if one is an atheist.

 

[MacroTheeMay]

Aw, someone always wants to know why God allows such suffering in the world?

Recall the story of the Rich Man who had the good things of this life, i.e., he DID NOT SUFFER! But from beyond, it is LAZARUS the beggar who has found a GREAT REWARD.

There is an ETERNITY ahead for all of us that will make our lives here seems like 10 seconds. Now if you were GOD and left 10 trillion souls HAPPY AS A LARK while they were coming to the edge of the ETERNAL WATERFALL, I would wonder what kind and loving God you were that removed all SUFFERING but still left them FOR THE ETERNAL BBQ.

As Christ suffered, died, and rose again, this too should be our pattern. Our CROSSES shall be turned into CROWNS.

 

[davewan]

EnterTheBowser:

----------------God exists-------------God does not exist
Virtuous life-----Good person-----------nil
Vice------------Bad person--------------nil

Actually, I explicitly stated that I didn’t think it was impossible for a non-believer to lead a virtuous life, so your postulate above doesn’t really counter my statements.

EnterTheBowser:

I’m also curious if you have some reasons for suggesting that it is easier to justify a sinful lifestyle if one is an atheist.

To whom is an atheist accountable? Himself only. At best he may say that he is accountable to his fellow man, but only to the extent that the law compels him to be so. As a result, the highest virtue to which an atheist would be accountable is to refrain from harming another person. Everything else is a simple choice based on what you wish or do not wish to do.

As a Christian, I try to live a life of accountability to that which I say I believe. If I believe in God who tells me that the 2nd greatest of the commandments is to love my neighbor in the same way I would love myself, then I have a responsibility – and not simply a choice – to put caring for my fellow man into action.

In other words, the choice I make in faith is to submit my will to that of my Father in Heaven, which I believe is discoverable in scripture, Church teaching, prayer and meditation.

The choice you make is to exert your own will, whether it be for the good of others, or just yourself.

That is why I believe it is easier for an atheist to live a life devoid of virtue; I am accountable to a God in whom I believe. You are accountable only to yourself.