Religion, what's the point?

[Silva]

It's not a book, it's a collection of different types of writings, one third of which is poetry. And as any other ancient Hebrew and Greek text it obviously requires a certain degree of study. That's why there are modules in universities on ancient literature, you know.

Right, I know all that. But you've ignored the point, why did god write his message like that? Why didn't god just say what god meant?

And again, is god all powerful and all loving?

Also, this is one I really can't get my head around. Original sin, the feck is that all about? Since Adam and Eve/the garden of Eden are obviously not a real thing, doesn't the whole point of Jesus become obsolete?

 

[bishblaize]

Yep you're on the right track (which leads to an inevitable conclusion).

So all I need to is show that any part of the statement is not certain? If so, the simple claim is this; Evil may be morally justified if it allows the existence of a greater good.

Is this a logical impossibility? No. Such a claim is not conceptually self-contradictory.

Is this obviously untrue, with overwhelming evidence to the contrary? No. At the human level, life is full of examples of doing things for the greater good. Injecting needles into children's arms to prevent illness, depriving men of their freedom because they are a threat to others, etc. So its not like claiming that ghosts exist. We can all see its existence.

Is it possible therefore that this is played out at whatever level a god would exist at? Its possible, yes. We have no evidence to the contrary at the level of gods, but plenty of evidence that supports it at the level of humans. So its open to debate, and if its debatable its not certain.

Do we know for sure what that greater good is? No. But human omniscience is not being claimed, so that means nothing and no argument down that road takes us anywhere. It can easily be dismissed as one of the many things we don't know.

I’ve not seen an argument that counters this without itself claiming to know what a God would, should or could do, such as saying that 'surely God being omnipotent he could come up with good in the absence of evil', or 'I don't see how God could do that, therefore he can't'. However they either end up as claims of knowledge at the level of a God, or fall into the omnipotence paradox, which is an interesting topic itself but makes the logic of epicurus an irrelevance.

What am I missing here? If one accepts the possibility of the greater good argument, the logic of epicurus is not irrefutable. But one can't reject the greater good argument without knowledge that a god would have. So how can the epicurean paradox itself claim to be beyond refute?

 

[peterstorey]

No, no, no you can't change the premises. You're playing poker, you can't play a joker and change the rules. All you are saying (as many before and now) is that we 'can't discern god's behaviour'). It's a con.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

So all I need to is show that any part of the statement is not certain? If so, the simple claim is this; Evil may be morally justified if it allows the existence of a greater good.

Is this a logical impossibility? No. Such a claim is not conceptually self-contradictory.

Is this obviously untrue, with overwhelming evidence to the contrary? No. At the human level, life is full of examples of doing things for the greater good. Injecting needles into children's arms to prevent illness, depriving men of their freedom because they are a threat to others, etc. So its not like claiming that ghosts exist. We can all see its existence.

Is it possible therefore that this is played out at whatever level a god would exist at? Its possible, yes. We have no evidence to the contrary at the level of gods, but plenty of evidence that supports it at the level of humans. So its open to debate, and if its debatable its not certain.

Do we know for sure what that greater good is? No. But human omniscience is not being claimed, so that means nothing and no argument down that road takes us anywhere. It can easily be dismissed as one of the many things we don't know.

I’ve not seen an argument that counters this without itself claiming to know what a God would, should or could do, such as saying that 'surely God being omnipotent he could come up with good in the absence of evil', or 'I don't see how God could do that, therefore he can't'. However they either end up as claims of knowledge at the level of a God, or fall into the omnipotence paradox, which is an interesting topic itself but makes the logic of epicurus an irrelevance.

What am I missing here? If one accepts the possibility of the greater good argument, the logic of epicurus is not irrefutable. But one can't reject the greater good argument without knowledge that a god would have. So how can the epicurean paradox itself claim to be beyond refute?

If all powerful means without restrictions or limits your argument falls apart because obviously there is no reason to have evil to achieve a greater good as that aim could be achieved without the evil by an all powerful god.

So which is it

God is not all powerful or he is not benign.

 

[Dante]

Christianity boxed itself into a corner with the whole "loving God" thing. Most other religions have either an impersonal creator or a deity with personality.

 

[bishblaize]

If all powerful means without restrictions or limits your argument falls apart because obviously there is no reason to have evil to achieve a greater good as that aim could be achieved without the evil by an all powerful god.

So which is it

God is not all powerful or he is not benign.

That's the paradox of omnipotence I referred to. Either omnipotence means being able to do only what is logically possible, or it includes doing what is logically impossible.

So for example, can an omnipotent being make 1+1=3, or make a square circle? Its not actually clear when we say omnipotent whether we mean being able to do something that is logically impossible or not. However one thing comes from that.

If we define an omnipotent being as being able only do what is logically possible, then the inability to do a logical impossibility can't be used in the paradox. Its the definition that's at fault.

If an omnipotent being can do what is logically impossible, and can, say, make a 4 sided triangle, or make a burrito so large even he couldn't eat it, then he can be omnipotent and powerless at the same time, and can be benevolent and malevolent at the same time. In which case no logical argument can be used to describe him.

 

[bishblaize]

No, no, no you can't change the premises. You're playing poker, you can't play a joker and change the rules. All you are saying (as many before and now) is that we 'can't discern god's behaviour'). It's a con.

Is that it?

What's changed?

 

[peterstorey]

That's exactly it - you've changed the premises to add the rider that 'god also acts in ways that we can't understand'.

 

[bishblaize]

That's exactly it - you've changed the premises to add the rider that 'god also acts in ways that we can't understand'.

Where does it say in the epicurean paradox that God acts in ways we can understand?

Or did you assume that?

 

[Silva]

You chat some proper bollocks bish.

 

[Momochiru]

Right, I know all that. But you've ignored the point, why did god write his message like that? Why didn't god just say what god meant?

And again, is god all powerful and all loving?

Also, this is one I really can't get my head around. Original sin, the feck is that all about? Since Adam and Eve/the garden of Eden are obviously not a real thing, doesn't the whole point of Jesus become obsolete?

Yes, it doesn't make sense of course, just like any religious dogma.

One thing I always found completely illogical was the whole concept of Jesus dieing for our sins. A huge deal is made out of it and the whole Christian faith is based on it - I can't believe normal thinking people are taking it seriously. How can anyone think the almighty God can be hurt by a few whips, spears and a wooden crucifix? And come on, he didn't die - he is immortal!!! It was probably just a bit of fun for him - came on earth, pretended to be a person, pretended to die, then pranked everyone by waking up and fecked off to some more important business. In order to be a meaningful sacrifice he had to give up something important to him, not just playact. What he did was a practical joke, not a sacrifice...

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

That's the paradox of omnipotence I referred to. Either omnipotence means being able to do only what is logically possible, or it includes doing what is logically impossible.

So for example, can an omnipotent being make 1+1=3, or make a square circle? Its not actually clear when we say omnipotent whether we mean being able to do something that is logically impossible or not. However one thing comes from that.

If we define an omnipotent being as being able only do what is logically possible, then the inability to do a logical impossibility can't be used in the paradox. Its the definition that's at fault.

If an omnipotent being can do what is logically impossible, and can, say, make a 4 sided triangle, or make a burrito so large even he couldn't eat it, then he can be omnipotent and powerless at the same time, and can be benevolent and malevolent at the same time. In which case no logical argument can be used to describe him.

Then wouldn't it be better to pray to the god who made the rules of logic which limit the power of the god you claim is all powerful.

Or on the other hand if logic isn't created by god but holds him in to terms then god did not create all things.

Either way you are starting to pick away at the central concept of god and undermine the whole premiss.

 

[Silva]

Then wouldn't it be better to pray to the god who made the rules of logic which limit the power of the god you claim is all powerful.

Or on the other hand if logic isn't created by god but holds him in to terms then god did not create all things.

Either way you are starting to pick away at the central concept of god and undermine the whole premiss.

I really don't get what he's trying to do in this thread. He's defending religion by imagining a version of god which no one actually believes in.

 

[peterstorey]

Where does it say in the epicurean paradox that God acts in ways we can understand?

Or did you assume that?

If you play the ineffable (joker) card then you might as well fork off. You say that in an attempt to avoid the remorseless logic. 200,000 dead in a pointless evil tsumami - pah, god allows evil for a greater purpose.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

I really don't get what he's trying to do in this thread. He's defending religion by imagining a version of god which no one actually believes in.

Its a variation in the mind of god argument, which supposes that he isn't all powerful and therefore we can't draw any conclusion about god because he could be doing his best given the circumstances.

Poor weak god.

I wonder what he was counter acting when he created the aids virus, bubonic plague, cancer, volcanoes, tidal waves and ebola. I can't understand the mind of a psychopath either but I can know one by his actions.

 

[peterstorey]

Yes, it doesn't make sense of course, just like any religious dogma.

One thing I always found completely illogical was the whole concept of Jesus dieing for our sins. A huge deal is made out of it and the whole Christian faith is based on it - I can't believe normal thinking people are taking it seriously. How can anyone think the almighty God can be hurt by a few whips, spears and a wooden crucifix? And come on, he didn't die - he is immortal!!! It was probably just a bit of fun for him - came on earth, pretended to be a person, pretended to die, then pranked everyone by waking up and fecked off to some more important business. In order to be a meaningful sacrifice he had to give up something important to him, not just playact. What he did was a practical joke, not a sacrifice...

It's just a re-enactment of the sacrifice of the fisher king to make sure the crops grew, see Frazer 'Golden Bough'

 

[bishblaize]

Then wouldn't it be better to pray to the god who made the rules of logic which limit the power of the god you claim is all powerful.

Or on the other hand if logic isn't created by god but holds him in to terms then god did not create all things.

Either way you are starting to pick away at the central concept of god and undermine the whole premiss.

Firstly, just to repeat, I do not believe in god! I'm not even agnostic. There is no god, end of.

Secondly the omnipotence paradox is way more interesting, if only because I get to make nonsense statements like "can God beat himself in an arm wrestle? If I were arguing with a Christian about the existence of God I'd take that approach. Mainly because it means we both make unknowable assertions.

However my point was about the epicurean paradox and how underwhelming I find it. It can be so easily refuted, I dont see the fuss. Indeed ironically it needs God to be omnipotent in order to prove God doesn't exist.

 

[bishblaize]

If you play the ineffable (joker) card then you might as well fork off. You say that in an attempt to avoid the remorseless logic. 200,000 dead in a pointless evil tsumami - pah, god allows evil for a greater purpose.

Well, I just hope that Arsenal's defense is as weak as yours when we meet in a couple of weeks.

 

[peterstorey]

It can be so easily refuted, I dont see the fuss. Indeed ironically it needs God to be omnipotent in order to prove God doesn't exist.

It's irrefutable. You have signally failed without the joker/rabbit out of the hat of 'god moves in mysterious ways' and the god we're talking about is supposed to be omnipotent.

 

[Silva]

Firstly, just to repeat, I do not believe in god! I'm not even agnostic. There is no god, end of.

Secondly the omnipotence paradox is way more interesting, if only because I get to make nonsense statements like "can God beat himself in an arm wrestle? If I were arguing with a Christian about the existence of God I'd take that approach. Mainly because it means we both make unknowable assertions.

However my point was about the epicurean paradox and how underwhelming I find it. It can be so easily refuted, I dont see the fuss. Indeed ironically it needs God to be omnipotent in order to prove God doesn't exist.

That argument is used against a Judeo-Christian god, who is supposedly omnipotent. It's not arguing against a different type of god which you keep creating.

 

[bishblaize]

It's irrefutable. You have signally failed without the joker/rabbit out of the hat of 'god moves in mysterious ways' and the god we're talking about is supposed to be omnipotent.

What did I bring to the table that was not in the original premises or statement?

 

[bishblaize]

I really don't get what he's trying to do in this thread. He's defending religion by imagining a version of god which no one actually believes in.

The Christian God sacrificed his only son as the ultimate demonstration of short term pain, long term gain.

You telling me Christians dont believe that?

 

[peterstorey]

That god does things which we can't understand. That's a seismic shift in the argument.

 

[Silva]

The Christian God sacrificed his only son as the ultimate demonstration of short term pain, long term gain.

You telling me Christians dont believe that?

I'm telling you Christians believe that god is both all loving and all powerful. No exception. And certainly not something which is both all powerful and not all powerful at the same time. You're not defending the Judeo-Christian god here, you're just another in a long line of people confusing the argument and creating a wholly new god which has nothing to do with religious gods.

And no, like, what? Jesus died because of original sin. That's got feck all to do with long term gain. The feck you on about?

 

[bishblaize]

I'm telling you Christians believe that god is both all loving and all powerful. I don't know where you got the bit you wrote from, but it's fairly in line with your 'I'll just argue about something no one is talking about instead' thing.

The self sacrifice of himself/his son in order to save man is the central tenet of christianity, and was the ultimate demonstration of his benevolence. I doubt you'll find many Christians that disagree with that, would you?

That god does things which we can't understand. That's a seismic shift in the argument.

But you were assuming the reverse, no?

You're assuming that God only does that which we can understand. However if is god is some sort of eternal omnipotent being, while we are humans, it would be ridiculous to assume that. That humans are not gods is a prioi knowledge, surely?

 

[Silva]

The self sacrifice of himself/his son in order to save man is the central tenet of christianity, and was the ultimate demonstration of his benevolence. I doubt you'll find many Christians that disagree with that, would you?

You're just adding more conjecture because there literally no way to defend an all powerful, all loving god that gives children cancer.

You're assuming that God only does that which we can understand. However if is god is some sort of eternal omnipotent being, while we are humans, it would be ridiculous to assume that. That humans are not gods is a prioi knowledge, surely?

Not Pete, it's part of the dogma that god is that. Pete's just saying that it's blatantly bollocks.

 

[bishblaize]

You're just adding more conjecture because there literally no way to defend an all powerful, all loving god that gives children cancer.

Good grief, have you read a single word I've written? Where I have I sought to 'defend an all loving god that gives children cancer?"

Or do you assume that to contest the rationale behind an argument means to contest its conclusion?

 

[Silva]

Good grief, have you read a single word I've written? Where I have I sought to 'defend an all loving god that gives children cancer?"

Or do you assume that to contest the rationale behind an argument means to contest its conclusion?

You're not. You're defending a god you've thought up out of thin air. Not one anyone actually believes in. You're defending a god somewhere between the Judeo-Christan and the Deist one.

 

[bishblaize]

Not Pete, it's part of the dogma that god is that. Pete's just saying that it's blatantly bollocks.

No. That god is omnipotent was in the original premise. Neither party is denying that.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

The self sacrifice of himself/his son in order to save man is the central tenet of christianity, and was the ultimate demonstration of his benevolence. I doubt you'll find many Christians that disagree with that, would you?



But you were assuming the reverse, no?

You're assuming that God only does that which we can understand. However if is god is some sort of eternal omnipotent being, while we are humans, it would be ridiculous to assume that. That humans are not gods is a prioi knowledge, surely?

Which proves what?


Christians believe in a god who can not logically exist. That is the point of the argument. If you want to make up another god then by all means do so but lets not pretend there is anything in Christianity which supports your claim that god is limited in what he can do and that he did not create all things.

 

[Silva]

No. That god is omnipotent was in the original premise. Neither party is denying that.

Then you're not even arguing against the problem of evil, you're only being a pointless contrarian.

 

[peterstorey]

You're assuming that God only does that which we can understand. However if is god is some sort of eternal omnipotent being, while we are humans, it would be ridiculous to assume that. That humans are not gods is a prioi knowledge, surely?

That's forking ludicrous - you've just nuked any point in us discussing anything, using our logic and faculties because at the end of the day 'god only knows' - that's what they call blind faith..

 

[bishblaize]

That's forking ludicrous - you've just nuked any point in us discussing anything, using our logic and faculties because at the end of the day 'god only knows' - that's what they call blind faith..

The god is mysterious argument is fecking annoying I know. I grew up a hard atheist in a house filled with complex christian theology everywhere and in my stroppy teenage years had my arguments thrown back at me many times on that basis. But it does neatly demonstrate how difficult it is to logically argue against god and the religions. There's a get out clause every time.

By the way I read this book recently that you may like - link - which I suspect you'll view as the world's greatest tragedy. Also, thanks for the debate, you shouldn't pretend to be a troll on the main boards you're too smart.

Which proves what?

It proves that the god of the christians is aware of the notion of the greater good. God fails to prevent evil (the torture and murder of his son) in order to allow a greater good (the saving of all humans). I fail to see how that isn't relevant to the conversation at hand, given that the greater good argument is what is being debated here.

Christians believe in a god who can not logically exist. That is the point of the argument. If you want to make up another god then by all means do so but lets not pretend there is anything in Christianity which supports your claim that god is limited in what he can do and that he did not create all things.

I made no such claim. I said the paradox of omnipotence was interesting but that regardless of how omnipotence is defined it has no bearing because neither outcome supports the problem of evil. Indeed if anything it opens up a second avenue of attack, because either the definition of omnipotence in the problem is wrong or god can do illogical things in which case its not illogical to believe he can do them.

ANYWAY guys. As much as I enjoy having three logical and theological arguments chucked at me simultaneously, as Johnathon Haidt pointed out, wagging the other dog's tail won't make it happy, so I'll call it a day there.

 

[MrMarcello]

Inbreeding and the issues that are known by science as a result of inbreeding. God made Eve from Adam which would make them related genetically, and thus all offspring produced would constitute inbreeding. For humanity to produce at a sustainable rate to populate the world in the creationists 6000-10000 year claim, Adam would have had to impregnate Eve and all daughters, and their sons would need to impregnate daughters (that's a lot of sex). Then we bring into the scenario the various problems associated with inbreeding, which would likely terminate the genetic line very soon and humanity would have died out.

Even if we allow that Adam and Eve were not related genetically, only impregnating Eve annually would not allow the population growth necessary for the 6000-10000 year claim.

This surely proves creationism could not be true, correct?

 

[peterstorey]

But it does neatly demonstrate how difficult it is to logically argue against god and the religions. There's a get out clause every time.

By the way I read this book recently that you may like - link - which I suspect you'll view as the world's greatest tragedy. Also, thanks for the debate, you shouldn't pretend to be a troll on the main boards you're too smart.

There isn't - that's the point. Unless you play the 'there are more things in heaven and earth Horatio' card. BTW perceptive views on Man Utd not automatically walking back into a top 4 slot don't qualify as trolling. QED.

 

[Momochiru]

Inbreeding and the issues that are known by science as a result of inbreeding. God made Eve from Adam which would make them related genetically, and thus all offspring produced would constitute inbreeding. For humanity to produce at a sustainable rate to populate the world in the creationists 6000 year claim, Adam would have had to impregnate Eve and all daughters. This surely proves creationism could not be true, correct?

Yes, that God character is a mysterious one

He created the whole Universe and put his crown achievement (us humans) on Earth all in 6 days. After that he rested a day, because he was a little tired.

Now let me put things in perspective: if the observable Universe was the size of Earth (the whole Universe might be much bigger), than the Solar system would be 1000 time smaller than a grain of sand. The Earth would be the size of a single molecule in that grain of sand. You have to be very mysterious to create something the size of the Earth only in order to put the real purpose of your exercise - us humans as tiny specs, living on a single molecule there.

Incidentally, I find the hard science of Astrophysics much more awe-inspiring than all the archaic fairy tales of the major religions.

 

[peterstorey]

By the way I read this book recently that you may like - link - which I suspect you'll view as the world's greatest tragedy.

Looks odd to me from the blurb, I thought the 310 AD Nicene do-dah was the big political move to make Catholicism the ruling orthodoxy. This is the god debate done by someone cleverer than me...
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Miracle-Theism-Arguments-Existence/dp/019824682X

 

[bishblaize]

BTW perceptive views on Man Utd not automatically walking back into a top 4 slot don't qualify as trolling. QED.

Fair enough, apologies, I was just being silly.

This is the god debate done by someone cleverer than me...
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Miracle-Theism-Arguments-Existence/dp/019824682X

I can't help but point out that in that book Mackie talks of the problem of evil and its rebuttal with the greater good argument by saying

Since this defense is formally (that is, logically) possible, and its principle involves no real abandonment of our ordinary view of the opposition between good and evil, we can concede that the problem of evil does not, after all, show that the central doctrines of theism are logically inconsistent with one another. But whether this offers a real solution of the problem is another question.

In essence, the problem is rebutted but it does not make the opposite true. There's no proof that the greater good argument is true and you can't use it to claim god categorically exists. So we're no nearer the truth.

 

[peterstorey]

In essence, the problem is rebutted but it does not make the opposite true. There's no proof that the greater good argument is true and you can't use it to claim god categorically exists. So we're no nearer the truth.

Oh you bastard, I'm going to have find the book and read that bit again. From memory I think he was being too generous at that point, allowing flexibility in the premises (though pointing out these extras weaken the concept of the Christian god). If you hold tight to Epicurus there is still the logical inevitability.

 

[bishblaize]

Saw this today.

Mormons confront uncomfortable history of church founder's polygamy

When Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormon church, received a revelation in about 1831 in which he was commanded by God to break the law and take multiple wives, he at first resisted. He knew that if he embraced polygamy he would be castigated for it.

But then between 1834 and 1842 an angel came down to him, no fewer than three times, urging him to get on with it. In the last such appearance, the angel brandished a sword and threatened to kill Smith unless he “went forward and obeyed the commandment fully”.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...smith-founders-polygamy-uncomfortable-history