Does God exist?

[nutronjon]

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?

Then why call him God?

 

~Epicurus

 

Evil comes out of ignorance. It is perfectly natural. The rest of your questions, seem really hung up on a belief in a mythological God, and therefore, are not worthy of consideration.

[InfiniteNow]

Your entire approach basically distills down to some argument that your iimaginary friend is better than someone else's imaginary friend.

 

 

I don't care what form your god takes. It is a figment of your insecure human imagination.

[Buffy]

I don't care what form your god takes. It is a figment of your insecure human imagination.

Of course spewing invective and calling people names is one of the most obvious signs of insecurity...

 

Have you ever wondered why you the question of whether God exists generates so much hatred in you?

 

If you hate a person, you hate something in him that is part of yourself. What isn't part of ourselves doesn't disturb us, :esmoking:

Buffy

[InfiniteNow]

Have you ever wondered why you the question of whether God exists generates so much hatred in you?

 

Actually, yes. All of the time, but it's far from hatred. It generates such passion in me due to the consistent and self-reinforcing ill effects of these nonsensical beliefs. I posit that it's because I care so much that I strive so vehemently to move us as a culture past the limitations of these internally inconsistent fairy tales.

 

Your question to me, Buffy, is akin to questioning someone's patriotism because they've challenged the decisions and actions of their country's leadership.

 

 

Does god exist? No, now STFU already so we can focus on the real challenges we face as a planet instead of furthering this ancient and misguided distraction.

[InfiniteNow]

The rest of your questions, seem really hung up on a belief in a mythological God, and therefore, are not worthy of consideration.

 

You might notice those were not my questions, hence the quote attribution to Epicurus at the end. I decided to use a thinker of similar era to respond to your use of quotes from Cicero.

 

 

 

Long time men lay oppressed with slavish fear.

Religions tyranny did domineer.

At length, the mighty one of Greece

Began to assert the liberty of man.

~ Lucretius

 

 

 

In this subject of the nature of the gods, the first question is, do the gods exist or do they not? It is difficult, you will say, to deny that they exist. I would agree if we were arguing the matter in a public assembly. But in a private discussion of this kind, it is perfectly easy to do so.

~ Cicero

 

 

 

 

EDIT: Oh... and btw... It doesn't speak well of your academic integrity for you to edit your post (#171) 20 minutes after I've responded to it without mentioning your change. Your edit was more than a spelling change, but an entire shift of your point (which was originally that your god was better the an abrahamic one).

[Buffy]

Your question to me, Buffy, is akin to questioning someone's patriotism because they've challenged the decisions and actions of their country's leadership....No, now STFU already so we can focus on the real challenges.

Hardly. Its just sad that you feel the need to lump everyone in the same bucket and insist on using such invective toward anyone who has the slightest perceived alignment with what you so reactively obsess.

 

Whether they are rightly the object of derision like for example Ben Stein, or those who have perceptions of reality that are very close to your own, you insist on any invocation whatsoever of some sort of creator, even if it is completely consistent science, you unthinkingly respond with endless screeches of "STFU."

 

Nice to know you've taken me off your block list though! ;)

 

The point here which I'd like you to take heed to is that hate is the most ineffective way to respond to the negative effects of religion that you perceive in society. It does in fact make their intransigence worse. My experience in unconverting Moonies and other fanatics is that they are all quite pliable *except* when you call them idiots for their beliefs.

 

You might want to think about that.

 

Vexed by an evil spirit, like the Gadarene swine and other critics, :esmoking:

Buffy

[InfiniteNow]

Nice to know you've taken me off your block list though!

 

For the sake of clarity and accurate representations of reality, you should know that you were never on it.

[Buffy]

For the sake of clarity and accurate representations of reality, you should know that you were never on it.

Ah, you just *acted* like it! ;)

 

Fair enough! Good dodge!

 

We hate some persons because we do not know them; and we will not know them because we hate them., :esmoking:

Buffy

[InfiniteNow]

Doubt is the vestibule through which all must pass before they can enter into the temple of wisdom. :esmoking:

[Buffy]

Doubt is the vestibule through which all must pass before they can enter into the temple of wisdom. ;)

I agree with that wholeheartedly! :)

 

See how easy it is if you *try*?

 

There are those that do not get along with their fellow man, and I HATE people like that, :esmoking:

Buffy

[Boerseun]

Why does my not getting along with my fellow man generate such hatred in you? :esmoking:

[nutronjon]

go to next post.

[nutronjon]

You might notice those were not my questions, hence the quote attribution to Epicurus at the end. I decided to use a thinker of similar era to respond to your use of quotes from Cicero.

 

 

 

Long time men lay oppressed with slavish fear.

Religions tyranny did domineer.

At length, the mighty one of Greece

Began to assert the liberty of man.

~ Lucretius

 

 

 

In this subject of the nature of the gods, the first question is, do the gods exist or do they not? It is difficult, you will say, to deny that they exist. I would agree if we were arguing the matter in a public assembly. But in a private discussion of this kind, it is perfectly easy to do so.

~ Cicero

 

 

 

 

EDIT: Oh... and btw... It doesn't speak well of your academic integrity for you to edit your post (#171) 20 minutes after I've responded to it without mentioning your change. Your edit was more than a spelling change, but an entire shift of your point (which was originally that your god was better the an abrahamic one).

 

Okay and how did the mighty one of Greece begin to assert liberty? Socrates was ordered to death when Athens had gone from the best of times to the worst of times. Basically fundamentist took his life and the life of Pythagoras as well. With Pythagoras we get scard numbers. Some of his ideas were pretty wierd, but I think when it comes to math, that is the language of God. Our modern concept of the atom is a long ways from Democrittus's original thought, and Socrates wouldn't even consider this study of things that get smaller and smaller. These thinkers determined, reason, is the controlling force of the universe, and even the gods are subject to this reason. This is not about the reasoner. It is not about does he perfer offerings of bloody animals or offerings of fruits and vegetables, and if he is so powerful, why doesn't he make life easy for me, because even the gods are subject to reason. It is about the mathematical archetypes of nature and also the archtypes of men and women. Such a God, reason is, a factor X and not concerned with wiping our noses, or our dirty laundry.

[InfiniteNow]

[nutronjon]

InfiniteNow, can you grasp the following and break out of the dyad argument you are forcing on everyone?

 

"A dyad is a basically static grouping of concepts- a sort of frozen tug of war. On of G.W.F. Hegel's contributions to philosophy was the idea of grouping concepts into triads, which consist of three concepts arranged in the well-known thesis-antithesis-synthesis pattern. The triad is an essentially dynamic grouping, for each synthesis can become the thesis for a new antithesis.." from "Mind Tools" by Rudy Rucker.

 

Your reactions to my arguments seem pretty knee jerk, as these arguments usually are. Even the gods must submit to reason. That is the third concept. It is above all Gods, and becomes the only true God, but this God is not a personal God. This is the only way to break out of the dyadic argument about, if God exist or not. That argument can go no where, but around and around, and I think both of us would like the thinking of humanity to progress. That means changing the argument with a third possibility. It means accepting there is a God, that we can not know, because we can not directly experience this God. Therefore, our reasoning must be based on what we do experience and can test. This is why things do as they do. It is science.

[InfiniteNow]

Why aren't you asking me to accept purple unicorns?

Why aren't you suggesting that my disbelief in leprechauns is unscientific?

 

The god concept is the only one that gets special treatment, where it's not generally accepted when people simply refute it. This is where my challenge is directed.

 

God is no different than a purple unicorn, and I will treat it as such, regardless of your definition.

 

That which is unprovable by definition has no place in the mind of a critical thinker, and has no place in our 21st century society.

 

I reject your attempts to posit god (with zero evidence) as my default position, just as you would reject somebody else's attempts to suggest that 2 foot tall Kenders named Tasslehoff Burrfoot are in charge of the global petroleum infrastructure.

 

 

 

[modest]

Even the gods must submit to reason.

 

By your own admission you don't know anything about the gods. How could you possibly know what reason they are bound by. Your assumption here is no less knee-jerk than INow's.

 

but this God is not a personal God.

 

Once again you are describing a God of which you say it is impossible to know anything about.

 

This is the only way to break out of the dyadic argument about, if God exist or not.

 

The only two ways to break out of the argument is for everyone to agree that:

1. God exists
   
2. God doesn't exist
   

That argument can go no where, but around and around, and I think both of us would like the thinking of humanity to progress.

 

An argument is a difference of opinion. The next thing you literally propose as a solution to this difference of opinion is for INow to accept your opinion. :confused:

 

It means accepting there is a God, that we can not know, because we can not directly experience this God.

 

There it is, this is your solution. Mind-blowing in its clarity and simplicity.

 

The problem:

• There is no evidence of a god.
  
  

Your solution:

• Everyone should share your opinion that there is a God and your description of that God.
  
  

 

Honestly nutronjon, If you examine your argument that there is no way to know something so we should all accept its existence - is there any situation where such an argument would be accepted at all?

 

-modest