Where's God?

[doubtingmerle]

Evidence of what? It only mentioned two or three oddball societies. So what?

Oddball societies? At least you are more generous than your orange haired hero who would probably call them s------- countries.

That is two or three examples that prove you wrong. There are indeed multiple primitive societies that don't believe in any kind of the supernatural. So no, you cannot claim that your book is the only one that came up with the idea that the supernatural is not a big part of nature. Many primitive tribes knew that.

And besides, your book if filled with the supernatural. Read it.

You mean a complex computer program designed to simulate a certain version of evolution? Sounds like intelligent design to me. I am referring to empirical observation.

The complex computer programs that run genetic algorithms are designed. Of course. I was not talking about the design of the programs. I was talking about what they do. They take random solutions and evaluate them. Then they "marry" the best solutions together to get new solutions. Then they mutate some of the solutions and test them again. They continue to mutate and marry solutions. Eventually they often come up with novel solution that nobody ever thought of.

The point is that the process of random mutations with gene shuffling works and works well.

 

[Ed1wolf]

I think it's probably more important than that, but okay, let's go with it for the moment...


Okay. With you so far...


You mean the Christian God that hasn't yet been proven to be real?

Yes, the Christian God, as Christians believe He exists, does fit the criteria for a being who could create the universe. So do a billion other beings, none of which have yet been proved to exist.

No all other religions gods of the world can be shown not to have the right characteristics to have created this universe. Just like any other scientific theory, you study the characteristics of the effect to determine the characteristics of the cause and then find something that matches those characteristics.

ia: Sorry, Ed. Just because scientists say "We don't know what caused the universe to come into existence," you don't get to say, "And because you don't know, you should accept that my religion is true."

Quite simply, you need to show that your God exists before you can put Him forward as a possible solution to the universe's existence.

While I cant PROVE that He exists I have shown earlier in this thread that He most likely DOES exist. Using the same methodology as science as I demonstrated above.

 

[fwGod]

Ah, some people lie with statistics. So therefore no report can say that the other report is wrong? That's odd. For the very basis of science is that scientists examine the work of each other, and evaluate whether other works are legitimate science. I sorta like that informed people review reports to see if they are more accurate than others.

However that method doesn't work when the deciding group has a bias toward one hypothesis or finding.

You may be referring to an article published in a student newsletter of Johns Hopkins arguing that many reported COVID deaths are actually deaths by heart attacks.

No, I wasn't. The articles I referred to were different incidences involving heart attacks.

But apparently you didn't read them.

So you aren't addressing me anymore.. but are taking it upon yourself to use the below incident to correct everyone.

This student newsletter article was in no way supported by Johns Hopkins. When Johns Hopkins saw that this article with its misuse of statistics was being used to falsely minimize the threat of COVID, they moved it so it did not appear to be a Johns Hopkins endorsed study. See A closer look at U.S. deaths due to COVID-19 - The Johns Hopkins News-Letter (jhunewsletter.com) .

So no, you cannot say that there are all kinds of statistics out there,

The search engine has as many varieties as are the different incidences of them.

and we are free to select whichever ones we like.

Yes, we are.

 

[doubtingmerle]

However that method doesn't work when the deciding group has a bias toward one hypothesis or finding.

"That method" refers to what I was talking about, the method by which informed people review reports to see if the reasoning is legitimate. In other words, I was talking about peer review. And yes, peer review works. It is not perfect, but it does a great job of filtering out nonsense and moving science forward.

What if the peer reviewers are biased? Understood, that can be a problem, but the heart of science is to find ways to reach conclusions, even if the researchers have a bias. Things like double-blind studies go a long way to get beyond the bias, and seeing the actual facts.

Were your claims that reported COVID deaths were actually heart attacks confirmed with peer review?

No, I wasn't. The articles I referred to were different incidences involving heart attacks.

But apparently you didn't read them.

Uh, you told me there was a report and gave me the date. That is all I had to go off of. Based on that, how was I supposed to find your reports and read them?

So you aren't addressing me anymore.. but are taking it upon yourself to use the below incident to correct everyone.

Fine. Everybody here that denies the value of peer review has been corrected.

Next.

The search engine has as many varieties as are the different incidences of them.

Wait, what? The Internet is actually filled with contradicting claims?

Yes, we are.

You write this in response to the italicized phrase of , "So no, you cannot say that there are all kinds of statistics out there, and we are free to select whichever ones we like."

So faced with an Internet full of false information, you declare that it is valid to freely go there and select whatever statistics you like. Sorry, but that is the path to destruction. I prefer peer review.

 

[doubtingmerle]

No all other religions gods of the world can be shown not to have the right characteristics to have created this universe. Just like any other scientific theory, you study the characteristics of the effect to determine the characteristics of the cause and then find something that matches those characteristics.

One might think that a God that was overwhelmed by a few chariots of iron might not be very good at creating universes.

And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron. (Judges 1:19)​

While I cant PROVE that He exists I have shown earlier in this thread that He most likely DOES exist.

Sure, but you used invalid arguments similar to this one:

The Argument from Cat Vomit
1. Some things in the universe (such as cat vomit) have a unity of diversity.
2. God is reported to have a unity of diversity.
3.Therefore, God.

​

 

[InterestedAtheist]

While I cant PROVE that He exists I have shown earlier in this thread that He most likely DOES exist.

I'm afraid all you've managed to do is show that God is only "most likely" to exist if you're a Christian who believes in God already and is ready to the overlook all the holes in the "proofs" for God.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

No all other religions gods of the world can be shown not to have the right characteristics to have created this universe.

First of all, other religions might have something to say about that! Excuse me if I don't take your word for it.
Second, and more importantly: it doesn't work like that. Just because you can't imagine an explanation for something, doesn't mean you're free to put forward an unsubstantiated one - much less that you are allowed to claim that this is the "most likely" one.
Seven hundred years ago, people said that illnesses were punishments or trials of faith sent by God, because no other explanation fitted the facts; a few hundred years ago, people said that the Earth was made by God a few millenia ago, because no other explanation fits the facts; and a few hours ago, you said that God was the most likely explanation for the universe because no other explanation fit the facts.
Your preferred explanation for something does not win by default. You have to give evidence. "If my God were real, it would account for the Universe's existence" is not evidence.

Just like any other scientific theory, you study the characteristics of the effect to determine the characteristics of the cause and then find something that matches those characteristics.

That's fine. So you've found something that matches those characteristics? Outside of a story, I mean?
Because from where I sit, the only "finding" that has been done of God is in stories, whether they come from the Bible or are stories of people's personal, unverifiable experiences.

 

[Ed1wolf]

dm: Sorry, Ed1wolf, your arguments about Hitler are coming far short. You have not convinced me that Hitler was good.
↑
ed: How are they confused thought? What if he sincerely believed that the jews were destroying Germany?

dm: You cannot justify Hitler by claiming the Jews were destroying Germany. They were not.

You do know I am playing Devils advocate here right? So you think someone can be morally wrong even if they appear to be sincere and maybe are sincere in their own mind? if other animals kill each other and face no consequences, why is it wrong if humans kill each other?

ed: How do you know? What if he sincerely believed that the jews were destroying the Aryan people?
dm: If Hitler thought the Jews were destroying the Aryan people, then he was mistaken. The Jews were not a threat.

See above about other animals. On what objective basis was he wrong for killing the jews? There is none right? You just feel he was not fair to them, right?

ed: Maybe he was just mentally ill, why should he be condemned for a mental illness?

dm: Now you are going to try the mental ill defense? Regardless, Hitler was wrong to kill the Jews.

On what objective basis?

ed: Or what if he had actual evidence that they destroying the German people and their nation? Then would it be love?

dm: Please, please don't pretend that the Holocaust was self defense. It was evil.

You are the one that claimed if something was done out of love then it could be justified even killing. Why is your love better than his, objectively?

ed: Therefore, you are basically admitting that you cannot refute the Nazi argument with anything other than emotion and not with anything objective like science or evolution.

dm: I have refuted your argument for the Nazis many times. I have written several posts describing the facts. It is not simply an emotional reaction against the Nazis. I have explained to you what the Nazis did wrong. You just ignore it.

Hitler. Was. Wrong. Period.

Only because he killed and was unfair to your favorite species, homo sapiens. Not because of anything objective or that humans have any intrinsic objective value. Thanks for confirming my point.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf, you are doing good at seeing the trees, but you are missing the forest. The post you responded to was written as a fictional story to make a point. You respond with detailed analysis of what the characters are saying, and never address the point of the story. Why?

The point wasn't to repeat your argument. The point was that moral arguments based on rational thought, fairness, and respect for others are all over the place. Companies base their policies on reasoning close to what I have said here. How do you react when your boss presents you with company policies? Surely you cannot respond to him the way you respond here. You know these arguments you are saying here would be outright silly if you said them to your boss.

Yes, but atheism does not provide an objectively rational basis for rational thought, fairness, and respect for others. That is my point. Understand?

dm: Great. I am glad you want a smooth running company. But if you are going to argue about Hitler every time somebody talks about morality without quoting the Bible, I don't think your company will run very smoothly.

Well of course, in a business setting most people dont talk about the basis for their morality and why they do things.

dm: I have stated my basis for morality over and over again.

If I stated it to you one more time, you would ignore it again, yes?

I know what your basis is, see my previous post above.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Yes, but atheism does not provide an objectively rational basis for rational thought, fairness, and respect for others. That is my point. Understand?

Sure it does. In a nutshell, it goes like this: would you like it if people treated you badly? No? Then don't treat them badly. Morality is rationally grounded in enlightened self-interest. Moral issues can be complex to work out, but in essence it's simply a matter of empathy. Yes, it's all the result of bags of chemical water, ie, living humans. So was Shakespeare and the Declaration of Independence and the theory of relativity.
You, on the other hand, profess a system of morality that has no rational basis, as has been shown by your inability to address Euthyphro's Dilemma and your attempts to justify your moral framework using circular logic.

Well of course, in a business setting most people dont talk about the basis for their morality and why they do things.

True enough. But if they did, people would quickly realise that your particular brand of morality, as you state it, is morally bankrupt and illogical.

 

[fwGod]

"That method" refers to what I was talking about, the method by which informed people review reports to see if the reasoning is legitimate.

Your post has veered away from the OP thread purpose.

Where is God in your pursuit of discussing peer review approved information?

That's rhetorical.

I know that I'm not interested in discussing what you want to discuss. So, where am I?

Calling this quits in order to get on with my day.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Your post has veered away from the OP thread purpose.

Wait, what? There was a post on this thread that veered from the OP?

Would it have been better to title this thread, Hitler, gay sex, suicide, the Declaration of Independence, slavery, Euthyphro's Dilemma, Trump, evolution, COVID-19, the Big Bang, and where is God when people suffer?

Where is God in your pursuit of discussing peer review approved information?

That's rhetorical.

Where is God in anything? People talk of God, but where is the evidence for God anywhere?

I know that I'm not interested in discussing what you want to discuss. So, where am I?

In the state of confusion?

Calling this quits in order to get on with my day.

Places to go. Things to do. Don't let me hold you up. Have a nice day.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Wait, what? There was a post on this thread that veered from the OP?

Would it have been better to title this thread, Hitler, gay sex, suicide, the Declaration of Independence, slavery, Euthyphro's Dilemma, Trump, evolution, COVID-19, the Big Bang, and where is God when people suffer?

Perhaps we should have called this "The Catholic Thread."

(catholic
[ˈkaTH(ə)lik]
ADJECTIVE

1. including a wide variety of things; all-embracing.)

 

[Ed1wolf]

dm: Sorry, Ed1wolf, your arguments about Hitler are coming far short. You have not convinced me that Hitler was good.

jh: Hi DB. In a previous post I castigated you for what appeared to be rather flippant remarks directed at Ed about gays and Nazis. Now, it appears that Ed is somewhat forcing me to eat humble pie on this issue. I did not read all the many pages of context, for which I reserve that right, so long as I'm prepared for the consequences. Quite frankly, I'd rather render an apology than read 40 pages of this stuff.

jh: Anyway, Ed...

ed: What if he sincerely believed that the jews were destroying Germany?

jh: Am I missing something here? I mean, in a previous post I criticized Atheists on this thread for not asking for clarification and not being sincere enough to see past what might be a malformed argument; I don't want to be a hypocrite so I'm open to the possibility that you're just expressing your point in an inarticulate way.

Hi John. You do understand the concept of Devils advocate right? That is what I am doing here.

jh: What if's can be useful as hypothetical, but we don't really need to "what if" regarding Hitler; his motives were pretty clear. I mean, I'm not really a History buff, but I'm familiar with base human motivations. Greed, fear, and pride are usually at the root of it all.

Yes, I believe his motives were pride and hatred of God. But there are people who over time who can repress the truth so that their heart becomes so hardened by sin, that they start to believe their own lies and can appear to be sincere in their belief for doing sin and not thinking it is wrong to commit sin.

ed: Just like pro abortionist people believe that a woman having a baby can destroy her life, because she may not be able to afford it or she wont be able to go out to party every night.

jh: This is a disturbing, and I dare say anti-Christian point of view. You've suggested a correlation between Hitler and pro-life supporters.

No, just the opposite. I am suggesting a correlation between Hitler and pro-choice supporters.

jh: The intimation is that it is somehow right to kill women (or doctors) who choose to engage in abortion (i.e. since they are intent on destroying life, it is right to destroy them, just as Hitler may have thought it justified to destroy people by whom he felt threatened?)

No, you misunderstood, pro-choice people justify abortion because they believe by having an abortion the woman can avoid ruining their life because they cannot afford to have a baby or that they will not be able to go to college or have a fun partying life. I certainly do not mean executing women that have abortions because in most cases they have been brainwashed into believing the fetus is just a piece of extra tissue. I definitely would punish the doctors though. Though probably not with the death penalty since some of them have been brainwashed by their education to believe it is not really human. But definitely serious jail time

jh: This is very far from Christianity. No, I do not support abortion. I think it is wrong. But, neither do I support harming my enemies. That is such a fundamental teaching from Jesus. I remember, back in 2018, when Brett Kavanaugh was nominated for the supreme court by Trump. He was such a shady character. There was so much controversy surrounding him and his personal performance at his hearing clearly demonstrated a man who was unfit for the job, and yet, professing Christians supported him because, in their minds, he represented a republican, pro-life vote on the supreme court.

See above about your misunderstanding. Regarding Kavanaugh, there was absolutely no evidence that he raped anybody. Obviously The woman that initially accused him was not at the party she thought she was. All the other witnesses that did attend that party said she was not there including one of her best friends. It is not exactly clear if she was intentionally lying or if she was actually raped and just misidentified him as the rapist. All the other women that claimed he raped them have changed their stories and have now been pretty much been proven to have been lying.

jh: In other words, they didn't actually care if he was a rapist; in their minds, all the un-aborted babies that he possibly represented was justification enough to support him despite him being a rapist. This realization really hit home for me when I saw a live, nationally broadcast report of a woman and her two teenage daughters boasting that "groping" wasn't a big deal. Kavanaugh wasn't accused of simply touching a woman without her permission; he was accused of attempted rape. Yet, this woman and her daughters, for the sake of political expediency, were prepared to say that groping was okay. It was, shocking.

See above, there was no evidence of him raping anyone. But as a Christian I certainly do not believe the ends justify the means in any situation even to save human lives. I do know that many Christians do believe that it is only justified to save human lives, but I disagree and am probably in the minority.

jh: It really made me realize, in a way I never had before, why Jesus said, "What does it profit a man to gain the world, but lose his soul?" These people argued for the lives of babies, but were willing to support a rapist to do so.

See above.

ed: Huh? What sexual overtones? My point is that ultimately your feelings are just chemical reactions in your brain that you may or may not have control over, so why should a criminal or someone like Hitler be condemned if his decisions are just the product of random chemical reactions in his brain just like yours? What is his responsibility based on? If you don't have a spirit, then your decisions are just based on determined chemical reactions.

jh: But, your argument is that Hitler did have a spirit, right? So, what is your point when referring to Hitler? I feel like I'm trying pretty hard to understand your point of view. Please, make yourself as clear as you can.
I guess your point is that, if evolutionary theory is true, then someone like Hitler cannot be blamed, because his choices are just a result of random, irrational processes. For someone like DB to say that Hitler's behavior was evil, he must acknowledge motivation, which has no place in evolutionary theory. There is no intent. There is no purpose. There is no motivation.

Yes, and also if atheistic evolution is true then we are just animals and animals kill their enemies or perceived enemies all the time, why should we do differently?

jh: As DB has pointed out, appeals to Hitler's example have become trite these days. Honestly, I think there is merit in appealing to his example precisely because his motivations were so raw and clear, but the world has become so desensitized to it that they simply do not hear it anymore. That's a sad commentary, but we need to be able to adapt.

Here's a really fantastic video based on an essay from C.S. Lewis which details why morality cannot be the result of dumb luck. In this essay he talks about the law of human nature and how some behaviors, like dress, rules of the road, and various customs are tailored to individual cultures, but that there are also some behaviors which are like mathematics; we did not create the multiplication; we simply recognized that mathematics was something to be discovered and studied. In other words, a truth that we cannot alter. We cannot make 2+2 equal anything but 4. The same is true for morality.

He does not touch on the golden rule in this essay but I believe, in spirit, this is what he's referring to. The golden rule is called golden because it is perfect; it can only be properly practiced by first examining yourself.

Sounds good, I will check out the video some time.
↑

ed: Maybe he was just mentally ill, why should he be condemned for a mental illness?

jh: The evidence does not suggest that he was mentally ill. Once again, I refer to an article from Lewis called The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment. In this article he explores the idea that punishment of criminals in inhumane; rather, they are only sick and need to be treated. He suggests, despite the presumed gentleness, this theory actually takes away the rights of humanity because it denies one of the most basic and fundamental human rights; justice.

I dont think Hitler was mentally ill, I was just testing to see what DB would say to that.

jh: In other words, he should not be condemned for mental illness; he should be tried for his choices. He deserves justice, not excuses. That is true for all of us.

I agree. But I actually do think some people can be so mentally ill that they cannot separate reality from their hallucination, ie some forms of schizophrenia, that should not be punished or at least not as harshly as a sane person.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Doubtless even philosophers enjoy a laugh now and then.
You and I both know that the only people who take the "arguments" for God's existence seriously are apologists.

Uh no. Richard Swinburne, Alvin Plantinga, and Nicholas Wolterstorff are considered some of the top philosophers in the country and all are Christian theists.

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed: No all other ancient religions teach that there was some other universe from the which the creator had to operate from to create this universe

dm: Please show me where the Bible speaks of God being in some other universe. The Bible seems to be unaware that there is anything beyond the visible stars.

No, OTHER religions teach that but science says otherwise. Yahweh does not need another universe to create from, just as the BB has shown that universe comes from nothing detectable just as the Bible teaches.

dm: And the Bible claims these stars are in the firmament, which sure sounds like the ancient view of a heavenly structure holding up the stars over a flat earth.

No, the hebrew term translated firmament can also mean an open expanse like outer space.

H5186 - natah - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (KJV) (blueletterbible.org)). Most of the time, if not all the time, it is used to mean something other than "continuously stretch."

In Exodus 7:19, we are told that Aaron natah his arm out across the waters. Are you going to tell me that Aaron's arm was continually stretching, like Stretch Armstrong? I don't think so.

Isaiah says God natah the heavens like a curtain. Somehow you interpret this as a miraculous revelation of cosmic inflation. But sorry, curtains are not continuously stretching like the stretching of space time in the inflationary period of the Big Bang. It is more likely that the ancient who wrote this visualized God laying out the local stars just like people set up a tent or curtain.

That is true in some verses like the one in Exodus. But there are seven other verses where it is in the Qal active participle form and refers to the universe experiencing ongoing uninterrupted expansion, like Job 9:8, Psalm 104:2, Isaiah 40:22, and others.

dm: I used to teach Sunday School. I know how this works. One simply interprets the Bible to match what one sees. For instance, back when we found 10 nations in the European Common Market, aha, these are the 10 toes of Daniel! When more nations joined, oh, that was just metaphor for a lot of nations.
You appear to be doing something very similar.

Post Hoc Fallacy.

No, the Qal form actually means ongoing stretching and expansion when referring to the universe and because Nature is God's other book of revelation, that interpretation has been confirmed by the BB theory.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Uh no. Richard Swinburne, Alvin Plantinga, and Nicholas Wolterstorff are considered some of the top philosophers in the country and all are Christian theists.

See? As I said. Richard Swinburne and Alvin Plantinga are apologists. I haven't heard of Nicholas Wolstertorff before, but I imagine he's the same.
Your "arguments" for convincing people of God's existence are really not impressive in the slightest. The proof? Nobody is impressed by them except people who believe in them already.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Yes, but atheism does not provide an objectively rational basis for rational thought, fairness, and respect for others. That is my point.

False. I have responded to this many times on this thread. We need rational thought, fairness, and respect for each other because no human is good at surviving on his own. And the only reasonable way we can all get the cooperation we need from others is by dealing rationally, fairly and with respect.

And please do not respond to this by asking me why I do not commit suicide. I have already explained to you many times why I do not commit suicide.

Well of course, in a business setting most people dont talk about the basis for their morality and why they do things.

What kind of an outfit do you work for? At my workplace, we not only explain the rules, but we explain why it is important to follow the rules.

In your work place, do they just give you a list of rules, and never talk about why the rules are important?

I know what your basis is, see my previous post above.

I know you know. But that is not going to stop you from asking the same question dozens of times when you already know the answer, is it?

 

[doubtingmerle]

You do know I am playing Devils advocate here right?

No, I don't know that. You are extremely zealous in your support of Hitler. I have suggested that maybe you are just playing devil's advocate and you did not respond. When I combine this with the fact that the people you seem to identify with are wearing racist "6MWE" tee shirts, I don't know.

So you think someone can be morally wrong even if they appear to be sincere and maybe are sincere in their own mind?

Yes.

Why is it wrong if humans kill each other?

Same answer as every other time you asked: because we need each other. If people kill each other, it breaks the trust relationship we need to survive.

If you ask yet again, you will get the same answer.

And if you ask we why I don't commit suicide, I will respond with the same answer I give every time you ask me why I don't commit suicide.

On what objective basis was he wrong for killing the jews?

Same answer I gave you many times. See, for instance, The Holocaust was Wrong | Christian Forums .

You just feel he was not fair to them, right?

No, I know that Hitler was not fair to the Jews.

On what objective basis?

On the same basis I have told you many times before: If people like Hitler kill each other, it breaks the trust relationship we need to survive.

And if you respond by asking me why I do not commit suicide, I will respond with the same answer I give every time you ask me why I don't commit suicide.

You are the one that claimed if something was done out of love then it could be justified even killing.

False. I never said this.

Why is your love better than his, objectively?

Same answer as every other time you asked: I want to live, and if people like Hitler indiscriminately kill
each other, that breaks the trust relationship we need to survive.

Please do not respond by asking the same question again.

And please do not respond by asking me why I don't commit suicide.

Only because he killed and was unfair to your favorite species, homo sapiens.

No. because Hitler broke the trust relationship we need to survive. (And I want to survive.)

And please do not respond by asking me why I don't commit suicide.

Oh, and one more thing, if you think you will be clever and come up with the retort, "Why don't you commit suicide", I will remind you that I have answered that many times here.

 

[doubtingmerle]

While I cant PROVE that He exists I have shown earlier in this thread that He most likely DOES exist.

There have been so many bad arguments on this thread for the existence of God, sometimes it feels like reading this:
ExChristian.Net - Articles: Over Three Hundred Proofs of God’s Existence