Stephen Fry - asked What He Would Say If He Met God

[King Mob]

Something I don,t get, toward the end of the clip he said,

"The sooner you abandon Him the better, Life becomes better,"
but the negative he previously mentioned, also these Eye burrowing insect, are still around,

What does he mean by that?

There is no rational explanation for anything 'it' was supposed to have said or indeed done. It's irrelevant nonsense. And the saddest part is the fact that adherents to this poppycock defend or in someway dismiss illness, poverty and strife as man made. While they place the invisible fable up there on a pedestal.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Several things become better:

1. A freer choice of how to deal with problems. The planet is very populous but half of Christians are not permitted contraception. If a person finds they are not heterosexual then celibacy is the only option. Many Christians will not accept rising ocean levels because their god allegedly promised not to flood the world again.

2. Free time that might otherwise be spent defending the absurd, or reading a very confused old book.

3. No more fear of eternal torment

4. Not having to support stupid 'god wants it' policies at a national level.

But there could also be a downside:

1. No more meeting and belting out wonderful hymns

2. No more coffee after church and meeting what are actually very nice people.

3. Being able to half believe you will meet long lost beloved ones in the hereafter.

There is a third way

1&2. go to a somewhat liberal church

3. Have you ever really got to grips with scientific determinism? I personally don't find nomological determinism is undermined by quantum mechanics, I find it is a perfectly good basis for necessitarianism, that is to say, scientists are not sure if the universe is deterministic or not. Christianity has both Calvinist and Arminian theories and so does science. If the Universe is deterministic then the information is continuous and nothing ever actually disappears, it just changes.

.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

What have I said that gives you the impression I think bone cancer in children is cool?! How ridiculous and insulting....

You have defended your god. That would indicate approval.

I'm not saying it is morally acceptable - I'm saying it is the result of a fallen world where humanity has rejected God. I am convinced that if sin had not entered the world through the fall, there would be no disease and suffering.

Something that is not morally acceptable is immoral. Your opinion is duly noted

 

[ebia]

Without eye-burrowing worms there could be no universe

.

How many universes have you seen that don't have eye-borrowing worms?

 

[MorkandMindy]

How many universes have you seen that don't have eye-borrowing worms?

Left unrestrained evolution would produce that whereas the God proposed by Christianity would not.

This is the point, we are not comparing which universe would be better, one with a god who sets some limit on pointless unbelievable suffering, and one which lacks a divine being of that type. I'm sure we would all prefer one where totally pointless suffering was not going on.

We are simply asking which universe do we live in, and the answer was already apparent in 300 BC.

 

[MorkandMindy]

I've seen two approaches in Christian apologetics, neither of which works. One is to state that free will is the overriding principle, one which scripture is a bit ambivalent on, and then to claim that therefore God can not prevent people in a plane dropping a nuclear bomb and causing thousands to die slowly in great agony. The articles always assume the free will always sides with whoever is causing suffering over the free choice of those who end up in unbelievable suffering, and I haven't mentioned the worst of the suffering by any means and have no intention to do so.

The opposite approach is to claim that the suffering is trivial and necessary. The book on RE in my son's class said that God can not eliminate pain as otherwise a person would not remove their hand from a flame and injury would result. The fact that a lot of the most severe suffering is followed hours or so by death and the person won't learn anything worthwhile from it is just ignored.

Basically the books claim either that God can not prevent suffering due to man's overriding right to do as he chooses, or that suffering is actually minor and necessary.

 

[MorkandMindy]

What has happened in this thread is unusual.


The normal routine is atheists say something like 'you can't prove God exists'.

The Christians say something like 'you can't prove God doesn't exist'

The atheist then says something like 'you know nobody can prove a negative, and the onus is on you to prove God does exist'.

And it ends in a stalemate.


And the reason is the term 'god' is usually left undefined and disproof then has to be that everything that could possibly be called a god doesn't exist, and given for example that humans are described as gods in the Old Testament, the non existence of everything that might be classed as a god is clearly impossible.

In this thread the achievable has been achieved, it has been demonstrated that the more narrowly defined all-powerful all-knowing and merciful God does not exist in this universe. The statement made before Christianity even started by Epicurus still stands:

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?

 

[MorkandMindy]

Where does that leave us?

More able to do what the gospels command us.

All the big problems in the World affecting humans can be alleviated or even eliminated. Overpopulation, war, resource depletion, pollution, species extinction. These are all man made and can only be cured by a change in attitude.

50% of Christians believe contraception is wrong. That has to change. The belief by the fundamentalists in the US that wasting resources is fine because the World is only 6,000 years old and therefore oil is produced in a time frame of years, and rising ocean levels won't happen because God promised there would not be another flood.

Evangelism will become just a gathering in of a harvest rather than a struggle. Recruitment will be 'join us and do good in this community, pick from any of these dozen things we are doing' instead of some pointless attempt to prove God exists and there really was a Noah era flood and it was okay to do genocide in the promised land and so on. I've done door to door evangelism. Totally pointless as none of these things are necessary in order to do good.


I say dump the junk and get on with the task of feeding the starving, clothing the naked, and befriending the friendless, helping the widows and anyone else who is on their own.

 

[ebia]

Left unrestrained evolution would produce that whereas the God proposed by Christianity would not.

My comment was in jest.

This is the point, we are not comparing which universe would be better, one with a god who sets some limit on pointless unbelievable suffering, and one which lacks a divine being of that type. I'm sure we would all prefer one where totally pointless suffering was not going on.

We are simply asking which universe do we live in, and the answer was already apparent in 300 BC.

Sometimes what some people think is apparent is not correct, often because they have misunderstood something along the way.

 

[ebia]

I've seen two approaches in Christian apologetics, neither of which works. One is to state that free will is the overriding principle, one which scripture is a bit ambivalent on, and then to claim that therefore God can not prevent people in a plane dropping a nuclear bomb and causing thousands to die slowly in great agony. The articles always assume the free will always sides with whoever is causing suffering over the free choice of those who end up in unbelievable suffering, and I haven't mentioned the worst of the suffering by any means and have no intention to do so.

I'm not sure what the bit I've bolded means.

 

[ebia]

What has happened in this thread is unusual.


The normal routine is atheists say something like 'you can't prove God exists'.

The Christians say something like 'you can't prove God doesn't exist'

The atheist then says something like 'you know nobody can prove a negative, and the onus is on you to prove God does exist'.

And it ends in a stalemate.


And the reason is the term 'god' is usually left undefined and disproof then has to be that everything that could possibly be called a god doesn't exist, and given for example that humans are described as gods in the Old Testament, the non existence of everything that might be classed as a god is clearly impossible.

In this thread the achievable has been achieved, it has been demonstrated that the more narrowly defined all-powerful all-knowing and merciful God does not exist in this universe. The statement made before Christianity even started by Epicurus still stands:

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?

That might constitute sufficient "proof" to convince you,...

Epicurus falls on a number of counts:
A naive understanding of God's ability.
Not accounting for the possibility that God might have a reason for not having eliminated evil
Etc.

As a bit of logic it's very poor.

 

[Danny777]

Well, in particular:

God created all things
A disease is something
Therefore, God created disease.

You appear to accept the presence of 'evil'. Maybe you could provide an explanation for the existence of 'evil'? How do you define it?

Tony - this is the 3rd time I've asked you this - it's very easy to pick the bones out of my responses. It would be nice to get a straight answer out of you...

 

[Robban]

Recent clip of Stephen Fry's reaction when asked what he would say if he met God (assumed Judeo Christian variant..)

Anyone seen it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-suvkwNYSQo

Fry is his name, and fry he shall, the man is a fool.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You appear to accept the presence of 'evil'. Maybe you could provide an explanation for the existence of 'evil'? How do you define it?

Tony - this is the 3rd time I've asked you this - it's very easy to pick the bones out of my responses. It would be nice to get a straight answer out of you...

From my perspective, evil is immorality. We normally use the word as a descriptor for somebody/something who performs acts that are deeply offensive, but in general it is simply acts of immorality. We tend to tone things down when the misdemeanour is not highly offensive (we might say somebody is naughty, rather than evil), but that is just human sensitivity at play.

And I'm pretty sure that's inline with a Christian definition of evil, too.

 

[Inkfingers]

Logical fallacy number 1 - Argument from incredulity
Logical fallacy number 2 - Unwarranted assumption

So I was right, special pleading

No, simply a pointing out how an ant cannot be the judge of a human.

Another unwarranted assumption.

Not so. Everything that happens, in an orderly universe, by definition had to happen and was an unavoidable part of what it means to have an orderly universe. Its the very opposite of special pleading - as special pleading would demand a universe that could magically conform to our demands.

This is what a universe of cause and effect looks like.
This is what a universe of cause and effect had to look like - because cause and effect doesn't give any room for anything different.
It doesn't change on magical whim or the demands of its more egotistical inhabitants.
You may as well complain about the laws of mathematics must lead to some people having less money when they spend it.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

No, simply a pointing out how an ant cannot be the judge of a human.

Another logical fallacy.

Not so. Everything that happens, in an orderly universe, by definition had to happen and was an unavoidable part of what it means to have an orderly universe. Its the very opposite of special pleading - as special pleading would demand a universe that could magically conform to our demands.

Moving the goalposts before making another unwarranted assumption?

And you obviously don't understand special pleading if you think it only applies to humans

This is what a universe of cause and effect looks like.
This is what a universe of cause and effect had to look like - because cause and effect doesn't give any room for anything different.

So you're admitting that God (the cause) is responsible for all the nastiness (the effect) we experience?

It doesn't change on magical whim or the demands of its more egotistical inhabitants.

But it does change on the magical whim or the demands of its (supposed) egotistical creator? That would be yet more special pleading.....

You may as well complain about the laws of mathematics must lead to some people having less money when they spend it.

And a final "Begging the question" to round things off.

You've managed a whole response based on a number of different logical fallacies - except for the one part where you disagree with yourself. That is really quite impressive.

 

[Robban]

Several things become better:

1. A freer choice of how to deal with problems. The planet is very populous but half of Christians are not permitted contraception. If a person finds they are not heterosexual then celibacy is the only option. Many Christians will not accept rising ocean levels because their god allegedly promised not to flood the world again.

2. Free time that might otherwise be spent defending the absurd, or reading a very confused old book.

3. No more fear of eternal torment

4. Not having to support stupid 'god wants it' policies at a national level.

But there could also be a downside:

1. No more meeting and belting out wonderful hymns

2. No more coffee after church and meeting what are actually very nice people.

3. Being able to half believe you will meet long lost beloved ones in the hereafter.

There is a third way

1&2. go to a somewhat liberal church

3. Have you ever really got to grips with scientific determinism? I personally don't find nomological determinism is undermined by quantum mechanics, I find it is a perfectly good basis for necessitarianism, that is to say, scientists are not sure if the universe is deterministic or not. Christianity has both Calvinist and Arminian theories and so does science. If the Universe is deterministic then the information is continuous and nothing ever actually disappears, it just changes.

.

There are two paths that lead to the Palace,

the long short path and

the short long path.

Which path have you taken?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

That might constitute sufficient "proof" to convince you,...

Epicurus falls on a number of counts:
A naive understanding of God's ability.

So what other possibilities are you proposing?

Not accounting for the possibility that God might have a reason for not having eliminated evil

That falls under the "able but not willing" category.

Etc.

Please expand.

As a bit of logic it's very poor.

I disagree. It may be simplistic, but it's not poor.

 

[ebia]

So what other possibilities are you proposing?

It's not up to me to propose any possibilities.
It's up to a logical argument to show that it covers everything.

That falls under the "able but not willing" category.

The trouble with such terse language that it ends up being equivocated.
Does "able but not willing" mean "doesn't want to" or "has some reason not to (so far)"

 

[Inkfingers]

Another logical fallacy.

No it's not. Stop throwing around "logical fallacy" like its some general trump card. Fry can never understand all that is needed to make a universe that is order. Neither can you. Neither can I. We judge from our perspective, which is always by definition limited.

So you're admitting that God (the cause) is responsible for all the nastiness (the effect) we experience?

What do you mean "admit"? I have said this several times, and it is completely Biblical. God is sovereign over ALL that occurs. ALL. Not some. ALL. The buck stops with God.

• “In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God” (John 1:1)
• “All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made” (John 1:3)
• “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things” (Isaiah 45:7)
• “The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.” (Proverbs 16:4)
• “And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh” (Exo 9:12)
• “I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go” (Exo 4:21)
• “Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden” (Romans 9:18)
• “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn” (John 12:40)

But it does change on the magical whim or the demands of its (supposed) egotistical creator? That would be yet more special pleading.....

No, it doesn't change on the whim of anyone; including God.