Well, now that we have that out of the way, we can finally tackle the inverse Theodicy: If there is a God, why is there still good in the world?

(November 30, 2015 at 5:13 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Your argument doesn't really matter to us God believers because part of believing in God is believing that He is a super natural being who, unlike us, has always existed.

I always try to tell that to folks. The believers just stick their fingers in their ears and skip along.
A sad sobering reality.

(December 1, 2015 at 6:36 pm)Quantum Wrote: Well, now that we have that out of the way, we can finally tackle the inverse Theodicy: If there is a God, why is there still good in the world?

Erm...sibling rivalry?

Boru

Theists minds do not work properly in arguments.

Certainly, humans create things. Obviously.

Therefore, theists love making the assumption that because things are created by us that something must have created us.

There is no guarantee that there is a creator that created us.

They are merely filling in gaps of knowledge with a creator. Nothing more.

Cath, I don't think he was love. (It might've gone over the top a bit).

(November 30, 2015 at 2:41 pm)jcvamp Wrote: I responded to a thread on Facebook about atheist morality. I expressed that I believe that religious people's belief reflects their morality and not the other way around. I gave Christians as an example, citing biblical teachings that modern Christians don't follow, and a Christian responded by arguing that everything needs a creator.

I'd like to see the original transcript.  That being said, you postulated that "religious people's belief reflects their morality and not the other way around."  The counterargument, "everything needs a creator," would be a red herring.

(November 30, 2015 at 2:41 pm)jcvamp Wrote: They said, 'Classic logic can bring one to the conclusion of a single God.  We humans are contingent beings, that is, my parents had to make me, your parents had to make you, so on and so forth up the line.  If any of that changed, I wouldn't be the same, or you wouldn't be the same.  Going back and back it's not as if there can be some loop where two or hundreds or thousands are equally contingent upon each other, it must come back to one being who is not contingent upon any other being. That would be God.  Now going from deism to a specific religion requires faith, but monotheistic deism is the logical way.'

This was my response, 'My parents made me using a natural biological process, and yes, their parents in turn made them. However, your logic falls apart at the point when you assume that this means a god must have initiated the process.

One explanation could be the intervention of an intelligent being.  Another and contrary explanation could be a random change in natural processes at a given point in time.

(November 30, 2015 at 2:41 pm)jcvamp Wrote: You postulate that everything must have a creator, then break your own postulate by saying that the first creator didn't have a creator. If your premise is that all things had a creator, who created god? You can't posit that everything requires a creator, but then say that your line of logic only works if that rule is broken. This leaves us with the postulate that some things require a creator and others do not.

Well said, I agree.  

(November 30, 2015 at 2:41 pm)jcvamp Wrote: If we follow this line of reasoning, my parents created me, and this extends back to a point where something came about without the need for a creator. Why can't that be the formation of organic chemicals (proteins, amino acids, RNA, and DNA) from inorganic material by chemical processes that we know to exist, and have reproduced in the lab?'

Claiming that "life can be reverse engineered in a lab by intelligent beings" is not proof that these processes took place in exactly the same way without intelligent interference millions of years ago.  I would argue the contrary.  Given that we have not observed these processes taking place apart from human reproduction in a lab, if it takes intelligence now, why not conclude it took intelligence then?  This would be a more consistent conclusion.

(December 3, 2015 at 1:39 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: Claiming that "life can be reverse engineered in a lab by intelligent beings" is not proof that these processes took place in exactly the same way without intelligent interference millions of years ago.  I would argue the contrary.  Given that we have not observed these processes taking place apart from human reproduction in a lab, if it takes intelligence now, why not conclude it took intelligence then?  This would be a more consistent conclusion.

You're confusing engineering with reverse-engineering. We don't build the life, strand by strand and molecule, like some kind of microscopic bricklayer. What we do in the labs is recreate the conditions which allows for the natural process to occur as it did when earth's conditions were like the scientist has recreated in the glass. The processes follow from that.

In other words, it doesn't  take intelligence, then or now. All it takes is the right environment for the chemistry to occur, and the intelligence is simply in recreating what was once the earth, prior to the changes living creatures and more water/cooling wrought upon it.

(November 30, 2015 at 5:13 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Your argument doesn't really matter to us God believers because part of believing in God is believing that He is a super natural being who, unlike us, has always existed.

So not everything needs a creator. The cosmos itself need not be created then. Therefore, point of God is?

(December 1, 2015 at 11:08 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(December 1, 2015 at 11:05 am)robvalue Wrote: I don't think many of us would argue that there is probably more going on (and has been going on) then we are able to perceive. It's when people to claim to know details about this stuff, without saying how they could possibly know it, that we tend to object. It doesn't seem any different from just making things up because you want them to be that way.

As long as they state it as being their beliefs and not try to make you believe it too, I don't see why it should matter.

Beliefs meaning views that you are not sure are true but hold to them regardless, right?

(November 30, 2015 at 2:41 pm)jcvamp Wrote: I responded to a thread on Facebook about atheist morality. I expressed that I believe that religious people's belief reflects their morality and not the other way around. I gave Christians as an example, citing biblical teachings that modern Christians don't follow, and a Christian responded by arguing that everything needs a creator.

They said, 'Classic logic can bring one to the conclusion of a single God.  We humans are contingent beings, that is, my parents had to make me, your parents had to make you, so on and so forth up the line.  If any of that changed, I wouldn't be the same, or you wouldn't be the same.  Going back and back it's not as if there can be some loop where two or hundreds or thousands are equally contingent upon each other, it must come back to one being who is not contingent upon any other being. That would be God.  Now going from deism to a specific religion requires faith, but monotheistic deism is the logical way.'

This was my response, 'My parents made me using a natural biological process, and yes, their parents in turn made them. However, your logic falls apart at the point when you assume that this means a god must have initiated the process.

You postulate that everything must have a creator, then break your own postulate by saying that the first creator didn't have a creator. If your premise is that all things had a creator, who created god? You can't posit that everything requires a creator, but then say that your line of logic only works if that rule is broken. This leaves us with the postulate that some things require a creator and others do not.

If we follow this line of reasoning, my parents created me, and this extends back to a point where something came about without the need for a creator. Why can't that be the formation of organic chemicals (proteins, amino acids, RNA, and DNA) from inorganic material by chemical processes that we know to exist, and have reproduced in the lab?'

What's your take on this? What would you have responded? Do you agree or disagree with my argument?

The theist might respond this way:

Your parents created you, and your grandparents created them. Your great-grandparents created your grandparents, and so on. Keep going back in time. What created the "organic chemicals (proteins, amino acids, RNA, and DNA) from inorganic material by chemical processes that we know to exist, and have reproduced in the lab"?

The Big Bang Theory states that time, space, matter, etc. all began to exist at a single point in the distant past...approximately 13 billion years ago. Why? What caused or created the big bang? Did everything suddenly come into being out of nothing? If so, why don't we observe this phenomenon happening all the time? If you were to find a watch on the sidewalk, would you assume that is simply appeared there out of nothing, or would you assume that someone dropped it there? And would you further assume that there was a watchmaker who made it to begin with?

You have asked, "Who created god?", but the question reveals your misunderstanding of the theist Cosmological Argument which goes something like:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Theists call this cause "God". And since God is eternal, He did not BEGIN to exist; therefore, He has no creator or cause.