(June 7, 2013 at 8:13 am)Drich Wrote:

(June 7, 2013 at 1:43 am)Esquilax Wrote: Aren't these questions more relevant in a world that supposedly features a benevolent deity that interacts with the world?

...and what if the God of the bible is not the Omni benevolent God some people claim Him to be? After all most of you are quick to point out all the mean stuff He did or has done to people He did not like.

Well, then we go around the same circle this debate always takes; why bother worshiping a god that can help people with little effort, and just doesn't? What wisdom or guidance could a god that simply stands by as countless whither and die possibly offer?

(June 7, 2013 at 8:52 am)pocaracas Wrote: In a world without god....
- what would make people believe that such an entity exists?

What makes people think you exist? Your presents right? Even if I am not in your presents you do leave evidences that show you were/are here. Like this post.
At somepoint if we wished to meet up a time an place could be arranged for both parties to meet. If one comes at the wrong time or goes to a place that the other party is not, does that mean the other party does not exist, because he is not there? No. It just means that the wrong time/place guy is not looking where the other party can be found.

Meaning Just because God has not made Himself known to you does not mean you have proof He does not exist.

Quote:- what would make different groups of people believe in different sets of such deities?

various reasons ranging from deceiving spirits, to a want of self worship.

---

(June 7, 2013 at 8:52 am)Faith No More Wrote:

(June 6, 2013 at 10:21 pm)Drich Wrote: Why do bad things happen to good people? Why do children get cancer? Why do bad people always seem to thrive?

Because an indifferent universe cares not for human qualifiers such as "good" and "bad."

...and again why cant this be true of a universe that God creates?

I take exceptions: God does play a useful role... for the naive, gullible and self-deluded types.

(June 7, 2013 at 9:54 am)little_monkey Wrote: I take exceptions: God does play a useful role... for the naive, gullible and self-deluded types.

Oh those types will find something else to be religious about monkey.

(June 7, 2013 at 9:03 am)orogenicman Wrote: I never said it was, but since you brought it up, the main differences are that it refutes prayer,

How so?
The Biblical examples of Prayer do not give the believer the power or authority to select or wish for an easier life for himself. In fact the model of prayer Christ gave us in Luke 11 has us praying that God change our life and out look to match His will. Not the other way round where we pray to change His will to our own.

Quote: refutes a controlling deity that can manipulate and/or perform miracles in contradiction to natural laws to our benefit, or that there is a god that has your best interest at heart.

The only thing the reality of this world should refute is your personal idea of God who's only purpose is to serve a man who formulates his wishes with a bowed head and closed eyes.. But, really really means it.

---

(June 7, 2013 at 9:12 am)Ben Davis Wrote:

(June 7, 2013 at 8:39 am)Drich Wrote: {hide][/hide]
Only if your idea of God is one who's sole purpose is to make your life easier for you to live.

-maybe God's interaction with us goes deeper than granting wishes and providing the good life.

You misunderstand. I didn't suggest any purpose for the god, I stated that if the god can have no consequence (i.e. no interaction, makes no difference to the results) then it is inconsequential. A tautology, I know but one which it's important to point out from time to time. By the logic you're using in this thread, you can only arrive at an unnecessary god.

Who says you can not have an interaction with God?

(June 7, 2013 at 9:56 am)Drich Wrote: Who says you can not have an interaction with God?

Sanity.

(June 7, 2013 at 9:25 am)Rhythm Wrote:

(June 7, 2013 at 8:13 am)Drich Wrote: If these things are true in a world you believe to be with out God, then why can the very same explanation work in a world with God?

Why -can't- I'm assuming you meant to ask? Who said they couldn't? I see nothing in those explanations which wouldn't work in a world with an indifferent god, a capricious god, or a powerless god- for example. Each type of god has been bandied about from time to time, place to place.

You also forgot to add a world where God has turn the world over to man, and man hands it over to Satan. Leaving us in a place where we must face the consenquence of sin. Being made to face the consenquence/being place in a world where sin is allowed to abound, does two things.
The first it seperates those who want to live in a place without sin from those who do not.
the second it give those who do not want to live an eternity under God's authority a place where their hearts can truly demonstrate their desire to be apart from God. So when Final judgement is levied against the separatists, they will know their fate is just and one of their own choosing.

---

(June 7, 2013 at 9:29 am)Esquilax Wrote: Well, then we go around the same circle this debate always takes; why bother worshiping a god that can help people with little effort, and just doesn't?

I did not say God does not ever offer help. I simply said God is not your own personal wish genie.

That aside we Worship God because we want to Love Him as a son would love a father. In your son father relationship do you only love your dad if he does what you will? What if your a strung out addict and need money for your next fix, but your father will not give it to you, does it mean he does not love you?

Quote:What wisdom or guidance could a god that simply stands by as countless whither and die possibly offer?

Death is only the unforgivable sin to those who worship and love THIS life above all else. We have been told that Ultimate love for This life some of us have, is reserved for God alone. If we Love God first, then we will have eternal life. If we love this life First what we have will be taken from us.

(June 7, 2013 at 10:09 am)Drich Wrote: You also forgot to add a world where God has turn the world over to man, and man hands it over to Satan. Leaving us in a place where we must face the consenquence of sin.

I didn't leave that out, that would be indifference. Don't get me wrong though, I'm sure we could come up with a god that doesn't fit any of my examples - and doesn't grind against any of those questions you asked. And?

(June 7, 2013 at 9:56 am)Drich Wrote:

---

(June 7, 2013 at 9:12 am)Ben Davis Wrote: You misunderstand. I didn't suggest any purpose for the god, I stated that if the god can have no consequence (i.e. no interaction, makes no difference to the results) then it is inconsequential. A tautology, I know but one which it's important to point out from time to time. By the logic you're using in this thread, you can only arrive at an unnecessary god.

---

Who says you can not have an interaction with God?

That's the start of an attempt at misdirection but there's no wriggling out of this one Drich! The entire thread has been about comparing 2 types of hypothetical world: one with a god, one without a god. They method of comparison we're using is measuring 'things that happen'. In the universe without a god, things 'happen for non-god-created reasons'. You then followed up with the question "If these things are true (i.e. if things happen for non-god-created reasons) in a world you believe to be with out God, then why can't the very same explanation work in a world with God?". My response was that 'they can if you have a god that has no consequence' but by definition, an inconsequential god is useless; it has no explanatory power, no action, no function and cannot be a causal agent. The explanation couldn't work in a world with a consequential god (e.g. the abrahamic god) because things wouldn't 'happen for non-god-created reasons', god would be the cause. So you could not have an interaction with god in a world where things 'happen for non-god-created reasons'.

Any more clear?

(June 6, 2013 at 11:03 pm)orogenicman Wrote: Those questions have been asked and answers searched for since man became an introspective creature. The simplest answer is that these things happen because they can happen.

That's interesting. My pastor says basically the same thing. If at the end of page 1 everything was very good, but mutable, it would necessarily change for the worse. I'm not sure that I agree that because something can change it must change - still thinking about it.

---

(June 7, 2013 at 10:33 am)Ben Davis Wrote: [quote='Drich' pid='458952' dateline='1370613394']
That's the start of an attempt at misdirection but there's no wriggling out of this one Drich! The entire thread has been about comparing 2 types of hypothetical world: one with a god, one without a god. They method of comparison we're using is measuring 'things that happen'. In the universe without a god, things 'happen for non-god-created reasons'. You then followed up with the question "If these things are true (i.e. if things happen for non-god-created reasons) in a world you believe to be with out God, then why can't the very same explanation work in a world with God?". My response was that 'they can if you have a god that has no consequence' but by definition, an inconsequential god is useless; it has no explanatory power, no action, no function and cannot be a causal agent. The explanation couldn't work in a world with a consequential god (e.g. the abrahamic god) because things wouldn't 'happen for non-god-created reasons', god would be the cause. So you could not have an interaction with god in a world where things 'happen for non-god-created reasons'.

Speaking of misdirection, your argument appears to be a false dichotomy. You term it as either a completely inconsequential god or a completely consequential god, without explaining why there can't be a partially consequential god, which would allow for Drich's argument.