(July 30, 2013 at 11:41 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Not so much incredulity as a recognition that reality has an intelligible order that, in my opinion, confirms Providential governance.

Hold this thought for the day that reality is a matter of opinion. I promise we'll get back to you.

Not being a philosopher, I have always wondered why there is so much debate and so many syllogisms about the existence (or non-existence ) of God. About 70 years ago I became an atheist after listening to an educated college student (A rarity in my Bronx neighborhood) recite the "Riddle of Epicurus." I am curious to know why this is not enough logical proof?

"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?”

(August 23, 2013 at 1:02 pm)Gil Gaudia Wrote: Not being a philosopher, I have always wondered why there is so much debate and so many syllogisms about the existence (or non-existence ) of God. About 70 years ago I became an atheist after listening to an educated college student (A rarity in my Bronx neighborhood) recite the "Riddle of Epicurus." I am curious to know why this is not enough logical proof?

"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?”

Yeah I saw that too. Y'know, even Hitchens once mentioned in an interview that he suspected Jefferson was actually an atheist at heart.

(August 23, 2013 at 9:33 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(August 23, 2013 at 1:02 pm)Gil Gaudia Wrote: Not being a philosopher, I have always wondered why there is so much debate and so many syllogisms about the existence (or non-existence ) of God. About 70 years ago I became an atheist after listening to an educated college student (A rarity in my Bronx neighborhood) recite the "Riddle of Epicurus." I am curious to know why this is not enough logical proof?

"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?”

I was about 14-years old

Looks like we found someone who can call Minimalist "junior."

(August 23, 2013 at 1:02 pm)Gil Gaudia Wrote: Not being a philosopher, I have always wondered why there is so much debate and so many syllogisms about the existence (or non-existence ) of God. About 70 years ago I became an atheist after listening to an educated college student (A rarity in my Bronx neighborhood) recite the "Riddle of Epicurus." I am curious to know why this is not enough logical proof?

"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?”

So you are a contemporary of Epicurus then?

(August 24, 2013 at 2:31 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(August 23, 2013 at 1:02 pm)Gil Gaudia Wrote: Not being a philosopher, I have always wondered why there is so much debate and so many syllogisms about the existence (or non-existence ) of God. About 70 years ago I became an atheist after listening to an educated college student (A rarity in my Bronx neighborhood) recite the "Riddle of Epicurus." I am curious to know why this is not enough logical proof?

"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?”

So you are a contemporary of Epicurus then?

He was my uncle.

---

(August 24, 2013 at 2:31 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(August 23, 2013 at 1:02 pm)Gil Gaudia Wrote: Not being a philosopher, I have always wondered why there is so much debate and so many syllogisms about the existence (or non-existence ) of God. About 70 years ago I became an atheist after listening to an educated college student (A rarity in my Bronx neighborhood) recite the "Riddle of Epicurus." I am curious to know why this is not enough logical proof?

"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?”

So you are a contemporary of Epicurus then?

Insulting me is elder abuse.

---

(August 24, 2013 at 2:31 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(August 23, 2013 at 1:02 pm)Gil Gaudia Wrote: Not being a philosopher, I have always wondered why there is so much debate and so many syllogisms about the existence (or non-existence ) of God. About 70 years ago I became an atheist after listening to an educated college student (A rarity in my Bronx neighborhood) recite the "Riddle of Epicurus." I am curious to know why this is not enough logical proof?

"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?”

So you are a contemporary of Epicurus then?

He was my nephew.

(July 23, 2013 at 12:54 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: Any evidence that can be peer-reviewed and reproduced is good enough.

Imagine the evidence required to show that Bigfoot exists. Pictures aren't enough to show that he is real: we need to be in constant contact with the creature, be able to meet up with it from time to time, or even capture it, file away a blood sample...anything more than the silly plaster casts of its foot that we currently have.

Exactly! It's not like it would be very hard to prove that a creature like that exists. All you have to do is have it appear. It's the same with God. If God appeared that would be good enough for me. The only objection that I've really heard to this is that it might be an extra-terrestrial that is so technologically advanced as to be indistinguishable from God. Well in that case it doesn't really matter. If there was an animal that was not Bigfoot but indistinguishable from Bigfoot would people say that Bigfoot doesn't exist still?

Of course the existence of God fails this very easy test. Why not appear? It doesn't subvert free-will like Theists will often claim. You'd still be free to believe or not believe or worship or not worship. So in short the evidence I would accept would be very easy to produce and yet it doesn't happen.

(July 23, 2013 at 11:49 am)Kim Wrote: I often wondered what kind of evidence is actually required to prove without any doubt the existence of God?

Please note Clarke's "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Also, an advanced civilization might also be able to put you in something like the Matrix and show you all kind of crazy stuff.

So, could there be an absolute evidence for God?

No

Revelation. Which revelation? Christianity? (Bible) Islam? (Quran). Judaism, Mormonism, Hinduism? All claiming to be revelations from God by inspired prophets, rishis, poets, shaman s et al. Since there are so many revelations that must be false we must ask, since errors about revelations are so common, could it be that all supposed revelations are false and untrue? Yes. So revelation cannot prove anything. You'd have to demonstrate one revelation is true and that cannot be done.

Natural religion. proving God exists. The first truly notable attempt at this was by Plato in his work "The Laws - book 10" Plato aims his attempts to prove God exists squarely and explicitly at atheists. I will leave it as an exercise for atheists here to look this up on the net. Match wits with Plato. It is an interesting read.

Today, such natural religion attempts at proof are found in the Philosophy of Religion. A truly immense amount of ink has been spilled on the subject in recent centuries.

What is the consensus from philosophers of religion, the best, brightest and most honest? That there is no good evidence for God. No knockdown, does the deed proof anybody can point to. Natural religion started in earnest after the Greek skeptic writings were rediscovered and their techniques applied on each other, by bickering Protestant vs Catholic. Natural religion was an attempt to defeat such resurrected religious skepticism.

To date, there is no proof. Not from revelation, not from logic. 2300 years after Plato, proving god exists for once and for all has not succeeded despite centuries of some of the brightest minds in the world working lifetimes trying to do the job.

The roots of modern strong atheism go back to Sextus Empiricus, Carneades, Cicero, and then Hume and Kant among others.

Cheerful Charlie