Benevolent Creator God?

[R00tKiT]

In addition to my response above to @Spongebob : If one didn't study Maxwell's equations, they wouldn't even know that the speed of light (c= approx. 3.10^8 m/s) is something special. Einstein's thought experiments relatively to light are certainly motivated by the fact that the constant c is explicitly present in Maxwell's equations. All this obviously entails that Einstein knew Maxwell's theory from the inside out.

[Spongebob]

In addition to my response above to @Spongebob : If one didn't study Maxwell's equations, they wouldn't even know that the speed of light (c= approx. 3.10^8 m/s) is something special. Einstein's thought experiments relatively to light are certainly motivated by the fact that the constant c is explicitly present in Maxwell's equations. All this obviously entails that Einstein knew Maxwell's theory from the inside out.

At 16 years old and a student at the Gymnasium in Aarau, Einstein would have had the thought experiment in late 1895 to early 1896. But various sources note that Einstein did not learn Maxwell's theory until 1898, in university.[7][8]

Wikipedia

---

And I gave the reasons why this assumption might very probably be true. There are valid arguments out there establishing the existence of a first cause. Once this preliminary result is settled, we assess whether this first cause has some properties, which we infer from its effects (the universe). 

No, you didn't give any "reasons", you just offered opinions, not even real logical arguments.  And you were claiming that god exists; you didn't say anything about "first cause".  That could mean different things.

From my experience with these discussions, non-believers just keep playing around and throwing charges of "special pleading" or "infinity is not well understood" left and right to escape the unavoidable necessity of a first cause. Even well known atheist debaters like M. Dillahunty start complaining about how difficult infinity is to dodge the arguments, whereas establishing a first cause is really straightforward.

Well, if the shoe fits...  Look, if you use logical fallacies you should expect they won't be taken seriously.  They are called fallacies because they are false arguments.  If you showed up to work late every day and your supervisor asked why and you said that some little green men kept letting the air out of your tires, your boss would reject that as nonsense.  That's what logical fallacies are; they are nonsense arguments and not to be accepted as valid.  Also, if you really want to change someone's mind or at least get them to consider your ideas the very first thing you should do is make sure you aren't repeating old and antiquated arguments.  A lot of Intelligent Design advocates do this.  They trot out one argument that supposedly supports their ideas but when a scientist demonstrates how this argument is flawed and is completely wrong, they just keep beating that dead horse.  It gets them nowhere and they look foolish.  In some cases these are people who were once considered accomplished in their field of study.

The universe's existence per se can't be explained by natural science, so you would call it a miracle? Laws of the universe only describe its inner workings... but I suspect you already know that...?

I do agree that the existence of the universe cannot be explained, but is that a reason to stop questioning?  Humans once thought disease was caused by an angry god, among thousands of other terrible assumptions.  You don't understand that to learn things you must keep questioning.  The moment you say "god did it", all inquiry ends and you learn nothing.  If you are happy not knowing and just accepting everything your preacher tells you then I suggest you go back to church and don't worry yourself with atheist forums.

Argument from authority, I frankly don't care about how much some atheist is familiar with the teleological argument. If their reasons for rejecting it are not good enough, then they have an epistamically flawed position. 

There's no argument from authority here. Learn what these terms mean before you try to use them.  All I said was that you haven't said anything new, and I mean nothing.  I've read books about this stuff, watched debates, and was not sure myself what was true at one time.  But that was a while ago and it's all settled now.  But you did set up a teleological argument, a circular argument.  That's indefensible.

We all know this, dude. You said Einstein didn't rely on electromagnetism and classical mechanics, when, in fact, and, OBVIOUSLY, he did, which is something you can guess by just reading the damn title of his original paper on SR. That's the only thing I was responding to, nobody here is denying that his insights led to major discoveries.

You can see I've proved you wrong already so I'll just drop it.

[The Architect Of Fate]

In addition to my response above to @Spongebob : If one didn't study Maxwell's equations, they wouldn't even know that the speed of light (c= approx. 3.10^8 m/s) is something special. Einstein's thought experiments relatively to light are certainly motivated by the fact that the constant c is explicitly present in Maxwell's equations. All this obviously entails that Einstein knew Maxwell's theory from the inside out.

At 16 years old and a student at the Gymnasium in Aarau, Einstein would have had the thought experiment in late 1895 to early 1896. But various sources note that Einstein did not learn Maxwell's theory until 1898, in university.[7][8]

Wikipedia

---

And I gave the reasons why this assumption might very probably be true. There are valid arguments out there establishing the existence of a first cause. Once this preliminary result is settled, we assess whether this first cause has some properties, which we infer from its effects (the universe). 

No, you didn't give any "reasons", you just offered opinions, not even real logical arguments.  And you were claiming that god exists; you didn't say anything about "first cause".  That could mean different things.

From my experience with these discussions, non-believers just keep playing around and throwing charges of "special pleading" or "infinity is not well understood" left and right to escape the unavoidable necessity of a first cause. Even well known atheist debaters like M. Dillahunty start complaining about how difficult infinity is to dodge the arguments, whereas establishing a first cause is really straightforward.

Well, if the shoe fits...  Look, if you use logical fallacies you should expect they won't be taken seriously.  They are called fallacies because they are false arguments.  If you showed up to work late every day and your supervisor asked why and you said that some little green men kept letting the air out of your tires, your boss would reject that as nonsense.  That's what logical fallacies are; they are nonsense arguments and not to be accepted as valid.  Also, if you really want to change someone's mind or at least get them to consider your ideas the very first thing you should do is make sure you aren't repeating old and antiquated arguments.  A lot of Intelligent Design advocates do this.  They trot out one argument that supposedly supports their ideas but when a scientist demonstrates how this argument is flawed and is completely wrong, they just keep beating that dead horse.  It gets them nowhere and they look foolish.  In some cases these are people who were once considered accomplished in their field of study.

The universe's existence per se can't be explained by natural science, so you would call it a miracle? Laws of the universe only describe its inner workings... but I suspect you already know that...?

I do agree that the existence of the universe cannot be explained, but is that a reason to stop questioning?  Humans once thought disease was caused by an angry god, among thousands of other terrible assumptions.  You don't understand that to learn things you must keep questioning.  The moment you say "god did it", all inquiry ends and you learn nothing.  If you are happy not knowing and just accepting everything your preacher tells you then I suggest you go back to church and don't worry yourself with atheist forums.

Argument from authority, I frankly don't care about how much some atheist is familiar with the teleological argument. If their reasons for rejecting it are not good enough, then they have an epistamically flawed position. 

There's no argument from authority here. Learn what these terms mean before you try to use them.  All I said was that you haven't said anything new, and I mean nothing.  I've read books about this stuff, watched debates, and was not sure myself what was true at one time.  But that was a while ago and it's all settled now.  But you did set up a teleological argument, a circular argument.  That's indefensible.

We all know this, dude. You said Einstein didn't rely on electromagnetism and classical mechanics, when, in fact, and, OBVIOUSLY, he did, which is something you can guess by just reading the damn title of his original paper on SR. That's the only thing I was responding to, nobody here is denying that his insights led to major discoveries.

You can see I've proved you wrong already so I'll just drop it.

Now he will ignore everything you said and repeat the same talking points again like a broken record pretending you didn't just refute him 

[pocaracas]

Why do I get caught up in these huge replies that need me to set aside some time to type up?

From now on, and to make replying easier, I suggest we adopt a different format, we will focus on one particular point until it's settled, then move on to another. In any case, it seems you have huge problem with the fact that Muhammad conducted wars; so let's focus on that and on God's benevolence for now.

Fair enough.
But that's not my big problem. My problem is the way that the god decided to carry things out that then lead to Muhammad conducting wars.

Benevolent god provides message to Muhammad, apparently, in a continuous fashion for years.
Muhammad gets transformed from an illiterate merchant into a " social reformer, statesman", and military leader who eventually conquers the whole Arabian Peninsula.
Obviously, Arabia was taken by the power of illiterate merchant's diplomacy, not military might, right?
So, what is it, benevolent or military? You can't have it both ways.

Okay. So, first of all, it's not clear what's your stance on Muhammad is to begin with, do you think he should've adopted some Gandhi-like opposition? That he was wrong about resorting to force ?

My stance is the same it's been.
That the benevolent god would foresee that men would end up warring each other over differences of opinions and it would come up with a better way to pass on its message.

Aside from that, I strongly recommend you to actually read (even just some excerpts of) his biography, especially the part after his migration to Medina, that of Montgomery Watt is particularly well-written and covers many aspects of his life. Again, whether you're a Muslim or not, we're talking about one of the most documented people -or probably THE most documented person - in the history of mankind, your simplistic assessment above is nothing more than the demonstrably wrong platitude "since Muhammad fought wars, these wars must have been about imposing Islam on people".

I honestly don't care about Muhammad. He's just the worst example of a prophet getting a message from a benevolent god and following it with the total opposite.

If you are assuming God's benevolence, then you have the additional theological question of why God would let Muhammad be the successful messenger that he was? I know this is not an issue for an atheist, but if you assume God's existence with some desirable properties, then it really should be taken into account. And, actually, God's benevolence is an important premise in any argument in favor of Muhammad's prophethood. Even the most hardened apologist can't get very far with a malevolent God.

The thing with a malevolent entity is that it can keep us guessing if any particular action is indeed malevolent or just a benevolent means to a malevolent end... or just temporarily benevolent.

A benevolent entity, on the other hand, is bound to always be benevolent.

Choosing Muhammad as a prophet, knowing full well that the military career would come out of it and all the strife between humans of different faiths, doesn't seem like the action of a benevolent god.
And add to it all the other prophets that this benevolent god has passed his message to. And all the religions and sects and cults that sprung from that and that resulted in them being attacked or attacking others.


All I'm saying, all I've been saying all along, is that all this human conflict could be avoided had god chosen to pass on its message without resorting to prophets. I suggested just passing it on directly to everyone, but maybe there's an even better way, I don't know.
What I know is that the method we see being exalted by the believers doesn't seem to be the product of a benevolent god.... if it is the product of a god at all.

But it can oh so easily be the product of human ingenuity.

[Ahriman]

God sent prophets so that His message could, potentially, be doubted.......He didn't want adherence to His message to be something everyone would agree with, because then everyone would have the same thoughts, and everyone would be a robot.

[arewethereyet]

God sent prophets so that His message could, potentially, be doubted.......He didn't want adherence to His message to be something everyone would agree with, because then everyone would have the same thoughts, and then everyone would be a robot.

So, way back when God was concerned about robots?

You are goofier than I originally thought.

[Ahriman]

God sent prophets so that His message could, potentially, be doubted.......He didn't want adherence to His message to be something everyone would agree with, because then everyone would have the same thoughts, and then everyone would be a robot.

So, way back when God was concerned about robots?

You are goofier than I originally thought.

God always knew what a robot would be, how it would behave, how it would think.......God does things a certain way, to avoid the possibility of humans becoming robots, because He knows that would not be a good thing for humanity.

[Angrboda]

Why is being like a robot bad?

[Ahriman]

Why is being like a robot bad?

Because robots are not in control of themselves, they are being controlled by some outside force/entity........imagine being forced to do everything you do. Instead of thinking, "I should take a shower", if you were a robot, there would be no thought process, you would just go take a shower, without thinking about it, basically like an animal........I know animals don't take showers, but they do other things without thinking about them. Being a robot would be a lower, and an undignified, state of being for a human. God is not interested in watching over a bunch of robots, He doesn't want slaves.

[pocaracas]

God sent prophets so that His message could, potentially, be doubted.......He didn't want adherence to His message to be something everyone would agree with, because then everyone would have the same thoughts, and everyone would be a robot.

So we get people rising to power and then enforcing rules that make people be like robots.




What's the value in doubting the message?

According to Kloro, the message is primarily "I exist, believe this one guy I randomly chose when he says that I exist".

I want to believe true things and disbelieve false things.
If this thing is true, then I want it to be believable. As it stands, it is so self-serving that I can't believe some people accept it.