Answers needed

[robvalue]

It does seem that way. I really don't get it.

There's always an assumption it seems when someone is trying to convince me god exists. They think his existence automatically leads to me demeaning myself in some act of toadying around on the floor and begging for mercy/righteousness/salvation/whatever.

No thanks. I have a bit more self respect than that.

If some mental case holds a gun to my head, sure I'll pretend to worship them, or do whatever they want, until I can get away from them. But here there is no gun, and if the god exists it's a frickin god, so the idea it would be impressed with me pretending to worship it is a bit dumb.

[Louis Chérubin]

---

---

I guess I left out some important info in favour of succinctness. These points corresponds to your above paragraphs.

1. If you read Genesis you'll find that man's sin brought a curse on nature (supposedly). Therefore, his free choice to sin brought the natural evil. Also (this is going to sound wacky), man, in a state of rebellion against God (free will), technically deserves nothing but hell. Thus, anything before death, even the horrors of nature, is better than what he deserves (that's what's called grace).

Your position is self-contradictory.  You previously stated "People suffer because of sin (which came because God created man with a free will, the best possible creation)."  If this is the best possible creation, then the best possible entails sin.

2. Free will is the power to act apart from natural constraints. According to naturalism, it is simply an illusion. However, any practical naturalist epistemology requires the assumption that man can reason. If you make the assumption that one part of man's consciousness is trustworthy (which is against pure naturalistic logic), it seems logical to me to make the assumption that free will also is. This seems most consistent to me personally.

3. Free will in heaven? Free will isn't the cause of sin, it simply allows it. The Bible says that heaven will in the future be composed only of followers of God. Those who have chosen to continue their rebellion against God will be elsewhere. . . .

If there were a good god, it would simply make those who would be good, and not bother making the bad ones.  Making bad people is simply making souls for being tortured forever, which is evil.

4. I never said that God doesn't interfere with the outcomes of free will. My favourite book (take a guess) gives some examples of this. However, God has perfect right (being the creator and offended party) to judge man however he wills, including by using other men. The punishment of the ancient Israelites through contemporary Middle Eastern powers is a perfect example. I am not in the place of God, though, so I'm sorry to say I would have to interrupt our picnic. 

I hope this helps clarify my worldview.

It shows that you have not thought it through to have a consistent view of god.  If god were perfectly good, he would not want any unnecessary suffering.  And yet, according to your story, god creates things in order for them to suffer, and does not care to stop suffering when god is perfectly capable of stopping it.  Your description of god is with god being a sadist.

Hi Pyrrho,

If you want to understand where I'm coming from, please go review Augustine's theodicy.   Basically, a creature with free will that sins is greater than a creature without free will that doesn't sin (ex. a robot or a child). I know its kind of lame to pass the argument off to Augustine, but I have a final exam in less than two hours!

---

So... God has the right to do what he wants, because no one can stop him?

Otherwise known as might makes right?

He isn't doing just whatever he wants. He is judging man (his creature) for man's rebellion against himself. In the Christian worldview, you can't understand God if you take away any of the attributes the Bible ascribes to him, especially his justice and holiness. In the beginning, before the first sin, God promised a penalty (death, remember?). It would be unjust for him to ignore man's sin. And yes, God has every right to define what is right and wrong in his creation.

I need to think a bit more about your other posts too.

[MJ the Skeptical]

Hi everyone!

I'm not sure whether this is the right place to post this, but I'd really appreciate some answers to some/all of the following questions. I'm interested in how an average atheist thinks about these topics. It would be great if you could give some explanation for your answers. I'm coming from a protestant worldview.

1. Does God exist?
2. Where did the universe come from?
3. Does my life have a purpose?
4. Why do people suffer?
5. Is there life after death?
6. Can I distinguish right from wrong?
7. Can people know truth?

Sorry for being point form. 

1) Which one? if anything none of them seem to be more than mythology.
2) Why does it have to come from somewhere? Why couldn't it just always be here in some form?
3) Purpose is self-imposed by sentient beings, I can't tell you your purpose or if your life has any.
4) Neurological systems in the brain, without a complex brain suffering is not possible.
5) That kind of defeats the meaning of death doesn't it? if you think humans survive their death, then what else survives it's death? no life seems to do such a thing.
6) I don't know, can you? moral agents with empathy can. Just like the purpose question, We can't answer this for you, it's something you either can distinguish or you can't.
7) This is gibberish, know truth about what, it's a vague and open-ended question

[robvalue]

Louie: cool That's all I ever ask is that people give things some thought, whatever conclusions they reach.

[Louis Chérubin]

Not enough fossil evidence! (you mean compared to none for god)
I think we both know that NO amount of fossil evidence will sway your belief. (otherwise your indoctrination would not be successful)
We also both know that proving evolution wrong does not make the imaginary skydaddy the next likely reason for our existence.
I you are a believer, you have no choice but to see the world through rose coloured glasses. Speak to the many here who have recently deconverted.
Your automatic subconscious agenda is for a god to be the creator. We, as atheists, don't care one way or the other. I'll change my mind tomorrow.
All you have to do is to prove that god exists outside your head ... There's a nobel prize in it for you.
Most theists proof lately has been "because the sky is blue" or "only god can make a beautiful flower"

catch...

Hey. You were supposed to ignore that!   Feel free to discuss the first two points I made if you'd like.

---

1. Human thought: When I believe that my thoughts are valid, I implicitly recognize supernatural reality. The problem is, I can’t not believe in the validity of my thoughts. Even if I say, “My thoughts are not valid,” I am trusting that my lack of trust in my thoughts is valid. (!?) If I say, “My thoughts are the result of chemical interactions,” I’m essentially saying, “My thoughts are not valid,” since what basis do I have to think that chemical reactions would produce rational thought?
   

I think that is the argument used by CS Lewis (though please correct me if I'm wrong), which I'll quote here for reference (from C.S. Lewis, Miracles, 1947):

All possible knowledge, then, depends on the validity of reasoning. If the feeling of certainty which we express by words like must be and therefore and since is a real perception of how things outside our minds really 'must' be, well and good. But if this certainty is merely a feeling in our own minds and not a genuine insight into the realities beyond them - if it merely represents the way our minds happen to work - then we can have no knowledge. Unless human reasoning is valid no science can be true.

It follows that no account of the universe can be true unless that account leaves it possible for our thinking to be a real insight. A theory which explained everything else in the universe but which made it impossible to believe our thinking was valid, would be utterly out of court. For that theory would itself have been reached by thinking, and if thinking is not valid that theory would, of course, be itself demolished. It would have destroyed its own credentials. It would be an argument which proved that no argument was sound - a proof that there were no such things as proofs - which is nonsense.

Thus a strict materialism refutes itself for the reason given long ago by Professor Haldane: 'If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.' (Possible Worlds)

I have to be honest it makes no more sense to me when you say it than when he does. I'm not trying to be obstinate here - I genuinely don't get it and accept that that may make me an idiot. I would like to understand it though so can you or anyone tell me a) what this means and b) if it's a valid argument. Thanks

C. S. Lewis did word it nicely. The very fact that he used it gives it tremendous weight, right?    I'm sorry you don't follow. We must be on slightly different brain waves.

---

Some people, it seems, have a desperate need to seek out the most powerful thing they can imagine and then prostrate themselves before it. It's even sadder when there's no reason even to suspect the thing is there at all.

Are you bashing Anselm, Descartes, and Leibniz!? Btw, did you ever look at that Dawkins video? I wasted at least four minutes searching for it. I'm still feeling miffed you thought I was lying.   JK

---

1. Does God exist?

Depends on what you think gods are.

2. Where did the universe come from?

The universe is very old, very large and the answers are hard to come by.

3. Does my life have a purpose?

That is entirely up to you.

4. Why do people suffer?

Design flaw.

5. Is there life after death?

So far, yes.  The names change but yes, life goes on after they bury your sorry ass.

6. Can I distinguish right from wrong?

Not if you're dependent on a holy book.  But it is easier than it looks.

7. Can people know truth?

It requires some care.  Once you pervert the meaning of "believe" to mean "assuming what you like", it becomes almost impossible.  If you care about the truth you've got to maintain standards.

Sorry for being point form.  copy/pasting from the internet.

Fixed that (the part I bolded) for you.

1. We've already had a messy god definition discussion. Please assign whatever meaning you feel like. . .

4. "Design flaw." Did you really mean to use that wording?


I actually didn't copy/paste, but why would that be wrong? Computers would be entirely worthless without such a function! I'm not claiming that these are original thoughts either. 

Thanks for responding anyway!

[emjay]

Human thought: When I believe that my thoughts are valid, I implicitly recognize supernatural reality. The problem is, I can’t not believe in the validity of my thoughts. Even if I say, “My thoughts are not valid,” I am trusting that my lack of trust in my thoughts is valid. (!?) If I say, “My thoughts are the result of chemical interactions,” I’m essentially saying, “My thoughts are not valid,” since what basis do I have to think that chemical reactions would produce rational thought?

I think that is the argument used by CS Lewis (though please correct me if I'm wrong), which I'll quote here for reference (from C.S. Lewis, Miracles, 1947):

All possible knowledge, then, depends on the validity of reasoning. If the feeling of certainty which we express by words like must be and therefore and since is a real perception of how things outside our minds really 'must' be, well and good. But if this certainty is merely a feeling in our own minds and not a genuine insight into the realities beyond them - if it merely represents the way our minds happen to work - then we can have no knowledge. Unless human reasoning is valid no science can be true.

It follows that no account of the universe can be true unless that account leaves it possible for our thinking to be a real insight. A theory which explained everything else in the universe but which made it impossible to believe our thinking was valid, would be utterly out of court. For that theory would itself have been reached by thinking, and if thinking is not valid that theory would, of course, be itself demolished. It would have destroyed its own credentials. It would be an argument which proved that no argument was sound - a proof that there were no such things as proofs - which is nonsense.

Thus a strict materialism refutes itself for the reason given long ago by Professor Haldane: 'If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.' (Possible Worlds)

I have to be honest it makes no more sense to me when you say it than when he does. I'm not trying to be obstinate here - I genuinely don't get it and accept that that may make me an idiot. I would like to understand it though so can you or anyone tell me a) what this means and b) if it's a valid argument. Thanks

C. S. Lewis did word it nicely. The very fact that he used it gives it tremendous weight, right? I'm sorry you don't follow. We must be on slightly different brain waves.

Okay so it is the same argument, at least you answered that. As a matter of fact yes, it would have given it weight, but probably only to me, because CS Lewis is the only Christian author that speaks to me - usually. I've also read The Problem of Pain and the Great Divorce and I thought both of them were great books, that almost made me want to become a Christian again. But however beautiful his words are and however thoughtful his interpretation of it all is, as soon as you close the book and are out of the trance, all you're left with is the Bible. Thank you for your time.

[Barefoot]

Thanks for your answers! Two follow-up questions:
1. Since the universe started with the big-bang, where did cellular life (evidence of design) come from?

Evidence of design? Funny how you threw that in there.

Corrected quote attribution -- Stimbo

[Thumpalumpacus]

Why do you "need" these answers? And are you incapable of finding those answers for yourself?

[comet]

Hi everyone!

I'm not sure whether this is the right place to post this, but I'd really appreciate some answers to some/all of the following questions. I'm interested in how an average atheist thinks about these topics. It would be great if you could give some explanation for your answers. I'm coming from a protestant worldview.

1. Does God exist?
2. Where did the universe come from?
3. Does my life have a purpose?
4. Why do people suffer?
5. Is there life after death?
6. Can I distinguish right from wrong?
7. Can people know truth?

Sorry for being point form. 

need som traits.
dont know
don't know
bell curve it
don't know
yes
why not.

[brewer]

Why do you "need" these answers? And are you incapable of finding those answers for yourself?

Figure it our your self. Use the net. He has an ulterior motive. Why do you think I got no response to my previous post?