What/Who created God?

[fr0d0]

To me, rational doesn't have to include the independently verifiable, which I'm guessing is your condition here.

It doesn't depend on being independently verifiable, there is also the option of logical necessity. Shame that you have neither.

Now now

Sure if your model was consistent I'd consider it as an alternative. I do consider atheism a viable alternative. I hold my current world view despite it being based on non verifiable evidence. I don't eliminate it because of that. To me it's the more rational choice. (No insult intended in my use of the word rational)

What is this non-verifiable evidence you speak of?

The bible primarily.

Also, would you like to expand on that idea that 'holding a worldview despite the lack of evidence indicating and logical necessity requiring it is more rational than withholding judgement'? I can assure you it is not.

Misquote (you omitted non verifiable). I do rationalise my world view logically.

I have rationalised it using the method above. "We can't know the mind of God", or : I credit God with having the knowledge to decide fairly given all possibilities. We may find it unfair, but then we can't know what God knows, so our conclusions aren't fully informed.

So you have nothing beyond the stock standard absolving of one's own moral compass... How very typical of you.

You don't see the logic there?

God, being all knowing, can be totally just, where we cannot be just : based on complete knowledge. Therefore we have no right to judge without all the information. Rationalising the God concept, I conclude that God is a positive force, and as such has to be just.

Scientists said that continental drift enabled life on earth and so justify the associated loss of life. I agree with that reasoning too.

So God couldn't create life without first moving the plates about?

I was talking about the conclusion of a group of scientists & not God

Also, i completely fail to see how you can equate the act of your god neglecting to aid the suffering of innocence with "natural mechanism". Beyond your hollow assertions of God caring and all that jazz, how exactly does your god differ from an algorithm?

Are we still talking of the scientists conclusion? Yeah to me, I see natural forces as paramount and human suffering unsubstantial in the grand scheme of things. We are a speck in the universe that will be gone in a nanosecond in relation to our universes time scale.

I don't think it's a hollow assertion, I think it is part of a cohesive model. That model does not prescribe for humanity to have a charmed existence without suffering.

---

I'm more than willing to accept that the topic I started with you is off-kilter from the topic you had with Tavarish. I've only skimmed through parts of this thread and chimed in when I had something relevant to say.
Still, I don't see how I'm off-topic from the conversation you were having earlier or from the main topic of this thread from any instant I look at earlier pages in this thread.
Given that, I have no reason to believe that my imput is irrelevant to any of the topics being discussed.

I'm having a conversation with VOID. tavarish chimed in with a point which you backed up. That conversation is my only interest in this topic. You're trying to engage me in a subject I have no interest in. You are of course at liberty and very welcome to add to the thread/ topic all you wish, and address me. For the reasons stated, I respectfully decline a discussion on the topic of existence with you, for the reasons stated above, unless you wish to discuss the validity of using scientific method with a philosophical idea. I'm sure you don't, and it's sort of the discussion we're having already in another thread. No hard feelings