Scientific knowledge versus spiritual knowledge

[God of Mr. Hanky]

To kind of illustrate how your objection doesn't make sense to me. If a person argues:

If God is benevolent, then there would be no evils/suffering in this world.
There are evils/suffering in this world.
God is not benevolent or doesn't exist.

Does it make sense to say "You have to believe in God to believe in that argument?". No because he is using it as a just hypothetical to argue that benevolent God is not compatible with this world. In other words he is using God to show God is impossible (specially if we define ultimate being as requiring to be benevolent (ie. to be worthy of ultimate reverence (worship) it must be benevolent).

That is not to say he is even assuming God exists or is even possible for the argument to work out. For example, it maybe God is rational impossibiltiy for other reasons (contradictions in attributes for example or whatever reason). However this argument works if premises are true regardless if God is possible or not. It doesn't assume he is.

I don't know what else I can show that I am not assuming a Creator exists for the argument to work, It's showing in a hypothetical world hypothetically in any possible world with any possible Creator sort of thing.

He would be using the idea of "God", not the god itself.

Anyway, there is evil and suffering in this world. With that obvious fact established, is god a nasty bastard, or is he nonexistent?

[The Grand Nudger]

That he keeps babbling on about a god assumption is yet another example of refusing to acknowledge those comments he has received, while leveraging a separate standard for sense.

Mystic...It doesn't matter whether or not you assume a god, or a creator.  You have failed to provide a valid argument structure..it doesn't matter what you plug into it, or even whether what you've plugged in is factually true.

[Mystic]

He would be  using the idea of "God", not the god itself.

As in hypothetically speaking...not assuming God must exist in that beginning premise for the argument to work out right?

The same thing is true with my argument.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Let's get this straight.

The reason (not for anything else) Theists are convinced by the moral argument or that goodness is linked to God is because they want to believe. Nothing else. 

So if this is true Atheists wanting to believe should make them reach the same conclusion as them. 

So I'm showing you by your statement, it would mean Atheists don't want to believe. 

If you say it's a factor, but not the only reason, then yes Atheists can want or not want to believe, but have different reasons for not believing. 

But then you shouldn't say Theists believe simply because they want to either.

So again, let's go back to the question, why do you think Theists (majority of the world) believe goodness is necessarily linked to God?

Probably because they haven't considered what it means to be good very much. I mean, well over 80% of the world's population are believers, and yet look what a shitty civilization they've built, what with cluster bombs and jihad and collateralized debt obligations and children starving in the streets even as bankers light cigars with $100 bills -- and what are you doing about it?

You're hectoring atheists on the Internet. That is your idea of doing good in this world?

If goodness is linked to God, then explain cancer, tsunamis, droughts, earthquakes, SIDS -- and your curious inaction in the face of it all. Go on -- I'll wait.

[The Grand Nudger]

-and again, Mystic, whether or not you assume a creator, for any purpose...and whether or not there is a creator - of any kind..is irrelevant as to why you have failed to convince. But lets talk about that endlessly, at least we won't have to discuss those criticisms of our "argument" that we do not wish to acknowledge.

[Mystic]

-and again, Mystic, whether or not you assume a creator, for any purpose...and whether or not there is a creator - of any kind..is irrelevant as to why you have failed to convince.  But lets talk about that endlessly, at least we won't have to discuss those criticisms of our "argument" that we do not wish to acknowledge.

That was her objection though, to her it is relevant, she is saying I'm taking for granted God exists for the argument to work. So I'm trying to get her past that. So that we can discuss other parts of the argument.

[LadyForCamus]

No.  We just DON'T.  "Want" has nothing to do with it.  I have corrected you on this TWICE already in this thread.  This makes three. Why don't you begin by actually reading and comprehending what people write to you before you throw assertions around.  It is very insulting that you refuse to accept my world view.  It is the theist's great straw man to say atheists just don't WAN'T to believe.  Let it go.

Let's get this straight.

The reason (not for anything else) Theists are convinced by the moral argument or that goodness is linked to God is because they want to believe. Nothing else. 

So if this is true Atheists wanting to believe should make them reach the same conclusion as them. 

So I'm showing you by your statement, it would mean Atheists don't want to believe. 

If you say it's a factor, but not the only reason, then yes Atheists can want or not want to believe, but have different reasons for not believing. 

But then you shouldn't say Theists believe simply because they want to either.

So again, let's go back to the question, why do you think Theists (majority of the world) believe goodness is necessarily linked to God?

Mystic,

If there can hypothetically be a god, then there also can hypothetically be NO God, you understand? You don't realize that when you use the word 'hypothetical' you are admitting that your theory can just as well be incorrect (if not MORE likely to be), and you render yourself incapable of proving one way or the other.

Why theists have morality all tied up with God belief is beyond me. Because they were raised with it, maybe? But it is really only a crutch. There are many moral atheists in the world, on these forums, so doesn't that fact alone disprove your "theory"?

[Mystic]

You're hectoring atheists on the Internet. That is your idea of doing good in this world?

First of all, I'm not going to show off all my "good" deeds, and what I believe I am doing for the world as a response to this.

But one thing I will say, is that when I became first sick, it was due to 9/11 and it shocked me. I was so shocked, that it triggered my illness. For all I know, if was not that, my genes for schizophrenia would just be that genes, that give a chance of it happening, but no trigger.

In university I started off with computer science but then decided to study political science even though I knew there would be no jobs in it. I wanted to come up with a way to help the world, to change the situation. I studied the situation, and I realized, this was not the means. 

I went back to computer science. Two years I studied it, and believe me, I wanted to find a way to change the world. That is what motivated me. I didn't care about money or what not, but I realized it was a delusional thing, to think I can change the whole world through some sort of political science theory and economics, and what not. 

I've realized now however there is a movement, a catalyst from God's hand, that will bring justice to the world and peace to it. I believe I am part of that movement and will try to hasten the victory of that movement. I will not go into much details, but I do have a personal plan of my own of what role I will play to help this cause. I am working on it, and at the same time, trying to combat my schizophrenia and get my life together.

That said, I'm not going to ask what you have done or get you to explain yourself of what role you want to have in helping this world.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Quit blathering and answer my point:

Probably because they [believers] haven't considered what it means to be good very much.  I mean, well over 80% of the world's population are believers, and yet look what a shitty civilization they've built, what with cluster bombs and jihad and collateralized debt obligations and children starving in the streets even as bankers light cigars with $100 bills -- and what are you doing about it?

You're hectoring atheists on the Internet. That is your idea of doing good in this world?

If goodness is linked to God, then explain cancer, tsunamis, droughts, earthquakes, SIDS --  and your curious inaction in the face of it all.  Go on -- I'll wait.

If goodness is attached to godly belief, why have you believers built such a shitty world?

Your premise is undermined by the facts at hand. You're either honest enough to admit it, or not.

[The Grand Nudger]

-and again, Mystic, whether or not you assume a creator, for any purpose...and whether or not there is a creator - of any kind..is irrelevant as to why you have failed to convince.  But lets talk about that endlessly, at least we won't have to discuss those criticisms of our "argument" that we do not wish to acknowledge.

That was her objection though, to her it is relevant, she is saying I'm taking for granted God exists for the argument to work. So I'm trying to get her past that. So that we can discuss other parts of the argument.

Good for her?  Nevertheless, was there anything you wished to respond to in my comment, just quoted, other than something that neither you nor I disagree upon? I don't think that an assumption of god, or the lack of an assumption of god has any bearing on the failure of your arguments (tbh...doesn't seem like she thinks that either). If you made the assumption, if you didn't make the assumption...no matter, they fail for entirely unrelated reasons.