The Theism/Atheism Discussion

[Samuel Dravis]

SS: Or you could simply say that God has free will because he is not being pressured by any (literally any) external conditions. Like you say, he couldn't change his mind, but that wouldn't indicate a flaw in God but rather a concept being applied where it doesn't belong. This wouldn't change the result, just the way it's described.

 

Or, you could answer it in your way, in which it creates a universe as "objectively" meaningless as one without a God. Either way seems like it would be unappetizing to a believer.

 

Jvstice: I am not very familiar with Skinner's work, but if he based it on empirical evidence then it is not the same kind of determinism as Devon's argument. Devon's is based on logical necessity while empirical determinism is "only" based on evidence - meaning it isn't logically necessary that its predictions will always be accurate.

 

As for the assumptions of the argument, I am curious what you think some of the consequences that God not being understanding the laws of human behavior would be. Obviously we don't want our decisions to be capricious, in to a large extent they aren't. I am having a difficult time understanding what it would mean for God to, e.g., create something when he doesn't know how it works in the first place. On the other hand, if even God can't understand what we do or why we do it, what reason would he have for punishing people?

[Jvstice]

Samuel: B. F. Skinner was the father/founder of modern behaviorism. And though his hypotheses and conclusions were mostly based on evidence, some of them went a little beyond the evidence. He did say that it is not necessary to understand how the mind works in order to understand how people actually behave. That led to an almost quantum leap in our understandings of human and animal behaviors. I'd say that of most of psychology, his branch has more concrete data than most other forms, because it doesn't depend on surveys or self report, but direct observation by impartial observers only, hence the name, Behaviorism.

 

At times, he and his most ardent followers went a little bit further and advocated that behavior was all there was, and that the mind was irrelevant. In that claim is where I'd say he went beyond the evidence. On the minus side, you can still find a lot of behaviorists who will argue vehemently that animals do not have the capacity for thoughts or feelings because such things can't be observed, and have been responsible to a degree for other fields of science mistreating animals out of the belief that it really doesn't matter to the animals. (You might read Jane Goodall's in the Shadow of Man or Sue Savage Rumbaugh's books if you're interested in people that have been negatively affected by this attitude from large parts of the scientific community.

 

Politically, most behaviorists tend to be against punishment as a means of social engineering, saying that it's not effective, and governments should work on encouraging positive behaviors. Most acknowledge privately that different things can serve to reinforce positive behaviors for different people, but there are still a lot of them that advocate one size fits all reinforcement as though everyone found the same things equally pleasant or unpleasant.

 

From what I've seen, it's effective on an individual level as long as it's applied consistently and that you not discount that other sciences that came after have contributed to human understandings. Some of the more dogmatic behaviorists would argue to this day that what they discovered is all there is to understand about human behavior and that understanding the mind is utterly pointless because it's not something that has a real existence.

 

Behaviorism laid a foundation technologically in which the social sciences started in the US could exist. Social psychology puts that in a context of how an individual acts in society. Personality psychology studies how individuals differ. True, both of them use methods that are less often empirical, but both have a high degree of predictive value depending on your purpose, and some of the studies in both areas of science were emperical (the prison experiment Achilles mentioned earlier for example, or the Milgram experiment is one that shows how people respond to authority, where Bandura's studied both violence and belief using empirical methods).

 

Achilles: Do you have enough power to beat yourself armwrestling? It's a circular question. Ditto to the one you posed.

[Achilles]

Achilles: Do you have enough power to beat yourself armwrestling? It's a circular question. Ditto to the one you posed.

I'm aware that the question I posed presents a paradox. This is only a problem if you insist on concluding that god is all-powerful. If you remove that requirement, then you're simply left with a question that doesn't make a lot of sense. As such, I'm not sure what your point is. Would you mind clarifying?

[Jvstice]

Actually no matter how you look at it, it's a question that doesn't make a lot of sense.

[Achilles]

Indeed contradictions tend not to make a lot of sense.

 

If god is all-powerful then he should be able to create a rock that he cannot lift. Similarly, if god is all-powerful then he should also be able to lift the rock.

 

You can accuse it of being a silly question, or you can acknowledge that the argument that god is all-powerful results in contradictions (or you can read a bunch of apologetics which will attempt to distract you from the question by offering up a bunch of guesswork).

[Jvstice]

How much power does it take to beat oneself at any feat of strength? I don't just accuse it of being a silly question, but state that it's a meaningless one.

[SilentScope001]

SS: Or you could simply say that God has free will because he is not being pressured by any (literally any) external conditions. Like you say, he couldn't change his mind, but that wouldn't indicate a flaw in God but rather a concept being applied where it doesn't belong. This wouldn't change the result, just the way it's described.

 

Or, you could answer it in your way, in which it creates a universe as "objectively" meaningless as one without a God. Either way seems like it would be unappetizing to a believer.

 

Meh. Well, to be quite honest, the goal was to present a view of the universe that would be unappetizing to ED, since it does appear that he assumes that God can choose what he wants to do, or change his mind, or whatever. If I present such a universe that would be unappetizing to ED, then I can see if he would wish to reserve his arguments or beliefs, or counter them.

 

Any devoted person would long ago abandon logic to the winds.

[SpartanPride]

Indeed contradictions tend not to make a lot of sense.

 

If god is all-powerful then he should be able to create a rock that he cannot lift. Similarly, if god is all-powerful then he should also be able to lift the rock.

 

You can accuse it of being a silly question, or you can acknowledge that the argument that god is all-powerful results in contradictions (or you can read a bunch of apologetics which will attempt to distract you from the question by offering up a bunch of guesswork).

 

Here's a theory I came up with.

 

A popular Christian belief is Hell. Now, Hell would constantly have to expand to hold everyone who has ever died not a Christian.

 

So since God created Hell, and it's constantly expanding, could God be constantly expanding? In mighty-ness and all? (I know mighty-ness is not a word )

 

God claims he is a jealous God, so why would he create something (Like Hell) that does something he doesn't?

 

God could've created the rock so he could not lift it, but grew mightier and lifted it after.

 

*I know this is off-the-wall, but... I'm just going to throw it out their for people to consider*

[Achilles]

How much power does it take to beat oneself at any feat of strength?

I'm afraid that I don't follow the analogy as the rock and god would be separate things.

 

I don't just accuse it of being a silly question, but state that it's a meaningless one.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. I, for one, think that god's omnipotence is key to the available arguments for his existence. If simple question poses a hindrance for this premise, then I would consider that to be pretty meaningful.

 

Here's a theory I came up with.

 

A popular Christian belief is Hell. Now, Hell would constantly have to expand to hold everyone who has ever died not a Christian.

Except that we don't have any evidence for hell either. So first we have suspend skepticism to accept the existence of hell, then we have to suspend it again to accept the argument that it is expanding (and a third time to accept that there are people there and a fouth time to accept that all the people are the cause for expansion, etc).

 

So since God created Hell, and it's constantly expanding, could God be constantly expanding? In mighty-ness and all? (I know mighty-ness is not a word )

Indeed that could be happening. What evidence do we have that would cause us to think that it is happening?

 

God claims he is a jealous God, so why would he create something (Like Hell) that does something he doesn't?

Good question. How would he create a rock that he couldn't lift? How would he create beings that are capable of doing things that he does not allow (and still be more powerful than them)?

 

God could've created the rock so he could not lift it, but grew mightier and lifted it after.

Congratulations sir, you appear to have just surpassed Descartes, Aquinas, and Lewis in your ability to come up with something that actually looks like an answer. Unfortunately though this is subject to the same flaw as their arguments in that we're still guessing at an answer rather than knowing one.

 

Not to mention the fact that god would have been "not all-powerful" when he created the rock. Or that now that he is more powerful he can create a heavier rock

 

*I know this is off-the-wall, but... I'm just going to throw it out their for people to consider*

I appreciate the response. Take care.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

How much power does it take to beat oneself at any feat of strength? I don't just accuse it of being a silly question, but state that it's a meaningless one.

Dude, my right arm would totally kick my left arm's ass.

[Achilles]

I'm ambidextrous, so someone might want to start taking odds.

[SpartanPride]

Except that we don't have any evidence for hell either. So first we have suspend skepticism to accept the existence of hell, then we have to suspend it again to accept the argument that it is expanding (and a third time to accept that there are people there and a fouth time to accept that all the people are the cause for expansion, etc).

 

Only three times actually

If Hell exists, it has to be there for a purpose, which is, unfortently to keep people there.

 

Truthfully, I must leave this issue for someone else as I am not educated well in this part of Christianity. Achilles, I will study this area of the Bible, and read someone elses findings, so I will argue about this later.

 

Indeed that could be happening. What evidence do we have that would cause us to think that it is happening?

 

If God exists as an all-powerful being, it would be impossible for something *like* this not to be happening. But like I said, this a theory I just came up with today.

 

Good question. How would he create a rock that he couldn't lift? How would he create beings that are capable of doing things that he does not allow (and still be more powerful than them)?

 

Man, I'm really having a hassle understanding this (It's probably not your post not making sense, it's probably me being plain stupid ). What do you mean by creating beings that do things he doesn't allow? Do you mean he created beings that sinned?

 

If so, why would God want to sin in the first place?

 

Congratulations sir, you appear to have just surpassed Descartes, Aquinas, and Lewis in your ability to come up with something that actually looks like an answer. Unfortunately though this is subject to the same flaw as their arguments in that we're still guessing at an answer rather than knowing one.

 

Really, there is no way of being 100 % sure of knowing an answer until we die, and either rot in a coffin for eternity or continue on to an after life.

 

Not to mention the fact that god would have been "not all-powerful" when he created the rock. Or that now that he is more powerful he can create a heavier rock

 

Or maybe he grows too fast? He could create as many rocks as he wants, and this theory would just loop itself.

 

Here's a paradox (I think, truth is, I barely know what "Paradox" means. The first time I heard it was in a Futurama episode )

 

If God is iffinity, (as has been argued), is it even possible that something could be bigger than iffinity?

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

I'm ambidextrous, so someone might want to start taking odds.

I have a whole folder of stuff to give a bit of an edge to one arm.

[Darth InSidious]

SpartanPride, your theory would only really work if time were a useful concept in relation to God - which, under concepts of deity usually accepted, it is not.

[SpartanPride]

SpartanPride, your theory would only really work if time were a useful concept in relation to God - which, under concepts of deity usually accepted, it is not.

 

Maybe it is a useful concept to God. It says in the Bible on the seventh day God rested, after all.

[Arcesious]

I haven't had time to thoroughly read every post, but if this hasn't been though tof already, I'll mention it now, even though I'm agnostic.

 

Perhaps, in theory, this is all an elaborate experiment among nearly infinite other experiments, used by a 'God'...

Maybe, God can't suddenly know everything at the beginning of his existence, so in order to discover his true purpose, he would use his power to create all kinds of experiments in which he attempts to accertain the nature of his existence, and to acheive infinite knowledge...

 

See, think of things this way: Would God's only purpose be to save ad guide mankind? What with eternal life and all? What is the point of that? Eternal life, for what? That's just too simple, IMO, of a purpose for a God with those 3 main omnis to have, due to the assumed nature of God. He obviously, if he is so intelligent and wise, be seeking of eventually figuring out how to fulfill an ultimate purpose he has not yet figured out, as there would be no lasting relevent purpose of simply living forever for one whom knows all, is all, and can do all...

 

A theory with no proof however, but one for consideration...

[SpartanPride]

I haven't had time to thoroughly read every post, but if this hasn't been though tof already, I'll mention it now, even though I'm agnostic.

 

Perhaps, in theory, this is all an elaborate experiment among nearly infinite other experiments, used by a 'God'...

Maybe, God can't suddenly know everything at the beginning of his existence, so in order to discover his true purpose, he would use his power to create all kinds of experiments in which he attempts to accertain the nature of his existence, and to acheive infinite knowledge...

 

See, think of things this way: Would God's only purpose be to save ad guide mankind? What with eternal life and all? What is the point of that? Eternal life, for what? That's just too simple, IMO, of a purpose for a God with those 3 main omnis to have, due to the assumed nature of God. He obviously, if he is so intelligent and wise, be seeking of eventually figuring out how to fulfill an ultimate purpose he has not yet figured out, as there would be no lasting relevent purpose of simply living forever for one whom knows all, is all, and can do all...

 

A theory with no proof however, but one for consideration...

 

Well, I'd hate to get back into the "Because of Love" thing again, but I think that's what this really ties down to.

 

God claims he is a God of Love in the Bible, and, he wanted something to love him, so he created us.

 

God didn't originally intend for Heaven to be for us, but because of when Adam and Eve sinned, he had to formulate a plan.

 

So because he loves us, he lets us go to Heaven to live with him.

 

As John 3:16 says,

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, so that whoever believes in him shall not persish but have eternal life."

 

Or something like that, it's just coming off the top of my head.

[Achilles]

Only three times actually

If Hell exists, it has to be there for a purpose, which is, unfortently to keep people there.

Most judeo-christians assume that, yes. We don't know that though. How would you prove that the flying spagetti monster didn't create it to keep his noodly appendages warm?

 

Truthfully, I must leave this issue for someone else as I am not educated well in this part of Christianity. Achilles, I will study this area of the Bible, and read someone elses findings, so I will argue about this later.

Sounds good. I sincerely look forward to it.

 

If God exists as an all-powerful being, it would be impossible for something *like* this not to be happening. But like I said, this a theory I just came up with today.

Why could we not assume that an all-powerful god would've known how many souls he needed to hold and simply made hell that size to begin with? See how many assumptions we can make about something and still not know for sure? I find it amazing.

 

Man, I'm really having a hassle understanding this (It's probably not your post not making sense, it's probably me being plain stupid ).

Not stupid at all. It's what you feed your brain, not how big it is

 

What do you mean by creating beings that do things he doesn't allow?

Take a computer program for instance. Have you ever heard of a computer program that did something it was not coded to do? Crashes and bugs are the result of the limitations of the program's creator (hardware issues excluded), not the program itself. Therefore, people can only do things that are within the programming put forth by god.

 

If god created people with sin intentionally, then he isn't good, but then again, we can't say that sin is evidence that he isn't all-powerful. This is the only scenario in which god "allows" everything to happen. The following are the other possibilities.

 

God created people with sin, but then sin is a "bug" or "glitch", and he isn't all-powerful. But then again, we can't say that sin is evidence that he isn't good.

 

God created people without sin, but somehow we managed to aquire it anyway. In that case, something "hacked" god's work and we cannot say that god is all-powerful (furthermore, something else must have created the thing that did the hacking and it must have been more powerful than either god or "the hacker". Unless of course the hacker wasn't planned for and then we continue the infinite regression here...well, infinitely).

 

It's situations like this that cause most atheists to conclude that while we cannot rule out the existence of god, his likelihood of his being real is pretty slim anyway. None of it stands up to basic reasoning.

 

Do you mean he created beings that sinned?

Yep. Of the available scenarios, that is the one that makes more sense than the others.

 

If so, why would God want to sin in the first place?

Another very good question.

 

Really, there is no way of being 100 % sure of knowing an answer until we die, and either rot in a coffin for eternity or continue on to an after life.

Right and if the rotting is true, then technically we still wouldn't have an answer, would we?

 

Or maybe he grows too fast? He could create as many rocks as he wants, and this theory would just loop itself.

Yep

 

Here's a paradox (I think, truth is, I barely know what "Paradox" means. The first time I heard it was in a Futurama episode )

 

Main Entry:

par·a·dox Listen to the pronunciation of paradox

Pronunciation: <snipped>

Function:

noun

Etymology:

Latin paradoxum, from Greek paradoxon, from neuter of paradoxos contrary to expectation, from para- + dokein to think, seem — more at decent

Date:

1540

 

1: a tenet contrary to received opinion2 a: a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true b: a self-contradictory statement that at first seems true c: an argument that apparently derives self-contradictory conclusions by valid deduction from acceptable premises3: one (as a person, situation, or action) having seemingly contradictory qualities or phases

 

If God is iffinity, (as has been argued), is it even possible that something could be bigger than iffinity?

No because it would be impossible to distinguish between god and the expansion.

[mimartin]

No because it would be impossible to distinguish between god and the expansion.

I’m going to regret this, but…my small brain cannot wrap around this. 1st Why would you have to distinguish between God and the expansion? 2nd Isn’t it impossible for something to be larger than infinity, simply because infinity has no end?

[SpartanPride]

Most judeo-christians assume that, yes. We don't know that though. How would you prove that the flying spagetti monster didn't create it to keep his noodly appendages warm?

 

It's hard to prove anything about Hell, and I am humble enough to give you that.

 

Really, this is what I think about the existence of Hell;

Some of the things in the Bible ARE based on solid evidence. The thing is, if anything in the Bible is false, the whole religon is false and cannot be real. So based on the fact that their is no evidence that proves they don't exist, if I am a Christian, I have to believe that Hell does exist.

 

I hope that makes sense to you. I'm not the best at explaining things.

 

Why could we not assume that an all-powerful god would've known how many souls he needed to hold and simply made hell that size to begin with? See how many assumptions we can make about something and still not know for sure? I find it amazing.

 

Hell was created before the existence of humanity, and we originally created for Lucifer (Satan) and his angels that followed him.

 

 

Yep. Of the available scenarios, that is the one that makes more sense than the others.

 

God didn't make us with sin, he made us with free will. Thanks to Adam and Eve, they abused their free will, and now there is sin... not God's fault at all. He gave people free will so they could love God and not be robots.

 

Right and if the rotting is true, then technically we still wouldn't have an answer, would we?

 

Nope, not until we die. Which is wierd, because I sort of look forward to Death, to figure this all out. (Unless I'm rotting, in which case I won't be able to )

 

 

No because it would be impossible to distinguish between god and the expansion.

 

Which is why God is reffered to being incomparable

[Arcesious]

StartanPride, how can you be sure God loves us? It is very easily possible that this could be an experiment created my God in which humans debate his existence and purpose, and he learns what effects science and religion and such have and what their purposes are, and what he can learn from them. For example, finding out what a sentient being's reaction to a religious proposition such as heaven and hell is. However, this is still in the realm of assumtion, we must all remember...

[SpartanPride]

StartanPride, how can you be sure God loves us? It is very easily possible that this could be an experiment created my God in which humans debate his existence and purpose, and he learns what effects science and religion and such have and what their purposes are, and what he can learn from them. For example, finding out what a sentient being's reaction to a religious proposition such as heaven and hell is. However, this is still in the realm of assumtion, we must all remember...

 

God claims he a God of Love, and if he is not telling the truth, he is not a perfect being, which is pretty much was God is based off of.

 

Perhaps Arcesious, we are a computer program. I'm a program, everything that exists is a program, maybe God himself is a program. But no matter what, whether he is a program or real, he is a God of love.

 

I'm going to go back to what Achilles keeps on nailing people (Including me) about, is evidence. That could be happening, but what proof is there that it is happening?

[Arcesious]

Perhaps not, but does a lack of love warrant the assumtion of imperfection? He can claim he is a God of love, even if he isn't, in order to see what a human's reaction is, in order to obtain knowledge philosphically and scientifically. I would even venture to say that lack of emotion and care for lower beings is not imperfection, it is only being on a higher level, beyond the trivial things of limited sentient beings.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

StartanPride, how can you be sure God loves us?

Dude, Fight Club kicked ass. Although I thought it was kinda funny how Brad Pitt had his hair all done up in it when he had a part that was so anti-consumerism and "working jobs we hate for **** we don't need" (which I would think would include hair dye). Still though, he was so hot in that movie and he had his shirt off like 90% of the time <3

[jonathan7]

Often, when debating with friends of a different persuasion we tend to concur with the following;

 

“If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason to act in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence.”

 

I would add, I'm not entirely sure we will ever be on the same page with regards quite a few of the arguments; you remember the old architect/oracle analogy?

 

Shouldn't the topic of love be a separate thread?

 

Perhaps, it was more there to 'chill' out the discussion, as I think some thought our conversation was 'heated'; I personally had not seen it as so, I thought we were merely being our usual selves.

 

Kind of a moot point: "correct" or "incorrect" are fuzzy. "Based on sound reasoning" or "not based on sound reasoning" are a little bit easier to define, measure, etc.

 

I was merely trying to point that I do not think my worldview was of any harm, and infact I used it for good; I could post you my final day of school notebook as evidence

 

The only people whoever seem to have issues with me are other Christians; and thats usually because not only am I pointing out they are not acting particuarlly Jesus like, but have the annoying habbit of winning the insuing debate. (I am aware that currently I'm loosing our discussion).

 

For instance, if you wanted to argue that the world was full of good people, you could very easily find a lot of good people (or even good in people) to support your view, thereby making it correct. Your arguments and my counterarguments would be largely subjective. However if we were examine the reasoning behind the argument itself, thing become a little less subjective.

 

I don't think I'd ever argue the world is full of good people, at my most charitable, I think the world is mostly inhabbited by idiots.

 

The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world’s problems.

 

Mans inhumanity to man is tediously and horribly predictable; although I actually think the unbothered uncarring masses are more at fault than the tyrants in our day and age. If all the cogs in a machien don't move the machine won't work.

 

Athiesm leads to assassinations?

 

Yup (not really depends on the athiest, to clariffy for anyone unsure)

 

(I seem to lost track of some of the points; I'm better in oral debate than, written especially protacted debates such as this (perhaps a result of my dyslexia; which despite my best efforts can sometimes be seen (I'm not aided by being up at 4am, having slept most of the day due to a migraine); most likely in spelling mistakes, a futher flaw, in my earlier massive post, I do not think I articulated myself particuarly well, and I don't think my ideas came across in a particuarly condusive manner.)

 

Nothing you've said here addresses my point, my friend

 

I think we aren't going to be in agreement over the origins of the universe and in the interests of shortening this for now I shall skip over it if that is acceptable? We could create a origins of the universe thread if there is not one already.

 

Is Anthony Flew the standard by which all rational thought should be measured? If not, then I'm afraid I do not understand the argument. If so, I did not recieve the memo.

 

Memo for Achilles; Anthony Flew is infact God; and is the standard by which all rational thought should me measured. (I think I may have just said something heretical).

 

I'm going to snip this because it's unrelated to the point. FWIW though I'm not sure how you've determined that Copleston "won"; he didn't really say anything. He makes an assumption, Russell corrects the assumption, this continues until Copleston realizes he has nothing left and then the two agree to move on.

 

I did provide the link for people to make their own minds up Russell agreed to;

 

Copleston: It may be that the scientist doesn't hope to obtain more than probability' date=' but in raising the question he assumes that the question of explanation has a meaning. But your general point then, Lord Russell, is that it's illegitimate even to ask the question of the cause of the world?[/quote']

 

As a philosopher I cannot accept that it is illegitimate to ask the question of the cause of world, or what is the purpose to life; even if the answer is unattainable. While Russel is my 3rd favourite philosopher (after Nietcszhe and Voltaire) he does not live upto his own definition of philosophy at the beggining of History of Western Philosophy. As such I fail to see how him agreeing to the above, constitutes a 'draw'.

 

Right, I'm affraid my head is getting worse again, so am going to retire to bed; I apologise, I shall return to the rest of your points, and the Humphreys stuff tomorrow, I hope you can forgive me, but thought it better to publish this, so you didn't think I was ignoring you; I'm affraid though I don't seem to ahve touched on many points so far, though I hope my post is interesting

 

Take Care