Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

I personally believe that the ultimate question (How the fuck did all this happen) would be way to easy to simply answer, a magic man in the sky made it. I mean, I would be pissed if after all these years of looking and coming up with ideas, it was simply created by some jackass snapping their fingers. Also it is a very shortsided conclusion that has no scientific background. Mainly because, if something exists, it is made of molecules, and compounds, and tissues and what not. When the Universe first came around, all there was, was hydrogen, and a tiny bit of Helium. So, where did the things that made this Omnipotent creator come from? That, and if a god really does not have the time to come down and say, yes, I do exist, here is how you cure AIDS and Cancer. Then seriously, fuck that guy.

---

At 9/5/10 08:39 PM, dillongunter wrote:

when someone has nothing to live for, they will usually find no reason to live.

People are plenty good at finding reasons to live without religion.

AA does at least one good thing in giving people support, whick is crucial in fighting addiction.

Like I said, AA does no better than doing it alone or at some clinic but on top of that it leaves people with the crutch of religion on which their recovery hinges as opposed to making them stronger people who can ditch their alcoholism alone.

Anyways, the point is that there is no way to tell that everything around you is 100% real beyond a shodow of a doubt and this is just like with God.

The world doesn't work in absolutes. You don't have total faith or total doubt.
When you do something, you do so based on a series of probabilities. For instance, you probably understand that there is a risk of being attacked by a shark if you go swimming, but you understand that this risk is small based on the evidence you have.
You can't say for sure that you will or will not be attacked by a shark, but based on the probabilities, you will act accordingly and in this case, probably go swimming.

It's the same with reality. The only things we know is what our senses feed into us. It's useless to speculate on what they might NOT be giving us since we don't have that information.

Based on the world we perceive through our senses we make predictions and experiments. We learn rapidly that when you close your eyes, it gets dark. You learn that hitting objects is painful. And it happens every single time you do it.

That's how we construct our world without 'faith'. That's how we gain knowledge and not just 'hunches'. That's how humans have been able to build an airplane and a computer, because reality is predictable.

And given this, an easy prediction to make is that other humans have minds since they are genetically identical and there's basically no evidence to show only you would have a mind given you are built the exact same way. It's a perfectly reasonable assumption that requires an extremely limited amount of 'faith'.

That is that atheist also make a large assumption that there is no God.

They do not.

Faith, like I said, is a spectrum. You can be convinced of something at 100% or convinced of the opposite of that thing at 100%.
Theists ( religious people ) range on that scale from 100% sure to 51% sure, which means they act out their lives as though God was real.

Then there's the people from the 49% to the 100%, those are called 'atheists' because they do not believe in God, some extremely strongly and some not so much. But all of them share the common trait of living their lives as though God didn't exist.

On the matter of God, you can't sit on the fence at 50% like you could for something like Bigfoot. Either you believe in God ( theist ) or you don't ( atheist ).

But the argument that the universe can be predicted doesn't necessarily mean that God does not exist.

I never said that so how is that a flaw in my argument?

The Huysenberg Concept can be an example of a universe that would allow for a God to exist.

All universes would allow God to exist as he is defined by various religions and people.

That's one of the weak points of God ideas: there's nothing you can discover about the universe that would invalidate him. Whatever the universe turns out to be, God can always be right there sitting on the sidelines even if you can demonstrate the universe is entirely self-contained and self-generating.

---

At 9/4/10 06:19 PM, Lorkas wrote: I can't recall the dude, but some famous bro once said something that sounded like this:

God exists and you believe in him.
God exists and you don't believe in him.
God doesn't exist and you believe in him.
God doesn't exist and you don't believe in him.

I'd be glad if someone linked me to a wikipedia article, since I've been googling for a while and can't find shit about this. Plus I'm not sure if it even went like that, because I only vaguely remember it from my brother.

Let's extend the list

Baal exists and God doesn't but you believe Baal doesn't and God does
Vishnu exists and God doesn't etc.
A trickster god exists and God doesn't and you go to hell if you believe in the trickster god.

---

Warforger, there is an easier way to prove that Pascal's Wager is invalid without going through the lengths you're going. It's simple - the wager begs the question.

The four premises are presented neutral, but the costs assume that eternity exist. If God exists then the best case scenario is to believe, obviously, but if God doesn't exist and you live your life conforming to His will anyway then you have restricted your only existence, which is really quite a consequence. The original wager assumed that,in comparison to eternity, this was but a little cost, which is fallacious.

That wager is unfortunately terribly flawed, from a strictly logical point of view.

---

At 9/5/10 08:39 PM, dillongunter wrote: It seems to me that you are taking too much of your argument from picking out what parts of my argument were attackable and on how I argued my case to begin with. Personally I am not a big fan of Ad Hominem style arguments so I will simply leave that at that.

1. Discussing how you argued your case was a means to expose the implications of your argument. Something you've been reluctant to do until recently.

2. It's not ad hominem if whatever negative label I attach to you follows from why you're at fault. By your logic, saying someone was incorrect would be grounds to claim ad hominem.

It takes the same faith to believe in everyday occurences as it does in the supernatural.

No. It doesn't. You seem very intent on ignoring this point.

That is one major point on my argument.

Yeah. We knew that before you explicitly said it.

On your argument for the 12 step program, fair enough. I can see the point you're presenting, but I must raise one objection and that is that when someone finds themself without something to live for, they will find no reason to live. What I mean by this is that why the AA program is somewhat successful is that it gives people support, even if by your measures of support it is not that great.

Suppose you've got a stain. In one instance you first sprinkle bread crumbs on it, then steam clean it. In the other, you simply steam clean it. In both cases the stain is removed. By your logic, the bread crumbs are 'somewhat successful' at removing the stain.

Rather, you seem to be assuming the 12 step program is successful on account of some logic that would conclude it's successful. Ofcourse, in the process implying something very sour towards secularists and atheists. And again... is it faith in the supernatural that's the catalyst here or just having something to live for? Because the latter doesn't seem to me to have to be supernatural or theistic. You myopic prick. < see... not ad hominem either.

And to be honest, what other things should someone that believes in God sing praises about?

The only thing someone who believes in God should sing praises about is the alleged utility of 12 step programs? Seriously? Seeerrriously?

By powerful message, I mean powerful message. I mean that when someone changes their life drastically from living a life that is harmful to one that is productive, I see that in itself as a powerful message.

For emphasis: I see that in itself as a powerful message

Then what's with all the emphasis on 12 step programs?

---

Let me compress your argument, dillongunter, to it's inevitable conclusion, and you'll see why there isn't any point in arguing further.

'You all have faith that some things exist without 100% proof that anything exists outside of the existence of oneself (according to Descarte). Thus, it's not illogical to take that faith one step further and say there is a supreme being, either.'

That's a non sequitur statement. Everyone has faith that what they can sense and measure exists. Christians have faith that God exists. This does not logically reach the conclusion that everyone should have faith that God exists, since it's based on the assumption that if one has faith in one matter there is no harm to have faith in another (which isn't true).

After this, you'll respond:

'This doesn't prove that there's anything wrong with Christians believing that there is a God.'

Which sensible atheists should agree on (some don't, but they're as logically flawed as any radical fundamentalist theist argument, so I don't even consider them). This leads to this conclusion:

'I (and other Christians) have faith in God, and there's nothing wrong with that.'

The response will be:

'Fine; atheists do not have faith in God, and there's nothing wrong with that.'

This is also known as the 'Status Quo'. People can argue day and night on this, but ultimately the FSM argument proves that this is a pointless endeavor - the argument will never logically cave completely for Christians, and the logic will never cave completely for atheists (without solid proof, which most agree there isn't any). Hence why I said earlier that this is a pointless argument.

It makes me wish that they'd present more interesting topics in here that didn't involve the question of God's existence - then I might be interested in arguing theism to y'all. I doubt that'll happen, though - some people cannot get past the fact that some perfectly rational people will believe in a God without a logical reason (like me).

---

What are you talking about Gario? He was merely proving the existence of faith.

---

At 9/6/10 12:57 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: What are you talking about Gario? He was merely proving the existence of faith.

I'm using my inner powers of projecting the future to explain where the argument is going to end up before it gets there, based on how I've seen this argument go down before.

IF he was just proving that faith exists then... well, that's not technically a point that needs to be argued. It's much easier to just get a sample of Christians and ask them 'Do you have faith?'. When they answer 'Yes', you've undeniably proven that faith exists.

---

Whoops. Forgot to explain...

At 9/4/10 07:15 PM, Gario wrote: As for the Relativist fallacy, I never saw that as a theist-atheist issue, so I never would've guessed it'd pop up here. It is fun to rip someone apart when they use relativism to it's extreme like that, though.

A lot of people classify their belief as a 'personal belief,' akin to an opinion (albeit a strong one), and sometimes go as far as explicitly saying that it's subjective. They of course, then use this to deflect any and all criticism on the basis that opinions are exempt from such a thing.

---

At 9/9/10 12:35 AM, Bacchanalian wrote: Whoops. Forgot to explain...

At 9/4/10 07:15 PM, Gario wrote: As for the Relativist fallacy, I never saw that as a theist-atheist issue, so I never would've guessed it'd pop up here. It is fun to rip someone apart when they use relativism to it's extreme like that, though.

A lot of people classify their belief as a 'personal belief,' akin to an opinion (albeit a strong one), and sometimes go as far as explicitly saying that it's subjective. They of course, then use this to deflect any and all criticism on the basis that opinions are exempt from such a thing.

Ah, I see. Please tell me that anyone and everyone that uses this logic is ripped apart by the very fact that it contradicts the meaning of 'belief', in a religious context (you believe that your God is real/true, but at the same time you think it's 'just an opinion' to get yourself out of an argument... wait, what?). Alright, now I know what you're talking about.

---

It was brought up and locked, so I'll re-introduce the argument here, real quick, 'cause I want to comment :)

"The Riddle of Epicuris
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
---

I tried to play devil's advocate on this one, but I cannot crack it. It is an impenetrable logical argument. It has one slight logical flaw, but it doesnt really matter. able + not willing, doesnt necessarily imply malevolence, it can also be disinterest.

Still it crushes the whole idea of a caring loving god, like the christian and islamic god."

The thread called 'Epicurus' has the rest of the post, for those interested, but as a change in direction for this thread I welcome it.

Alrighty then, let's look at the argument. If you believe in God then obviously the first answer is not possible. The second answer isn't impossible, so that's food for thought. The third answer is sort of... well, contradictory, so I'm afraid that's ruled out. The fourth answer would be entirely correct, if you'd like to assume that God isn't omnipotent. For the sake of the argument, though, we are, so that's ruled out.

Again, for the sake of argument I'm going to assume that God exists, and He is omnipotent. Rather than attack the issue head-on, I'll take it in another direction.

What if God did exist, was omnipotent and removed all evil from the planet? What would happen then?

---

At 9/14/10 09:28 PM, Gario wrote: What if God did exist, was omnipotent and removed all evil from the planet? What would happen then?

Wouldn't that sorta be like... heaven on earth?

---

Actually... can I try to call this one?

The argument that evil has to exist? Perhaps?

---

At 9/14/10 09:28 PM, Gario wrote:

What if God did exist, was omnipotent and removed all evil from the planet? What would happen then?

So....what happens if you remove all evil? What's evil?
Is a lion evil?
Are viruses that kill people evil? Is death evil? Is pain evil?
Is being angry evil? Is laughing at someone failing evil? In which case, you'd have to remove all instances of people making mistakes... or all instance of people laughing about it...?

A world without evil isn't a world humans are designed to live in and understand. It's like if we lived in 4 dimensions or in a place without time. It doesn't make sense to humans, we can't even imagine it. If we lived in that world, we wouldn't be humans.

---

At 9/14/10 10:52 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 9/14/10 09:28 PM, Gario wrote: What if God did exist, was omnipotent and removed all evil from the planet? What would happen then?

Wouldn't that sorta be like... heaven on earth?

Yup. There wouldn't be any point for God to be there, would there? No one would need Him... and certainly, we all know that even if we did know for a fact that He existed, Occam's Razor would eliminate Him from everyone's lives.

The argument that evil has to exist? Perhaps?

Almost. More accurately, without evil, there's no point for physical creation, from a Christian point of view. So to assume God is malevolent based on the fact that evil exists is, in fact, an error that shows that one doesn't understand the supposed purpose of God in creating the physical universe, in the first place.

At 9/14/10 11:09 PM, poxpower wrote:
So....what happens if you remove all evil? What's evil?
Is a lion evil?
Are viruses that kill people evil? Is death evil? Is pain evil?
Is being angry evil? Is laughing at someone failing evil? In which case, you'd have to remove all instances of people making mistakes... or all instance of people laughing about it...?

A world without evil isn't a world humans are designed to live in and understand. It's like if we lived in 4 dimensions or in a place without time. It doesn't make sense to humans, we can't even imagine it. If we lived in that world, we wouldn't be humans.

Mmm... good point, although since the OP of the question is indeed talking about God in the Christian sense, we should be defining 'evil' in that sense, as well, right? We'll keep things in context, that way.

'Evil' (or 'Sin', to be more accurate) is defined as something that turns people away from God, according to Christians. If it's not defined like that then the original question does nothing to attack Christianity ('Evil' is too vague and different to too many people), so it'd be pointless to discuss, wouldn't it?

---

At 9/15/10 12:55 AM, Gario wrote:

If it's not defined like that then the original question does nothing to attack Christianity ('Evil' is too vague and different to too many people), so it'd be pointless to discuss, wouldn't it?

Epicurus lived 300 years before the birth of Jesus so he wasn't talking about Christianity.
His idea is as old as religions themselves: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_
evil

Christianity has a very very vague and ill-defined concept of what's evil and what isn't. In fact it barely has any, it's more about doing what God wants, no matter what. If God asks you to kill your son, you do it and that's good because God said so.

Ultimately their system revolves around God being all-powerful, therefore always right MORALLY. When God decided to flood the earth and save only Noah and his family, that was good. Why? Because God did it. If God does it, then it's good, because he's God.

It's pretty retarded.

---

At 9/15/10 12:55 AM, Gario wrote: Yup. There wouldn't be any point for God to be there, would there? No one would need Him...

Um... so? Complete your thought please.

and certainly, we all know that even if we did know for a fact that He existed, Occam's Razor would eliminate Him from everyone's lives.

If God is a known fact, then his existance is of such a nature that Occam's Razor does not dismiss it.

Almost. More accurately, without evil, there's no point for physical creation, from a Christian point of view. So to assume God is malevolent based on the fact that evil exists is, in fact, an error that shows that one doesn't understand the supposed purpose of God in creating the physical universe, in the first place.

Yeah well, you're also deviating from the presumptions in the riddle by supplying a God with limited authority.

---

At 9/15/10 01:23 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 9/15/10 12:55 AM, Gario wrote:

If it's not defined like that then the original question does nothing to attack Christianity ('Evil' is too vague and different to too many people), so it'd be pointless to discuss, wouldn't it?

Epicurus lived 300 years before the birth of Jesus so he wasn't talking about Christianity.
His idea is as old as religions themselves: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_
evil

The OP was comparing this to Christianity (and Islam, but I know little of their religion), in particular. Whether or not the riddle originally was designed to be shouldn't be a concern, unless you just want to stop the discussion in it's tracks. You can't address the problem of evil in a religiously neutral context, since the very idea of 'evil' is religious, at it's core.

Christianity has a very very vague and ill-defined concept of what's evil and what isn't.

Wait, I thought their system revolved around...

:Ultimately their system revolves around God being all-powerful, therefore always right MORALLY.

...then why'd you claim it's vague? It has it's system worked out pretty thoroughly...

:When God decided to flood the earth and save only Noah and his family, that was good. Why? Because God did it. If God does it, then it's good, because he's God.

...Oh, right. Actually, if you assumed the principles of Christianity to be true (like any Christian would) then you'd say it makes perfect logical sense. If you don't then it makes no sense at all. If you're going to argue that it makes no sense then you need to assume the mindset of a Christian - otherwise you're going to be preaching to a choir, which is a waste of text.

:It's pretty retarded.

'Nonsensical' is a more accurate term - 'retarded' implies either someone afflicted with Down Syndrome or something that is particularly slow... and those both imply that you think the thing actually exists, which I'm pretty sure you don't, right?

You could spend the time to attack the system (which simply boils down to that annoying question of God's existence, which is an ad nauseum argument) or you could, for the sake of argument, define a term in the particular context of a religion, so a discussion will continue.

At 9/15/10 01:42 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 9/15/10 12:55 AM, Gario wrote: Yup. There wouldn't be any point for God to be there, would there? No one would need Him...

Um... so? Complete your thought please.

If you believed in the Christian God, ask yourself what He would have created life for. The reason that Christianity provides is simply because He wanted to be willingly loved. Nothing more than that.

If everything was perfect then people would not need God to be happy. I understand that many people think they don't need God to be happy, anyway, but in the world's current state many, many people still use Him as a source of refuge. If the world was already 'Heaven on Earth' then no one would need God to placate them, so He'd be forgotten and left behind.

Thus, there would be no point for God to ever intercede, so no one would spend the time to worship Him, which ultimately unravels the entire reason He (supposedly) created everything in the first place.

and certainly, we all know that even if we did know for a fact that He existed, Occam's Razor would eliminate Him from everyone's lives.

If God is a known fact, then his existance is of such a nature that Occam's Razor does not dismiss it.

Ah, you miss the purpose of the razor, in this instance. People could know of something's existence, but if it does nothing to make your life any better would people include worshiping Him into their lives? Remember, they already have everything they desire without any chance of punishment. People would remove any form of worship, appreciation, etc. from their lives because they know it does nothing to increase or decrease their happiness.

The 'razor' would cut God out of everyone's lives, not cut His existence out of everyone's minds.

Almost. More accurately, without evil, there's no point for physical creation, from a Christian point of view. So to assume God is malevolent based on the fact that evil exists is, in fact, an error that shows that one doesn't understand the supposed purpose of God in creating the physical universe, in the first place.

Yeah well, you're also deviating from the presumptions in the riddle by supplying a God with limited authority.

No, I'm not. Technically, if you assume that God tells the truth then He sets His own boundaries (unless he's a liar, but for the sake of discussion we can assume He's not, eh?), and those are safe to 'limit' His actions by. He won't do something that breaks His own contracts. Does that mean He can't? No. It means He sees it as hurtful to His purpose and thus He won't do it.

If you assume that God will do anything then you'll cut millenia of theological discussion from under itself that's been 'limiting' the Christian God in this very same manner. There's a difference between not wanting to perform an action (won't) and not being able to perform an action (can't) that is sometimes lost in the mix.

---

At 9/15/10 11:06 AM, Gario wrote:

At 9/15/10 01:23 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 9/15/10 12:55 AM, Gario wrote:

Christianity has a very very vague and ill-defined concept of what's evil and what isn't.

Wait, I thought their system revolved around...

Ultimately their system revolves around God being all-powerful, therefore always right MORALLY.

...then why'd you claim it's vague? It has it's system worked out pretty thoroughly...

That is called Divine Command Theory and tons of Christians reject it. There is no clear consensus for what good and evil is within Christianity because Christians disagree.

When God decided to flood the earth and save only Noah and his family, that was good. Why? Because God did it. If God does it, then it's good, because he's God.

...Oh, right. Actually, if you assumed the principles of Christianity to be true (like any Christian would) then you'd say it makes perfect logical sense. If you don't then it makes no sense at all. If you're going to argue that it makes no sense then you need to assume the mindset of a Christian - otherwise you're going to be preaching to a choir, which is a waste of text.

Great to know that to be a Christian I would need to start thinking that some specific types of genocide is morally good.

You could spend the time to attack the system (which simply boils down to that annoying question of God's existence, which is an ad nauseum argument) or you could, for the sake of argument, define a term in the particular context of a religion, so a discussion will continue.

What if I believed in God, but didn't accept that his word was the definition of morally good? What if I believed in God but rejected him as evil? How would that fit into your definitions, or do you claim it's impossible?

At 9/15/10 01:42 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 9/15/10 12:55 AM, Gario wrote:

If you believed in the Christian God, ask yourself what He would have created life for. The reason that Christianity provides is simply because He wanted to be willingly loved. Nothing more than that.

And he is going to kill and torture those who don't willingly love him! It's like a criminal saying "your life or your money". It's not a real choice. What he really means is "give me your money or I will take your life". He isn't actually walking up to you and presenting you with two choices for you to consider and choose from.

If everything was perfect then people would not need God to be happy. I understand that many people think they don't need God to be happy, anyway, but in the world's current state many, many people still use Him as a source of refuge. If the world was already 'Heaven on Earth' then no one would need God to placate them, so He'd be forgotten and left behind.

Aw, poor God. No wonder we all have to suffer and die, otherwise God would be forgotten and left behind.

But why exactly wouldn't this problem apply in heaven too? Or is heaven full of suffering and problems too?

Thus, there would be no point for God to ever intercede, so no one would spend the time to worship Him, which ultimately unravels the entire reason He (supposedly) created everything in the first place.

God sounds like a dick.

Ah, you miss the purpose of the razor, in this instance. People could know of something's existence, but if it does nothing to make your life any better would people include worshiping Him into their lives? Remember, they already have everything they desire without any chance of punishment. People would remove any form of worship, appreciation, etc. from their lives because they know it does nothing to increase or decrease their happiness.

How about say, God coming down here to live among us? Or wait, how about God communicating to us when we sleep instead of though dreams? There are a ton of ways for God to stay relevant without purposeful setting us in danger so he can come in like a hero and save us.

Yeah well, you're also deviating from the presumptions in the riddle by supplying a God with limited authority.

No, I'm not. Technically, if you assume that God tells the truth then He sets His own boundaries (unless he's a liar, but for the sake of discussion we can assume He's not, eh?), and those are safe to 'limit' His actions by. He won't do something that breaks His own contracts. Does that mean He can't? No. It means He sees it as hurtful to His purpose and thus He won't do it.

But the problem is that the type of God you are talking about is also the one who defines what it means to "hurt" his creation. He could just as well have said that free will is evil and that by intervening he is doing good.

You are limiting God's authority by subjecting him to these standards that are above him without even realizing it yourself. Either things like "accepting God by your own free will" is a good thing because God said it is a good thing (incase he could have said that there existing absolutely nothing but him is a good thing) or it's a good thing independent of God, making God not a supreme being but merely a powerful being, since there are things higher than him.

If you assume that God will do anything then you'll cut millenia of theological discussion from under itself that's been 'limiting' the Christian God in this very same manner. There's a difference between not wanting to perform an action (won't) and not being able to perform an action (can't) that is sometimes lost in the mix.

God sets what is good and evil.
God sets the limits.
God obeys the limits.
We ask why God doesn't break the limit.
You say that it's because God needs to stay within the limits to do what's good.
You miss the point that God could just have everything ever be good, including breaking limits.

---

At 9/15/10 11:06 AM, Gario wrote:

...then why'd you claim it's vague? It has it's system worked out pretty thoroughly...

Because it's impossible to apply to us.
All it says is "what God asks, you do" and all we have to know what God said is a book which we KNOW FOR A FACT was edited heavily by people and contains contradictions.

And it's plain to see that Christians don't follow the vast majority of the rules in the Bible or the teachings of Jesus. For instance, Jesus said several times that rich people have trouble going to heaven and they should give away all their money to the poor because it will help them out and Armageddon is coming soon anyway so no one needs to plan for the future.

Not to mention that there's no way to ever verify is someone talked to God. I can claim to have talked to God and go murder a bunch of people and pretty much no Christian will agree with what I did but when they read a story about a guy who hears God going around murdering Egyptians or members of his family, then it's A-Ok!
See how insane this is? They have no basis for verifying when God demands something ( i.e. when he gives people free passes from his ambiguous laws ) and yet that's what their ENTIRE moral system is based on.

In Christianity, morals aren't absolute. Morality is meaningless as it changes whenever God wants. Yet they claim he is the source of Absolute morality.

It's as stupid as saying God is the absolute truth of science and then having him say a different number for the amount of protons in the nucleus of a Gold atom every couple years. But every time, he's ABSOLUTELY IRREVOCABLY RIGHT!!!

In short; Christianity is a failed attempt at creating a simple black and white morality.

---

At 9/15/10 11:06 AM, Gario wrote: If you believed [...] so He'd be forgotten and left behind.

But, that argument sorta kinda defeats the purpose of Heaven.

Also, by your arugment, God is malevolent, in order to coerce love - love which by your argument is not particularly charitable.

Ah, you miss the purpose of the razor, in this instance. People could know of something's existence, but if it does nothing to make your life any better would people include worshiping Him into their lives?

If you're going to redefine occam's razor, then have the decency to not refer to it as Occam's Razor. Words mean things and I'm no mind reader.

No, I'm not. Technically, if you assume that God tells the truth then He sets His own boundaries [...]

Ok. Then you're deviating from the presumptions in the riddle by supplying a God that created evil.

---

Finally, a discussion worth talking about in here. Getting many responses and I have little time, so let's see if I can systematically address them.

At 9/15/10 11:28 AM, Drakim wrote: That is called Divine Command Theory and tons of Christians reject it. There is no clear consensus for what good and evil is within Christianity because Christians disagree.

I understand what Divine Command Theory is and it's implications. It's all very fine that people reject it or whatnot. However, the largest church in the world accepts it (e.g. Roman Catholic - no denying they are the largest) and decided to formalize their decision to boot, so I'll go with them.

Read paragraph 385 - 421 for the full description, but essentially they accept it, despite it's flaws. I'd love to discuss this in detail some other time, but right now I'm focused on the riddle, so I don't really want to split my attention, yet.

Before we get into the whole 'Christians don't agree on it's definition' realize that Christians don't agree on any single topic, so frankly you'll find Christian arguments against any and every belief that you can find, from creation to the definition of evil to even the divinity of Jesus.

Short answer: Flawed, perhaps, but that's how it's defined by the largest of them so I'm sticking to it, for the sake of this discussion.

When God decided to flood the earth and save only Noah and his family, that was good. Why? Because God did it. If God does it, then it's good, because he's God.

You got it. Hey, it's not my definition, here - I'm using the most accepted one.

Great to know that to be a Christian I would need to start thinking that some specific types of genocide is morally good.

Again, I'm using the most common definition. It has it's difficulties, and again I'll be more than happy to discuss that whole thing later. Not right now, though.

What if I believed in God, but didn't accept that his word was the definition of morally good? What if I believed in God but rejected him as evil? How would that fit into your definitions, or do you claim it's impossible?

Then you don't believe in the Christian God, by definition. Nothing wrong with that... unless, of course, you're trying to discuss something in terms of the Christian God, in which case you'd be creating a red herring, wouldn't you? Logically speaking, that's considered a bad thing.

And he is going to kill and torture those who don't willingly love him! It's like a criminal saying "your life or your money". It's not a real choice. What he really means is "give me your money or I will take your life". He isn't actually walking up to you and presenting you with two choices for you to consider and choose from.

You're talking about 'Hell', I presume? Again, another topic that's very interesting, but it has little to do with the riddle, itself. I'll give you my short answer now and expand on it later, if you'd like.

Short answer: Hell is not a punishment - it is a place without God. Thus, if you say you don't want God then logically speaking you will send yourself to 'Hell'. Christians say it's a very bad place to be because there is no God there. It's not a 'punishment' in the same sense that you are tortured for eternity, but because the Christian God is so good that you beat yourself up for not choosing Him for all eternity.

Again, that's as much detail as I'll go, since it has little to do with the topic I want to talk about.

Aw, poor God. No wonder we all have to suffer and die, otherwise God would be forgotten and left behind.

Indeed.

But why exactly wouldn't this problem apply in heaven too? Or is heaven full of suffering and problems too?

No. Heaven is simply a place that people chose to be. You really don't make any more decisions in Heaven, so there's no reason for any suffering to be there. Don't get the wrong idea, you don't make any decisions anymore in Hell, either - after you die, essentially you are not in control anymore.

I don't have the details on it, though. It's something I should look into later.

Thus, there would be no point for God to ever intercede, so no one would spend the time to worship Him, which ultimately unravels the entire reason He (supposedly) created everything in the first place.

God sounds like a dick.

If you wanted to make a machine that functioned in such a way where 'A' happened, and saw that it wouldn't happen unless there was something 'B' that was included, would you include it or not? If you didn't and saw that nothing worked, then you would be a moron for not implementing 'B' in the first place when you knew it needed to be there.

So, in one case God is a 'dick', and in the other case He is a 'moron'. Sounds like He didn't have much choice, there, eh?

How about say, God coming down here to live among us? Or wait, how about God communicating to us when we sleep instead of though dreams? There are a ton of ways for God to stay relevant without purposeful setting us in danger so he can come in like a hero and save us.

Who would worship Him, even if He did that? There is no reason to - life would move on in the exact same manner whether or not you worshiped Him, so why would people bother? He would be removed no matter what.

Supposedly, He wants people to come to Him for their needs. If there's no reason to do that, then they won't.

But the problem is that the type of God you are talking about is also the one who defines what it means to "hurt" his creation. He could just as well have said that free will is evil and that by intervening he is doing good.

He could have, but He didn't. That's a red herring argument.

You are limiting God's authority by subjecting him to these standards that are above him without even realizing it yourself. Either things like "accepting God by your own free will" is a good thing because God said it is a good thing (incase he could have said that there existing absolutely nothing but him is a good thing) or it's a good thing independent of God, making God not a supreme being but merely a powerful being, since there are things higher than him.

Here's a question for you. If it was a 'good thing' (DCT-wise) for people to love and worship God freely, why would God force people to do so (or reveal Himself so it's impossible to refuse)? By definition, if God wanted people to freely worship Him then he can't make them do so in any way, shape or form, or else He's not allowing them to do so freely (which is what He wants).

He could, I guess, but then He wouldn't get what He wanted. Why would something perform an action that completely defeats what it ultimately wants, even if it could? That's the distinction I'm making, here, and you seem to not understand.

:God sets what is good and evil.
God sets the limits.
God obeys the limits.
We ask why God doesn't break the limit.
You say that it's because God needs to stay within the limits to do what's good.
You miss the point that God could just have everything ever be good, including breaking limits

Supposedly, if we're still going with the DCT thing, then God never 'set' good and evil. He supposedly is good, right? It's all a retroactive application from there - from Christian's observation, God never broke a covenant, so honesty is seen as 'good'. God claimed that He is love, so that's 'good', and since He has proven to be honest, He won't lie about it. There's more, here, but I don't have the space to type.

In DCT, if God is, then it's good, and if He isn't, then it's considered bad. If God is perfect (that's an assumption we're making, right?) then He won't change Himself (nor could He and remain 'perfect', by definition). Of course once that assumption is removed then DCT falls apart quickly, but hey - if you're going to argue 'Christian' then you pretty much have to play by their rules, or else you'll fall into the classic 'I gots Faith!' argument designed to close non-Christian discussion, and there's not much you can do about it.

Getting to the other posts soon...

---

At 9/16/10 07:01 PM, Gario wrote: Sounds like He didn't have much choice, there, eh?

"He won't do something that breaks His own contracts. Does that mean He can't? No. It means He sees it as hurtful to His purpose and thus He won't do it."

---

Hey, Gario, I'm making a topic about DCT. Hope to see you there!

---

why do you guys (christians, muslims, etc.) believe in god?
because your parents said you so?

---

This is something that's been bothering me for a while. If evolution is indeed correct, then we all evolved from primates, small mammals, and at the beginning of the chain, microorganisms. Of course, since life cannot simply arise out of nothing or no organic material (Failed theory of Spontaneous Generation), there is also the study of abiogenesis, but I'm not going to get into that in full.

The theory is that these microorganisms just simply came to be, evolving out of chemicals, amino acids, etc. that are necessary for life. If that were true, could we not create life ourselves by replicating the process? Be it as it may, it may take a substantial amount of time to replicate the process, if it could be done. Thoughts?

---

At 9/17/10 11:32 AM, LeroyJ wrote: This is something that's been bothering me for a while. If evolution is indeed correct, then we all evolved from primates, small mammals, and at the beginning of the chain, microorganisms. Of course, since life cannot simply arise out of nothing or no organic material (Failed theory of Spontaneous Generation), there is also the study of abiogenesis, but I'm not going to get into that in full.

The theory is that these microorganisms just simply came to be, evolving out of chemicals, amino acids, etc. that are necessary for life. If that were true, could we not create life ourselves by replicating the process? Be it as it may, it may take a substantial amount of time to replicate the process, if it could be done. Thoughts?

There are experiments like this around if you use google a little. This one is famous for instance.

---

At 9/17/10 10:25 AM, Prometheus13 wrote: why do you guys (christians, muslims, etc.) believe in god?
because your parents said you so?

Your ignorance is showing.

---

At 9/17/10 12:41 PM, CacheHelper wrote:

At 9/17/10 10:25 AM, Prometheus13 wrote: why do you guys (christians, muslims, etc.) believe in god?
because your parents said you so?

Your ignorance is showing.

why dear why?
i know you cant deal sentences that long.

---

At 9/17/10 10:25 AM, Prometheus13 wrote: why do you guys (christians, muslims, etc.) believe in god?
because your parents said you so?

I know quite a few Christians who's parents are atheist. I also have friends who are atheist because they think they're literally too good for a god.

You happen to be striking me as that type of person.
If there is a god, there is no way you're better than him.