Philosophy Now Forum

thedoc wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2017 9:34 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2017 6:51 pm

thedoc wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2017 9:05 pm Did God fail or did humanity fail?

You've failed.
You've failed to ask a reasonable question.

And you have failed to say what is unreasonable about the question.

You have no basis for god. You have no basis for this dichotomy, you have no basis to claim failure. The question is meaningless.
Failure here would imply an object of what constitutes success. Because in order to fail there must be some criterion for success.
You might also want to consider the possibility that if you think god (whatever the fuck that is) created humanity then humanity's failure is god's failure to create a being capable of reading god.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2017 9:46 pm

thedoc wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2017 9:34 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2017 6:51 pm


You've failed.
You've failed to ask a reasonable question.

And you have failed to say what is unreasonable about the question.

You have no basis for god. You have no basis for this dichotomy, you have no basis to claim failure. The question is meaningless.
Failure here would imply an object of what constitutes success. Because in order to fail there must be some criterion for success.
You might also want to consider the possibility that if you think god (whatever the fuck that is) created humanity then humanity's failure is god's failure to create a being capable of reading god.

Many Atheists will claim that God does not exist, without any basis. Many Agnostics will say there is no way to know if God exists, without any basis. Many Christians will claim to have had direct evidence of God's existence. I would say that having no evidence is not a good argument, but having some evidence is a better argument. So I will go with those who claim to have some evidence rather than those who have none.

Well said Doc - and to add, this entire thread is a self-contradiction. The OP must acknowledge there was a message and in doing so must acknowledge that to suggest 'God' failed is a contradiction - for at least, the OP knew the message!!

If there is any failing, it is by way of both theist and atheists that do not live up to the requirements of key Judaic\Catholic commandments, and indeed and most importantly, Christ's message.

thedoc wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2017 11:11 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2017 9:46 pm

thedoc wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2017 9:34 pm

And you have failed to say what is unreasonable about the question.

You have no basis for god. You have no basis for this dichotomy, you have no basis to claim failure. The question is meaningless.
Failure here would imply an object of what constitutes success. Because in order to fail there must be some criterion for success.
You might also want to consider the possibility that if you think god (whatever the fuck that is) created humanity then humanity's failure is god's failure to create a being capable of reading god.

Many Atheists will claim that God does not exist, without any basis. Many Agnostics will say there is no way to know if God exists, without any basis. Many Christians will claim to have had direct evidence of God's existence. I would say that having no evidence is not a good argument, but having some evidence is a better argument. So I will go with those who claim to have some evidence rather than those who have none.

Hey there's a stick, god exists.
Conclusions are not valid conclusions, when they illogically follow invalid premise's.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Mon Sep 25, 2017 9:38 am Hey there's a stick, god exists.
Conclusions are not valid conclusions, when they illogically follow invalid premise's.

I've always found it interesting how the less intelligent posters enjoy using emoticons.

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Sat Sep 23, 2017 11:26 pm If someone is skeptical about something within a religion, you probably shouldn't resort to an example only those within that religion would accept, to sway said skepticism.

Please, the fact that the spokesman for the Spiritual Counterfeits Project would even read "The Ouzo Prophecy," much less reply to me, and much, much less be blown away by the paper indicates divine intervention, my friend.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Sep 25, 2017 9:11 am Well said Doc - and to add, this entire thread is a self-contradiction. The OP must acknowledge there was a message and in doing so must acknowledge that to suggest 'God' failed is a contradiction - for at least, the OP knew the message!!

If there is any failing, it is by way of both theist and atheists that do not live up to the requirements of key Judaic\Catholic commandments, and indeed and most importantly, Christ's message.

Exactly. If one were to bring free will into this, we can say that while God provides us all with the message, he leaves it to us to interpret it to allow us to have the ability to make decisions and be free of thought. The fact that some people interpret it differently is not a failure of God, but actually a consequence of the fact that he wishes us to have the capability to interpret.

bobevenson wrote: ↑Mon Sep 25, 2017 1:06 pm

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Sat Sep 23, 2017 11:26 pm If someone is skeptical about something within a religion, you probably shouldn't resort to an example only those within that religion would accept, to sway said skepticism.

Please, the fact that the spokesman for the Spiritual Counterfeits Project would even read "The Ouzo Prophecy," much less reply to me, and much, much less be blown away by the paper indicates divine intervention, my friend.

I don't care what some crazy religious nut thinks about your even crazier religious beliefs.

"Well, I'm not so sure a 'perfect God' would have made the bible as it is"

>"Not true, the fact that the bible was created by a perfect God disproves that!"

Do you see the problem in this simple little illustration I've made? If you want to provide a counterexample which shows contrary to what the person takes issue with, you probably shouldn't use something that calls for the very thing that person has an issue with as a counterexample. Try to use an example I can actually relate to.

Vendetta wrote: ↑Mon Sep 25, 2017 4:50 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Sep 25, 2017 9:11 am Well said Doc - and to add, this entire thread is a self-contradiction. The OP must acknowledge there was a message and in doing so must acknowledge that to suggest 'God' failed is a contradiction - for at least, the OP knew the message!!

If there is any failing, it is by way of both theist and atheists that do not live up to the requirements of key Judaic\Catholic commandments, and indeed and most importantly, Christ's message.

Exactly. If one were to bring free will into this, we can say that while God provides us all with the message, he leaves it to us to interpret it to allow us to have the ability to make decisions and be free of thought. The fact that some people interpret it differently is not a failure of God, but actually a consequence of the fact that he wishes us to have the capability to interpret.

Yep. It never ceases to amaze me when an atheist will state, 'ok, if there is a God, why is there so much suffering.'
Yeah, like we are all supposed to exist in some sort of heaven from the outset. No need for doctors, scientists etc etc..no need to strive for knowledge.
I think it is far better that God has left the world to its own devices - wo\man can strive to find cures etc.. and as far as our suffering goes, it pales in comparison to God\Christ's.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2017 4:59 amYep. It never ceases to amaze me when an atheist will state, 'ok, if there is a God, why is there so much suffering.'
Yeah, like we are all supposed to exist in some sort of heaven from the outset. No need for doctors, scientists etc etc..no need to strive for knowledge.
I think it is far better that God has left the world to its own devices - wo\man can strive to find cures etc.. and as far as our suffering goes, it pales in comparison to God\Christ's.

Then again, there'd be the same imperfect and still-developing situation if God is not a reality at this stage but an intuited potential for highly evolved life in the very distant future.

thedoc wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2017 11:11 pm Many Atheists will claim that God does not exist, without any basis.

Its a negative claim and requires no proof. That is for YOU to furnish.

Many Agnostics will say there is no way to know if God exists, without any basis.

That's question begging nonsense.

Many Christians will claim to have had direct evidence of God's existence. I would say that having no evidence is not a good argument, but having some evidence is a better argument. So I will go with those who claim to have some evidence rather than those who have none.

You don't have any evidence, and you avoided the question.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2017 4:59 am Yep. It never ceases to amaze me when an atheist will state, 'ok, if there is a God, why is there so much suffering.'
Yeah, like we are all supposed to exist in some sort of heaven from the outset. No need for doctors, scientists etc etc..no need to strive for knowledge. I think it is far better that God has left the world to its own devices - wo\man can strive to find cures etc..

Right you are, atto.

The existence of suffering is one of the main features of our world that atheists point to in support of their argument against the existence of a creative intelligence presiding over the universe.

However, they never seem to give any critical thought to what the world would actually be like if everything was made “perfect” for us (whatever that is supposed to mean).

For example (and to slightly paraphrase something I have posted elsewhere)...

seeds wrote: In regards to the elimination of suffering, should no one ever fall down and skin a knee?

Should humans experience no pain or physical destruction when involved in car accidents?

Should pain causing accidents (of any sort) never occur?

Indeed, should the ability to experience pain in any form whatsoever (mentally or physically), never have been included in the human design?

Should the human body never show any signs of aging or deterioration past the point of its 18th birthday? And then just simply cease to function at the age of 90 for no apparent reason?

Or better yet, in order to prevent the suffering experienced by those left behind after the death of a loved one, then perhaps there should be no death? (Ah, but then there’s that pesky population problem.)

In other words, what would the world be like after all forms of suffering (and so-called “evil”) have been eliminated?

Should it look like what is depicted in one of those Watchtower/Awake magazines where it shows the lion lying next to the lamb, surrounded by insipidly smiling “Stepford Wife” types, picking fruits and berries in some idyllic setting?
_______

The point is, what exactly do atheists expect God to do in an effort to eliminate suffering from this incredibly complex dimension of reality we are functioning in?

Let the atheists on this forum provide us with a list of what they would do differently if they were God.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2017 4:59 am ...and as far as our suffering goes, it pales in comparison to God\Christ's.

I don’t know about that, atto.

I don’t think you can compare what Jesus experienced for a few grueling hours to that of the months (years) of agony that a burn victim undergoes as he/she attempts to recover from having 50 to 90 percent of their flesh seared to a blackened crisp (never mind the anguish of their horrible disfigurement).

Or how about the suffering of those lost in a screaming nightmare of mental insanity – locked away in some dreadful asylum for their entire life?

Now I’m not suggesting that there isn’t a great deal of suffering involved in a crucifixion, but let’s keep things in perspective.
_______

Hobbes' Choice wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2017 5:22 pm

thedoc wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2017 11:11 pm Many Christians will claim to have had direct evidence of God's existence. I would say that having no evidence is not a good argument, but having some evidence is a better argument. So I will go with those who claim to have some evidence rather than those who have none.

You don't have any evidence, and you avoided the question.

I do have evidence, and I answered the question as best I could, you just don't like the answer.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2017 9:46 pm then humanity's failure is god's failure to create a being capable of reading god.

Just because you are incapable of understanding what is written in the Bible does not mean that no-one else can understand it.

Christians believe that God has given humanity free will which is the ability to reject the message of the Bible and to refuse to understand it.

thedoc wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2017 9:28 pm
Just because you are incapable of understanding what is written in the Bible does not mean that no-one else can understand it.

Indeed not. However. I am not making that claim.

Christians believe that God has given humanity free will which is the ability to reject the message of the Bible and to refuse to understand it.

WRONG.
The interpretations of the Bible are legion. Other Christian Theists do not accept much of the Bible as anything to do with God's message at all.
There are entire wings of Protestantism which hold that there is no such thing as free will.
Given the ridiculous and diverse religious practices and beliefs about God, it is not relevant if YOU think I do not get the message when so many others so obviously do not get it either.
As for YOUR view of god? Why should I think that is nay better than any go the others.
You make my case for me.