What is the purpose of God?

[yiostheoy]

He designed spina bifida, Down's syndrome, microcephaly, meningitis, AIDS, SIDS, ringworm, whooping cough, TB, measles, leukemia, juvenile diabetes, cleft palate, muscular dystrophy,.... When He calls the little children to come onto Him, they really do suffer.

Remember Leibniz.

[sthitapragya]

Well, in that case, the 45 Million dollars hasn't considered the trauma to the abused children.

My basic point is, no one considers the damage done to children.as if it does not matter. And I find that disgusting. No human being worth his salt can ever ignore damage done to children. So what does everyone here really stand for? A god that ignores children? What are you truly worshipping?

That sounds a little bigoted, actually. Are you truly suggesting you think God sanctions paedophelia? Or are you saying you think Theists do? Either way...well, consider how that looks. I think before you say that, you're going to want to know that you can prove that, or people are going to think you're just being prejudiced.

To clarify, none of the churches in the study has been involved with ANY accusation of paedophelia. So your accusation is more than a little unfair. And I'm sure you know that the Catholic Church's problems with the incontinence of their priests is largely due to the Catholic policy of mandatory celibacy.

In contrast, most Theists do not even have such a policy imposed on them...not even the Catholic ones. So you surely can't be saying that 45 million dollars a year worth of good, done by people with no connection to paedophelia is somehow to be traded off against the sins of Mt. Cashel's Catholic priests...that's would simply be perverse.

In point of fact, I'm sure you know you will find paedophiles everywhere; and yes, I agree that wherever they are found, they are always guilty of a deplorable sin. But why are you not pointing to all the Atheists who commit paedophelia? Why are you supposing a correlation with Theism that you would never think to make with Atheism?

I'm pretty sure from what you say that you have no statistics on its incidence among Atheists and secularists. Want to hazard a guess? What would you think: how many convicted paedophiles are likely to be Catholic clergymen, and how many are not?

If you can do numbers, you'll figure out pretty quickly there's no positive correlation between paedophelia and Catholicism, let alone between it and Theism in general. In fact, it's strongly negative.

As the report indicates, Theism is strongly pro-social and beneficial in practical ways, whatever you think of it as a philosophy.

But you really knew that, didn't you? The paedophelia thing was just a convenient "stick" with which to beat all Theists. It's easier than being reasonable.

I am not denying that atheists could be pedophiles too. Of course there must be. The point is, belief in God is supposed to make you a better person. That doesn't seem to be happening. Priests are supposed to be representatives of God. Such behaviour is least expected of them. Atheists are basically debased creatures so nothing good can be expected of them. But God's representatives? What good did belief in God do? Where did their higher selves go?

But even looking beyond that, if you believe in Intelligent Design, then you believe that the present design is deliberate. I that case, how do you explain a design where children are exploited abused? How is that intelligent design?

I also de not believe God sanctions paedophilia. I am convinced that of God really existed, paedophilia would not. Such an intelligent being would not design a system in which child abuse could exist. That is what I am saying.

[yiostheoy]

God has not told us why.

I wonder how you know that...

That's just my guess. It is an inference and hypothesis based on my own observations of God.

How can you "observe" that concerning which you say you have no data? How can you "infer" anything or "hypothesize" either?

But if you can "observe," "infer" and "hypothesize," you will need at least one datum from which to extrapolate...

Just asking.

You can read every holy book on this Earth and not find anything on the purpose of God -- any God.

What God has supposedly told us based on what various holy men have written has nothing to do with my own Philosophy however.

I am Empiricist and therefore what I know is based on what I have seen, heard, touched, and reasoned a-priori and a-posteriori.

The starting point for everyone needs to be complete skepticism.

The next step is Descartes' cogito ergo sum.

In my opinion the next step is Empiricism.

Empiricism involves tabula rasa.

Immanuel Kant then provides a-priori and a-posteriori -- this is practically self evident itself.

The next step will be the 4 classic proofs (1 proof and 3 corollaries) of First Cause, Prime Mover, Artistic Artificer, and Purposeful Designer.

At that point you then need to choose between some form of Theism/Deism or some form of Atheism/Agnosticism, noting the risks of the latter as an unhedged position with everything to lose and nothing to gain from Atheism/Agnosticism. But to each his/her own.

Ultimately you will be in a position to call upon faith for your strength -- either faith in Theism/Deism or faith in Atheism/Agnosticism. These are all belief systems. No one of them is superior to any of the others.

If God chooses you to speak to, for whatever reason, congrats. Then your doubts are dispelled and your faith changes to knowledge.

And if not, you are either in a hedged or an unhedged position. Take your pick. That should be an easy choice for any rational risk-reducing person.

[Skip]

If you can do numbers, you'll figure out pretty quickly there's no positive correlation between paedophelia and Catholicism

How about between enforced celibacy and eccentric sexual practice? Monasteries, prisons, reform schools, English 'public' schools?
That's nothing to do with the particular religion and all about unnatural living arrangements.

[yiostheoy]

If you can do numbers, you'll figure out pretty quickly there's no positive correlation between paedophelia and Catholicism

How about between enforced celibacy and eccentric sexual practice? Monasteries, prisons, reform schools, English 'public' schools?
That's nothing to do with the particular religion and all about unnatural living arrangements.

You seem pretty hung up on pedophilia.

If you were a victim then you need to get counselling.

If you were not a victim then I do not believe the issue however remote is relevant to you.

Parents who turn their children over to the Church for babysitting are not great parents.

Catechism normally occurs around the age of 12. By the age of 12 children should understand that nobody should be touching them except the doctor not the priests. Good parents teach their kids about that.

Your fallacy is called a red herring and it is a detraction from the thread. You can cry all you want about it but it is still a fallacy -- way off point.

[Immanuel Can]

I am not denying that atheists could be pedophiles too. Of course there must be. The point is, belief in God is supposed to make you a better person.

Well, what's your empirical evidence that it doesn't? That a few men who call themselves Theists (i.e. Catholic priests), but who clearly don't live like they believe what they say were guilty of something? That seems an extremely poor indicator...I think you'd have to concede that.

That doesn't seem to be happening. Priests are supposed to be representatives of God.

"Supposed to be," but clearly aren't, since they do things God clearly told them not to. Are you accusing God by accusing those who DON'T do what He says? Or are you actually assuming that if a tiny minority of Catholic priests violate their oaths, that so do all Jews, Christians and other Theists? If not, what's the argument here? You'll have to explain it more precisely, because at the moment I'm not seeing anything that a reasonable person could conclude from the evidence to which you specifically refer.

How do you explain a design where children are exploited abused? How is that intelligent design?

I can see you don't know what Christian theology says about this, or you would frame the question quite differently, I suspect. Your assumption is of a kind of Deistic god, whether you realize that or not. You're assuming something from the present state to the ideal (i.e. God-sanctioned) state, really; and Christian theology deals with the answer to why the present state is not the ideal state.

And I think we both realize that. The way things are is not as they should be. And I think a reasonable explanation should take that as its starting point. But without proof that there is no sufficient reason for even allowing temporary freedom to human beings, the implication that God must preclude evil is not sound.

I am convinced that of God really existed, paedophilia would not.

Your assumption, then, is that God could have no sufficient reason for allowing human freedom in moral matters, is that why you're saying? You're thinking that if God existed he would be morally obliged to create the state of affairs in which sin was impossible?

[Immanuel Can]

If you can do numbers, you'll figure out pretty quickly there's no positive correlation between paedophelia and Catholicism

How about between enforced celibacy and eccentric sexual practice?

Oh, absolutely. I have no disagreement there. But there's absolutely no Theistic warrant for enforced celibacy. So it doesn't help make any case against Theism, just against that particular item of Catholic dogma. And even the Catholics are now having to revisit that one.

[Reflex]

Why does God exist?

Why not?

What is the purpose of his existence?

Why does God's existence need a purpose?

[Skip]

I never laid that one on belief in a god.

[Immanuel Can]

I never laid that one on belief in a god.

Fair enough.

[Skip]

The god delusion is not the cause of any human madness. It's a symptom.

[yiostheoy]

The god delusion is not the cause of any human madness. It's a symptom.

The god denial is a disease of the mind that comes from the inability to grasp Philosophy.

[sthitapragya]

I am not denying that atheists could be pedophiles too. Of course there must be. The point is, belief in God is supposed to make you a better person.

Well, what's your empirical evidence that it doesn't? That a few men who call themselves Theists (i.e. Catholic priests), but who clearly don't live like they believe what they say were guilty of something? That seems an extremely poor indicator...I think you'd have to concede that.

That doesn't seem to be happening. Priests are supposed to be representatives of God.

"Supposed to be," but clearly aren't, since they do things God clearly told them not to. Are you accusing God by accusing those who DON'T do what He says? Or are you actually assuming that if a tiny minority of Catholic priests violate their oaths, that so do all Jews, Christians and other Theists? If not, what's the argument here? You'll have to explain it more precisely, because at the moment I'm not seeing anything that a reasonable person could conclude from the evidence to which you specifically refer.

How do you explain a design where children are exploited abused? How is that intelligent design?

I can see you don't know what Christian theology says about this, or you would frame the question quite differently, I suspect. Your assumption is of a kind of Deistic god, whether you realize that or not. You're assuming something from the present state to the ideal (i.e. God-sanctioned) state, really; and Christian theology deals with the answer to why the present state is not the ideal state.

And I think we both realize that. The way things are is not as they should be. And I think a reasonable explanation should take that as its starting point. But without proof that there is no sufficient reason for even allowing temporary freedom to human beings, the implication that God must preclude evil is not sound.

I am convinced that of God really existed, paedophilia would not.

Your assumption, then, is that God could have no sufficient reason for allowing human freedom in moral matters, is that why you're saying? You're thinking that if God existed he would be morally obliged to create the state of affairs in which sin was impossible?

Let me be clear on something. I am not saying belief in God is responsible for the behaviour of Theists. The problem here is that while debating with you, I have to keep in mind the other Theists in this forum too who point out the inherent evil of atheists. So while I am on the one hand trying to create a starting point for us, I at the same time preparing grounds for the others.

If the contention is that Atheism is evil, it stems from the godlessness. I am simply establishing that belief in God does not change human behaviour for the better.

Having said that, I definitely believe the world would have been a much "better" place if it were designed by an Intelligent Being Worth the admiration being shown. If you are saying this world with all the inherent violence, some of which seems absolutely pointless, is the work of an impersonal God, it still does not explain the Intelligence. I really don't know how to explain this better, because it is glaringly obvious to me. The world as it is without a designer is amazing, but with an intelligent designer, it just sucks.

[Immanuel Can]

Having said that, I definitely believe the world would have been a much "better" place if it were designed by an Intelligent Being Worth the admiration being shown. If you are saying this world with all the inherent violence, some of which seems absolutely pointless, is the work of an impersonal God, it still does not explain the Intelligence.

I'm not saying that. I'm suggesting your understanding of the concept "god" sounds far more Deistic than Theistic. I don't hold to the same concept. But that's why I can't defend the view of a god you're floating at the moment -- it's not premised on a critique of Theism, but more of Deism.

The difference is this: Deism has no credible explanation for evil. Theism does. (Deism's rather like Atheism in that, actually; no credible account of evil.)

I really don't know how to explain this better, because it is glaringly obvious to me.

Well, at one time it was "glaringly obvious" to every person on the planet that the world was flat. What made the difference between the "glaringly obvious" error and the truth was simply the addition of facts. Is it not possible that additional facts might help in this case too?

The world as it is without a designer is amazing, but with an intelligent designer, it just sucks.

I can't see why that would be true; you've got the same world either way, don't you?

[sthitapragya]

I'm not saying that. I'm suggesting your understanding of the concept "god" sounds far more Deistic than Theistic. I don't hold to the same concept. But that's why I can't defend the view of a god you're floating at the moment -- it's not premised on a critique of Theism, but more of Deism.

The difference is this: Deism has no credible explanation for evil. Theism does. (Deism's rather like Atheism in that, actually; no credible account of evil.)

Sort of like Brahman. I get that. Even so, the inherent violence in nature is not evil. Animals killing animals to feed themselves is not evil. But if you claim that an intelligent designer deliberately made a system like that, then the system becomes evil. I thin you are assuming I am trying to say why evil exists. I am not. I don't think there is any evil in this world, as long as God does not exist. As soon as you put God in the picture, the problem of evil comes up.

Evil is in the intent. A designer implies a being who knew what to expect from the design. In such a case, the violence in the system was expected and was figured into the calculations. That would make the system evil. Without the designer, what happened happened. There was no intent, so there is no evil.

Well, at one time it was "glaringly obvious" to every person on the planet that the world was flat. What made the difference between the "glaringly obvious" error and the truth was simply the addition of facts. Is it not possible that additional facts might help in this case too?

[/quote]

Any facts which explain why this world, if designed by an intelligent designer, is wonderful is welcome.