A reason for existence of God

[K1Barin]

You are of course free to believe in whatever you like but I showed that you cannot reason it to others.

But thanks to God, I feel that I am still able to reason for a Loving God to others.

Now you are not making any sense.

This is easy to say. Again same to you.

[bahman]

Well, you do if you want anybody else to agree with you. If you don't, then they can simply ignore it, because it lacks warrant. But that's up to you, of course.

It has to do so accurately. If your alleged "definition" is contentious and not generally conceded, then yes, you need to show you've defined the word in a way that everybody knows is correct.

Or you can just expect that people will respond, with good reason, "He doesn't seem to know what he's talking about."

Again, it's up to you.

Not for your definition: you need criteria for your value judgment.

A value judgment is a claim that something is "good" or "bad," or "righteous" or "evil," or "functional" or "disfunctional," or any other sort of value-implying terms like that.

You want to ask, "Why can we not claim God is evil?" "Evil" is a value-judgment. It implies criteria. That is, you must think you know what makes a thing "good" or "evil," so as to apply the term to God.

But I don't think you do. Because if I believe your definition, you think that "evil" is automatically "anything to do with pain." And I don't think you believe in God, and I don't think pain is always associated with evil. Sometimes it's associated with things like overcoming, triumph, exercise, achievement, victory, growth, and all sorts of other things most people see as quite positive.

So you've got to show your case...if you want anybody to believe you.


No. I want you to show that you know what "evil" means. I want you to show your criteria for that value judgment, no matter what entity you apply it to.

I'll let you pick the referent...anything you like. Just show that you have the right criteria in mind to detect when X is "evil."

I already discussed this

You didn't, actually. You only thought you did. You got the question wrong.

I can see you didn't understand it. I'll make it dead simple, if I can.

Whenever somebody says something is "bad" or "good" or "evil" or "useful" or "better than," or anything else like that, it's what's called a "value judgment."

But value judgements are not always right. They need to be shown to be right, if anybody is going to have reason to accept them. This is called "justification."

If you say "X is evil," then, if doubted, you need to prove you have the right concept of "evil" in order for that to be believable.

Your concept of "evil" is clearly doubtable. I would even say that, to me, it looks completely naive and refutable. But maybe it's not: I'm giving you the benefit of that doubt, and thus offering you the opportunity to prove it's not.

If you're going to show that you're right, you're going to have to provide the criteria by which you judge things to be "evil." "Pain" is not correct, because lots of things that entail pain are goods. Childbirth. Athletic competition. Parenting. Rescue operations. Academic achievement. All these things are clearly goods that entail pain.

So give me what criteria you are using to judge when something is "evil."

That's as simple as I can make it.

You are mixing things. We have four concepts when it comes to the state of reality and what we do. These four concepts are good, evil, right, and wrong. I already defined what is good and evil so I am left with right or wrong. Right is when something is permissible and wrong is when something is not permissible. So to sum it up, something is evil and right, like bodybuilding, and something is wrong and evil like cutting your arm. Etc.

[bahman]

But thanks to God, I feel that I am still able to reason for a Loving God to others.

Now you are not making any sense.

This is easy to say. Again same to you.

But I reasoned it and you failed to reason. So I am making sense but you don't.

[K1Barin]

There is still the wonder of it all, perhaps the seed of religion is knowing we are all part of something greater than ourselves, and it is quite beautiful, but also painful. If one knows the nature of life, that life lives upon life, I think one is more likely to be through an intelligent understanding more compassionate to all of one's fellow creatures. Yes, knowing nature does eliminate a loving god, perhaps through this understanding we could be more like gods ourselves and manifest a sacred life in a sacred environment. This is not going to happen believing in Disney world characters.

When the horrific death has no escape, be it God exists or God doesn't exist, where is the compassion to all of one's fellow creatures?

In the realization that the essence of all life forms is one and the same, only their structures and forms differ, thus, you make identification with possible, and only with the identification with others does compassion arise. It is rather obvious, that to a God all things are right and good, read murder, mayhem, death and suffering.

Then I suppose that if God didn't exist, these things would not happen. There would be compassion instead.

[K1Barin]

Now you are not making any sense.

This is easy to say. Again same to you.

But I reasoned it and you failed to reason. So I am making sense but you don't.

I don't think I am not reasoning yet.

[popeye1945]

When the horrific death has no escape, be it God exists or God doesn't exist, where is the compassion to all of one's fellow creatures?

In the realization that the essence of all life forms is one and the same, only their structures and forms differ, thus, you make identification with possible, and only with the identification with others does compassion arise. It is rather obvious, that to a God all things are right and good, read murder, mayhem, death and suffering.

Then I suppose that if God didn't exist, these things would not happen. There would be compassion instead.

God is logically unnecessary. If there was more identification with others there would be more compassion. Is this not basically what we base our humanity on? We call people devoid of compassion psychopaths and even if not stated, we assume them to be less human.

[bahman]

This is easy to say. Again same to you.

But I reasoned it and you failed to reason. So I am making sense but you don't.

I don't think I am not reasoning yet.

Where is your reason?

[K1Barin]

In the realization that the essence of all life forms is one and the same, only their structures and forms differ, thus, you make identification with possible, and only with the identification with others does compassion arise. It is rather obvious, that to a God all things are right and good, read murder, mayhem, death and suffering.

Then I suppose that if God didn't exist, these things would not happen. There would be compassion instead.

God is logically unnecessary. If there was more identification with others there would be more compassion. Is this not basically what we base our humanity on? We call people devoid of compassion psychopaths and even if not stated, we assume them to be less human.

Fine, a Loving God is not necessary for you. Keep identification with others and say that to them if you think there would be more compassion.

[K1Barin]

But I reasoned it and you failed to reason. So I am making sense but you don't.

I don't think I am not reasoning yet.

Where is your reason?

Maybe I am missing a point, reason for what?

[bahman]

I don't think I am not reasoning yet.

Where is your reason?

Maybe I am missing a point, reason for what?

The reason for my reason is wrong. If you cannot show that my reason is wrong then it follows that my reason is right. Therefore there is no God.

[Immanuel Can]

We have four concepts when it comes to the state of reality and what we do. These four concepts are good, evil, right, and wrong.

No, no "we" don't. Famously, David Hume doesn't agree with you, and most people won't agree with you, and now I don't agree with you. We don't "have" anything, unless the speaker provides the criteria by which he insists we are to judge -- then, and maybe only then, we might.

But right now, "we" have nothing.

Maybe I've asked you a question that's just too hard for you. I guess that's possible. But whether you know it or not, it's going to stay one very good reason why people don't believe you, unless you can find a way to understand and answer it.

Good luck.

[Immanuel Can]

If you cannot show that my reason is wrong then it follows that my reason is right.

That's like saying, if you can't show that disease is not caused by pixies, it is. Total nonsense.

[K1Barin]

Where is your reason?

Maybe I am missing a point, reason for what?

The reason for my reason is wrong. If you cannot show that my reason is wrong then it follows that my reason is right. Therefore there is no God.

Sorry for there are so many replies, I may have forgotten your reason for no God. I remember that you were saying time started with no intervention. I responded with reasoning no intervention leaves no reason for time to start. You said you can simplify your reason for start of time is there would be life which everything is after. My objection to that is if there is no Love to cause the start of time, there is no reason for life and everybody which are after life, to have any sense for life for everybody to be after life. You said that there are complicated reasons, and life and all that were your simple way to express your reason. As I said there is flaw in your simple reason. For life and everything being after life, there must be Love as reason to start time. I mean start of time can not be with no intervention. That is my reason that you can not overrule a Loving God.

[bahman]

We have four concepts when it comes to the state of reality and what we do. These four concepts are good, evil, right, and wrong.

No, no "we" don't. Famously, David Hume doesn't agree with you, and most people won't agree with you, and now I don't agree with you. We don't "have" anything, unless the speaker provides the criteria by which he insists we are to judge -- then, and maybe only then, we might.

But right now, "we" have nothing.

Maybe I've asked you a question that's just too hard for you. I guess that's possible. But whether you know it or not, it's going to stay one very good reason why people don't believe you, unless you can find a way to understand and answer it.

Good luck.

I understood your question. Maybe, that is you who didn't understand my answer. What is your definition of good? What God says is good. What if there is no God? Then you have to think through it and hopefully reach the conclusion that I reached!

[popeye1945]

Then I suppose that if God didn't exist, these things would not happen. There would be compassion instead.

God is logically unnecessary. If there was more identification with others there would be more compassion. Is this not basically what we base our humanity on? We call people devoid of compassion psychopaths and even if not stated, we assume them to be less human.

Fine, a Loving God is not necessary for you. Keep identification with others and say that to them if you think there would be more compassion.

OK----LOL!!