Freethought & Rationalism Archive

beausoleil · 06-23-2003, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by GPLindsey
I'm familiar enough with this principle to know its rubbish.

But you seem to have it mixed up with a design principle from the way you go on to discuss it?

Quote:

As for all the physicists out there who say the odds for Life are very very small, I've read enough Scientific American to know that that is not a universal opinion.

Thanks for giving me one good laugh before I go to bed. How much was 'enough'?

Philosoft · 06-23-2003, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Anti-Materialist

I challenge you guys to come up with anything about the nature of our reality that is inherently conflicting with the concept of a loving God.

I bet you that for any explanation of how a loving God wouldn't allow this, that, or the other to happen - I can come up with an explanation of how in fact a loving God could allow such a thing to happen.

It appears you have left yourself an out by using the qualifier "loving." A loving God might be said to do many things that aren't strictly or immediately benevolent. A more interesting topic is the reconciliation of suffering with a morally perfect God. If you're interested, take a look.

Anti-Materialist · 06-23-2003, 08:58 PM

I see absolutely no reason to assume that God is perfect.

First, you'd have to define what perfect is - which sounds mighty tricky to me.

But second - why should God have to be perfect?

Philosoft · 06-23-2003, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Anti-Materialist
I see absolutely no reason to assume that God is perfect.

First, you'd have to define what perfect is - which sounds mighty tricky to me.

But second - why should God have to be perfect?

Good gravy, I even italicised for emphasis.

Morally perfect: characterized by making the morally best decision in every instance

Anti-Materialist · 06-23-2003, 09:05 PM

Good Gravy, I thought it was obvious...

Morally perfect is a subset of perfect.

Why should God have to be morally perfect? I would imagine God is morally pretty good - but perfect seems unattainable to me.

Philosoft · 06-23-2003, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Anti-Materialist

Morally perfect is a subset of perfect.

This makes no sense. What kind of set is "perfect"?

Quote:

Why should God have to be morally perfect? I would imagine God is morally pretty good - but perfect seems unattainable to me.

You're not thinking very hard. I can easily imagine both a particular moral system, and a being that would be morally perfect within that system.

yguy · 06-23-2003, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Anti-Materialist
Why should God have to be morally perfect? I would imagine God is morally pretty good - but perfect seems unattainable to me.

Being a defensive end in the NFL seems unattainable to me. Obvoiusly it's not so for everybody.

Anti-Materialist · 06-23-2003, 09:52 PM

Quote:

This makes no sense. What kind of set is "perfect"?

Perfect
Morally perfect
Creatively perfect
mathematically perfect
Intellectually perfect
Wears perfect shoes
Perfectly punctual
Perfectly polite

Now does it make sense? Morally perfect would be one type of perfection.

I don't wish to argue about who said what - that gets boring. I much more enjoy taunting you guys with arguments about how you cannot get something from nothing.

Anti-Materialist · 06-23-2003, 09:55 PM

I am not saying that God isn't morally perfect. I really don't know much about God at all. I am just saying that I don't see why he would HAVE to be morally perfect.

Hawkingfan · 06-24-2003, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Anti-Materialist
Your billion coin toss concept is an excellent example of the many worlds theory, and the Anthropic Principle.

If there are billions of parallel universes, then it would not seem so odd that we are in the universe that has life in it. Only the universes that have life in them would be the ones to give rise to creatures who can make such observations.

Thus, it seems to me, that in order to be an accidentalist (just made that word up) - that is, in order to believe that the universe is not designed, but rather is here by accident - you would have to believe that there are probably billions of other universes.

I don't believe the universe is designed at all. The main reason I believe that is because there is no evidence to support the claim that it is (no evidence for Scientific Creationism). However, there are many theories that can explain many of the "complexities" in the universe.

I don't see how the fact that our universe has life in it, means it's highly improbable. Why do you not assume that billions of other universes have life as well?
If life is so improbable, then certainly the existence of a god who fashioned it is even more so.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-23-2003, 08:58 PM	#13
Anti-Materialist Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Georgia Posts: 87	I see absolutely no reason to assume that God is perfect. First, you'd have to define what perfect is - which sounds mighty tricky to me. But second - why should God have to be perfect?

06-23-2003, 09:05 PM	#15
Anti-Materialist Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Georgia Posts: 87	Good Gravy, I thought it was obvious... Morally perfect is a subset of perfect. Why should God have to be morally perfect? I would imagine God is morally pretty good - but perfect seems unattainable to me.

06-23-2003, 09:55 PM	#19
Anti-Materialist Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Georgia Posts: 87	I am not saying that God isn't morally perfect. I really don't know much about God at all. I am just saying that I don't see why he would HAVE to be morally perfect.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.