Zadok001

Eh? Before making the presumption he's a plagerist, note he has the same name as the author of the dreck you linked to.

Eric: You really need to work on your reasoning before you can expect to accomplish anything by posting this. As has been stated before, you are essentially saying "God exists, therefore, God exists." That's circular reasoning, and it gets us no where.

Nice try, though.

thebeave

Is there an emoticon somewhere I can borrow for EXTREME boredom?

enigma555

ACK!

My bad.

I see sooooo many people do it, and I rush to judgement.

<goes to cower in the corner>

Eric H

missus_gumby thanks for not hurling this post into oblivion, I know it is a long rant.

---------------------------------------------------------------

BTW - just on one of your points (one that wanders throughout your entire sermon)? The difference between a PARENT and a GOD is that a PARENT is NOT omniscient nor omnipotent.

If I knew beforehand, as a parent, that my child would grow up to be Adolph Hitler, I'd be in the surgeons office getting my nuts chopped faster than you can say "Goddidit" (and I bet you can say that pretty fast).

Cheers,

The San Diego Atheist
----------------------------------------------------------------



If there is a God you would expect him to have all these omniscient, omnipotent qualities. Just maybe all these assumptions about God might not be wholly true.

But what would it mean if there were a God who created children in his own image? My whole argument depends on the freedom to love as being the greatest quality a God or any one else can have to create children.

True freedom cannot be a PERFECT quality, because we have the freedom to murder.

How do you regard your own freedom, would you give up your own freedom if it meant everyone else also gave up his or her freedom so there would be no evil?

To create children with a true freedom means you must forfeit any control you may have over them.

How can you create children with a true freedom to love and also know what they are going to do? This seems to be a contradiction in terms.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

hello Diana
This is the forum where we argue about that very thing--not start from that premise.

Happy trails.

d
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I sense that many people on this forum start from a premise, there is or isn’t a God.
And at least you know where they stand.

God either exists totally or there is no God at all, you could toss a coin and have a fifty- fifty chance of being a hundred percent correct.
It seems as if one of the greatest arguments for the non existence of God rests on free will and the existence of evil. I just happen to see free will from another angle.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Enigma555
I hate plagiarists. Even when they're plagiarizing dreck.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That was my artical, only bits of it are my own thoughts, like everyone else we are influenced by other people. I suspect very few people can be truly original.

I thought that maybe very few people would read it or if they read it, they would not remember it.

Anyway no hard feelings

Eric

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Salmon of Doubt

This is because the evidence indicates that God does not exist.

Are you saying that there is a 50/50 chance of God existing? How do you arrive at that conclusion?! And if you aren't saying that there is a 50/50 chance of God existing, what ARE you trying to say?

Mike Rosoft

>Only search for the greatest meaning and the greatest purpose as you read this, but starting with the premise that God exists.

Why do I have to start with a premise that God exists? Is there anything I need this hypothesis for? (Thanks, Laplace.)

>1, There must be a God who willingly loves all of his children as he loves HIMSELF, for all time and unconditionally.

Is this your reasoning? "There is a God, therefore there is a God"?

And if he indeed exists, how can I know that he loves me? What he did for me, ever?

>2. All of mankind to be created with the freedom to love God the creator unconditionally.
>3. All of mankind to be created with the freedom to love all of God’s children (neighbours) as they love themselves, unconditionally.

"Love God." A simple question: Why?

"Love all people." While looking good, this seems unrealistic to me. Am I supposed to love even people who try to harm me, or criminals like Hitler?

>Many people doubt the existence of God because of all the conflict and suffering that mankind has to endure; surly a loving
>God would not allow this to happen.

>[God] could withhold free will and create the ideal society where no one would fall to the temptations of anger, lust, envy,
>gluttony, pride covetousness, sloth, and love. Everyone would work for the good of others, putting the needs of society before
>their own needs freely with no grumbles. This would be like the ant society; there is no free will involved.
[later]
>Sadly to create life with total freedom will mean that the innocent will suffer.

Try answering two questions to me:

Does suffering and evil exist in heaven?
Does free will exist in heaven?

>If I were God how could I live with myself when I look at life on Earth? How could I put things right? Should I intervene and stop
>evil happening? Do I just intervene in extreme cases like murder, rape, child abuse, and violence?
...
>If I know evil is about to happen, how do I prevent it happening?
...
>To do any of these things I am ‘God the Dictator’ a controlling God because I become judge, jury, and executioner, probably
>thousands of times every day. Intervention takes away free will because I am going to decide what I will allow you and everyone
>else to do.

Stopping a criminal from committing evil doesn't prevent him from deciding to do it in the first place, nor does stopping the natural disasters intervene with anyone's free will. The God as you describe him to me looks like a policeman who, watching a person being robbed, ignores any of his calling for help for the same reason.

And what you say is inconsistent with the Bible. If I recall correctly, it says that God intervened in the world, in fact very often.

>LOVE GOD
>If God has the capacity to create life from nothing then he must also have the ability to resurrect life after death.

I can't see why this is supposed to be a reason to love God.

>Life after death with God must be God’s final purpose for humanity.

Thanks, I'll stick to this one. At least, it is the only one I know I'll have, or I've ever had.

I believe that if God exists, he'll judge my according to my actions, and not my (lack of) faith in him.

>CHRIST ON EARTH.
>Christ died to forgive us our sins. Why did he forgive us? It was because he loved us as he loves himself. Why does he love us in
>this way? Because it is the greatest love that he can have.

Why did Jesus have to die so that God could forgive my sins? Why couldn't God forgive me right away?

>In peace
>Eric Hyom

In reason,


Mike Rosoft

I ate Pascal's Wafer

Eric, Right, and we expect people to support their premises here. The premise that there is a god has not been supported. Since the rest of your argument depends on that premise, you must support that premise before anyone would accept your argument.

How do you figure? What logic did you use to arrive at this figure? That's like saying that there is a 50/50 chance of being right about invisible pixies dancing on my knee.

The free will argument is only evidence against an omniscient deity. Basically, an omniscient creator simply cannot create free will because he would know what his creation would do before he created it. However, this does not mean that a supernatural deity who is not omniscient doesn't exist.

The argument from evil shows that God cannot be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent at the same time. God can be omniscient and omnipotent, but also evil. Or, God could be omniscient and omnibenevolent, but not omnipotent. Thus, he cannot rid the world of evil.

The free will argument and the argument from evil are only arguments against a defined deity. If you were to redefine "god," then the arguments would fail.

The greatest argument for the nonexistence of God seems to be the astounding lack of evidence for that deity. The argument from evil and the like are just icing on the cake.

-Nick

Zadok001

Eric H:

I'd like to thank you for not doing a "Post-And-Run." That's far too common, and it's somewhat reassuring to see that you at least care enough to see how other people respond to your statements.

On the issue of the question itself. It really is your basic premise that is the issue, here. It's literally impossible to disprove the existance of a God, obviously, but it's very possible to state that the evidence so far presented favors the non-existance of such a deity.

At Infidels, we don't START from the premise that there is no God. We start from the premise that if God exists, certain conditions of reality would be true. We find, in general, those conditions to be false, hence, we believe God does not exist. If you wish to change that standard, your objective should be to approach the question of "How can I show evidence of God's existance," rather than "What can I say about God once he is shown to exist?"

Mageth

Wow.

There is a way to search for a greatest purpose for the existence of the universe and life by finding answers to three questions.

Or, you can realize that there is no purpose, great or small, for the existence of the universe and life. Then you don't have to waste your time searching and can get on with your life. Have a beer!

Only search for the greatest meaning and the greatest purpose as you read this, but starting with the premise that God exists.

Alternatively, don't start with that premise, and skip the rest of the OP. Then go get an ice cold beer.

To make any sense for the creation of the universe there is a need to start from an ultimate purpose; and ask a forth question.

Or you can just realize that searching for sense for the creation of the universe is, well, senseless. Then ask yourself "Where can I get a good, cheap, ice cold beer?"

I ate Pascal's Wafer

mmm...beer