Jinto

I notice that yguy has some trouble beleiving in rocks.

From the book of atheism*:

Socrates 13:10 - But, among the townspeople, there was one who did not believe in the existence of rocks.
13:11 - And he cried "thou fool, what evidence is there for rocks that exists not for God?"
13:12 - And socrates said "let this one be taken to the city, and stoned with stones, that he might die (or believe in rocks, whichever comes first)
13:13 - And so the doubter was taken to the city, and pelted with all kinds of rock.
13:14 - And he cried out "okay, I was wrong, rocks do exist." And there was much rejoycing.

*Which, much like the god of atheism, doesn't actually exist.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by yguy :

Nothing; there is no sound deductive argument with "God exists" as the conclusion.

I doubt it. Try to find one.

It follows from the definition of God.

God would try to prevent needless suffering if he were morally perfect.

What's more important, the long term or the short term?

yguy

You missed the point. What I'm asking is, if we were presented with evidence of God's existence, on what basis would we say, "Yes, it's God," or "No, it isn't"?

You can start by telling me how we know the definition of God we use is correct.

Keep talking, and I will.

"If God existed, then probably, there would be less intense widespread apparently gratuitous suffering and premature death than there is now."

"Apparently gratuitous suffering"? That's just great. Evidently if YOU think actions attributed to God lead to gratuitous suffering, God doesn't exist. Right?

And "probably"? What the hell kind of mealy-mouthed syllogism is this? It's got loopholes big enough to drive a battleship through, for crying out loud.

Again, you miss the point. An infant can't be subjected to the realities of the material world, or it will almost certainly die. Likewise, a person can't handle too much truth all at once.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by yguy :

Whether Ockham's Razor would rule out something with the attributes of God.

All definitions "we" use are correct. We get to choose what our words mean. Sure, there might be some being something like God that we don't know about, but that doesn't mean our definition of "God" is incorrect, just that it's not instantiated by any person.

If God allows gratuitous suffering, God doesn't exist. It follows analytically from the definition of God.

That's argument by assertion.

Because God isn't powerful enough to let us, apparently. You obviously don't believe in the God of monotheism.

Nostalgic Pushhead

Could someone explain this argument? I'm an athiest, but I don't think this makes any logical sense.
It basically says "Currently there isn't less suffering than there is currently".
There's no measurement of "suffering" on which to base it. Its like saying "Its hotter out today than it is."

I admit I don't know much about logic & debate... but it was facetious, right?

Clutch

Hey, it's a new entry for the list!

yguy's argument from 'Yeah, but why?'

1) Okay, I can't give any remotely plausible reasons to believe in a god.
2) But so what? For any argument you give me, I can utter the words Yeah, but why?.
Therefore,
3) God exists.

Hawkingfan

Yes, by scientists. And by people who have a good grasp of everyday realities (this would exclude you). I know they aren't wrong because I can see rocks, touch rocks, feel rocks, and smell rocks.
You seem to have some basic problems of understanding what is and what is not evidence. This is no surprise since you cannot even determine what is fantasy and what is real.
Positive. It would be unreasonable to believe that something could. You should at least admit that belief in your deity is unreasonable. That does not mean that you can stop believing in it. But it is simply unreasonable.

Nostalgic Pushhead

Oh okay, seems that perplexing quote is in the spirit of the "list". Which has been bookmarked.

Clutch

Picsez,

Oh, no. The bit you quoted is not facetious. (Neither, I suppose, is yguy's argument, but therein lies the irony.)

The argument you quoted (Drange's, via Thomas Metcalf) is guilty only of a sort of pretentious clarity. The point is just this: Call the level of suffering in the world S. It's plausible that, if the whole show was being run by an all-powerful and all-benevolent being, then the level of suffering in the world would be rather less than S. So it's plausible that the show is not being so run.

If you re-read it, this interpretation ought to be clear.

yguy

"when you have two competing theories which make exactly the same predictions, the one that is simpler is the better."

This Occam's Razor?

And on what basis have we decided to make that the benchmark? Is a better theory more true? I mean, are we looking to win a debating contest here, or are we looking for the truth?

Who says they are?

That, of course, is the problem. If your definition of morality dictates that it's immoral for God to allow suffering, any evidence of His existence that doesn't pass that litmus test will be rejected. If that definition of morality is determined by some sort of consensus, it amounts to saying God doesn't exist unless we say he does.

Such humility.

And who gets to define "gratuitous"? Maybe the same nitwits who snivel about one civilian casualty being too many in a war, who have never so much as shouldered a loaded rifle, and who yet presume to cast aspersions on the humanity of those in command?

How in hell can you or anyone else be a judge of that?

Why is that a problem? What I need to hear is, "Your statement is false because [insert reasoning here]."

The criteria you have so far set forth are so vague as to be meaningless.

Uh huh. And if our military were all it's cracked up to be, it wouldn't ever take any innocent lives.

You don't understand the concept well enough to make such a judgment.