MrDarwin

Gemma, do you believe that God's creation is perfect? Because the logical conclusion is that everything that happens, happens exactly the way God wants it to--including suffering and damnation. Here an argument I made in <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=47&t=000487" target="_blank">another discussion:
</a>

In a nutshell, people suffer on earth, and following that suffer eternal damnation, precisely because God wanted people to suffer. Can you argue otherwise?

[ May 29, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]</p>

Ion

Apologist, your 'resoning' is faulty on many points.
No, it's not natural:
A reaction of simple-minded barbarians in the past, was to be superstitious when scared about the mighty nature and the little human knowledge of its laws.
Hence, folktales like the erroneous Bible were born.
A reaction of educated people today, is to understand the nature works through physical experiments.
Belief in God today is not natural, it's weak minded people inheriting superstitious heritage.
That's where your 'reasoning' is baloney: how "...this merely implies that atheism is easy..." among many possible options, including the one in which atheism is difficult because of responsible thinking? You simply use the word 'implies' to suit your sentiment that "...atheism is easy...", you are abusing the word 'implies'.
Your 'reasoning' is baloney again. Consider "There is no God, ...", and there is morality: for example The Code of Ethics in Engineering is not based on God, it's based on human knowledge of morality as it was historically tested by humans over time.
It is more responsible to be accountable of what you do to a human standard of historically established ethics, than it is to rely on a deity who takes care of you when you pray: your issues are solved by you taking charge within humanity, there is no supreme being giving you free rides because you pray.

Ion

No Gemma. In conscious life there is only logic and reason. In unconscious life there are other traits, but that's being unconscious.

Kamchatka

MrDarwin,

Are you arguing for or against the existence of Gemma's god?

It appears what you are arguing against is "His" benevolent character, which assumes "His" existence.

Kamchatka

Ion,

You said, "No Gemma, In conscious life there is only logic and reason. In unconscious life there are other traits, but that's being unconscious."

Would you care to provide us with the evidence that proves your assertions?

Ion

Around you only science and technology builds empirical tangible objects.
I haven't seen yet a highway 100% built on prayers, but I see that all highways are built on 100% science and technology.

Echo

Pardon me for jumping into the middle of this conversation, but for those of us who have been observing, this is all becoming very muddled.

Gemma seems to be suggesting that logic and reason are inadequate tools for determining whether a god exists. We apparently need to make use of some different kind of tool for this task.

By asking Ion to provide *evidence* of whatever claim he made, you are implying that you find logic and reason to be pretty darned useful tools for demonstrating the truth of a claim. After all, without logic and reason, the whole concept of *evidence* just doesn't make any sense.

So what's the deal? Are evidence, logic, and reason the tools we need to determine what is true, or do we need something else. And if we need something else, what in heck are you asking Ion for "evidence" for?

-=Vagrant=-

Why?

Ion

Good summation.

HRG

What articles did he write ? What peer-reviewed work did he publish ?
And the same holds true for djinnis, invisible pink unicorns and tatzelwuermer ....

HRG.