A Christian becomes a nonbeliever

[muhammad_isa]

The actual evidence makes it a lot more likely..

What evidence?

 

[muhammad_isa]

But if that's your view as well, then your religion has had an ill-effect on you if it convinced you that can't happen.

No it doesn't. I try to live my life as if the future matters. That is a positive influence.

 

[CG Didymus]

I asked you why believe something absent sufficient evidence to justify that belief,

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob did things to prove himself real. The Gods of the people around them were not real. They were made of wood and stone. But I'd betcha that those people acted as if those Gods were real.

So, with the prophets of Baal, Elijah challenged them to call upon their God to send fire and consume an offering of a slaughtered bull. The prophets of Baal called to their God but their was no answer. But when Elijah called on the true and living God, fire came down and completely consumed the offering.

Why can't people in any religion do something like this?

 

[setarcos]

I must stop you right here to say that this is your conception of God. Not mine, nor anyone else I know.

You must stop me? Interesting way of putting it. You make me sound as if I'm committing a crime. Eh, perhaps I am in your eyes.
Anyways...its not my conception of God. I happen to be describing a common Christian/philosophic conception of God - the ultimate singular being whose qualities include omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, and personal involvement in its creation etc which the original questions were leaning towards having mentioned Adam/Eve and a Good God and evil etc.
If that is not known by anyone else you know, you need to get out of the house more often. You may not agree with the definition but its hardly a rare one and is based upon Christian revelation and deep philosophical rumination.

I am not saying this to discredit what you are bringing to the table, by the way.

I'm glad you clarified that because I can't see how your statement discredits my argument.

But let's proceed this conversation with your conception of God.

Um....okay? I guess that's a starting point to having a discussion about God.
I'd like to hear your conception of what God is though in comparison. Just so I can get a grasp on how your approaching this subject.

Nobody is questioning why we are not absolutely perfect, also known as God on this case.

I never said they were. That's not part of the argument.

If you can show anyone stating that God should have created everyone else as Gods on this topic, I will take my words back.

I think you've read but haven't given yourself time enough to ruminate upon what you've read. I never claimed anyone mentioned such a thing. What I believe your referring to is a thought experiment concerning what humans might conceive a perfect creation to be like given from a human perspective not Gods. I was trying to show how inevitably flawed those perspectives must be when applied to Gods actions.

While creating another Gods could be impossible (and that is not necessarily the case for there is room to debate over that too

I don't think so. By definition - Christian/philosophical - God is necessarily singular. A God among equals is no true God at all. This concept goes all the way back to early Greece at least. A quick reflection on qualities such as omnipotence will show you that. Once a being has an equal that being can no longer be omnipotent. Once more than one being is omniscient, and omnipresent those beings are indistinguishable one from the other. Every thought, every act, every point in reality would be one singular possibility.

this doesn't entail that creating beings that don't suffer from evil would also be contradictory.

I've made the argument that it does.

Not being able to do the 'most' doesn't entail not being able to do the 'least', do you get what I am saying?

It does if your essence declares perfect justice from the inevitable. I know its a hard egg to swallow and it seems simplistically counter intuitive but God could no more create a universe without suffering than you could not think of something you've been told not to think of. Once you know what not to think of you've already thought of it. In order for God to be a creator God and retain the qualities of being God its creation must include probabilistic suffering or else contradiction occurs. Remove evil and good becomes absolutely meaningless. Its no longer good. There would be no comparative standard whereby one may judge it. Humans may imagine what is good. And even produce some good in the world. But only in speculative comparison of what is evil. In other words humans can imagine evil without actualizing it in reality and thereby do good. God however is reality. Its conceptualization is actualization in reality.
Many believe that evil in creation is a contradiction alongside a good God. I'm trying to show that that belief is exactly backwards. A good God necessitates the possibility of evil in the world.

You mentioned that possibility is a necessary component of perfection.

Yes, nothing that is impossible can be perfect as well.

why must the possibility of imperfection be actualized?

Lets take a simple example. A line. Defined, a perfect line would be the shortest distance between two points in a plane. How can we actualize a perfect line in reality? First we would have to have a standard by which we can judge that qualifying perfection. How do we know what it means to be the shortest distance between two points unless we have a standard of comparison to that which is not the shortest distance between two points? The perfect line is actualized by this standard which is actualized by the perfect line.
Another way to look at it...anything outside the line is not the line. But the line can only be defined in comparison to what is not the line. Perfection is defined by what is imperfect so what is imperfect must exist in order to define what is perfect.
There is one important distinction though which perhaps you missed.
Humans can imperfectly theorize about perfection in comparison to imperfection without actualizing either since human thought is not synonymous with actualization in reality. God's thoughts however -the Christian version - are reality and so are actualized as reality.

why must suffering be possible in our world? The absence of suffering itself requires the absence of suffering, not it's presence.

What do you mean by absence of unless its presence were possible?
If its presence weren't possible then saying it is absent is just another way of saying impossible. But then we would have to ask what about suffering makes it impossible? Which brings us back to the question we are trying to answer here - If God is good and all powerful etc. why is suffering possible or if possible why isn't suffering simply absent from everywhere?

Are you suggesting that every single possibility of imperfection is being actualized?

No. I am saying that if a particular kind of imperfection is possible in our creation then it may be actualized in reality.
The mechanisms whereby which particular imperfection is actualized in reality or why I am not sure of.
I would venture to guess that a good portion of humanities miseries are manifested through our own efforts though - poor lifestyle choices, poor attitudes towards each other, pride, greed, jealousy, fear, etc. We are just good at blaming anything other than ourselves. The rest, some sort of God sustained probability function I suppose. In my opinion.

You have not explained why cancer specifically must be a possibility in a perfectly just creation.

God is limited to the possible. Gods "thoughts" are reality. What ever is possible in creation is known by God.
It is not possible to think of something without identity.
It is not possible to give something identity without thinking about its contradistinction. If I asked you to think about a "insert any unfamiliar word". What would you think about? In the absence of making something up with certain familiar qualities which gives the thing an identity you wouldn't be able to think of anything, it would be a meaningless thought and a meaningless thought is no thought at all.
If I asked you to think of a familiar word. You could only think about that thing by giving it identity and you can only give that thing identity through contradistinction with something not that thing.
Gods thought actualizes the possible in reality. Actualizing the possible good in reality can only be possible in contradistinction with actualizing the possible evil in reality.
A perfectly just creation is one in which all the possible evil in creation is perfectly nullified by all the possible good in creation. That can only be accomplished by God. Perfect Justice can only be accomplished by a perfect judge. God is good because it is perfectly just.
Hopefully this clarifies a little more of what I've been trying to say.

 

[Koldo]

You must stop me? Interesting way of putting it. You make me sound as if I'm committing a crime. Eh, perhaps I am in your eyes.
Anyways...its not my conception of God. I happen to be describing a common Christian/philosophic conception of God - the ultimate singular being whose qualities include omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, and personal involvement in its creation etc which the original questions were leaning towards having mentioned Adam/Eve and a Good God and evil etc.
If that is not known by anyone else you know, you need to get out of the house more often. You may not agree with the definition but its hardly a rare one and is based upon Christian revelation and deep philosophical rumination.

I'm glad you clarified that because I can't see how your statement discredits my argument.

Um....okay? I guess that's a starting point to having a discussion about God.

Long post, here we go.
The "ultimate singular being whose qualities include omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, and personal involvement in its creation etc which the original questions were leaning towards having mentioned Adam/Eve and a Good God and evil etc." is a fairly common conception of God.

What is not a common conception is to say this: "Our conception of God however defines his being as such that its "thoughts" is reality."

I was talking about that sentence in particular.

I'd like to hear your conception of what God is though in comparison. Just so I can get a grasp on how your approaching this subject.

I never said they were. That's not part of the argument.

I think you've read but haven't given yourself time enough to ruminate upon what you've read. I never claimed anyone mentioned such a thing. What I believe your referring to is a thought experiment concerning what humans might conceive a perfect creation to be like given from a human perspective not Gods. I was trying to show how inevitably flawed those perspectives must be when applied to Gods actions.

I don't think so. By definition - Christian/philosophical - God is necessarily singular. A God among equals is no true God at all. This concept goes all the way back to early Greece at least. A quick reflection on qualities such as omnipotence will show you that. Once a being has an equal that being can no longer be omnipotent. Once more than one being is omniscient, and omnipresent those beings are indistinguishable one from the other. Every thought, every act, every point in reality would be one singular possibility.

I've made the argument that it does.

It does if your essence declares perfect justice from the inevitable. I know its a hard egg to swallow and it seems simplistically counter intuitive but God could no more create a universe without suffering than you could not think of something you've been told not to think of. Once you know what not to think of you've already thought of it. In order for God to be a creator God and retain the qualities of being God its creation must include probabilistic suffering or else contradiction occurs. Remove evil and good becomes absolutely meaningless. Its no longer good. There would be no comparative standard whereby one may judge it. Humans may imagine what is good. And even produce some good in the world. But only in speculative comparison of what is evil. In other words humans can imagine evil without actualizing it in reality and thereby do good. God however is reality. Its conceptualization is actualization in reality.
Many believe that evil in creation is a contradiction alongside a good God. I'm trying to show that that belief is exactly backwards. A good God necessitates the possibility of evil in the world.

God is limited to the possible. Gods "thoughts" are reality. What ever is possible in creation is known by God.
It is not possible to think of something without identity.
It is not possible to give something identity without thinking about its contradistinction. If I asked you to think about a "insert any unfamiliar word". What would you think about? In the absence of making something up with certain familiar qualities which gives the thing an identity you wouldn't be able to think of anything, it would be a meaningless thought and a meaningless thought is no thought at all.
If I asked you to think of a familiar word. You could only think about that thing by giving it identity and you can only give that thing identity through contradistinction with something not that thing.
Gods thought actualizes the possible in reality. Actualizing the possible good in reality can only be possible in contradistinction with actualizing the possible evil in reality.
A perfectly just creation is one in which all the possible evil in creation is perfectly nullified by all the possible good in creation. That can only be accomplished by God. Perfect Justice can only be accomplished by a perfect judge. God is good because it is perfectly just.
Hopefully this clarifies a little more of what I've been trying to say.

There is however some measure of good that can exist even in the absence of evil.

For example, if you lend a hand to someone, helping them load a truck because they are moving to another house, you have, in principle, done good. Not lending a hand wouldn't be evil though.

Yes, nothing that is impossible can be perfect as well.

Lets take a simple example. A line. Defined, a perfect line would be the shortest distance between two points in a plane. How can we actualize a perfect line in reality? First we would have to have a standard by which we can judge that qualifying perfection. How do we know what it means to be the shortest distance between two points unless we have a standard of comparison to that which is not the shortest distance between two points? The perfect line is actualized by this standard which is actualized by the perfect line.
Another way to look at it...anything outside the line is not the line. But the line can only be defined in comparison to what is not the line. Perfection is defined by what is imperfect so what is imperfect must exist in order to define what is perfect.
There is one important distinction though which perhaps you missed.
Humans can imperfectly theorize about perfection in comparison to imperfection without actualizing either since human thought is not synonymous with actualization in reality. God's thoughts however -the Christian version - are reality and so are actualized as reality.
What do you mean by absence of unless its presence were possible?
If its presence weren't possible then saying it is absent is just another way of saying impossible. But then we would have to ask what about suffering makes it impossible? Which brings us back to the question we are trying to answer here - If God is good and all powerful etc. why is suffering possible or if possible why isn't suffering simply absent from everywhere?

No. I am saying that if a particular kind of imperfection is possible in our creation then it may be actualized in reality.
The mechanisms whereby which particular imperfection is actualized in reality or why I am not sure of.
I would venture to guess that a good portion of humanities miseries are manifested through our own efforts though - poor lifestyle choices, poor attitudes towards each other, pride, greed, jealousy, fear, etc. We are just good at blaming anything other than ourselves. The rest, some sort of God sustained probability function I suppose. In my opinion.

Then you haven't answered the crux of the issue. You have essentially said that everything that is possible may be actualized in reality, not that it has to be actualized.

This doesn't answer why suffering or cancer, for example, was actualized. If it didn't have to be actualized, then nothing prevented God from making it so suffering, albeit being possibly actualizable, never became reality in practice. Being possible doesn't entail that it will ever become contigent (as in modal logic).

 

[Trailblazer]

Dude, did you even read my response before you as-good-as copy pasted your post?

FYI, I am not a man so I am not a dude.

I didn't say you said "god exists because..."
What I actually said, is that you made the argument that the evidence is valid "because a majority believes it is valid".

But I never made the argument that the evidence is valid "because a majority believes it is valid."
I said: Thus it seems to me that the atheists and agnostics are just unable to understand what evidence for God looks like. #254

You created a straw man by making assumptions about what I was implying.
God does not exist because of ANY evidence or lack thereof, nor does God exist because of anyone’s ability to recognize evidence or not recognize it. Any logical person would know that. God’s existence is completely independent of any evidence because God could exist and not provide any evidence of His existence. That is not the case since there is evidence, but it is logically possible.

In short, God exists because God exists, NOT because of any evidence.
Evidence does not MAKE God exist. Evidence is only what people want in order to 'believe' that God exists.

This whole fuss about evidence is so dumb, really really dumb. There are believers who believe that God exists without even looking at what I call evidence because it is drop dead obvious that God exists, even without any evidence!

You didn't argue that the evidence is valid by showing how it is actually valid. Instead, all you offered was "atheists are a minority".

Again: classic ad populum.

I cannot show you how the evidence is valid. I can only present the evidence but you have to figure out if it is valid and why.

It is not ad populum for me to say that 'it seems to me' that the atheists and agnostics are unable to understand what evidence for God looks like.
That was just my personal opinion.

 

[CG Didymus]

Dude, did you even read my response before you as-good-as copy pasted your post?

I didn't say you said "god exists because..."
What I actually said, is that you made the argument that the evidence is valid "because a majority believes it is valid".

You didn't argue that the evidence is valid by showing how it is actually valid. Instead, all you offered was "atheists are a minority".

Again: classic ad populum.

I don't understand how TB thinks it is obvious that God exists. Which God? The Sun God? The Trinity? Vishnu? Although she tries to make it more than that, it is still only because her religion tells her that God is real.

I still think the Gods of any religion are real... to those that believe in them. Yet, a Baha'i has no problem telling a Christian that their God, the trinitarian God, is not real and they misinterpreted the Bible to create that God. But, of course, the Baha'i God is real... obviously.

 

[YoursTrue]

In 1863, he began openly teaching the Baha'i Faith, with its revolutionary messages of the oneness of humanity, the oneness of religion, the equality of men and women, the agreement of science and religion, and the establishment of a global system of governance.

Baha'i Faith - Beliefs, Teachings & History - BahaiTeachings.org​

BahaiTeachings.org
https://bahaiteachings.org › bahai-faith

OK, thank you. How do you think this will come about? Or rather, how did Bahalluah (sorry about spelling) way it will come about?

 

[Trailblazer]

OK, thank you. How do you think this will come about? Or rather, how did Bahalluah (sorry about spelling) way it will come about?

I think it will come about gradually over the course of time as more and more people embrace the teachings of Baha'u'llah, but it is going to take a long time for humanity to make all these changes. After all, humanity did not get to where they are now overnight, it happened over a long period of time.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What evidence?

The evidence showing that life at bottom is mere complex chemistry.
The evidence that keeps piling up in the advances in the field of abiogenesis.
The evidence for evolution.
The evidence showing that the building blocks of life (branded by creationists as "too complex" to form through natural chemistry) not only happily form naturally on earth, but are even found in space rocks.
The evidence showing that life is composed of the most commonly available elements in the universe.

All of it suggests that life is a naturally occurring phenomenon.

Supernatural creators? ZERO EVIDENCE
There is literally nothing that suggests their existence OR their need. Nothing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No it doesn't. I try to live my life as if the future matters. That is a positive influence.

The future matters to me as well.
I don't require supernatural big brothers and imaginary rewards or punishments for the future to matter.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But I never made the argument that the evidence is valid "because a majority believes it is valid."

Then what was the point of having 70% of that post dedicated to how many theists and atheists there are?
If those numbers weren't relevant, then why spend the crux of your post on that while the topic was the validity of the supposed evidence?

I said: Thus it seems to me that the atheists and agnostics are just unable to understand what evidence for God looks like. #254

Yes. And you motivated that statement by spending the bigger part of your post to point out that there are more theists then atheists.
Why do that if not to make the point that "because more theists, therefor...."?
https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/a-christian-becomes-a-nonbeliever.269268/post-8128773

I cannot show you how the evidence is valid.

That's the first hint that the evidence isn't actually valid.

It is not ad populum for me to say that 'it seems to me' that the atheists and agnostics are unable to understand what evidence for God looks like.

The ad populum part is when you motivate that bare statement by saying "there are more theists".

 

[muhammad_isa]

The evidence showing that life at bottom is mere complex chemistry.
The evidence that keeps piling up in the advances in the field of abiogenesis.
The evidence for evolution.
The evidence showing that the building blocks of life (branded by creationists as "too complex" to form through natural chemistry) not only happily form naturally on earth, but are even found in space rocks.
The evidence showing that life is composed of the most commonly available elements in the universe.

All of it suggests that life is a naturally occurring phenomenon.

That doesn't prove anything, one way or the other.
"natural" is not an explanation for me .. I see wisdom behind "natural".

 

[Trailblazer]

That's the first hint that the evidence isn't actually valid.

Absolutely not, and if you knew anything about psychology and how the humans mind works you'd know why not.
Hint: Why do you think it is the responsibility of theists to SHOW atheists what they can find out for themselves?

 

[F1fan]

That doesn't prove anything, one way or the other.
"natural" is not an explanation for me .. I see wisdom behind "natural".

So says the guy who decided to join a religion that allows husbands to rape their wives.

I guess wisdom is not always wise.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I guess wisdom is not always wise.

You're wasting your time .. I will not discuss further with ignorant people.
..and insulting G-d or believers in G-d is ignorant, imo.

..but then you just seek to deflect the issue .. rather than discuss the
immorality of sex before marriage.

 

[Trailblazer]

..but then you just seek to deflect the issue .. rather than discuss the
immorality of sex before marriage.

Yes, let's.

 

[F1fan]

You're wasting your time ..

Not with belief in Islam.

I will not discuss further with ignorant people.

Your idea of ignorant people are those who don't think a husband should rape his wife.

..and insulting G-d or believers in G-d is ignorant, imo.

Atheists can't insult imaginary characters. And believers will open the door to critique in these discussions and then call it insulting when it happens. Not exactly wise.

..but then you just seek to deflect the issue .. rather than discuss the
immorality of sex before marriage.

Very few people in the 21st century thinks it's immoral. Your values are behind the times. That's fine for you, but you aren't a God and can't assert what is immoral to others just because you have an old, traditional belief about it.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

So says the guy who decided to join a religion that allows husbands to rape their wives.

I guess wisdom is not always wise.

Not with belief in Islam.

Your idea of ignorant people are those who don't think a husband should rape his wife.

Atheists can't insult imaginary characters. And believers will open the door to critique in these discussions and then call it insulting when it happens. Not exactly wise.

Very few people in the 21st century thinks it's immoral. Your values are behind the times. That's fine for you, but you aren't a God and can't assert what is immoral to others just because you have an old, traditional belief about it.

Winner frubals. Well said.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Very few people in the 21st century thinks it's immoral. Your values are behind the times..

I am very fortunate .. I can see what many can't.
..but I can't change what is destined i.e. the collapse of civilisation