God existance paradox?

[Sees]

I think when God says "MY WAYS are not your ways, and MY THOUGHTS are not your thoughts," he means it!

For man to question God's "ways" or God's existence based on man's level of reason and fairness, is insulting to God. IMO. God has given man all he needs to know, all he needs revealed. If one chooses to reject that which has been revealed and stand firm against God because of other paradoxes or mysteries or disturbing realities, well... don't say you have not been warned.

It's like an ant thinking there is nothing in the whole world greater than what makes sense to the ant's way of thinking or code of ethics.

You can stand on your own reason for rejecting God, but you (IMO) cannot rationally dismiss the signs or evidence of the supernatural in other measures. Yes, He exists.

It is conflicting for me that we wouldn't be expected to use "God-given" reason, logic, moral principles etc. that are man/human reason, logic, moral principles, etc.

If these things are not for goodness, guidance, and truth - would they be for trickery and deception which leads us to harmfulness and delusion?

Who would intentionally desire for mankind to have the natural inclination and faulty mechanics for life and choices centered on harmfulness and delusion?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I think when God says "MY WAYS are not your ways, and MY THOUGHTS are not your thoughts," he means it!

For man to question God's "ways" or God's existence based on man's level of reason and fairness, is insulting to God. IMO. God has given man all he needs to know, all he needs revealed. If one chooses to reject that which has been revealed and stand firm against God because of other paradoxes or mysteries or disturbing realities, well... don't say you have not been warned.

It's like an ant thinking there is nothing in the whole world greater than what makes sense to the ant's way of thinking or code of ethics.

You can stand on your own reason for rejecting God, but you (IMO) cannot rationally dismiss the signs or evidence of the supernatural in other measures. Yes, He exists.

That's fine- but you can't have your cake and eat it too. If God's ways are not our ways, then that cuts both ways- it means that God exceeds our capacity for description, even when we describe him as good, perfect, merciful, and so on. In other words, God is not omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, and all the other things that are said of him, because God's ways are not our ways.

On the other hand, what is true is true- you can spout off about ants and insults, but our reason seems to work pretty well, and its absolutely contrary to reason that there is an all-powerful, all-loving, and all-knowing god who just allows the world to be as it is- unmerciful, unloving, brutal, violent, and impersonal. Worse, the very idea of there existing a transcendent god who, while standing in various causal relations with the world, nevertheless transcends all conditions and relations is simply incoherent. This is called "a contradiction". Another word for it is "nonsense". We could go on here, but we should also note that your last claim couldn't be more mistaken- there simply is no evidence for any supernatural beings, such as gods. This ultimately is sort of the nail in the coffin for all god-concepts.

 

[thau]

It is conflicting for me that we wouldn't be expected to use "God-given" reason, logic, moral principles etc. that are man/human reason, logic, moral principles, etc.

If these things are not for goodness, guidance, and truth - would they be for trickery and deception which leads us to harmfulness and delusion?

Four highly intelligent, highly reasonable men discuss the sublime matters of life and you come away with four highly diverse philosophical views or four highly diverse theological beliefs. If one says there is no God, then so much for reason and logic alone. Others reason and logic says God exists absolute. So, yes, God has given us reason, logic, natural moral law, etc. to formulate our consciences and principles to live by, but it does not mean we have to know everything about the universe and eternity in order to live properly or understand God’s purpose for us. We do not have to know how can there be a hell in order to carry out the obvious mission or good. We cannot demand God explain suffering before we will give an inch. God not only demands we use our intellect and inherent moral principles, he also asks us to exercise a true faith for those greater mysteries we do not know this side of the grave. Why is that so hard to accept?

Who would intentionally desire for mankind to have the natural inclination and faulty mechanics for life and choices centered on harmfulness and delusion?

God gave us free will and he is denying you nothing. But if you demand to go your own route and still expect it all, is God being unfair or are you? God has revealed enough and asks for so little in return. Not unlike, it would also please your father or mother more if you did something to show them you love them instead of just being showered with gifts and no feeling of gratitude.

 

[thau]

That's fine- but you can't have your cake and eat it too. If God's ways are not our ways, then that cuts both ways- it means that God exceeds our capacity for description, even when we describe him as good, perfect, merciful, and so on. In other words, God is not omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, and all the other things that are said of him, because God's ways are not our ways.

Not all His ways are our ways. That is why He has reserved a number of mysteries for those who show some obedience to what has been revealed. Our faith is not blind, it based on many signs and wonders. That which we cannot know now is were we practice a modicum of faith.

On the other hand, what is true is true- you can spout off about ants and insults, but our reason seems to work pretty well, and its absolutely contrary to reason that there is an all-powerful, all-loving, and all-knowing god who just allows the world to be as it is- unmerciful, unloving, brutal, violent, and impersonal. Worse, the very idea of there existing a transcendent god who, while standing in various causal relations with the world, nevertheless transcends all conditions and relations is simply incoherent. This is called "a contradiction". Another word for it is "nonsense". We could go on here, but we should also note that your last claim couldn't be more mistaken- there simply is no evidence for any supernatural beings, such as gods. This ultimately is sort of the nail in the coffin for all god-concepts.

The fact life could spring up from rocks is supernatural. The fact mindless molecules could then somehow evolve and create majestic matters such as living cells with thousands of machines inside each one working harmoniously is supernatural. The fact mindless molecules could then create hearing and sight and a wast management system and a liver and a pancreas and a spleen when none existed before is supernatural, period. Reason and logic demand it. Far more than a painting or watch could assemble itself, the human mind and body could never assemble itself. That is proof of divine supernatural intelligence. You don’t have to call it God, but to call it some inanimate force is insulting, and surely not an intelligence.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Not unlike, it would also please your father or mother more if you did something to show them you love them instead of just being showered with gifts and no feeling of gratitude.

As a father, I would prefer to be an active parent who communicates directly with my daughter and allow her to question me about anything. Gratitude is all well and good, but respect, both of oneself and of others, is earned.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Not all His ways are our ways. That is why He has reserved a number of mysteries for those who show some obedience to what has been revealed. Our faith is not blind, it based on many signs and wonders. That which we cannot know now is were we practice a modicum of faith.

So where exactly is the line between where our understanding God is acceptable, and where it is deficient- and please tell me how this distinction is not just ad hoc?

The fact life could spring up from rocks is supernatural. The fact mindless molecules could then somehow evolve and create majestic matters such as living cells with thousands of machines inside each one working harmoniously is supernatural. The fact mindless molecules could then create hearing and sight and a wast management system and a liver and a pancreas and a spleen when none existed before is supernatural, period.

Um, no. No offense, but what do you think the word "supernatural" means?

Reason and logic demand it.

Supernatural explanations of these natural events? No, not really.

Far more than a painting or watch could assemble itself, the human mind and body could never assemble itself. That is proof of divine supernatural intelligence. You don’t have to call it God, but to call it some inanimate force is insulting, and surely not an intelligence.[/SIZE][/FONT]

You don't have to call it anything, since it is not proof of the existence of any occult entities.

In any case, here's what evidence of the nonexistence of any god looks like:

-Is the world scientifically observable?
-Are events/changes in the world scientifically observable?
-Does (any) god cause events, or changes, in the world?
-Which events, or changes, in the world can only be accounted for by (any) god?

If there are no events, or changes, in the world which can only be accounted for by (any) god, then on what non-subjective, non-anecdotal, corroborative, basis can it be reasonably claimed that (any) god is real?

Also, the problem that the theistic concept of god is simply incoherent-

And perhaps the most troubling [contradiction] is the tension between transcendence and existence; not only is transcendence frequently attributed to God and theistic gods generally, it is arguably the sine qua non of theistic gods- is any entity which is not transcendent in a metaphysical sense (as opposed to as a result of human cognitive limitations) properly a theistic god? No theistic religion worships or professes a non-transcendent god, and even when Christians try to have it both ways by describing God as both immanent and transcendent, immanence is always subsumed under transcendence as the property which characterizes this God- i.e. God was transcendent prior to being immanent (i.e. in the world which he created), transcendence is the independent variable. But a being which is transcendent in a metaphysical sense transcends all conditions and relations, in short, all being, so far as we can tell- conditions and relations are precisely what distinguishes existence from non-existence. Thus, the attribution of transcendence nullifies that which distinguishes existence from non-existence- thus a transcendent and existent god is, if not a contradiction, a problematic concept to say the least.

 

[Thief]

Free will is sort of a red herring here, as I mention.

So...who twisted your arm and made you say so?

 

[thau]

So where exactly is the line between where our understanding God is acceptable, and where it is deficient- and please tell me how this distinction is not just ad hoc?


Um, no. No offense, but what do you think the word "supernatural" means?


Supernatural explanations of these natural events? No, not really.


You don't have to call it anything, since it is not proof of the existence of any occult entities.

The evidence for God does not rest on how life evolved alone. But it is enough.

A wooden statue of Mary that wept tears of blood and of oil in a convent in Akita, Japan observed by scores of eye witnesses on 101 occasions is supernatural.

So does this disturbing story that comes out of Indiana reek of demonic activity. From the Indianapolis Star only 3 days ago. People are free to reject this and reject all the other evidence if they so please. But I am no fool and I thank God for helping me to pay attention and know the truth.

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2014/01/25/the-disposession-of-latoya-ammons/4892553/

 

[Enai de a lukal]

The evidence for God does not rest on how life evolved alone. But it is enough.

Hardly. There is no evidence for the existence of God in biology.

A wooden statue of Mary that wept tears of blood and of oil in a convent in Akita, Japan observed by scores of eye witnesses on 101 occasions is supernatural.

So does this disturbing story that comes out of Indiana reek of demonic activity. From the Indianapolis Star only 3 days ago. People are free to reject this and reject all the other evidence if they so please. But I am no fool and I thank God for helping me to pay attention and know the truth.

People have been reporting these sorts of incidents for millenia. And they are always of dubious credibility, and admit of more plausible explanations. More tellingly, the best we get are second-hand reports; none of these sorts of events have ever been documented by a credible impartial source.

 

[Thief]

Recently saw a science program of speculation.

We humans have been 'altered' by an ET.

Amusing.

Especially if God is thought of as an ET.

 

[thau]

Hardly. People have been reporting these sorts of incidents for millenia. And they are always of dubious credibility, and admit of more plausible explanations. More tellingly, the best we get are second-hand reports; none of these sorts of events have ever been documented by a credible impartial source.

Speaking of dubious.

Sounds more like a game of denial to me.

The cop in the Indianapolis Star article was an unbeliever prior. I would call him both credible and impartial.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Speaking of dubious.

Sounds more like a game of denial to me.

So, unless we believe every half-baked tall tale that people cook up, we're in denial?

The cop in the Indianapolis Star article was an unbeliever prior. I would call him both credible and impartial.

Yeah, not so much. If these events are so common, why can't we get them on video? Or in a laboratory? Or be observed by scientific experts? Sort of fortunate how they always occur in Ma and Pa Kettle's backyard, and never somewhere that can be reliably verified, isn't it?

 

[thau]

So, unless we believe every half-baked tall tale that people cook up, we're in denial?

No you need not believe every half baked tall tale.

It is when every single one is dismissed hitherto without legitimate reasoning that I might question what else might be going on here?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

No you need not believe every half baked tall tale.

It is when every single one is dismissed hitherto without legitimate reasoning that I might question what else might be going on here?

And what exactly would constitute "legitimate reasoning" with respect to outlandish and unverifiable anecdotes of supernatural occurrences, which inevitably turn out to lack any evidence and admit of better explanations than supernatural ones?

 

[thau]

And what exactly would constitute "legitimate reasoning" with respect to outlandish and unverifiable anecdotes of supernatural occurrences, which inevitably turn out to lack any evidence and admit of better explanations than supernatural ones?

Well just to sort of answer your question and then I will leave it at that ----

When many conclude that (at least) 50,000 of the 70,000 present at Fatima on 10/13/17 all mass hallucinated when they all claimed to have witnessed the very same thing, i.e. the sun dancing, bouncing shooting of multi colored rays and then charging the earth --- that I do not consider a "legitimate or reasoned explanation." Especially when one considers it was factually predicted it would occur on that very date 90 days prior by three little children.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

The fun thing with the problem of evil is that it has never been refuted properly, and is still a major problem with the concept of an all-knowing, almighty, good God.

The notion of an omnipotent God is as hopeless as that of a round square.

That's flatly false. The so-called logical problem of evil which purports to demonstrate that God's existence and the existence of evil are logically incompatible has been almost completely abandoned by all philosophers, thanks in no small part to the contributions of Alvin Plantinga.

Nowadays, you'll rarely find the logical problem of evil defended in academia. Instead, many philosophers attempt to defend the so-called probabilistic problem of evil which purports to show that the existence of God and evil are not logically incompatible but are simply improbable.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

That's flatly false. The so-called logical problem of evil which purports to demonstrate that God's existence and the existence of evil are logically incompatible has been almost completely abandoned by all philosophers, thanks in no small part to the contributions of Alvin Plantinga.

What is flatly false? Almost completely abandoned, eh? So, for instance, Rowe's evidential problem of evil is a myth, as is all the secondary discussion it has generated? And why did the the University of Notre Dame hold a conference on contemporary moral theory and the problem of evil just a few months ago? Oh, they weren't the only ones holding such a conference in recent memory? It would seem your information is faulty, eh?

In any case, you clearly are exaggerating the work of those you happen to agree with; Plantinga's defense was influential, but it hardly settled the matter. If anything, it only generated more interest in the problem of evil, not less. And, like much of Plantinga's claims, his defense is extremely problematic. This may not be the place to examine it in detail, so suffice to say his is far from a knockdown argument.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

What is flatly false? Almost completely abandoned, eh? So, for instance, Rowe's evidential problem of evil is a myth, as is all the secondary discussion it has generated? And why did the the University of Notre Dame hold a conference on contemporary moral theory and the problem of evil just a few months ago? Oh, they weren't the only ones holding such a conference in recent memory? It would seem your information is faulty, eh?

That's just conceding my point. Notice that I said that the logical problem of evil has been largely abandoned in academia and that I noted that the probabilistic (viz. the evidential) problem of evil is nowadays more popularly defended in academia.

In any case, you clearly are exaggerating the work of those you happen to agree with; Plantinga's defense was influential, but it hardly settled the matter. If anything, it only generated more interest in the problem of evil, not less. And, like much of Plantinga's claims, his defense is extremely problematic. This may not be the place to examine it in detail, so suffice to say his is far from a knockdown argument.

It isn't an exaggeration that Plantinga's work on the logical problem of evil has rendered it almost undefended in academia today. This much is evident by the fact that you'd be hard-pressed to find any atheist in academia defending the logical problem of evil (though, to be sure, it remains alive in the wastelands of the village atheist internet world).

 

[Enai de a lukal]

That's just conceding my point. Notice that I said that the logical problem of evil has been largely abandoned in academia and that I noted that the probabilistic (viz. the evidential) problem of evil is nowadays more popularly defended in academia.

And from what I recall, the conferences held by Notre Dame, Loyola, and others, discussed both forms of the PoE. Is the probabilistic form of the argument a more popular topic? I would imagine so. Is the logical form dead? Hardly.

It isn't an exaggeration that Plantinga's work on the logical problem of evil has rendered it almost undefended in academia today. This much is evident by the fact that you'd be hard-pressed to find any atheist in academia defending the logical problem of evil (though, to be sure, it remains alive in the wastelands of the village atheist internet world).

Many theorists worth their salt have always sort of regarded the problem of evil as one of the least forceful critiques of theism; it doesn't really figure into some of the most compelling critiques of theism. So you haven't really found many top-tier thinkers defending the logical problem of evil in the last few centuries to begin with. However, your claim remains false; there are still those, like Mackie, who focus on the logical problem of evil, and maintain that Plantinga's defense is inadequate. For my part, I tend to agree, and feel that, just like with Plantinga's MOA, people want to declare it successful, as if that will somehow make it so. They're both just unsound arguments, and calling them "victorious" or "successful" doesn't really mitigate that.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

And from what I recall, the conferences held by Notre Dame, Loyola, and others, discussed both forms of the PoE. Is the probabilistic form of the argument a more popular topic? I would imagine so. Is the logical form dead? Hardly.

It's hardly a surprise that they would discuss the logical problem of evil, not only because it was very popular and in the interest of thoroughness, but because it has been veritably refuted! It's the same reason why, say, a Dawkins might trot out Paley and his terrible teleological argument and demonstrate why it isn't sound.

Many theorists worth their salt have always sort of regarded the problem of evil as one of the least forceful critiques of theism; it doesn't really figure into some of the most compelling critiques of theism. So you haven't really found many top-tier thinkers defending the logical problem of evil in the last few centuries to begin with.

I think I'd agree. I don't think the problem of evil (either the evidential or the logical) has any intellectual force. Yet it does have quite a strong emotional force.

However, your claim remains false; there are still those, like Mackie, who focus on the logical problem of evil, and maintain that Plantinga's defense is inadequate. For my part, I tend to agree, and feel that, just like with Plantinga's MOA, people want to declare it successful, as if that will somehow make it so. They're both just unsound arguments, and calling them "victorious" or "successful" doesn't really mitigate that.

Mackie, Enai? Mackie is of a bygone generation.