Problems with Belief when it comes to a Christian and Islamic God...

[Robert.Evans]

Apparently, to support ideological or religious beliefs:

Okay, I will reword the argument. Please use science to show God does not exist.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Okay, I will reword the argument. Please use science to show God does not exist.

This is akin to asking that "science" show that "science" doesn't exist. The sciences can contribute to religious debates, but it can by no means settle it. Proof of anything (god, you, me, etc.) is at best restricted to Descartes cogito ergo sum (which isn't actually the form used in his initial argument for this), and at worst is questionable even in "pure" mathematics.

 

[Robert.Evans]

This is akin to asking that "science" show that "science" doesn't exist. The sciences can contribute to religious debates, but it can by no means settle it. Proof of anything (god, you, me, etc.) is at best restricted to Descartes cogito ergo sum (which isn't actually the form used in his initial argument for this), and at worst is questionable even in "pure" mathematics.

But that rather is my point. I keep hearing "We don't know yet".

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

But that rather is my point. I keep hearing "We don't know yet".

I am not asserting that. I am asserting that neither science nor any other method could ever determine the truth without accepting as true a priori certain fundamental premises. Given a set of such premises, it is entirely possible to determine there is no god, or that god exists. Ontological justifications require epistemological bases.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I am not asserting that. I am asserting that neither science nor any other method could ever determine the truth without accepting as true a priori certain fundamental premises. Given a set of such premises, it is entirely possible to determine there is no god, or that god exists. Ontological justifications require epistemological bases.

I never said you were asserting that.

Let me ask you a question: which is right, Intelligence created everything or luck. If you think it is a false dichotomy, please give reasons.

If say it is natural, what then is natural

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Let me ask you a question: which is right, Intelligence created everything or luck. If you think it is a false dichotomy, please give reasons.

I think it is a false dichotomy. Reasons:
1) "Luck" is subjective, in that what is considered "lucky" for an individual, or a species, or life, is contingent upon the perspective wherein that outcome is advantageous if it transpires. CHANCE, however, is not, and the statement "either intelligence created everything, or chance did" is at least as true (and does not fall prey to subjective fallacies as does) the subjective notion of luck.
2) "Either intelligence created everything or..." entails no singular alternative. For example, "either intelligence created everything or nothing created everything"; "either intelligence created everything or random fluctuations created everything"; etc.
3) The use of "created" is fallacious, as it presumes a creator without argument for the need for such an entity or process.

If say it is natural, what then is natural

This is a false dichotomy.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

God doesn't exist and here is the proof:

So there.

 

[leibowde84]

God is self created. Even in various differing concepts of God, the self creation is an obvious attribute. There is no reason to suppose otherwise.

The concept of "self-creation" seems counter-intuitive. Can you explain what you mean by this? How can an entity create itself?

 

[First Baseman]

Why? What was the reason for his existence?

The reasoning is too wonderful for us to know. I sincerely doubt anyone can possibly comprehend the mind of Almighty God. Our thoughts are as far below His as an ant's thoughts are below our own.

No ant could possibly begin to understand why we do the things we do or even how we go about thinking, indeed they can't even think at a high enough level to understand what thinking is. So it is with us and God.

 

[leibowde84]

Yes.

Do you believe in the "Demiurge" who created our physical world (see below)?

Christian Gnosticism:
"A prominent heretical movement of the 2nd-century Christian Church, partly of pre-Christian origin. Gnostic doctrine taught that the world was created and ruled by a lesser divinity, the demiurge, and that Christ was an emissary of the remote supreme divine being, esoteric knowledge (gnosis) of whom enabled the redemption of the human spirit."

 

[First Baseman]

Please look back at the context of the question. I was asking someone else this question based on claims they had made previously. I am not curious about the answer, but, instead, the reasoning behind it.

I understand that. I took advantage of your having asked the question in whatever context by taking the opportunity to answer it. If this offends you I do humbly apologize.

I do not desire to cast myself into the argument you were making. I simply answered your question because I felt compelled to do so.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

But what I was really referring to was the "we" which appears to incorporate everyone.

It certainly does. None of us yet know how and why our universe came into being, so "God did it" is a matter of faith and not a matter of evidence. For all we know space aliens did it!

 

[Robert.Evans]

I think it is a false dichotomy. Reasons:
1) "Luck" is subjective, in that what is considered "lucky" for an individual, or a species, or life, is contingent upon the perspective wherein that outcome is advantageous if it transpires.

Luck doesn't actually exist though does it. We use the term to explain things. Correct?

CHANCE, however, is not, and the statement "either intelligence created everything, or chance did" is at least as true (and does not fall prey to subjective fallacies as does) the subjective notion of luck.

I did think of stating blind chance; but previous I had asked luck, so I stuck with it. And I did mean in a general term, without being that specific, so chance, randomness etc.

2) "Either intelligence created everything or..." entails no singular alternative. For example, "either intelligence created everything or nothing created everything"; "either intelligence created everything or random fluctuations created everything"; etc.

I am trying to take it down to ulitmate causes. If there is no intelligence involved, then it appears it must be luck, chance, randomness etc. Reason: there is no intelligence involved. What is wrong with that reasoning. Also, if it is randomness, as you mentioned, where does this randomness come from? what parameters allow it to work? Is that through intelligence or chance, luck etc?

3) The use of "created" is fallacious, as it presumes a creator without argument for the need for such an entity or process.

Created as in existing. I mean nothing else other than that.

This is a false dichotomy.

Explain please.

So, ultimately, if it is false dichotomy, then what then are the alternatives?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Do you believe in the "Demiurge" who created our physical world (see below)?

Christian Gnosticism:
"A prominent heretical movement of the 2nd-century Christian Church, partly of pre-Christian origin. Gnostic doctrine taught that the world was created and ruled by a lesser divinity, the demiurge, and that Christ was an emissary of the remote supreme divine being, esoteric knowledge (gnosis) of whom enabled the redemption of the human spirit."

I can't say I believe in all their teachings or all of anyone's. But yes, God reflects and what comes later, though a fractal replication of its own Self, is lesser.

If not, explain how God can be good- NT, and how he says he created evil- OT (Isa 45)

 

[Robert.Evans]

God doesn't exist and here is the proof:

So there.

Go eat your ice cream

Sunny here. Was raining!

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Luck doesn't actually exist though does it. We use the term to explain things. Correct?

Yes and no. We use it to describe things.

I am trying to take it down to ulitmate causes.

Then you should propose a model of causation. For instance:

If there is no intelligence involved, then it appears it must be luck, chance, randomness etc. Reason: there is no intelligence involved. What is wrong with that reasoning.

That you propose a model of causality whereby either "intelligence" must be involved or "luck", "chance", or "randomness, etc." must be without explaining that cause is even relevant here.

Explain please.

Natural is shorthand for what we have explained, and nothing more.

So, ultimately, if it is false dichotomy, then what then are the alternatives?

Alternative models of causation, alternative models of logical interpretations (i.e., multivalued logics), the absence of the possibility of initial causation, circular causality, nonlinear causality, etc.

 

[leibowde84]

I can't say I believe in all their teachings or all of anyone's. But yes, God reflects and what comes later, though a fractal replication of its own Self, is lesser.

If not, explain how God can be good- NT, and how he says he created evil- OT (Isa 45)

Honestly, I think God created evil for our own benefit. Without struggle we never learn anything. From failure, pain, sorrow, and grief, we learn to overcome adversity while learning what truly matters in life. I also strongly believe that we come back to this world continually until we learn the things we need to. It is known that organic learning is more beneficial than academic lectures or organized instruction. I think that is the reason why God kind of has to allow us to learn on our own. And, even when we have learned what we need to, we most likely would still come back in order to help others do the same.

Also, God limited himself by giving us free-will, which ended up creating evil in the world. Nature cannot be "evil". Only human beings can (to the best of our knowledge at least). God cannot be omniscent if we are free to deviate from his intended path for us. And, if God did interfere, he would take away the opportunity for organic learning I mentioned above.

For these reasons (among others), I feel that God's creation of evil as a biproduct of free-will doesn't take away anything from God's "goodness". It is a necessary hurdle in the evolution of the soul.

 

[leibowde84]

Yes and no. We use it to describe things.



Then you should propose a model of causation. For instance:

That you propose a model of causality whereby either "intelligence" must be involved or "luck", "chance", or "randomness, etc." must be without explaining that cause is even relevant here.


Natural is shorthand for what we have explained, and nothing more.

Alternative models of causation, alternative models of logical interpretations (i.e., multivalued logics), the absence of the possibility of initial causation, circular causality, nonlinear causality, etc.

Very well-put and well-reasoned comment.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Yes and no. We use it to describe things.

Which then is the same as "explain".
But are you saying it actually exists? I doubt it. So if that is the case, why do we as humanity use it? Is it because we assume no intelligence is involved?

Then you should propose a model of causation. For instance:

That you propose a model of causality whereby either "intelligence" must be involved or "luck", "chance", or "randomness, etc." must be without explaining that cause is even relevant here.

Cause is inferred by the fact that I mentioned creation I think.
Very slowly, I think you are not answering my question. I will come back to this at the end.

Natural is shorthand for what we have explained, and nothing more.

For ex: according to Dr Dawkins, whatever the big bang comes from and whatever might exist, it will be natural through natural processes. I'm sure if I said it was supernatural, he would want to know what that supernatural was and would not be satisfied with your statement. So what therefore is natural? Where does it come from? What made it? Did it have a beginning? How do laws form within it?

Alternative models of causation, alternative models of logical interpretations (i.e., multivalued logics), the absence of the possibility of initial causation, circular causality, nonlinear causality, etc.

In plain English please with basic examples.
Not intial casuation would mean that whatever everything is had always been. How is that possible that something complex can always be?
The same seems to apply to circular. But I ask again: is there intelligence involved in these processes or do they arrive by blind chance?

Let me give you an ex: evolution happens through random mutations which have no chance of forming anything ... and so we see natural selection appear. Now I have to ask what are the parameters that made NS in the first place become the artificial intelligence that is needed to take randomness into non-randomness.
You think it is natural? What does that mean? No intelligence? So chance then?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Honestly, I think God created evil for our own benefit. Without struggle we never learn anything. From failure, pain, sorrow, and grief, we learn to overcome adversity while learning what truly matters in life.

Okay. So how then can he be good? Evil comes from him.

I also strongly believe that we come back to this world continually until we learn the things we need to.

re-birth- yes!

It is known that organic learning is more beneficial than academic lectures or organized instruction. I think that is the reason why God kind of has to allow us to learn on our own. And, even when we have learned what we need to, we most likely would still come back in order to help others do the same.

Good.

Also, God limited himself by giving us free-will,

Then how is he all powerful?

which ended up creating evil in the world. Nature cannot be "evil". Only human beings can (to the best of our knowledge at least).

Cats catch mice and play with them until they are dead. Evil through and through.

God cannot be omniscent if we are free to deviate from his intended path for us. And, if God did interfere, he would take away the opportunity for organic learning I mentioned above.

He does not know everything? So how does he know the beginning from the end? How did he know his son would die at the right time on the right day for the sin of the world?

For these reasons (among others), I feel that God's creation of evil as a biproduct of free-will doesn't take away anything from God's "goodness". It is a necessary hurdle in the evolution of the soul.

I still say though that God must have evil within him to do this; so how can he be good. If he is not good, how do you know you are saved?