SCIENCE: Death Anxiety Likely Cause of Belief in Intelligent Design

[Axe Elf]

So what? That does not mean that God is omnibenevolent.

Yes, that's exactly what it means. When you define something to be a certain way, then that means that it is that way.

You just added a deeper burden of proof upon your claims.

And what exactly are my claims? I'm not trying to prove anything to anyone. You said you would not worship an immoral god. Presumably, you would not worship a god that does not exist, either, so the framework of the statement assumes that God exists. I pointed out that if God exists and your morality does not match His, then it would be worth considering that maybe He wasn't the immoral one. You asked how I know whether my version of God is moral or not, and I told you that I define Him that way.

I would not worship a god that does not exist, either, so for me, any being that wants to lay claim to Godhood must:

1) exist.
2) be omnipotent.
3) be omniscient.
4) be omnipresent.
5) be omnibenevolent.

That is how I define God.

God could be an evil being, an indifferent being, or even your benevolent one.

To me, God can ONLY be the benevolent one. Any evil or indifferent being--no matter how advanced or otherwise supreme they may be--could not be God for me. If a superbeing exists that is awfully godlike, but is not omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent or omnibenevolent, then they are not God for me. If no being exists that meets all the omnis, then God does not exist. I'm ok with that.

The God of the Bible is clearly not omnibenevolent

Or, you don't understand the full ramifications of omnibenevolence.

you are merely making up your own version of God.

We all do. I venture to say that my version is more formally defined and rationally evaluated than most people's, but everyone has their own level of understanding the incomprehensible.

 

[sayak83]

Yep, any idea can be abused. The point was the Dawkins was not attacking all religion.

Right now it can be shown that in Europe at least the more atheistic a country is the more "ideal" it's living conditions are. In the U.S. by almost any reasonable measure of morality (believing or not believing in a god is morally neutral for example) the average atheist out performs the average Christian. Far less atheists in prison, lower divorce rates, lower out of wedlock child birth rates, etc..

The same argument can be used to justify the idea that blacks as a race are inferior to the whites. So you need to be careful. The correlation here is based more on household income than anything. A comparison between US Hindus, Jews, Presbytarians and Atheists would be more informative.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, that's exactly what it means. When you define something to be a certain way, then that means that it is that way.

No, that is merely your definition. It is not "the definition" which brings us back to "so what"? I could define god otherwise. It would be just as valid as your definition.

And what exactly are my claims? I'm not trying to prove anything to anyone. You said you would not worship an immoral god. Presumably, you would not worship a god that does not exist, either, so the framework of the statement assumes that God exists. I pointed out that if God exists and your morality does not match His, then it would be worth considering that maybe He wasn't the immoral one. You asked how I know whether my version of God is moral or not, and I told you that I define Him that way.

Yes, but if you want to claim that the burden of proof is upon you. Your definition has nothing to do with this since it is your definition. And I did not ask about your definition of God, I merely asked about God in general.

I would not worship a god that does not exist, either, so for me, any being that wants to lay claim to Godhood must:

1) exist.
2) be omnipotent.
3) be omniscient.
4) be omnipresent.
5) be omnibenevolent.

That is how I define God.

Once again that is only your definition. It does not enter into the discussion unless you can demonstrate a reason that it exists. Until then it is just as valid as any version of god that at least exists.

To me, God can ONLY be the benevolent one. Any evil or indifferent being--no matter how advanced or otherwise supreme they may be--could not be God for me. If a superbeing exists that is awfully godlike, but is not omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent or omnibenevolent, then they are not God for me. If no being exists that meets all the omnis, then God does not exist. I'm ok with that.

I love it when a mere mortal tries to tell god how he has to exist.

Or, you don't understand the full ramifications of omnibenevolence.

No, that is clearly not the case.

We all do. I venture to say that my version is more formally defined and rationally evaluated than most people's, but everyone has their own level of understanding the incomprehensible.

That is why I don't even bother to try to define god. All definitions of god have historically failed when investigated.

 

[AManCalledHorse]

Yep, any idea can be abused. The point was the Dawkins was not attacking all religion.

Right now it can be shown that in Europe at least the more atheistic a country is the more "ideal" it's living conditions are. In the U.S. by almost any reasonable measure of morality (believing or not believing in a god is morally neutral for example) the average atheist out performs the average Christian. Far less atheists in prison, lower divorce rates, lower out of wedlock child birth rates, etc..

Christians largely out number atheists in the US. I don't know the number so I will plug some in.
Using 1,000,000/100

Out of that 100 atheists if only 10 divorce that is equal to 100,000 Christians divorcing.

Out of that 100 atheists if only 15 are in prison that is equal to 150,000 Christians in prison.

If you can provide exact stats on your claims I will be more happy to take a look at them. Until then you are just posting an unsupported assertion and claim.

 

[AManCalledHorse]

Yes, that's exactly what it means. When you define something to be a certain way, then that means that it is that way.



And what exactly are my claims? I'm not trying to prove anything to anyone. You said you would not worship an immoral god. Presumably, you would not worship a god that does not exist, either, so the framework of the statement assumes that God exists. I pointed out that if God exists and your morality does not match His, then it would be worth considering that maybe He wasn't the immoral one. You asked how I know whether my version of God is moral or not, and I told you that I define Him that way.

I would not worship a god that does not exist, either, so for me, any being that wants to lay claim to Godhood must:

1) exist.
2) be omnipotent.
3) be omniscient.
4) be omnipresent.
5) be omnibenevolent.

That is how I define God.



To me, God can ONLY be the benevolent one. Any evil or indifferent being--no matter how advanced or otherwise supreme they may be--could not be God for me. If a superbeing exists that is awfully godlike, but is not omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent or omnibenevolent, then they are not God for me. If no being exists that meets all the omnis, then God does not exist. I'm ok with that.



Or, you don't understand the full ramifications of omnibenevolence.



We all do. I venture to say that my version is more formally defined and rationally evaluated than most people's, but everyone has their own level of understanding the incomprehensible.

Do you have any evidence for this god you define. Anything testable will be fine.

 

[AManCalledHorse]

Yes, that's exactly what it means. When you define something to be a certain way, then that means that it is that way.



And what exactly are my claims? I'm not trying to prove anything to anyone. You said you would not worship an immoral god. Presumably, you would not worship a god that does not exist, either, so the framework of the statement assumes that God exists. I pointed out that if God exists and your morality does not match His, then it would be worth considering that maybe He wasn't the immoral one. You asked how I know whether my version of God is moral or not, and I told you that I define Him that way.

I would not worship a god that does not exist, either, so for me, any being that wants to lay claim to Godhood must:

1) exist.
2) be omnipotent.
3) be omniscient.
4) be omnipresent.
5) be omnibenevolent.

That is how I define God.



To me, God can ONLY be the benevolent one. Any evil or indifferent being--no matter how advanced or otherwise supreme they may be--could not be God for me. If a superbeing exists that is awfully godlike, but is not omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent or omnibenevolent, then they are not God for me. If no being exists that meets all the omnis, then God does not exist. I'm ok with that.



Or, you don't understand the full ramifications of omnibenevolence.



We all do. I venture to say that my version is more formally defined and rationally evaluated than most people's, but everyone has their own level of understanding the incomprehensible.

If god is the creator of everything, then he is also the creator of evil. Why would a loving god create evil?

If god is more powerful than anything why doesn't he do away with evil?

The way the story describes them it looks like god and the devil are brothers in a competition and neither one is the most powerful and humans are like trophies for them.

 

[Axe Elf]

No, that is merely your definition.

Yeah, that's what I said.

I could define god otherwise. It would be just as valid as your definition.

Of course it would. But you were asking me how I knew my version of God is moral, and I know because that is how I define God, so my definition is relevant.

Yes, but if you want to claim that the burden of proof is upon you. Your definition has nothing to do with this since it is your definition.

I just showed you why my definition is relevant.

Again, I'm not trying to prove anything to anyone. I'm not trying to PROVE that God is moral, or even that He exists; I'm telling you that I define God as being omnibenevolent. If you don't accept my definition, that's fine; but one does not need to prove definitions. Definitions are axiomatic--they are accepted on faith (or rejected) without proof. I couldn't prove a definition if I tried. You either accept it on faith, or you don't.

And I did not ask about your definition of God, I merely asked about God in general.

You asked how I know that my version of God is moral. That does seem to be asking about my understanding of God, and the way I define God is central to answering how I know that my version of God is moral.

Once again that is only your definition. It does not enter into the discussion unless you can demonstrate a reason that it exists. Until then it is just as valid as any version of god that at least exists.

I think I've just demonstrated the reason why my definition of God entered into the discussion of God's morality. The reason my definition of God exists is because I had to start somewhere. But at least we can agree on that last sentence.

I love it when a mere mortal tries to tell god how he has to exist.

I'm not "telling" God anything. I'm looking for a way to comprehend the incomprehensible.

No, that is clearly not the case.

Well, we read the same Bible. I define God to be omnibenevolent, and understand the scriptures to be corroborative of that quality. You read the same scriptures, and conclude that God is clearly NOT omnibenevolent. So if the scriptures are the same, the difference must be in your understanding of the ramifications of omnibenevolence.

That is why I don't even bother to try to define god.

That makes it easier to understand how you don't know what you're talking about. A definition would come in handy in that respect.

 

[Axe Elf]

Do you have any evidence for this god you define. Anything testable will be fine.

Nope.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Christians largely out number atheists in the US. I don't know the number so I will plug some in.
Using 1,000,000/100

Out of that 100 atheists if only 10 divorce that is equal to 100,000 Christians divorcing.

Out of that 100 atheists if only 15 are in prison that is equal to 150,000 Christians in prison.

If you can provide exact stats on your claims I will be more happy to take a look at them. Until then you are just posting an unsupported assertion and claim.

The stats are of course based on a percentage of the religion. And you grossly underestimate the number of atheists in the U.S.. Since you did not realize that your post is rather worthless.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah, that's what I said.



Of course it would. But you were asking me how I knew my version of God is moral, and I know because that is how I define God, so my definition is relevant.



I just showed you why my definition is relevant.

Again, I'm not trying to prove anything to anyone. I'm not trying to PROVE that God is moral, or even that He exists; I'm telling you that I define God as being omnibenevolent. If you don't accept my definition, that's fine; but one does not need to prove definitions. Definitions are axiomatic--they are accepted on faith (or rejected) without proof. I couldn't prove a definition if I tried. You either accept it on faith, or you don't.



You asked how I know that my version of God is moral. That does seem to be asking about my understanding of God, and the way I define God is central to answering how I know that my version of God is moral.



I think I've just demonstrated the reason why my definition of God entered into the discussion of God's morality. The reason my definition of God exists is because I had to start somewhere. But at least we can agree on that last sentence.



I'm not "telling" God anything. I'm looking for a way to comprehend the incomprehensible.



Well, we read the same Bible. I define God to be omnibenevolent, and understand the scriptures to be corroborative of that quality. You read the same scriptures, and conclude that God is clearly NOT omnibenevolent. So if the scriptures are the same, the difference must be in your understanding of the ramifications of omnibenevolence.



That makes it easier to understand how you don't know what you're talking about. A definition would come in handy in that respect.

Why do you expect anyone to pay any attention to your rather strawman version of God?

 

[AManCalledHorse]

Nope.

I didn't expect any. Faith itself does have testable evidence but the god people have faith in has no testable evidence. There is nothing wrong with people having faith in god as long as they understand it is faith and not evidence.

 

[AManCalledHorse]

The stats are of course based on a percentage of the religion. And you grossly underestimate the number of atheists in the U.S.. Since you did not realize that your post is rather worthless.

Nope. I have no stats and even said I was "plugging" numbers in. My evaluation is equally valid as yours without supporting stats.

 

[AManCalledHorse]

The stats are of course based on a percentage of the religion. And you grossly underestimate the number of atheists in the U.S.. Since you did not realize that your post is rather worthless.

If you like we can take it down to 100,000/100. That is still 1000/1.

 

[blü 2]

an increased disliking for Richard Dawkins, a well-known evolutionary biologist.

You don't have to like intelligent design to dislike Richard Dawkins. As a scientist he's fine, but as a crusader for atheism it's not just that he lacks the presence and debating skills of eg Hitchins, but that he's also humorless and often graceless.

That doesn't make him wrong, but it doesn't make him lovable either.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope. I have no stats and even said I was "plugging" numbers in. My evaluation is equally valid as yours without supporting stats.

I know, I based mine upon stats that are percentages of populations. Why did you even bother with a post that was worse than pure speculation?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you like we can take it down to 100,000/100. That is still 1000/1.

Please

 

[Axe Elf]

If god is the creator of everything, then he is also the creator of evil. Why would a loving god create evil?

If god is more powerful than anything why doesn't he do away with evil?

Ah, good, this will give me a chance to help @Subduction Zone understand the full ramifications of omnibenevolence that he was struggling with too.

Yes, God IS the creator of evil--but this is nothing new. He explicitly takes credit for it in Isaiah 45:7 (KJV):

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things."

So why would an omnibenevolent God not only allow evil to exist but actually create it in the first place???

As I stated before, I define God as being omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent. An omnibenevolent God would want to create the best of all possible universes. An omniscient God would know how to create the best of all possible universes. An omnipotent God would have the power to create the best of all possible universes. So if an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God exists, then we are logically constrained to conclude that we live in the best of all possible universes, and that any evil, suffering, or other Bad Thing that exists is only that amount of evil, suffering, or other Bad Thing that is necessary to the best of all possible universes.

Why would ANY evil, suffering, or other Bad Thing be necessary to the best of all possible universes? Because even God can't create a one-sided coin; things exists only in contrast to their negation. Fish don't know they live in water, because they don't have anything to compare it to. We could not know what day was if there was no night. We would not understand justice if we did not have examples of injustice--and we could not appreciate goodness without contrasting it to evil. In short, it is better to have BOTH good and evil--so that we can know and appreciate goodness--than to have neither.

And that is why the existence of evil does not contradict omnibenevolence; in fact, it is indicative of it.

 

[Axe Elf]

Why do you expect anyone to pay any attention to your rather strawman version of God?

I don't, other than that you asked about it, and it would be reasonable to expect you to pay attention to my answer. :::shrugs:::

 

[AManCalledHorse]

I know, I based mine upon stats that are percentages of populations. Why did you even bother with a post that was worse than pure speculation?

That's great. Then you should have no problem providing those stats. Thanks in advance.

 

[Axe Elf]

I didn't expect any. Faith itself does have testable evidence but the god people have faith in has no testable evidence. There is nothing wrong with people having faith in god as long as they understand it is faith and not evidence.

I'm not sure what you mean by faith having testable evidence, but yeah, ALL facts are based in faith--even evidence.

I would never try to prove God's existence to anyone. If God wants to reveal Himself to you, He's powerful enough to do so. I don't think that's my place.