Trusting God(s) Considering Experience

[The Sum of Awe]

If God(s) you believe in are personal and loving exists, and of course so do events of extraordinary tragedies in human history, regardless of 'why' God(s) allowed these things to occurred - whether they aren't powerful enough to prevent it, to the more popular reason that it'd disrupt freewill which they don't want to do, any sort of reason you can think of for them not doing anything about preventing it, how can they be trusted to take the wheel of your life? or to pray to for guidance or protection?

The fact such incidents happened at least once in history (again, for WHATEVER reason the god(s) allowed them to occur) means there's a chance it'll happen again, that the god(s) you believe in will not prevent it from happening again. So why trust them?


Just to note, my personal answer to this question is I don't expect God is a loving God, but the sum of all characteristics everpresent in the universe. So this question of course doesn't apply to any theological concepts that aren't exactly trustworthy.

 

[Quintessence]

How can you trust your best friend or human confidant to offer any guidance or protection?

Same answer.

 

[Jainarayan]

whether they aren't powerful enough to prevent it

We don't believe the Gods are omnipotent, omnipresent or omniscient. What we see as bad things happening is probably what slipped by them, or they couldn't control. There are probably very many occasions where they averted some tragedy or disaster and we don't know, because it didn't happen. The "why does God let bad things happen?" is a monotheistic view that's pretty much lacking in any polytheistic belief.

 

[raph]

I force antibiotics into my cats mouth and she hates it. She probably asks the same question like OP.

Sorry for the sarcasm. I just wanted to show that there are things that seem bad to a being of low intelligence. But a being with higher intelligence might know, that these things are actually good.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I force antibiotics into my cats mouth and she hates it. She probably asks the same question like OP.

Sorry for the sarcasm. I just wanted to show that there are things that seem bad to a being of low intelligence. But a being with higher intelligence might know, that these things are actually good.

What good came of the holocaust. or Ebola, miscarriages, hurricanes?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Well, to start with, it's not all about us--as individuals or as humanity or any other grouping you'd care to name. I assume that the spirits that I turn to for support--just like people, because they are after all persons--will do so if they can, but the nature of their support might not be in the way I'd prefer (see @raph 's comment about the cat), or it might be that there is something else that needs to take precedence and it's not going to go well for me/us. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose...

 

[1robin]

If God(s) you believe in are personal and loving exists, and of course so do events of extraordinary tragedies in human history, regardless of 'why' God(s) allowed these things to occurred - whether they aren't powerful enough to prevent it, to the more popular reason that it'd disrupt freewill which they don't want to do, any sort of reason you can think of for them not doing anything about preventing it, how can they be trusted to take the wheel of your life? or to pray to for guidance or protection?

The fact such incidents happened at least once in history (again, for WHATEVER reason the god(s) allowed them to occur) means there's a chance it'll happen again, that the god(s) you believe in will not prevent it from happening again. So why trust them?


Just to note, my personal answer to this question is I don't expect God is a loving God, but the sum of all characteristics everpresent in the universe. So this question of course doesn't apply to any theological concepts that aren't exactly trustworthy.

There are three issues that make up an answer to your question.

1. God has priorities. Freewill takes precedence over our being happy. For love to exist freewill must exist, for freewill to exist the ability to use freewill incorrectly (indirectly or directly causing harm and evil). No freewill and you could not have love but may or may not have evil, and you certainly could not have choice. This is the personal explanation to your point.
2. The corporate explenationn to why thinkgs like floods and hurricanes cause harm is because when the original people God had endowed with a soul and the ability to chose to obey him or rebel decided they did not need God, God judged the universe as a whole. IOW he withdrew his sovereignty over nature concerning us so that we may see the mistake in rejecting him. Before the original people given souls rejected God the bible says where they lived was good and that he supervised nature for our happiness and pleasure. When they rebelled he removed those conditions and allowed unfeeling natural law to operate without regard to our happiness. Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Eden may be literal or symbolic but either way thei misuse of freewill and rejection of him caused them to be cast out of the perfect world God had created for them and into one which is indifferent to them.

Now that is two adequate philosophical explanation of how suffering can exist even if God is good and loving.

The problem is not the philosophical consistency of our situation the third issue is.

3. We never have and never will like harm, oppression, pain, misery, or evil (at least no one except a few psychopaths would). However that is not a philosophical inconsistency it is purely an emotion. An emotion intentionally put in place so that we may recognize our mistake in rejecting God and our need of him.

If we learn our lesson and look at suffering through the lens of the bible, it should lead us to repentance and faith inn God, and if we do that God has promised to end this period of misery and once again enact his sovereignty over the universe and re-establish the Garden or Eden like perfection where to evil will no longer occur to those that stopped rebelling, denying, and made a commitment to him before they died.

The existence of evil actually proves God.
If you say there is evil, then you must also grant that good exists by which to distinguish evil from. If you grant that evil and good exists then that requires an objective standard by which to distinguish between good and evil. To have an objective moral standard you must have an transcendent moral agent that grounds objective moral truths. You have to crawl into God's lap to slap his face.

 

[serp777]

There are three issues that make up an answer to your question.

1. God has priorities. Freewill takes precedence over our being happy. For love to exist freewill must exist, for freewill to exist the ability to use freewill incorrectly (indirectly or directly causing harm and evil). No freewill and you could not have love but may or may not have evil, and you certainly could not have choice. This is the personal explanation to your point.
2. The corporate explenationn to why thinkgs like floods and hurricanes cause harm is because when the original people God had endowed with a soul and the ability to chose to obey him or rebel decided they did not need God, God judged the universe as a whole. IOW he withdrew his sovereignty over nature concerning us so that we may see the mistake in rejecting him. Before the original people given souls rejected God the bible says where they lived was good and that he supervised nature for our happiness and pleasure. When they rebelled he removed those conditions and allowed unfeeling natural law to operate without regard to our happiness. Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Eden may be literal or symbolic but either way thei misuse of freewill and rejection of him caused them to be cast out of the perfect world God had created for them and into one which is indifferent to them.

Now that is two adequate philosophical explanation of how suffering can exist even if God is good and loving.

The problem is not the philosophical consistency of our situation the third issue is.

3. We never have and never will like harm, oppression, pain, misery, or evil (at least no one except a few psychopaths would). However that is not a philosophical inconsistency it is purely an emotion. An emotion intentionally put in place so that we may recognize our mistake in rejecting God and our need of him.

If we learn our lesson and look at suffering through the lens of the bible, it should lead us to repentance and faith inn God, and if we do that God has promised to end this period of misery and once again enact his sovereignty over the universe and re-establish the Garden or Eden like perfection where to evil will no longer occur to those that stopped rebelling, denying, and made a commitment to him before they died.

The existence of evil actually proves God.
If you say there is evil, then you must also grant that good exists by which to distinguish evil from. If you grant that evil and good exists then that requires an objective standard by which to distinguish between good and evil. To have an objective moral standard you must have an transcendent moral agent that grounds objective moral truths. You have to crawl into God's lap to slap his face.

You sure have a lot of special knowledge about God. You have a hotline to heaven or something? Or are you a prophet who has come to speak for God? or perhaps the next incarnation of Jesus? Well the last one was a joke.

1.

God has priorities. Freewill takes precedence over our being happy. For love to exist freewill must exist, for freewill to exist the ability to use freewill incorrectly (indirectly or directly causing harm and evil). No freewill and you could not have love but may or may not have evil, and you certainly could not have choice. This is the personal explanation to your point.

Actually this is just false. The lack of freewill we have is quite significant. We do not choose are birth or our families or our genetics for starters. We do not choose the time period we live in. We do not choose how the environment interacts with the genome. We don't choose many of our actions as they are driven by autonomic reflexes and emotions. We don't choose our thoughts--they are produced for us preemptively. We don't choose our feelings. We don't choose the random chance that affects us during our life and changes our personality. We don't choose the laws of society we follow and we follow many statistical patterns embedded in humanity. Science also shows that we don't even really choose our relationships and love--people with more diversified genetics tend to be more attracted to each other. So I would say that most of life isn't free will and were just here for the ride. Plus you haven't even demonstrated that free will exists. And no freewill and you could not have love? Sure you can--your love is predetermined. You simply think you made a choice but you didn't really.

2. The corporate explenationn to why thinkgs like floods and hurricanes cause harm is because when the original people God had endowed with a soul and the ability to chose to obey him or rebel decided they did not need God, God judged the universe as a whole. IOW he withdrew his sovereignty over nature concerning us so that we may see the mistake in rejecting him. Before the original people given souls rejected God the bible says where they lived was good and that he supervised nature for our happiness and pleasure. When they rebelled he removed those conditions and allowed unfeeling natural law to operate without regard to our happiness. Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Eden may be literal or symbolic but either way thei misuse of freewill and rejection of him caused them to be cast out of the perfect world God had created for them and into one which is indifferent to them.

Adam and even certainly did not exist. There were never two humans simultaneously since there needed to be a big enough gene pool to prevent inbreeding and stop viruses from annihilating the entire species. The better, more simple explanation is that God simply does not care about humans. He set up the universe like a wind up toy with a random number generator and let it go to unfold in a random way that he observes. Then hurricanes and floods are just a result of the random essence of nature working over time. Much easier explanation that your assertions that the bible is an accurate account.

The existence of evil actually proves God.
If you say there is evil, then you must also grant that good exists by which to distinguish evil from. If you grant that evil and good exists then that requires an objective standard by which to distinguish between good and evil. To have an objective moral standard you must have an transcendent moral agent that grounds objective moral truths. You have to crawl into God's lap to slap his face.

Actually this is a very illogical quote from William Lane Craig--clearly youre a fan since your arguments are very similar. The first major flaw is that good and evil are always relative no matter what. There's no reason why God would have to have objective morality and there's no reason he shouldn't be subject to the same moral relativism. By definition its also God's subjective morality--its God's particular morality. But you assume that God is infallible though and just inherent;y knows what good is in the first place. Assuming his morality cant change and that he's infinitely good is just another one of your assertions. And you would have no idea what objective morality is anyways since it depends on your particular beliefs, the time you were born, the society you live in, etc. Totally subjective. If we say that evil exists though we have to say that God created evil and needs evil to exist because how else could he supposedly be infinitely good then? It leads to a contradiction because how could an infinitely good being make evil? Making evil is an inherently evil thing. If good and evil exists God is an infinitely neutral being with essentially an arbitrary subjective morality. So many flaws with WLC's arguments that have long ago been defeated.

 

[Tumah]

If God(s) you believe in are personal and loving exists, and of course so do events of extraordinary tragedies in human history, regardless of 'why' God(s) allowed these things to occurred - whether they aren't powerful enough to prevent it, to the more popular reason that it'd disrupt freewill which they don't want to do, any sort of reason you can think of for them not doing anything about preventing it, how can they be trusted to take the wheel of your life? or to pray to for guidance or protection?

The fact such incidents happened at least once in history (again, for WHATEVER reason the god(s) allowed them to occur) means there's a chance it'll happen again, that the god(s) you believe in will not prevent it from happening again. So why trust them?


Just to note, my personal answer to this question is I don't expect God is a loving God, but the sum of all characteristics everpresent in the universe. So this question of course doesn't apply to any theological concepts that aren't exactly trustworthy.

I say that G-d orchestrates tragedies for those that are deserving, just as he orchestrates benefit for those that are deserving. My trust in G-d is that He will do to me, whatever is most beneficial for me, whether by rewarding me for good behavior, or afflicting me to cleanse my soul of bad behaviors.

 

[Looncall]

There are three issues that make up an answer to your question.

1. God has priorities. Freewill takes precedence over our being happy. For love to exist freewill must exist, for freewill to exist the ability to use freewill incorrectly (indirectly or directly causing harm and evil). No freewill and you could not have love but may or may not have evil, and you certainly could not have choice. This is the personal explanation to your point.
2. The corporate explenationn to why thinkgs like floods and hurricanes cause harm is because when the original people God had endowed with a soul and the ability to chose to obey him or rebel decided they did not need God, God judged the universe as a whole. IOW he withdrew his sovereignty over nature concerning us so that we may see the mistake in rejecting him. Before the original people given souls rejected God the bible says where they lived was good and that he supervised nature for our happiness and pleasure. When they rebelled he removed those conditions and allowed unfeeling natural law to operate without regard to our happiness. Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Eden may be literal or symbolic but either way thei misuse of freewill and rejection of him caused them to be cast out of the perfect world God had created for them and into one which is indifferent to them.

Now that is two adequate philosophical explanation of how suffering can exist even if God is good and loving.

The problem is not the philosophical consistency of our situation the third issue is.

3. We never have and never will like harm, oppression, pain, misery, or evil (at least no one except a few psychopaths would). However that is not a philosophical inconsistency it is purely an emotion. An emotion intentionally put in place so that we may recognize our mistake in rejecting God and our need of him.

If we learn our lesson and look at suffering through the lens of the bible, it should lead us to repentance and faith inn God, and if we do that God has promised to end this period of misery and once again enact his sovereignty over the universe and re-establish the Garden or Eden like perfection where to evil will no longer occur to those that stopped rebelling, denying, and made a commitment to him before they died.

The existence of evil actually proves God.
If you say there is evil, then you must also grant that good exists by which to distinguish evil from. If you grant that evil and good exists then that requires an objective standard by which to distinguish between good and evil. To have an objective moral standard you must have an transcendent moral agent that grounds objective moral truths. You have to crawl into God's lap to slap his face.

On the other hand, the universe looks just as one would expect if there were no gods. Your feverish intellectual tapdancing is probably unnecessary.

 

[Looncall]

I say that G-d orchestrates tragedies for those that are deserving, just as he orchestrates benefit for those that are deserving. My trust in G-d is that He will do to me, whatever is most beneficial for me, whether by rewarding me for good behavior, or afflicting me to cleanse my soul of bad behaviors.

There must have been an awful lot of undeserving people caught up in the recent hurricanes, tsunamis etc.Just a few moments of reflection should show that what you say is untrue. Bad things do happen to good people all the time and bad ones go unpunished.

 

[Tumah]

There must have been an awful lot of undeserving people caught up in the recent hurricanes, tsunamis etc.Just a few moments of reflection should show that what you say is untrue. Bad things do happen to good people all the time and bad ones go unpunished.

Yes, there are an awful lot of undeserving people, you are correct.
There are also many deserving people who are not going through hurricanes, tsunamis etc.

 

[ether-ore]

Actually this is just false. The lack of freewill we have is quite significant. We do not choose are birth or our families or our genetics for starters. We do not choose the time period we live in. We do not choose how the environment interacts with the genome. We don't choose many of our actions as they are driven by autonomic reflexes and emotions. We don't choose our thoughts--they are produced for us preemptively. We don't choose our feelings. We don't choose the random chance that affects us during our life and changes our personality. We don't choose the laws of society we follow and we follow many statistical patterns embedded in humanity. Science also shows that we don't even really choose our relationships and love--people with more diversified genetics tend to be more attracted to each other. So I would say that most of life isn't free will and were just here for the ride. Plus you haven't even demonstrated that free will exists. And no freewill and you could not have love? Sure you can--your love is predetermined. You simply think you made a choice but you didn't really.

You are correct in that we do not choose any of those things, but then we were sent here to see how we would react to challenges. If mortality is a test (and I believe it is) then being faced with a variety of variables regardless of circumstance does not negate agency or freewill. You are looking at it as if this physical body is a biological machine. I'm looking at it from the standpoint that we are eternal beings; the spirit children of a loving Heavenly Father who is granting His children the opportunity to prove themselves in a new and uncertain environment.

Adam and even certainly did not exist. There were never two humans simultaneously since there needed to be a big enough gene pool to prevent inbreeding and stop viruses from annihilating the entire species. The better, more simple explanation is that God simply does not care about humans. He set up the universe like a wind up toy with a random number generator and let it go to unfold in a random way that he observes. Then hurricanes and floods are just a result of the random essence of nature working over time. Much easier explanation that your assertions that the bible is an accurate account.

It seems you are accepting on faith what science suggests. I am accepting on faith a coherent and cohesive record of scripture that says they did exist. You are assuming that conditions on earth today are the same as they were back then. I don't think there is justification for such an assumption. Inbreeding is a modern issue (relatively speaking). Back when the race was pure and had not developed genetic inconsistencies over time, inbreeding was not an issue. There was no one else to marry except brothers and sisters for a time. Also over time, the cumulative abuses to the genome have changed that.

Actually this is a very illogical quote from William Lane Craig--clearly youre a fan since your arguments are very similar. The first major flaw is that good and evil are always relative no matter what. There's no reason why God would have to have objective morality and there's no reason he shouldn't be subject to the same moral relativism. By definition its also God's subjective morality--its God's particular morality. But you assume that God is infallible though and just inherent;y knows what good is in the first place. Assuming his morality cant change and that he's infinitely good is just another one of your assertions. And you would have no idea what objective morality is anyways since it depends on your particular beliefs, the time you were born, the society you live in, etc. Totally subjective. If we say that evil exists though we have to say that God created evil and needs evil to exist because how else could he supposedly be infinitely good then? It leads to a contradiction because how could an infinitely good being make evil? Making evil is an inherently evil thing. If good and evil exists God is an infinitely neutral being with essentially an arbitrary subjective morality. So many flaws with WLC's arguments that have long ago been defeated.

The scriptures tell us that God is eternal. Meaning, there never was a time when God did not exist. Since that is the case, that means that good and evil have also always existed along with the moral law to distinguish the two. This makes God's moral law objective because it is true in all times and in all places. This is not God's first rodeo. We are not His first children (meaning those assigned to this earth). Neither is this heaven and earth His first creation and it will not be His last. God's works are one eternal round; they had no beginning and will have no end. This earth is not the center of time or space since there is no such thing in an infinity. There are temporal pockets within the infinite and eternal universe (and we are in one of them... created by God) and created for God's purposes for His children of which there is no end.
Evil is a product of agency. Since we are eternal beings who have always existed, then we by nature have agency. We and our agency were not created, otherwise you would be right and we would have no freewill. If that were true, all we could do is what we were created to do. At some point in eternity, God made us His spirit children; something we could not do for ourselves. But God did not make Lucifer, a son of the morning, evil. That was Lucifer making a choice to rebel using his natural agency and becoming Satan in the process. With the creation of the heaven and this earth (this temporal pocket or bubble) God is giving us the opportunity to gain physical bodies and to learn how to control them, giving us guidelines to follow which is His eternal objective moral law.

 

[viole]

If we learn our lesson and look at suffering through the lens of the bible, it should lead us to repentance and faith inn God, and if we do that God has promised to end this period of misery and once again enact his sovereignty over the universe and re-establish the Garden or Eden like perfection where to evil will no longer occur to those that stopped rebelling, denying, and made a commitment to him before they died.

And how do you know that? Unless you deny the existence of free will in Heaven, then you have no guarantee whatsoever that someone will not decide to sin again when he is over there.

Please note, the majority of souls inhabiting heaven is constituted by entities that never enjoyed a brain to sense these things and consciously appreciate what evil is. Aborted fetuses and miscarriages, for instance, if they go to Heaven, as I assume.

So, my question to you is: what makes the soul of a miscarriaged fetus any different from, say, Adam? They both pop out in front of God from a situation of absolute ignorance about good and evil. What makes you so sure that the fetus will not disobey, as Adam did?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Goblin]

maybe its alot simpler....

i/people pray and **** happens, they call it a miracle. this proves(at least to me) that at very least belief can cause quantifiable change in our reality.

on that note maybe God/gods dont notice you unless you call him/her/it/them. there is a whole damn universe and people expect higher powers to give a **** about what we do on a day to day basis, yet we dont even call? i mean you need to get the Powers attention, if you want attention.
i mean a friend is their for you in a time of need, strangers dont typically watch out for you.

this would explain the need for religion and why bad **** happens. God helps those who ask and leaves the rest to dumb luck.

 

[1robin]

You sure have a lot of special knowledge about God. You have a hotline to heaven or something? Or are you a prophet who has come to speak for God? or perhaps the next incarnation of Jesus? Well the last one was a joke.

No, nothing I have claimed is beyond mainstream doctrine and can be easily found in a thousand places.

What I am is:
1. A born again Christian.
2. A person who has once felt the eternal presence of God which made all earthly knowledge seem trivial.
3, And one who despite all previous interests has found theological debate and study almost obsessive.

1. Actually this is just false. The lack of freewill we have is quite significant. We do not choose are birth or our families or our genetics for starters. We do not choose the time period we live in. We do not choose how the environment interacts with the genome. We don't choose many of our actions as they are driven by autonomic reflexes and emotions. We don't choose our thoughts--they are produced for us preemptively. We don't choose our feelings. We don't choose the random chance that affects us during our life and changes our personality. We don't choose the laws of society we follow and we follow many statistical patterns embedded in humanity. Science also shows that we don't even really choose our relationships and love--people with more diversified genetics tend to be more attracted to each other. So I would say that most of life isn't free will and were just here for the ride. Plus you haven't even demonstrated that free will exists. And no freewill and you could not have love? Sure you can--your love is predetermined. You simply think you made a choice but you didn't really.

You do not seem to be familiar with the theological definition of freewill. Freewill is the capacity to choose between things that are choices. What you described is some kind of omnipotent ability to self determine everything. Freewill only applies where a choice is available. BTW: many of those things you said we do not chose, we in fact can. I can change the way I feel about a thing. Sometimes it is hard but the choice is still possible.

1. Also keep in mind I am not asserting we have infinite capacities or that freewill is always possible. I do believe on very rare occasions God short circuits freewill. As in hardening God's heart. I meant that we have the power to choose in general (virtually in all cases).

What you seem to be arguing against is some kind king of absolute sovereignty which I do not claim.

Adam and even certainly did not exist. There were never two humans simultaneously since there needed to be a big enough gene pool to prevent inbreeding and stop viruses from annihilating the entire species. The better, more simple explanation is that God simply does not care about humans. He set up the universe like a wind up toy with a random number generator and let it go to unfold in a random way that he observes. Then hurricanes and floods are just a result of the random essence of nature working over time. Much easier explanation that your assertions that the bible is an accurate account. [/quote You do not have the slightest idea about Adam and Eve's existence. I spent quite sometime just trying to determine the authors intent concerning Genesis. Was it allegory? Was it literal? Was is quasi-literal. As bad as I wanted an answer I gave it up as hopeless. I do not know if the human race began as two individuals born into a perfect garden and, who ate from a forbidden tree and were ejected from the garden into a horrific and unjust world. What I do know is the story accurately describes out predicament either way. We have all disobeyed God and unless repented of, on the account of Jesus substitutionary death, will remain separated from God. The story serves it's purpose be it literal or allegory. If there is a perfect God every single one of us are justly judged as guilty before him.


Actually this is a very illogical quote from William Lane Craig--clearly youre a fan since your arguments are very similar. The first major flaw is that good and evil are always relative no matter what. There's no reason why God would have to have objective morality and there's no reason he shouldn't be subject to the same moral relativism. By definition its also God's subjective morality--its God's particular morality. But you assume that God is infallible though and just inherent;y knows what good is in the first place. Assuming his morality cant change and that he's infinitely good is just another one of your assertions. And you would have no idea what objective morality is anyways since it depends on your particular beliefs, the time you were born, the society you live in, etc. Totally subjective. If we say that evil exists though we have to say that God created evil and needs evil to exist because how else could he supposedly be infinitely good then? It leads to a contradiction because how could an infinitely good being make evil? Making evil is an inherently evil thing. If good and evil exists God is an infinitely neutral being with essentially an arbitrary subjective morality. So many flaws with WLC's arguments that have long ago been defeated.

I know Craig very well and know his moral arguments very well. To my knowledge he has never put his arguments into the formula I provided. The person I got that chain of necessity from is Ravi Zacharias. Between them they have about 6 earned degrees and at least 4 honorary degrees your going to have to invent one heck of an argument to persuade me they are wrong. I have been almost obsess3ed with professional theistic debates and out of hundred only one Atheist said that both objective morality exists and that God does not. When Sam Harris did this Craig backed him into a corner and he admitted he merely assumed they do. This from the side that accuses the other having faith based conclusions.

From the looks of it your argument is a muddled and drawn our version of euthyphro's dilemma which is to take your first step down the wrong path. God neither chooses morality from an external source nor does what he commands become God merely because he commanded it. God is not the moral loudspeaker, he is the moral locus of the universe. His nature (which is both unchanging and eternal) determines what is right or wrong. Murder is not wrong because God says so. Murder contradicts God's nature and therefor he commands it to be wrong - because it is wrong. That is as objective as a moral issue or duty can possibly get. You cannot even imagine or invent a more objective source for morality than God. God does not choose morality, he is morality.

In this context objective would be defined as: A moral duty which is true and not a product of THE OPINIONS of any of it's adherents.

 

[1robin]

On the other hand, the universe looks just as one would expect if there were no gods. Your feverish intellectual tapdancing is probably unnecessary.

Not hardly, as everyone from the Greeks to Hawking has wondered why is there anything at all? To even give you a chance at a counter argument I must venture into pure science fiction. There is zero evidence for other universes you would have to have more faith (and completely blind faith) in order to believe in them,, and every piece of evidence we have suggests this universe is finite and began from nothing. However lets suppose that there was some natural event (and this natural event would have had to exist before nature did) that could produce the one universe we know exists. Since if we wander into fantasy land and posit a natural event that occurred nature existed, and one which could produce a universe then we have no way to say what type of universe this fantasy force could produce. We would have to allow that it could produce any universe what so ever. Given the fantastic and impossible situation the chances that it would produce a universe so finely tuned as to allow for intelligent would be infinity small. It would have to be the longest shot even conceivable to have ever paid off.

IOW if I deny a creator God then this universes explanation is an incoherent fantasy. It takes more faith to be an atheist that a theist.

 

[Looncall]

Not hardly, as everyone from the Greeks to Hawking has wondered why is there anything at all? To even give you a chance at a counter argument I must venture into pure science fiction. There is zero evidence for other universes you would have to have more faith (and completely blind faith) in order to believe in them,, and every piece of evidence we have suggests this universe is finite and began from nothing. However lets suppose that there was some natural event (and this natural event would have had to exist before nature did) that could produce the one universe we know exists. Since if we wander into fantasy land and posit a natural event that occurred nature existed, and one which could produce a universe then we have no way to say what type of universe this fantasy force could produce. We would have to allow that it could produce any universe what so ever. Given the fantastic and impossible situation the chances that it would produce a universe so finely tuned as to allow for intelligent would be infinity small. It would have to be the longest shot even conceivable to have ever paid off.

IOW if I deny a creator God then this universes explanation is an incoherent fantasy. It takes more faith to be an atheist that a theist.

Argument from ignorance is unimpressive. So is inventing an imaginary friend to plug the gap.

Your rhetoric could easily be reworded to show your god as unbelievable.

 

[bnabernard]

If there was no intelligence (God) in the first place then what good is all this intelligent argument?

bernard (hug)

 

[Looncall]

If there was no intelligence (God) in the first place then what good is all this intelligent argument?

bernard (hug)

This question makes no sense to me, its two parts are not related.