No Way Out?

[SVRP]

I would like to see you elborate it too please.
show us a logical premise that shouts ours down, if you cant do this then dont speak.

Why not tell a builder not to use a foundation, then criticize him that his building will not stand? Why not make "logical" arguments against evolution, but consider any references to Darwin's studies as irrelevant? Why not make some premises against the Roman Empire but consider Julius Cesar as irrelevant? If this is the kind of style of argument your proposing then, yes, it is bad logic. And if this is the best atheists can construct an argument against God, then theists have nothing to worry about.

 

[SVRP]

Once again, beaten down by the superior obfuscation skills of the advanced theist mind.

Your conclusion is still faulty.

 

[mis-t-highs]

Why not tell a builder not to use a foundation,

that would be illogical, would'nt it.

then criticize him that his building will not stand?

as it's illogical to say dont build a foundation then this would not arise, would it.

Why not make "logical" arguments against evolution,

this also would be illogical, would'nt it. if you had said creation then thats a whole different ball game.

but consider any references to Darwin's studies as irrelevant?

this also would not arise.

Why not make some premises against the Roman Empire but consider Julius Cesar as irrelevant?

the roman empire is historical fact, it would be illogical to do that, would'nt it.

If this is the kind of style of argument your proposing then, yes, it is bad logic.

no it's you who are proposing this, no one else.

And if this is the best atheists can construct an argument against God, then theists have nothing to worry about.

this is your proposal.
atheist dont need to construct an arguement against something that does not exist the onus is on you to provide evidence for you claims.


Proving Existence or Non-Existence.

The existence of a thing can be conclusively proved by producing one single instance of the thing.

To put that another way: -
When the existence of a thing is denied, This can be proven wrong by producing one single instance of the thing said not to exist

The non-existence of a thing can never be conclusively proved because there is always the theoretical assumption that the thing exists but has not been seen yet or it exists in a place that can not be visited. Unless all places in the universe have been visited and are being constantly observed, we can not be absolutely certain.

From this we can say that there are only two possible statements we can make about the existence of a thing:


The thing exists.

It is unknown if the thing exists or not.

It is not possible to prove that a thing "does not exist" without further qualifying criteria.

If a thing does NOT exist it can not leave any evidence of it's non-existence. Only things that DO exist can leave evidence. From this we can derive that conclusive proof can only come from the person that claims that a thing exists. It is nonsensical to demand proof of non-existence.

Proof that an event has occurred is somewhat different.
It can not be proved conclusively that any particular event has or has not occurred but the probability of an event occurring can be estimated depending on:-


The strength of the evidence.

The volume of evidence.

The quality of evidence.

The probability of the evidence being caused by a different event.

Independent witness corroboration.

For example: -
Event 1 - President Kennedy was assassinated.


Volume of evidence - Many witnesses, Televised, A Body, Bullet wounds.

Quality of evidence - Precise forensic evidence of cause of death, ballistics evidence linked to murder weapon. Assassin's confession.

Alternative event probability - Accidental firearm discharge unlikely because of multiple hits on target, suicide unlikely because no powder burns, no weapon found near victim. Mistaken identity or wrong target unlikely …..

Independent witness corroboration - Excellent, Directly seen by hundreds, Indirectly seen by millions.

Event 2: - A talking snake convinced a genetically engineered female to eat an apple that caused her to gain knowledge of good and evil.


Volume of evidence - Contained only in one book (Genesis) of uncertain origin.

Quality of evidence - Very poor, Snakes have no physical means of talking, The interpretation of Genesis is disputed among Christians, The eating of Apples does not cause knowledge to be gained. Serious technical difficulties in remainder of this book. Contradicts accounts from other religions.

Alternative event probability - Very High, More likely to have been an illustrative or metaphorical event rather than a literal event.

Independent witness corroboration, No witnesses.

There is a very high probability that Event 1 occurred, literally, as stated.
There is a very low probability that Event 2 occurred, literally, as stated.

It is not possible to prove or disprove the occurrence of an event you can only argue for the probability of it's occurrence.

The Christians say their God exists. The onus of proof lies with the Christians. Atheists do not have to disprove because they have not made the claim.

Christians say Genesis occured. The evidence indicates otherwise and relies on the existance of a God which has not been proven.

 

[SVRP]

that would be illogical, would'nt it. as it's illogical to say dont build a foundation then this would not arise, would it. this also would be illogical, would'nt it. if you had said creation then thats a whole different ball game.this also would not arise. the roman empire is historical fact, it would be illogical to do that, would'nt it. no it's you who are proposing this, no one else. this is your proposal.

Thank you for your input, mis-t-highs, and in your own way you have just proven my point. The point of my argument is not whether God exists or not, but whether superluminal had constructed a logical argument to prove his conclusion, i.e., God is evil. Re-read the previous posts and my responses. Your statement, “it would be illogical to do that,” is exactly what superluminal is doing. Thank you again.

 

[superluminal]

God is evil. I proved it. I win. Na,na,na. My logic was impeccable. Given the conditions of the postulate - bullet proof. Laser proof. Plasma beam proof. So Ha! My weapons are better than yours! Lasers... awww yeah!

 

[mis-t-highs]

SVRP: I happen to agree with supers conclusion, to me it's an either or scenario, a xian god would be evil if it existed, if you need a reference for it's evilness you have the bible the torah, and the quran.

I dont see how I could have possiblly proved your point, infact the exact opposite.

 

[superluminal]

Hi mis-t,

You are my new favorite!

 

[mis-t-highs]

why thank you kind sir.

 

[SVRP]

SVRP: I happen to agree with supers conclusion, to me it's an either or scenario, a xian god would be evil if it existed, if you need a reference for it's evilness you have the bible the torah, and the quran.

I dont see how I could have possiblly proved your point, infact the exact opposite.

But you can't use the bible, according to superluminals statements since he had considered Jesus irrevelent, where all the teachings of Christianity comes from including the concept of hell, eternity, & judgment. That would be illogical to do, as you have said.
Second, he has assumed God's knowledge of his decision to become an atheist would produce an adverse reaction from God. Where did he get that assumption from? From Jesus? (Remember Jesus is irrelevant.)
Third, he has assumed that we are born children of God. Where did he get that assumption from? Definitely not from the bible & not from Jesus.
He has made a number of assumptions that are unsupported & falls apart on itself. Therefore his conclusions are faulty.

If you still think the opposite is true then read over the postulates & statements. Show me where the logic stands.

 

[superluminal]

I stated that jesus was irrelevant to the argument since, even though he was sent, I still don't believe. It's simple. A parent who, even though they have done an intervention (Jesus) with their recalcitrant child, still tortures the child for the rest of his life in a dank basement is evil.

You can't give humans a savior 2000+ years ago and expect an intelligent one to accept that given the truly shoddy state of the evidence (this is a primary proof of the stupidity of god, but that's a different thread). You need to be clear with each child in their own time. Jesus is irrelevant to the argument precicely because of that.

 

[SVRP]

I stated that jesus was irrelevant to the argument since, even though he was sent, I still don't believe. It's simple. A parent who, even though they have done an intervention (Jesus) with their recalcitrant child, still tortures the child for the rest of his life in a dank basement is evil.

You can't give humans a savior 2000+ years ago and expect an intelligent one to accept that given the truly shoddy state of the evidence (this is a primary proof of the stupidity of god, but that's a different thread). You need to be clear with each child in their own time. Jesus is irrelevant to the argument precicely because of that.

From your argument you have assumed that we are born children of God. Where did he get that assumption from? Definitely not from the bible & not from Jesus. That assumption is unsupported.

And the bible is a "truly shoddy state of the evidence"? Then where do you get the concept of hell, judgement, & eternity from? Can't be from the bible since you don't "expect an intelligent one to accept" it. Where then?

And if Jesus was sent and you choose not to believe, then why is your choice God's fault?

 

[geeser]

SVRP: what is wrong with this.

Postulate 1: God cannot be suprised by our decisions.
Therefore, if god is ever suprised by anything we do, he is fallible. So we accept postulate 1 and it's consequences. God knows what we will decide because he is not fallible.
I have honestly investigated and found it to be nonsense, blurred further by 2000 years of human interpretation and innacuracy. And yes, it is my choice but god is not suprised.
So, god knows for certain, the results of my investigation, for he cannot be suprised.
The presence of Jesus has no effect on the outcome, and is irrelevant. The fact is, I have investigated, and come to my conclusion. God cannot be suprised.
God knows I am an atheist, he knows why, and is not suprised. And I will go to hell for eternity.
Therefore I conclude that god is evil.
A parent (god) who leaves a SVRP:child at home, knowing for certain (postulate 1) that he will have a party and wreck the place, despite the dubious promise of a new car if he behaves (Jesus) and then beats the child every day, for the rest of its life for disobeying, is evil.
You have two choices. Your god is either nonexistent or evil. Which is it?

it's a valid reasoning.

and

Clarify the question. Are you assuming that all humans are "god's children"? If so, please identify where you got that assumption? Just curious.

it's not an assumption.

NKJV,Romans 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

jesus is irrelevant, he's refering to gods, not jesus'es infallibility
the old testament was'nt written by paul of tarsus, I beg to differ however he never once said in is postulate that you could not use the bible,
jesus was just irrelevent to the point he's making.

 

[superluminal]

SVRP,

From your argument you have assumed that we are born children of God. Where did he get that assumption from? Definitely not from the bible & not from Jesus. That assumption is unsupported.

What? Look, were all just people. What's this "born children of God" shit? I'm just a human. Are you so dull that you are taking my parent/child analogy to mean "children of god"?

And the bible is a "truly shoddy state of the evidence"? Then where do you get the concept of hell, judgement, & eternity from? Can't be from the bible since you don't "expect an intelligent one to accept" it. Where then?

I don't believe in hell or judgment. Duh. And eternity is certainly not a biblical concept. I'm an atheist, remember?

And if Jesus was sent and you choose not to believe, then why is your choice God's fault?

Again, so what? Can you not respond to the fact that no matter how bad I am, god already knows it and has me scheduled for hell. Fucking evil bastard.

Oh, I forgot. You're a theist. It's your job to muddle the waters as much as possible to try to hide the childish nature of your blind belief in fairies.

 

[The Goose]

This is for theists. A simple question.

1) Are we all, as god's creations, part of an intricate plan in which each of us has a role or purpose if you will?

That's all.

Can I get the theists here to give a short answer to this simple but profound question?

We each have a purpose, but we don't necessarily follow that. We may have a role or purpose which God wants us to play out, but He also gave us Free Will, that we could choose whether we would follow his plan for us or not.

 

[The Goose]

Wow. I didn't realise this was such a long thread. I guess I sort of jumped in the middle of other people's debates. Well, disregard what I said, then.

 

[SVRP]

SVRP: what is wrong with this.
it's a valid reasoning.

I disagree, geeser. It is selective and unsupported assumptions. And it is not logical. Logic is objective, unbiased, and supported. All his statements are not.

NKJV,Romans 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

This quote was addressed to the Christians in Rome. Are you implying that everybody is a Christian? Nor does it say we were born as children of God. It also says the Spirit bears witness to our spirit. Are you implying that everyone has God's Spirit on them?

jesus is irrelevant, he's refering to gods, not jesus'es infallibility

And which point of irrevelence would that be? His life or His teachings?

the old testament was'nt written by paul of tarsus, I beg to differ however he never once said in is postulate that you could not use the bible,

And the bible also includes statements of God's mercy, love, and redemption. Why didn't he include those as well?

 

[SVRP]

What? Look, were all just people. What's this "born children of God" shit? I'm just a human. Are you so dull that you are taking my parent/child analogy to mean "children of god"?

Isn't that what you are impying? If not, then how can you conclude God is evil?

I don't believe in hell or judgment. Duh. And eternity is certainly not a biblical concept. I'm an atheist, remember?.

Doesn't matter whether you believe it or not, it matters whether your argument is supported from a source you considered to quote from. So far the bible is not one of them. So where did you get it from then?

Again, so what? Can you not respond to the fact that no matter how bad I am, god already knows it and has me scheduled for hell. Fucking evil bastard.

And because God judges you to go to hell because you are bad, are you going to call the judge evil? From what standard do you make that conclusion? Wouldn't that be from God's standard? If not then from where?

 

[geeser]

I disagree, geeser. It is selective and unsupported assumptions. And it is not logical. Logic is objective, unbiased, and supported. All his statements are not.

please show me how, thank you.
using logical formula.

This quote was addressed to the Christians in Rome. Are you implying that everybody is a Christian? Nor does it say we were born as children of God. It also says the Spirit bears witness to our spirit. Are you implying that everyone has God's Spirit on them?

I think you just trying to find fault, to cause argurment, you stated

Clarify the question. Are you assuming that all humans are "god's children"? If so, please identify where you got that assumption? Just curious.

you did not say it had to be "born as" you did'nt specify what religion if any so, your arguement becomes invalid.

And which point of irrevelence would that be? His life or His teachings?

neither, irrelevant to the postulate.

And the bible also includes statements of God's mercy, love, and redemption. Why didn't he include those as well?

proberly because, there are only 253 actual good things in the bible, done by or on behalf of god.
but there are 2298 violent, cruel, intolerant, and unjust, things done by god or on his behalf, thats nearly 1000% increase over the good things.

 

[SVRP]

please show me how, thank you.
using logical formula.

From a previous post

The conundrum - God is evil or He does not exist.

Postulate 1: God cannot be suprised by our decisions.
Therefore, if god is ever suprised by anything we do, he is fallible. So we accept postulate 1 and it's consequences. God knows what we will decide because he is not fallible.

If there is a God who created us then this postulate will stand since He knows everything about us.
The statement that God is infallible from the consequences of postulate 1 is an assumption since an omniscient God will know the results of our decisions but does not make our decisions. But since He knows who we are and our heart’s intentions then it is likely He will know what we will decide. Conclusion – the assumption stands.

I have honestly investigated and found it to be nonsense, blurred further by 2000 years of human interpretation and innacuracy. And yes, it is my choice but god is not suprised.

So, god knows for certain, the results of my investigation, for he cannot be suprised.

The presence of Jesus has no effect on the outcome, and is irrelevant. The fact is, I have investigated, and come to my conclusion. God cannot be suprised.

These statements assume that there are 2000 years of human interpretation in the Bible. If something did exist within them whether they were God-led, God-ordained, or God-inspired, these statements conclude it is inaccurate and found to be nonsense. Jesus is irrelevant. Therefore anything within them will be throw out and should not contribute to the end conclusion. If God exists then He should not be surprised. Conclusion – Anything related to Jesus is thrown out, but the statements do not tell us of God’s character other than He is knowledgeable.

God knows I am an atheist, he knows why, and is not suprised. And I will go to hell for eternity.

This statement does not give any insight to God’s character. Being knowledgeable of a person’s atheism does not conclude God’s character as being evil. Assuming the person is going to hell because he is an atheist is inconsistent with previous statements. It is assuming an action by God when the character of God has been undetermined. Plus there is an assumption there is a hell and an eternity, which has also been undetermined. And the statement, “I will go to hell for eternity”, must be thrown out since it can be derived that Jesus taught about an eternal hell. Conclusion – The faulty assumption of going to hell is inconsistent with previous statements since anything related to Jesus is considered irrelevant. The argument falls apart here, and the statement does not contribute to either side of the conundrum, nor does it tell us of God’s character other than He is knowledgeable.

Therefore I conclude that god is evil.

Inconsistent to the above statements. The conclusion is faulty.
Therefore, the conundrum should be – Either God exists or He doesn’t.

I think you just trying to find fault, to cause argurment, you stated

Still doesn’t exclude the fact the verse you quoted was taken out of context.

you did not say it had to be "born as" you did'nt specify what religion if any so, your arguement becomes invalid.

And if you read superluminal’s post he had corrected himself and re-wrote “God’s creations”. It is he who is implying a ‘father- child’ relationship when he emphasizes he will go to hell. My question is from what source did he get that from.

neither, irrelevant to the postulate.

The postulate, “God cannot be suprised by our decisions,” was agreed upon & stands. It is his other statements that makes his argument fall apart.

proberly because, there are only 253 actual good things in the bible, done by or on behalf of god. but there are 2298 violent, cruel, intolerant, and unjust, things done by god or on his behalf, thats nearly 1000% increase over the good things.

Probability does not determine logic. One item from a source cannot overcome another from the same source. They either have to all be included, or all be eliminated. Otherwise choosing one over the other is being biased and not logical.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Actually I tend to think that the statement that God can not be surprised says it all......taken to it's full and proper conclusion in absolutum. A bit like saying God is Omni potent and perfectly moral.....all statements if taken in full with out exclusion clauses and indemnities all lead to the same conclusoin.

Every one ends up in heaven.......no such place as hell.....perfect rehabilitation comes to mind, God takes responsibility in full for his creation and doesn't pass the buck.
I fail to see how wriggling around and using conditional logic exhonerates [spellings] God of his ultimate responsibility. I would suggest that we stop making excuses for God. Attempting to validate and justify his non participation or non disclosure of his existance.

It amazes me how endlessly people will try to justify and excuse their God for his inaction and complacency not to mention his apparent disdain for human morality, justice and most importantly our ability to reason and apply our ability see a fraud for what it is....a fraud.