Does God exist? (1 Viewer)

[LachieM]

This is correct, god knows exactly what is going to happen to everyone and has known since he created the universe, the main reason for non-believers is unknown to us and and probably unknowable.

can we blame god for a little injustice when we, the human race do far worse?

We must do exactly that. Because he is directly responsible for creating everything in this way, as you admitted. The human race never has and never could do far worse than condemn someone, anyone, to hell. A place in which every moment is extreme pain, which literally never ends? Ever? It is literally impossible, in every sense of the word, to concieve of something worse; the very nature of "infinity" implies it.

The crux of my point is that how can God be called benevolent if he creates this place of eternal pain with the explicit purpose of sending certain people there? These people have no choice in the matter. The only possible place to lay the blame is at God's feet.

Do you think it moral that under your belief system, Bill Gates, one of the most generous philanthropists the world has seen, will be sent to hell for eternal punishment, merely because he doesn't believe?

once again, who can understand the mind of god?

Apparently no-one, but I fail to grasp how this is an appropriate argument. Even worse, if we consider God's omniscience and omnipotence, God deliberately set the universe for evolution to give rise to things like smallpox, for cells to develop cancer under certain conditions, and for Hitler to massacre God's own people (ie the Jews).

Understanding it is apparently impossible, even for believers. Hard evidence for it does not exist. The entire system is immoral by every conception of the word. Why believe it?

 

[Scorch]

Well, God has created a plan for us. Just like every other plan, whether its a business plan or whatever it is, its our choice to follow it or not. In other words, its our choice to follow the plan God has provided us. That's also where the devil comes in, he disrupts God's plans and causes us to go astray.

Our choice to either follow it or be tortured forever for eternity; not only that but for some reason he created a creature (i.e. the devil) to try and lead us astray from that plan. That just sounds highly negligent.

 

[LachieM]

Our choice to either follow it or be tortured forever for eternity; not only that but for some reason he created a creature (i.e. the devil) to try and lead us astray from that plan. That just sounds highly negligent.

I still fail to see how choice is available at all with God's supposed omniscience and omnipotence.

 

[Gedi-Master]

I still fail to see how choice is available at all with God's supposed omniscience and omnipotence.

but can't you still do whatever you like?

simply because God knows what you will do, doesn't mean that your freedom to choose is any less.

hope it makes sense

 

[brendroid]

I just have one question ^^

If we have a God who knows everything, meaning our choices are effectively predetermined, how is that different from the hypothesis that every choice we make is is affected by chemicals in our brain which effectively program what we do?

Either way, we don't make our own choices do we? Or can someone clarify this better for me?

 

[pman]

scorch...i did not say thst all scientists are religious or that science is a religion, that would be absurd, what i said is that the two are not mutually exclusive as you (and richard dawkins) seem to assume...


Intererstingly i was waiting outside my room for maths today and rthe philosophy tutor mentioned that she couldn't read the god delusion because the first chapter is so full of contradictions...i can't agree or disagree not having read the book myself but i found it interesting (i didn't hear the rest of the convo unfortunately)

I just have one question ^^



If we have a God who knows everything, meaning our choices are effectively predetermined, how is that different from the hypothesis that every choice we make is is affected by chemicals in our brain which effectively program what we do?



Either way, we don't make our own choices do we? Or can someone clarify this better for me?

One gives us an external source...apart from that, nothing really. and the essence of predertimination is that we don't make our own choices....

you myst realise that many christianbs don't believe in predetermination but it does seem a logical conclusion to omnipotence and omnicience in a being

 

[brendroid]

'Kay Pman, I was just wondering how someone would try to seperate the two.

Just on that note you bring up about Dawkins, there was an episode of Q and A I believe where he was on there. He said something about the theory of evolution probably being reconciled to some degree with Religion (seeing as the pope believes it and many clerics do as well), just that they couldn't see the writing on the wall. So, going off that, it seems that he believes the two are to a degree mutually exclusive but you will find people who manage to join the two.

 

[Scorch]

scorch...i did not say thst all scientists are religious or that science is a religion, that would be absurd, what i said is that the two are not mutually exclusive as you (and richard dawkins) seem to assume...

Well I didn't say that one could not be a scientist and religious, I said that scientific and religious thought are mutually exclusive. If some scientist choose to ignore their scientific training, knowledge and rationality in their personal beliefs it is rather irrelevant.

That was one point in many that I made, though.

Intererstingly i was waiting outside my room for maths today and rthe philosophy tutor mentioned that she couldn't read the god delusion because the first chapter is so full of contradictions...i can't agree or disagree not having read the book myself but i found it interesting (i didn't hear the rest of the convo unfortunately)

Well science ?= philosophy, but then it comes to the question of God, science is becoming far more relevant in answering such questions than philosophy has been.

 

[Gedi-Master]

Well science ?= philosophy, but then it comes to the question of God, science is becoming far more relevant in answering such questions than philosophy has been.

explain please

 

[LachieM]

but can't you still do whatever you like?

simply because God knows what you will do, doesn't mean that your freedom to choose is any less.

hope it makes sense

It doesn't, and I apologize if I seem blunt. What you just said is a perfect example of doublethink.

 

[LachieM]

scorch...i did not say thst all scientists are religious or that science is a religion, that would be absurd, what i said is that the two are not mutually exclusive as you (and richard dawkins) seem to assume...

Dawkins thinks the two are mutually exclusive mainly because of their opposing approaches to thought. While science admits a gap in it's knowledge, religion is satisfied merely to say that it is God's work or something similar. Hence the term "God of the gaps".

As much as this may seem a shallow observation, I have not found a single case yet where it doesn't apply. The most sophisticated argument that the better theist debaters like Dinesh D'Souza can come up with is "the universe seems fine tuned. How do you explain that, atheist?" "I don't know." "Exactly. I say it was God".

One can see why theism's approach to such things is indeed mutually exclusive with science's. And I'm sure all of us can recognize that humanity didn't get to it's current technological state by merely saying "God did it".

 

[pman]

yes, i say it was god but I have no-idea how he does it, I'd like to find out.

@scorch...being religious does not keep you from searching for greater understanding...I'd ather know the mechanics of the big bang and exactly what god did at that time than just say, "god made the universe explode"

 

[Scorch]

@scorch...being religious does not keep you from searching for greater understanding...I'd ather know the mechanics of the big bang and exactly what god did at that time than just say, "god made the universe explode"

Sure, but you're operating on a flawed original assumption of God with not a single shred of evidence and this forces you to re-interpret vast chunks of evidence simply to fit your original assumption; it is wholly unscientific.

 

[Karlmarx]

@ Pman

YouTube - Checkmate, Atheists!

 

[Gedi-Master]

It doesn't, and I apologize if I seem blunt. What you just said is a perfect example of doublethink.

i forgive u bro

actually i don't think it is an example of doublethink,

please explain how knowing what someone will do, takes away from their freedom to do what they want

 

[irate]

This is a really stupid and pointless debate. No body can prove whether or not God exists. To prove, you need sound, reliable proof, and not one person in this debate has that. You are all wasting your time and bandwidth.

 

[LachieM]

i forgive u bro

actually i don't think it is an example of doublethink,

please explain how knowing what someone will do, takes away from their freedom to do what they want

Okay. It's all bound up in the word "know", implying "knowledge". Epistemologically speaking, knowledge is, at the basic level, justified, true belief. In other words for one to "know" that p, (p is any proposition), one must believe that p, one must be justified in believing that p, which usually requires the appropriate evidence to ensure that one's belief that p is not merely a result of chance, and finally p must obviously be true in order for it to be considered "knowledge".

Let's assume that God does exist as an omniscient and omnipotent being. God would thus meet every one of these three criteria for knowledge, resulting from his omniscience - "all knowing". Consider the statement "I will drive to University on Wednesday", let's call it q. Disregarding the easy way out for now (God's omniscience), God would have the necessary evidence that q; he can judge this from observing a trend in my Wednesday routine, but he also possesses evidence that q because in his omnipotence he specifically made the universe such that q, in a similar way to how I will have evidence that a toy truck will move 10cm if I calculate the exact amount of force to apply.

Having the necessary evidence that q, God would no doubt believe that q, rather than some other mutually exclusive proposition (some argue that God is the "ultimate" in rationality; having created the universe with its rationally intelligible laws and so on). Finally, the truth of q is inherent in God's primary evidence for q: that in his omnipotence he created the universe explicitly so q would be true (among uncountable other propositions). Thus God would be perfectly justified in holding the knowledge that q, even without his omniscience. Indeed it could be argued that his omnipotence implies omniscience.

Now to the crux of the point. If God knows that I will drive to Uni on Wednesday, there is no room for error. This is the nature of true knowledge. q must happen, because it is a justified and ultimately true belief that it will. Choice doesn't even enter at any point.

This is why it's doublethink to say that even if someone knows you will do something, you have the choice of whether or not to do it. The mere fact that the knowledge in question is actually knowledge makes choice impossible.

EDIT: To irate: technically speaking the only sphere where absolute proof is possible at all is mathematics. Here we consider the evidence for and against, and attempt to come to the appropriate conclusion.

 

[mattd259]

What i have a problem with is HOW you say that an omniscient god can know what you will do.

" he can judge this from observing a trend in my Wednesday routine"

You say this as though an omniscient and omnipotent God would exist within time, not knowing exactly what the future holds. Please correct me if i am wrong, but you make it seem as though the only way that he could know what you will do is look at trends in the past and speculate about the future. I dont think this fits the description of an omniscient God. Knowlege of everything includes knowledge of what was, what is, what will be and what can be, which suggests that god must be outside of time, transcending time. If he were omniscient, looking to the past to determine the future would not be necessary, since he already knows the future. If he still chooses to use this method despite knowing the future, then that makes god foolish. If he does not know the future then he is not omniscient.

Even still, looking at patterns in the past does not even give enough reason to KNOW the future, it can only suggest. We are not purely creatures of routine. We have the freedom to deviate from any past patterns at any time. Every choice is a new one, it is not dictated by any other previous choices we have made. You can simply just not feel like going to uni next wednesday. So an omnipotent God can not KNOW with certainty through this method of knowing. He would require another way.


"but he also possesses evidence that q because in his omnipotence he specifically made the universe such that q, in a similar way to how I will have evidence that a toy truck will move 10cm if I calculate the exact amount of force to apply."

What do u mean that "he specifically made the universe in such a way such that q"? could you explain it a bit further please?

 

[Gedi-Master]

What i have a problem with is HOW you say that an omniscient god can know what you will do.

" he can judge this from observing a trend in my Wednesday routine"

You say this as though an omniscient and omnipotent God would exist within time, not knowing exactly what the future holds. Please correct me if i am wrong, but you make it seem as though the only way that he could know what you will do is look at trends in the past and speculate about the future. I dont think this fits the description of an omniscient God. Knowlege of everything includes knowledge of what was, what is, what will be and what can be, which suggests that god must be outside of time, transcending time. If he were omniscient, looking to the past to determine the future would not be necessary, since he already knows the future. If he still chooses to use this method despite knowing the future, then that makes god foolish. If he does not know the future then he is not omniscient.

Even still, looking at patterns in the past does not even give enough reason to KNOW the future, it can only suggest. We are not purely creatures of routine. We have the freedom to deviate from any past patterns at any time. Every choice is a new one, it is not dictated by any other previous choices we have made. You can simply just not feel like going to uni next wednesday. So an omnipotent God can not KNOW with certainty through this method of knowing. He would require another way.


"but he also possesses evidence that q because in his omnipotence he specifically made the universe such that q, in a similar way to how I will have evidence that a toy truck will move 10cm if I calculate the exact amount of force to apply."

What do u mean that "he specifically made the universe in such a way such that q"? could you explain it a bit further please?

yeah, what he said

 

[LachieM]

What i have a problem with is HOW you say that an omniscient god can know what you will do.

" he can judge this from observing a trend in my Wednesday routine"

You say this as though an omniscient and omnipotent God would exist within time, not knowing exactly what the future holds. Please correct me if i am wrong, but you make it seem as though the only way that he could know what you will do is look at trends in the past and speculate about the future. I dont think this fits the description of an omniscient God. Knowlege of everything includes knowledge of what was, what is, what will be and what can be, which suggests that god must be outside of time, transcending time. If he were omniscient, looking to the past to determine the future would not be necessary, since he already knows the future. If he still chooses to use this method despite knowing the future, then that makes god foolish. If he does not know the future then he is not omniscient.

Even still, looking at patterns in the past does not even give enough reason to KNOW the future, it can only suggest. We are not purely creatures of routine. We have the freedom to deviate from any past patterns at any time. Every choice is a new one, it is not dictated by any other previous choices we have made. You can simply just not feel like going to uni next wednesday. So an omnipotent God can not KNOW with certainty through this method of knowing. He would require another way.


"but he also possesses evidence that q because in his omnipotence he specifically made the universe such that q, in a similar way to how I will have evidence that a toy truck will move 10cm if I calculate the exact amount of force to apply."

What do u mean that "he specifically made the universe in such a way such that q"? could you explain it a bit further please?

I was arguing on the assumption of omnipotence in my previous post; like I said, assuming omniscience is the easy way out. If you don't understand why, refer back to the definition of knowledge and reflect on how this makes the concept of omniscience mutually exclusive with free will. It is important to make a distinction between the two, although like I said it makes little difference to whether or not free will exists.

The point I made on trends isn't the main piece of evidence God would possess, so making such a big deal about that seems redundant. I know perfectly well that it is speculated God exists "outside of time" and thus an observation of trend is not necessary. Suppose this holds true. Does this not vindicate my point even further? Existing outside of time means God would know exactly what we do not only before, but after and during our actions, making the whole idea of choice even more illusory. Now, even I would agree this point is a bit hazy, but so is the assumption of anything existing "outside of time". Realistically conceiving of something existing that isn't a function of space and time is impossible.

My point on how he "specifically made the universe such that q" relates to his omnipotence. Let's consider the word. "All powerful". Forgetting the whole "unmovable block" argument, and the extremely feeble counter-argument used by theists, the concept of omnipotence by definition rules out any "accidents"; everything done by God is purposeful and planned, such that even such a small event as me driving to Uni this Wednesday is a specific, intended, calculated result of God's actions. Calculated, like with my analogy of moving a toy truck.

In case you plan on arguing further against this, I will explain. "An accident is a specific, identifiable, unexpected, unusual and unintended external action" (from Wiki). Can you see where omnipotence conflicts with this? All three of the main terms in this definition, "unexpected, unusual and unintended", imply a lack of power over the event/action in question. Which, like I said before, is by definition in conflict with omnipotence which implies complete power over every event/action. Any action of free will, therefore, is also in direct conflict with omnipotence; such an action would define an event of "unexpected, unusual and unintended" nature.

There is no escaping the fact that if God exists outside time, free will cannot exist. If God is omnipotent, free will cannot exist. If God is omniscient, free will obviously cannot exist. To claim that free will exists if one assumes all three of these to be true is at best a gross misunderstanding of ones own beliefs and at worst doublethink.