quote:I'd be interested to hear what you use aside from guessing to say that G-d threw out Adam and Eve because he feared them.
The Bible. It specifically says (in Genesis 3:22) that God throws them out of the Garden because that they had eaten from the Tree of Knowledge and had become as like unto him, he is afraid that they will eat from the Tree of Life and live forever.
---
The Holocaust is directly relevant to the question as it shows that Yahweh is either unable or unwilling to live up to the contract he made with his chosen people and that he is also willing to stand aside while innocent people are systematically slaughtered. Holocaust Theology is one of prevalent concerns of Theodicy, i.e. the study of how the existence of a good or benevolent God is reconciled with the existence of evil. Perhaps you don't find it relevant, but the people who devote their lives to wrestling with this question seem to.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am on a quick break, so I thought I would clarify one thing I said in my last post. I said, "In these terms faith is entertaining the possibility that God is real; doubt is refusing to entertain that possibility."
I recognize that faith is a very rich concept with many layers of understanding. Perhaps sometime I'll give a discourse on my understanding of faith. To be more clear in my quote above, I think I would have liked to say that the beginnings of faith is to entertain the possibility that God is real. I didn't discover this nuanced meaning of the word until after a lot of pondering and study. If you now entertain the possibility that what I've said about faith might be true, you by my definition would be exercising faith. It is in the rebellion to even entertain the possibility that one closes the door to faith.
I could say more, but I don't want to detract too much from my central thesis. I will say that where there is sure knowledge in the ultimate meaning of the word, there is no room for faith in that thing. But, evidences do allow you to extend your faith into deeper reaches of the unknown. This could be modeled as two concentric ever-expanding circles, where the inner circle is knowledge and the outer is faith.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: The Holocaust is directly relevant to the question as it shows that Yahweh is either unable or unwilling to live up to the contract he made with his chosen people and that he is also willing to stand aside while innocent people are systematically slaughtered. Holocaust Theology is one of prevalent concerns of Theodicy, i.e. the study of how the existence of a good or benevolent God is reconciled with the existence of evil. Perhaps you don't find it relevant, but the people who devote their lives to wrestling with this question seem to.
God told us what he'd do if we (Jews) screwed up. We screwed up. He did what He said. What's your beef?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
enochville, what about those of us who say that God does exist, but that He considers your religion to be false?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, yes, I am a utilitarian. But the quote you cited is not utilitarian. All it says is what makes a belief useful, whereas utilitarianism is concerned with what makes an action right.
The two aren't unrelated, but perhaps I should have said "pragmatic."
quote:What is the logical proof that justifies this claim, then? I think there is no logical reason to assume nonexistence any more than there is to assume existence.
This is pretty much a no-brainer to me, but I'm not sure I can elucidate why I think so. I suppose that must mean I take it as an axiom. I'll have to think on that one.
quote:And how can you say...
But then a few lines later claim...
The second snippet you quoted has a significant qualifier attached to it.
quote:I don't want you to become agnostic - I just want to suggest that the reason you believe what you do is NOT because it is some default position, but rather because you have looked at the evidence you have and concluded that the evidence against God is stronger than the evidence for Him.
Tres, here we come to what I think is the key distinction of this thread: what constitutes "evidence." That's why I've been careful to attach qualifiers to "evidence" when making statements about what I think constitutes valid, admissible, or worthwhile "evidence."
From my perspective, I have no evidence against god's existence because what I am willing to admit as evidence differs significantly from what you are willing to admit as evidence. I similarly have no evidence against the existence of the IPU. I have looked at what others consider to be the evidence for god's existence and deemed it inadmissible (added: or unsatisfactory) for my purposes. Therefore, I believe that god does not exist.
For me, it's loosely analogous to "innocent until proven guilty" -- "non-existent unless evidence suggests it may exist."
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
*shrug* I thought as much. I disagree with that interpretation, and I think it could mean something quite different from what you said it meant (that G-d was afraid of Adam and Eve because he feared for himself, rather than fearing some other bad outcome), but that's why it's an interpretation.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Seen a certain way, Yahweh was basically evil. He was a genocidal babykiller who would let Satan screw with your life on a bet. The one virtue he really valued was (generally unthinking) obedience. He threw Adam and Eve out of the Garden because they acquired free will and thus he was afraid of them. He sent a bear to eat some kids because they made fun of the wrong bald guy.
The Aesir, on the other hand, were mostly indifferent to mortals. They helped out from time to time and Odin called for his sacrifices, but they were never ones for much direct intervention, such as causing or ordering their followers to visit horrendous atrocities on the innocent like Yahweh did.
Oh, and there's also the Holocaust, which Yahweh apparently couldn't be bothered to do anything about.
Actually, God preaches forgiveness and turning the other cheek.
Not sure how much you have read about the Norse pantheon, but Odin was not into helping out mankind. You are correct in saying that the Norse Gods were indifferent to mankind. They had no ties to them as does the Christian God.
Odin (Wodan or Wotan) is also referred to as the Betrayer of Men due to the fact the he would use them for his purposes and in the end, see them slain in order that they ascend to Valhalla so that he could use them again once Ragnarok comes. Loki is nothing more than Satan in another form (the God of Fire and trickery). Thor (Thonar or Donar) served his own purposes although he was loyal to the Aesir. Not much in the way of benevolent qualities to these Gods.
The only god who stands out as being pure was Baldur and he was slain by Loki and descended to Hella.
Didn't see any of the other Gods doing much about the Holocaust either. Perhaps men are the hands of God and through man, God does his bidding.
Posts: 117 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dr. Evil, Jesus preached that. Not Yahweh. As I said on the previous page, they are two distinct entities.
In primitive Christianity there was a large debate over whether the Old Testament should be considered scripture or even valid. The issue was in part decided by the people who were pro-Old Testament killing off the people who didn't agree with them and burning their books.
I think you may be more familiar with certain bits of Norse mythology and less so with the actual practice of their religion. Both Odin (for the nobles) and Thor (for the commoners) were counted on for aid of certain types. The Norse culture likewsie had the traditional gods and foddesses of fertility, childbirth, and the hearth, all of whom were assumed to aid mortals. However, outside these areas, man was mostly left on his own as fitting with the entire Logos behind the Norse Mythos.
Rakeesh, err...I was almost directly quoting out of the Bible. I fail to see how that makes it interpretaion. The Bible identifies what God does: He fears. It identifies whom he fears: Adam and Eve. And it identifies why he fears them: because, just as the snake tells them, they have become like unto God by eating the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge and they could eat from the Tree of Life and become immortal.
I'm having trouble reconciling these two statements:
quote:I'd be interested to hear what you use aside from guessing to say that G-d threw out Adam and Eve because he feared them.
quote:*shrug* I thought as much.
Are you sure there wasn't a checking the passage I laid out for you and a thinking "Crap, he's actually got a pretty good case." in between the two of them?
edited because, as always, I can't seem to put essential negatives in.
posted
starL, I think my problem with that would be that the only way to show that the Jews who died in the Holocaust screwed up is by showing that they died in the Holocaust. I've never seen any evidence to consider even a lagre minority of them as not being observers of the commandments. And hey, plenty of other people got good and killed in the Holocaust as well.
Also, the God you're saying caused the Holocaust would be...well...evil, which is exactly my point.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I was almost directly quoting out of the Bible. I fail to see how that makes it interpretaion
Well, God originally told Adam that from the day he eats from the tree he would positively die. I guess I would interpret it as saying that God was exacting the punishment he warned of by preventing Adam from gaining immortality, not that he was afraid Adam would gain immortality without God's consent.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not "from" the day he eats it though, but "on" or perhaps "in", right? And the Bible does say, from God's perspective that, just as the snake had said, Adam and Eve had become like unto him by eathing from the Tree of Knowledge, right?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess I don't see where you're going with this.
Instead of saying God was afraid of them, I would say God was afraid that His initial punishment for eating from the tree of knowledge would by bypassed if Adam were allowed to eat from the tree of life. I suppose you could argue that both are essentially the same thing. Is that what you're saying?
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
camus, The base I started from was that the God shown in the Garden of Eden myth is evil. Where I'm going with this is that, if you don't start with the assumption that God is good, this is the most logical interpretation of the Garden of Eden myth (assuming that you value consciousness/free will). God tells them "Don't eat this, for on/in the day you eat it, you will surely die." The snake says "God's lying to you. He's afraid that if you eat it, you'll become like him." They eat it and gain the Knowledge of Good and Evil and thus, the ability to choose between them, or to put it another way, free will. They do not, in fact, die in or on that day. God then banishes them from the Garden because he is afraid of them now that they have become like him and he doesn't want them to eat from the Tree of Life or they'd become immortal too.
Some of the Gnostics interpreted the story this way. There was a greater god whom Yahweh was a rebellious servant of. Yahweh stole some of the soul essence and made people out of it. He was able to keep free will from his creations, but was not able to eradicate it from the fabric of the universe. But he kept them as unthinking beasts, as slaves for his pleasure. The snake came as a saviour to free these people from Yahweh's lies and lead them to acheive free will. Rather than free will being something evil that Yahweh wished we didn't have, it was our birthright that Yahweh tried to keep from us. However, he retained his power and used it to tie the Jewish people to himself in bonds of unthinking obedience where good was defined as "Whatever Yahweh does or says it is". That is, until the snake came again in the form of Jesus Christ to break Yahweh's bonds over people.
Frankly, I think that's a much more plausible reading of the Old Testament then one where Yahweh is actually a benevolent god.
edit: In a cultural mythological sense, I think that the Garden of Eden myths and it's analogs are disfunctional in terms of morality and psychology. The idea that paradise is being an unthinking beast who has everything given to them does not fit the reailty of human nature. We are fulfilled when we are active. Western society buys very strongly into this myth, however, and it has made us sick.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:From my perspective, I have no evidence against god's existence because what I am willing to admit as evidence differs significantly from what you are willing to admit as evidence.
If this were true, though, you would have no reason to conclude God doesn't exist. Therefore you MUST have evidence against God, or your belief would be essentially random.
And again, this is because there is no logical reason to assume nonexistence when there is no evidence of nonexistence. You can choose to always assume nonexistence, but without any evidence or logical reason for that, it is just as random as choosing the opposite.
In all the examples given so far (the IPU, etc.) there has been amble evidence, as far as I'm concerned, of nonexistence. But consider an example where you would TRULY have no evidence one way or the other. Consider my hypothetical sister. Do you believe in her? I may have a sister. I may not. It would not violate any laws of nature, it would be completely normal, yet it would also be just as normal for me not to have a sister. In short, you have little-to-no evidence one way or another. Are you suggesting that it is logical to assume I don't have a sister, based on this lack of evidence? Would you assume that even after I told you I did, in the same way you assume God's nonexistence even after people claim to have seen Him? I don't believe it would be reasonable to do so. It would not be reasonable to favor one belief or the other in regards to the existence of my sister, until you had some piece of evidence to lean you one way or another. The same goes for God.
Thus, I have to conclude that because you don't believe in God, and because I don't think you come to random beliefs, you must have some evidence that God doesn't exist that is compelling you to believe so.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's certainly an interesting idea, though I still don't agree with the idea that the most logical interpretation of the God shown in the Garden of Eden is that of an evil god. You would have a fairly good argument for other portions of the Bible, but not just on the Garden of Eden account by itself.
For example: "for on/in the day you eat it, you will surely die" What is the measure of a day? Are we talking creative days, days according to God, or days according to Adam. Suppose a day is considered to be a thousand years, like in other instances. In that case, Adam did indeed die within a "day."
"Knowledge of good and evil" is a pretty vague statement that could mean many different things.
Depending on how you interpret those two things, the reason that God banished Adam and Eve would vary as well. Is he afraid of them, or is that just outcome that God warned of in the beginning?
I guess I don't really know why I said anything regarding this subject because I'm not really trying to argue with you. I do think a good case can be made that Yahweh has acted in more evil ways than beneficial ways. I just don't think the Garden of Eden story is one of the stories that would logically depict God as being evil.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: starL, I think my problem with that would be that the only way to show that the Jews who died in the Holocaust screwed up
Excuse me. I said nothing of the sort. The individuals who died in the Holocaust didn't screw up. Well, some of them might, but that certainly had nothing to do with what happened.
God made it clear that we (Jews) get judged both as individuals and as a nation. Yes, Virginia, there is collective punishment. And the Holocaust was hardly the first time.
You know, this is really between Him and us. He told us that if we obey His commandments, He'd treat us well. And that if we didn't... well, then it'd be pretty awful.
Not only did a lot of Jews abandon God's commandments relatively recently (historically speaking), but they even went so far as to create new "denominations" of Judaism that explicitly said it was okay not to keep the commandments.
On the other side of the equation, lest this be taken purely as a "it was because of Reform" argument, you had religious Jews curling up fetally in their academies, all but ignoring the mass abandonment of the Torah by fellow Jews. Did they seek to persuade the Reform Jews back? Not at all. They merely denounced them. And while the denunciations of the movement were correct, the abandonment of the individuals was not.
God made it clear that if we abandon Him, He'll step back and let history operate without interference. We have a choice. We're supposed to be shocked and outrage that we made the wrong choice and God did what He said He would? I don't think so.
That said, nothing of this mitigates the abominations that were perpetrated in the Holocaust. But the guilty parties are those who actually carried the crimes out. Not God.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:In all the examples given so far (the IPU, etc.) there has been amble evidence, as far as I'm concerned, of nonexistence.
As I said, this is where we differ. I don't think we have any evidence against the existence of the IPU. What we have is a complete lack of any evidence suggesting that it might exist.
Your analogy about your hypothetical sister doesn't hold, because as I said before I have plenty of evidence that human beings exist. If you tell me that you have a sister and I don't think you're a pathological liar, I'm likely to conclude that you do have a sister since I know that human beings exist and some of us have sisters. If you tell me that god exists, I have no reason to believe you or to accept your statement as evidence of god's existence.
Now, as I said, the consensus of large groups of people on the broad principles of religions X, Y, and Z make it reasonable to ask the question -- but that's something different.
quote:And again, this is because there is no logical reason to assume nonexistence when there is no evidence of nonexistence. You can choose to always assume nonexistence, but without any evidence or logical reason for that, it is just as random as choosing the opposite.
I don't get why it doesn't make sense to you to assume nonexistence. If you don't, then you just go around assuming that random things exist, willy-nilly, and this gets you nowhere. As an axiom ("in the absence of evidence, it is equally sensible to assume that something exists or to assume that it does not") it isn't at all useful.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by enochville: I am on a quick break, so I thought I would clarify one thing I said in my last post. I said, "In these terms faith is entertaining the possibility that God is real; doubt is refusing to entertain that possibility."
Faith is essentially an emotional thing. I'm convinced (mostly) that God exists. But it's not as though I'm committed emotionally to the idea. I think that belief is inherently irrational. "Credo quia absurdum" is close to redundant.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't get why it doesn't make sense to you to assume nonexistence. If you don't, then you just go around assuming that random things exist, willy-nilly, and this gets you nowhere. As an axiom ("in the absence of evidence, it is equally sensible to assume that something exists or to assume that it does not") it isn't at all useful.
ahh...but twink, Tres has actually made a relatively spohisticated argument against that idea. To wit, certain beliefs should be believed, whether or not they are true, because it is useful to believe them. I don't know that I'd consider belief in God in general or in the Christian God specifically as intrinsically "useful" beliefs, but he did at least provide reasons why you would choose to believe that something existed without proof and conversely why you shouldn't believe in other things.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I'm not seeing is how the two ideas are in contradiction. You could simply add weight to the "usefulness" of a belief, making usefulness a reason to consider it in spite of the absence of evidence. Added: Or a reason to consider information (scripture, beliefs of others) that you might not otherwise deem "evidence."
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, you know what: I think I gave Tres too much credit there. Reading over his recent stuff closely, he is putting out the "It's equally valid to say exists/doesn't exist" nonesense that you say he is without any reference to the usefulness at all. My bad.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you don't, then you just go around assuming that random things exist, willy-nilly, and this gets you nowhere
I wouldn't quite say that a belief in a god-like being is exactly the same thing.
It really isn't that inconceivable to imagine a creature that has superior intellect and abilities that we are unable as of yet to detect. It's not much different from something like String theory. At the moment we are unable to prove their existence, though mathematically we can't disprove their existence either. We have no real evidence to suppose they exist, but the theory does answer some of the questions that we have mathematically. So in the mean time, we view them as something that might exist. The default isn't necessarily that they must not exist.
I see the theory of God as being quite similar. I believe in it because it answers some questions about life and I haven't really found anything that I think is better. If a better theory comes along, then maybe I'll switch, or revise my current beliefs.
That's not to say that people should assume the existence of something without having evidence to support it, rather, not everyone defaults to the position of assuming non-existence, especially if the evidence is very circumstantial.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Your analogy about your hypothetical sister doesn't hold, because as I said before I have plenty of evidence that human beings exist. If you tell me that you have a sister and I don't think you're a pathological liar, I'm likely to conclude that you do have a sister since I know that human beings exist and some of us have sisters.
"Human beings exists and have sisters, therefore I have a sister" does not follow logically. How can that then be a reason to believe the given conclusion about my sister?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
1) Human beings exist. 2) Human beings sometimes have sisters. 3) You are a human being. 4) I do not believe you are a liar. 5) You claim to have a sister.
Seems reasonable enough to me to accept that you have a sister.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"It really isn't that inconceivable to imagine a creature that has superior intellect and abilities that we are unable as of yet to detect. It's not much different from something like String theory"
But, see camus, there is a rather large difference. First of all, I'm pretty sure the scientific community isnt going to start a war any time soon based on the veracity of vibrating strings and their beliefs about what those strings want us to do. Second of all, the super string theory is a believe that has grown out of proven facts. Starting(in our century) with atoms, scientists have searched for progressivly smaller particles. Finding proof of one, say the electron, they then went on to search for more. The important difference here is HOW these theories are come upon. A belief in god isnt based on a history of facts, as is string theory. At least, not facts as have been discussed in this thread.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There seem to be two slightly separate discussions going on here. Let me summarise my understanding of each.
First, there is the original question enochville started, on the existence of God. Here we have agreed that this is in principle to be settled by evidence, and we are awaiting his data points, which, presumably, the atheists will attack as being no better than those in favour of Odin, Shiva, or the IPU according to taste.
Second, there is the discussion on whether it is reasonable to believe in an entity in the absence of evidence for or against. Curiously, the atheists seem to fall mainly on the 'no' side while the theists argue either 'yes' or 'but there is evidence' - the latter belonging more properly to the first discussion, perhaps.
The first discussion awaits enochville's data points; but meanwhile I'd like to advance the second a bit. At least one poster, I think Tresopax, has said that there is specific evidence against the IPU, which presumably doesn't exist against, say, Yahweh. I should very much like to hear what that evidence is. Then the same for Odin, and for the green teapot orbiting Pluto.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:1) Human beings exist. 2) Human beings sometimes have sisters. 3) You are a human being. 4) I do not believe you are a liar. 5) You claim to have a sister.
(1), (2), and (3) in this argument don't add anything to the argument. It only leads to the conclusion that it is possible I have a sister, which is really a non-conclusion, because everything is possible in a logical argument until some assumption is made to make some things impossible.
(4) and (5) alone would justfiy the conclusion that I have a sister, and without (4) and (5) the argument would not work. Furthermore, you have not allowed (4) and (5) [I am not a liar and I claim God exists] to be evidence for the existence of God, so why would you allow it to be evidence for the existence of my sister?
quote:The first discussion awaits enochville's data points; but meanwhile I'd like to advance the second a bit. At least one poster, I think Tresopax, has said that there is specific evidence against the IPU, which presumably doesn't exist against, say, Yahweh.
Well, as far as I understand them, invisible animals directly violate numerous laws of nature that I believe in, whereas God does not. God supposedly exists outside nature, and created nature.
As for Odin, his existence is inconsistent with the existence of God. So, I can only believe in one, and find the evidence much stronger for God, especially given almost nobody I know of has ever claimed to have witnessed Odin.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think some of this boils down to the fact that some people feel it is unlikely that the universe could exist without being created. Other people have no problem whatsoever believing that the universe exists without being created by something intelligent.
Which God is believed in does seem to have a lot to do with traditions handed down. I think part of this is the feeling of trust in the source of the information. Whether or not it is logical, humans are more likely to give credence to the stories of their family members than complete strangers or people from another culture.
I believe in the God I do because I trust the sources of that information. Having it appeal to the person is pretty important as well. Logical consistency and asthetic appeal, for example.
As for God in the Adam and Eve story being evil, if He *were* evil and feared Adam and Eve, why not kill them? Certainly such a God would have the power to. I personally see the reported longevity of the earilest humans in the Bible as evidence of God's mercy in His punishment. He wouldn't take it back, but he would be merciful in the execution of it. They still have to die, but they will generally get a pretty long life in the meantime.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tres, Of course they do. They establish that you having a sister is a commonplace (as in non-extraordinary) claim. When something is deemed commonplace, it doesn't take much evidence to reasonably believe that it's true.
Asserting a specific deity, on the other hand, is an extraordinary claim. It belongs to a whole different class than a claim like "I have a sister." The level of evidence needed for an extraordinary claim (e.g. "I was abducted by aliens.") to be considered reasonable is much higher than for a commonplace one.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
When a person has been raised with the idea of God, it seems a lot less extra-ordinary than when someone has been raised without the idea.
For those who are raised believing in aliens, an alien abduction isn't extraordinary. Since most people are not raised believing such a thing, it is generally considered extraordiary.
I happen to believe that a 14 year old boy was called by God as a prophet in the early 1800s and that he saw God, Christ, and angels, that he received an ancient scriptural record engraved on gold plates, and translated it through the power of God. Most people find that belief amazingly extraordinary. It doesn't seem so to me at all, really. Difference in perspective. I find the belief asthetically pleasing and logically consistent as well--things that come more easily to me *because* I do not find it extraordinary.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:(1), (2), and (3) in this argument don't add anything to the argument.
Yes, they do. They are in fact crucial. If you can't see this then there's no point in continuing the discussion.
quote:(4) and (5) alone would justfiy the conclusion that I have a sister
No, they would not. They at best justify entertaining the question. Replace "have a sister" with "was abducted by aliens." Do you see the distinction I'm driving at? If I don't think you're a liar and you claim to have been abducted by aliens, I'm not going to accept what you say at face value. I'm going to want some additional supporting evidence. If, on the other hand, you claim to have a sister, well, I know that humans exist and sometimes have sisters, and I don't think you're a liar, so it's quite reasonable to believe you.
"I don't think you're a liar" does not mean "I believe everything you say to be true."
Edit: Ha! I didn't even see Squick's post! Great minds think alike, and fools seldom differ. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:As for God in the Adam and Eve story being evil, if He *were* evil and feared Adam and Eve, why not kill them?
I can think of a couple of reasons. Remember, this version has him as a rebel from the higher power. It's possible that he had stolen what he could get. Thus, killing them would destroy his creations and he wouldn't be able to make others. Plus, he may have already been working on a plan to enslave their descendents.
Or possibly, he was prevented by the snake or by higher forces. Perhaps the same rules that necessitated that free will be included in the universe against his will prevented him from doing this directly.
---
For me, it's strange that people consider the existence of god the important point. It's probably my Daoist nature, but I find the idea of whether or not the god is good to be much more important than their existence.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because we do not have experience of specific deities.
Now, on the subject of the IPU, there are many natural laws we don't know yet; and, the IPU being invisible, naturally we would not quickly become aware of Her and investigate the laws that permit Her to be so. Besides, she is outside the natural laws, having created the Universe and nature.
About Odin, clearly your circle of acquaintances is not very broad; I myself know several Aesirtru, and have read eyewitness accounts of manifestations of them in ancient times. If you trawled the Internet, no doubt you could find some modern accounts too.
Finally, you seem to have missed the green teakettle in orbit around Pluto.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Because, for one thing, it rests on no observable facts. For another, as I dealt with in the "All these religions claim to be the only true one" section above, the foundation that it rests on is explicitly contradicted by a reasonable application of this foundation across all situations. You believing that Jesus is the only god rests on the same grounds as someone else believing that Allah is the only god.
bev, Extraordinary as I'm using it here is (theoretically) not a matter of personal perception, but rather an epistemological concept. It's part of an established way of classifying claims.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can think of a couple of reasons. Remember, this version has him as a rebel from the higher power. It's possible that he had stolen what he could get. Thus, killing them would destroy his creations and he wouldn't be able to make others. Plus, he may have already been working on a plan to enslave their descendents.
Oh, I see. You are working from a particular interpretation started by Gnostics. Of course, the LDS interpretation differs significantly from the rest of Christiandom as well.
quote:For me, it's strange that people consider the existence of god the important point. It's probably my Daoist nature, but I find the idea of whether or not the god is good to be much more important than their existence.
Huh. Interesting. I guess that makes sense, since it a Creator that doesn't even interact with Creation would make no significant difference in our lives.
I tend to strongly view God as a parental figure--*especially* since an important doctrine of my faith is the concept of our potential to become like God. After all, that is what parenting is about, raising offspring to become like yourself. For me, love is an important part of that--especially concern for the lasting happiness of the offspring far more than concern for temporary suffering.
From my perspective as a parent, coercing my child to eat her vegetables (wear a seatbelt, not play in the street, whatever) is important in the long view. The child may only be aware of the temporary discomfort--with no real perspective on the matter. That is how I tend to think of earthly suffering.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Extraordinary as I'm using it here is (theoretically) not a matter of personal perception, but rather an epistemological concept. It's part of an established way of classifying claims.
Please elaborate. I am not sure what this means.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Replace "have a sister" with "was abducted by aliens." Do you see the distinction I'm driving at? If I don't think you're a liar and you claim to have been abducted by aliens, I'm not going to accept what you say at face value. I'm going to want some additional supporting evidence.
I see the distinction you are driving at, but I think it is caused by the opposite thing that you are claiming it is caused by. You are suggesting that in order to believe something exists, it must first be established that that thing COULD exist, and then establish that we have good reason to believe it DOES exist.
But that's just not how logic works. Rather, it works in the opposite way: When you establish that we have good reason to believe something exist, you can believe it exists, unless there is some additional evidence that shows it COULD NOT exist. A valid argument is a valid argument until some additional evidence is found that negates it.
Or, in other words, you can believe in my sister because you have no reason to think she doesn't exist. But in the case of God, you DO have a reason to think He doesn't exist, so you don't believe in him. So, it's not a matter of the default being nonexistence. Rather, it's just that you have a reason to think nonexistence is more likely than existence. This reason is what Squicky said - God seems extraordinary, for whatever reason.
quote:Because, for one thing, it rests on no observable facts.
Many people have claimed to observe God. It would be circular to assume those claims are false, because the only reason to think they are false is because they are extraordinary, and the reason you are suggesting they are extraordinary is because they are unobservable, which would only be true if we dismissed their observations as being false.
posted
God doesn't seem extraordinary. By scientific epistemology, the existence of any specific god is extraordinary, for exactly the reasons that I laid out. It's extraordinary because there has not been any materially observable evidence to support this claim. This is compounded by there been no valid theoretical basis for believing one of the mutually exclusive non-materially observable claims to evidence over any of the others.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you are a little confused on what logic can and cannot do, here. You cannot logically show that something could in principle exist without using some kind of axioms, which must then be your experimental evidence of the world. This is porbably the source of your confusion; if you use logic to show that something could exist, then that is already some evidence towards tis actual existence. But nobody has used anything of the sort to show that Yahweh could exist - we accept this as a postulate! And when you do that, there is no good reason to prefer existence as the default, and many to accept non-existence - to wit, the aforementioned absurd position of believing in green teakettles on Pluto.
Also, you did not reply to my assertion that the IPU, like Yahweh, is outside the laws of nature, having created them. Incidentally, is Yahweh visible, and if so, where? If not, why doesn't that contradict the laws of nature that apparently forbid the IPU from being invisible?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tres, People claiming to experience God neither moves the claim of God's existence out of the realm of extraordinary nor consitutes enough reason to consider God's existence established. The reason being, people claim all manner of things, both true and false. There's no reason to accept any one person claiming something as sufficient evidence for that claim. This is especially the case when people's claims on a particular matter are mutually exlcusive, as is the case in religion.
Thinking about it, I've realized that theoretically, assuming that there is only one God, there really is no way to move this claim from extraordinary to commonplace without also establishing that this specific god exists. If we were dealing with a polytheistic situation, establishing the existence of one god would show that the class of gods exists and thus make the existence of any other god less extraordinary.
However, in this case, the existence of a class of gods (unlike the existence of the very commonplace class of sisters) has not been established. Thus, the claim for the existence of any one specific god is dealing with a class that we have no reason compelling us to believe exists. Thus, it carries a much larger burden of evidence to be considered reasonable than a commonplace claim like "I have a sister."
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:You cannot logically show that something could in principle exist without using some kind of axioms, which must then be your experimental evidence of the world.
This is not true, though. If there are NO axioms in a given logical argument, then any proposition (P) could be true or false as far as we know. And if P is "X exists", then without any axioms whatsoever, we could only conclude that "X exists" is possibly true and possibly false.
The only reason you would logically need to establish that P is possible beforehand, would be if there were already some axiom (Q) casting doubt on the possibility of P. If that axiom Q were to exist, even as something like "P is an extraordinary claim", then Q would be evidence that P is false, and thus would be evidence that X does not exist.
So, I'm still thinking that you must have some evidence Q in mind, when you conclude that God doesn't exist unless I can give a good reason that it is possible. This Q seems to be a hidden assumption - but what is it?
quote:Also, you did not reply to my assertion that the IPU, like Yahweh, is outside the laws of nature, having created them. Incidentally, is Yahweh visible, and if so, where? If not, why doesn't that contradict the laws of nature that apparently forbid the IPU from being invisible.
I believe the evidence supports the existence of a God who created the universe. God creating the universe and an IPU creating the universe are mutually exclusive things. Therefore, that God created the universe would be pretty strong evidence that an IPU that created the universe could not also exist. Unless, of course, you are suggesting that God IS an Invisible Pink Unicorn, in which case the question is not one of existence, but rather of the nature of a thing that exists.
Now, as for an IPU that didn't create the universe yet exists outside the universe, I have no belief concerning that. I'd be equally torn between believing and not believing it exists, if I had any reason to care about whether or not it exists. Unfortunately, an IPU that didn't create the universe and doesn't influence the world in any way that would allow me to observe its existence would have little-to-no impact on my decisions in any way. It's not a belief I would need.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, but now you are referring to evidence. Drop that for a moment; I want to go back to the question of whether it is reasonable to believe in an entity without specific evidence in favour. Without evidence, is it reasonable to believe in the IPU?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
With absolutely no evidence whatsoever, including anyone in the world telling you about said Unicorn, no, it isn’t reasonable to make up the Invisible Pink Unicorn. In fact, considering the amount of evidence, including personal testimony of the people who do the most talking about her, that the IPU is a rhetorical device invented to make a point, there is, IMO, less reason to believe in the IPU than if you’d never heard of the creature and the idea came to you out of the blue.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I still have more to read on this page to catch up, but want to comment to Mr. S.
quote: The Holocaust is directly relevant to the question as it shows that Yahweh is either unable or unwilling to live up to the contract he made with his chosen people and that he is also willing to stand aside while innocent people are systematically slaughtered.
You are still equating how God views death to how people view death.
quote:Psalm 116:15 Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints.
It is not the end-all of everything. It is a time of reconciliation.
Farmgirl
quote:"Is he safe?" "Safe?" said Mr. Beaver... "Who said anything about safe? 'Course he isn't safe. But he's good. He's the King, I tell you."- The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe
quote:You are still equating how God views death to how people view death.
I think it's more that you're imposing your view of God's view of death onto a religion that has a very different perspective. Oh, and ignoring the whole living in starvation, abuse, pain, and despair aspect of the Holocaust as well.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
bev, I figured that if I carried it out more that the background I was coming from would become clear, but if you still want an explicit explanation, I can give it to you.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
