The God Paradox

[Leumas]

You remind me of a friend of mine. When he's in an argument, it's not sufficient for him to prove that he's right. He has to prove that the other person is wrong.

Is this friend you??

 

[arthwollipot]

Is this friend you??

What a nonsensical question that is.

 

[Leumas]

You remind me of a friend of mine. When he's in an argument, it's not sufficient for him to prove that he's right. He has to prove that the other person is wrong.

Does this post not count as part of your energy and mental expenditure arguing about gods???

Does it count towards your mental expenditure to dissuade people from arguing about gods???

 

[Leumas]

Inefficient compared to what? I’d say humans -most of us anyway- are a good bargain as far as energy required and utility produced. Certainly not evidence of “God’s flawed design.”

I suggest you look up Spina Bifida, Hernia, Herniated Disc, Anemia, Asthma, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, allergic rhinitis, fibromyalgia, chronic kidney disease, liver disease, lung disease (COPD).... cancer... parasitic infections, bacterial infections, viral infections.... etc. etc.

It is nice to be the king...

 

[Warp12]

I don't think a compelling argument has been presented here, one that would dissuade a believer. I mean, what is the point of presenting such an argument, otherwise? But what can you expect when the thread topic was literally built on a foundation of ****, in the OP?

Every time I sit on the dunny to unburden myself, I contemplate the issue of God and gods… and by the time I am finished cleaning away the remnants, I am yet again irrefragably convinced that the whole delusion is a failure of human reasoning and a testament to our inability to fathom the extent of turpitude that any such creator would ineluctably have to have, given that it created reality the way it is.

 

[arthwollipot]

Does this post not count as part of your energy and mental expenditure arguing about gods???

Does it count towards your mental expenditure to dissuade people from arguing about gods???

Slightly less nonsensical questions, but still pointless (and aggressive) arguing.

 

[arthwollipot]

I don't think a compelling argument has been presented here, one that would dissuade a believer. I mean, what is the point of presenting such an argument, otherwise? But what can you expect when the thread topic was literally built on a foundation of ****, in the OP?

Every time I sit on the dunny to unburden myself, I contemplate the issue of God and gods… and by the time I am finished cleaning away the remnants, I am yet again irrefragably convinced that the whole delusion is a failure of human reasoning and a testament to our inability to fathom the extent of turpitude that any such creator would ineluctably have to have, given that it created reality the way it is.

Especially since this is a sentiment that most of us would not even disagree with. But the OP's belligerent and aggressive posting style, and their habit of picking fights, has led to it being a great big deal for some reason.

 

[Leumas]

Slightly less nonsensical questions, but still pointless (and aggressive) arguing.

Thanks so very much for showing me how you are indeed

About thirty years ago, I did. And I found the answer. I don't see the point in expending a great deal of mental energy over it now.

The fact that you are now spending all this mental energy to derail my OP is a wonderful testament to the extent the OP has stirred you into action.

Appreciate you letting me know.

 

[GDon]

I think you are confusing the point of the OP... it is not suffering or nature... it is human created god concepts that are attributing the design of nature to this god concept.

Then what is the point about introducing engineers and cockroaches? That is nothing at all like god concepts. Perhaps, when you are excreting your thoughts in your think-tank, you might bear down a little harder to produce a more solid mass of coherent thought. At the moment you are spraying it everywhere!

Greater good is not exculpatory...

Actually it is. On a personal level: "no pain, no gain." It's when it comes to others that there are issues. But I doubt anyone disagrees that there are times when suffering has to be allowed in order to achieve a greater good. The question is whether an omnimax God has to.

all it shows is a constrained confined creator who has no choice but to deliberately create turpitude and has no other way of achieving this greater good than to make greater evil DELIBERATELY.

I agree! Thus the Problem from Suffering. And its proposed solutions. Is God constrained? I think a logical case can be made.

Have you ever seen a movie called Logan's Run... they also made TV series out of it... the concept of the movie is something similar to what you propose... but... there is a catch.

Yes, that movie invoked the "Greater Good" principle as well. But I wasn't thinking of anything so drastic. Human population is expected to decrease as countries become more economically advanced. I think we can do a lot to encourage its decrease though.

 

[Leumas]

I don't think a compelling argument has been presented here, one that would dissuade a believer. I mean, what is the point of presenting such an argument, otherwise? But what can you expect when the thread topic was literally built on a foundation of ****, in the OP?

Of course... a believer would say exactly that... thanks for letting me know what a believer's response would be.

But of course since this believer's prime mover is the necessary cause of all things then casuistry and apologetics is yet again another proof of this prime mover causing more vitiating bowel movements.

 

[arthwollipot]

The fact that you are now spending all this mental energy to derail my OP is a wonderful testament to the extent the OP has stirred you into action.

Hilarious. How much mental energy do you think this is costing me? I'm literally knocking these posts out between tasks at work.

But maybe you're right. This thread is pointless and I am disinclined to be the victim of your bullying.

 

[Warp12]

Especially since this is a sentiment that most of us would not even disagree with. But the OP's belligerent and aggressive posting style, and their habit of picking fights, has led to it being a great big deal for some reason.

Maybe it is a new trend in "militant atheism"? Standard atheists are deemed no longer atheistic enough to roll with certain crowds. I mean this is a place where discussion of atheism is basically preaching to the choir, as you say.

I think these forced arguments would be of more merit in a different venue with more actual believers (not just those repeatedly accused of such).

 

[arthwollipot]

I think these forced arguments would be of more merit in a different venue with more actual believers (not just those repeatedly accused of such).

I think in a venue with more actual believers Leumas would be kicked out in microseconds.

 

[psionl0]

That's just parroting the standard RCC apologetics. None of that holds.

First, free will is an illusion. It's better understood merely as complexity.

Second, it's easy enough to conceive of an infinitely complex organism that is nevertheless precluded from wanting to do things that are downright evil; or at any rate from actually doing them.

No reason why not ending up with automatons or bots will necessarily mean having potentially evil creatures.

That is consistent with the "God is impossible" argument which is a completely different type of argument.

If we assume that actual free will is possible and that is what God intended then my post holds.

 

[xjx388]

Compared to a machine.

I doubt you could transport 1 Tonne to a height of 100 metres.

True, but the machine I would use to perform that task is probably not as efficient as I am, in input to expenditure terms. Especially when you consider that people with similar energy efficiency designed said machines and do a whole host of other functions with that the machine simply cannot do. It does one thing; we do many more things.

 

[psionl0]

Not to mention that having to eat or else die... is not exactly free will...

It is exactly that. The choice is right there in your argument.

Free will doesn't mean that all choices are equally as easy to make nor that there is freedom from the consequences of your choices.

The Garden of Eden could have been a completely different story had different choices been made. The idea of killing to eat might have been an unthought of concept.

 

[xjx388]

I suggest you look up Spina Bifida, Hernia, Herniated Disc, Anemia, Asthma, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, allergic rhinitis, fibromyalgia, chronic kidney disease, liver disease, lung disease (COPD).... cancer... parasitic infections, bacterial infections, viral infections.... etc. etc.

It is nice to be the king...

Yeah, but maybe those defects are purposeful and have some purpose your mind is too feeble to fathom.

 

[Leumas]

Then what is the point about introducing engineers and cockroaches? That is nothing at all like god concepts. Perhaps, when you are excreting your thoughts in your think-tank, you might bear down a little harder to produce a more solid mass of coherent thought. At the moment you are spraying it everywhere!

I was responding to YOUR lion stuff... this had nothing to do with the engineer stuff.

But you know that and the mephitic statement above reflects that dissimulation and ruse.

Actually it is. On a personal level: "no pain, no gain." It's when it comes to others that there are issues. But I doubt anyone disagrees that there are times when suffering has to be allowed in order to achieve a greater good. The question is whether an omnimax God has to.

I agree! Thus the Problem from Suffering. And its proposed solutions. Is God constrained? I think a logical case can be made.

Yet another casuistic ruse ... I already said numerous times that suffering is not what the OP is about... but you know that.

It is about Imbecilic Inept Incompetent Design ... but I guess this is too much to argue against so it is easier to keep repeating the mantra of "Greater Good"

Unfortunately ... deliberate bungling does not bode well for the WISHFUL THINKING that is called "greater good" assumption.

Yes, that movie invoked the "Greater Good" principle as well. But I wasn't thinking of anything so drastic. Human population is expected to decrease as countries become more economically advanced. I think we can do a lot to encourage its decrease though.

And if you watched the movie you would see how it debunked and proven the fallaciousness of this "Greater good" hoodwinking.

 

[Leumas]

Yeah, but maybe those defects are purposeful and have some purpose your mind is too feeble to fathom.

yup... it is nice to be king... and from the king's point of view the riffraff having to starve is character building for them... it is for the greater good.

 

[Chanakya]

Are you kidding? Are you trying to say that you don't realise how belligerent, argumentative and shouty you are being? That you're picking fights even with people who agree with you? You are without doubt one of the most belligerent posters on this board right now, and I count theist ex-members like The Big Dog in that list.

Here's an example. Psionl0 has never claimed to be a theist. On the contrary, based on our past interactions I would describe them as vehemently strong-agnostic. Yet you have claimed repeatedly that they believe in the god you have described, over and over again emphasising your god. Though this is absolutely untrue, you keep repeating it in order to maintain your argumentative nature.

You need to stop, calm down a little, stop shouting at everybody, and actually read the things that people are saying.

To be fair, in this particular instance, he (that is to say, the poster you're referencing) never actually comes out and admits to anything. I've had the dubious pleasure of dancing the dance with him in a different thread, started by him; doing which finally made clear to me the reason for the kind of reaction he (sometimes/often) elicits from (some) people. Which is why I'd asked him ---- straightforwardly, and clearly explaining my reasons for asking ---- to clarify once and for all what exactly his particular position is on the God question and the religion question. It shouldn't take anyone more than a short sentence or two, and hardly a minute of their time, to clearly summarize their broad position after all.

As it happened, and kind of as I'd expected, they declined to clarify. Which of course is their right, and absolutely, their particular beliefs are no one's business but their own unless they themselves volunteer to open such up for discussion. So no issues as far as their declining my invitiation. Except, OP's wondering about their position wouldn't, IMV, itself qualify as either belligerent or even unreasonable; and I'm guessing most people who've interacted at length with them would do that.

Not that the above rules out any belligerence in how they (OP, that is to say) may have expressed their questioning of that poster's personal faith or lack of it, or how they may have said anything else here. After all I did hint at it myself, in my very first post here.