A New(?) Proof that God Does Not Exist

[Iacchus]

Without a brain, the body cannot function. A complex organism needs a complex processor to survive and thrive.

Neither could the interpretive nature of the mind.

Now, rage coupled with intimacy with my girlfriend? I've never experience rage WITH that experience - not my cup of tea, baby.

Am merely asking if you would deny the experience of either.

But rage is a simple survival technique; so is sex. That we 'enjoy' recreational 'sex' just lets us bond to create a more survivable family unit to support our helpless, big-headed offspring longer.

Interpretation and refutation is all part of the survival and reproductive process.

Bacteria don't need "big brains" in order to survive. What's the difference between bacteria and us then?

Not to offend, but the purpose of life is to get laid and live to tell about it... period. So I guess there is good and evil after all - evil is not fulfilling your purpose.

And by purpose are you referring to selfishness here?

I guess Iacchus is evil, then.

What, in the sense that there is none good but God?

Or, in the opposite sense that would be dog now wouldn't it?

Actually, Iacchus, 'good' and 'evil' are all subjective, purely malleable terms. What is good to one person is evil to another. It's all part of the biochemistry. Simple as pie.

To everything there is a season, of which good can only remain good ... so long as it remains in context.

 

[Z]

I have only one reply to you:

164624; 242; 0ICU812; 4192; 8675309; 7734

Now, can you tell everyone what each of these means or refers to?

 

[Iacchus]

I have only one reply to you:

164624; 242; 0ICU812; 4192; 8675309; 7734

Now, can you tell everyone what each of these means or refers to?

Am I omniscient? No. But I know that I'm not, and therein lies the good.

 

[C.J.]

Yay! Games!

I have only one reply to you:

164624; 242; 0ICU812; 4192; 8675309; 7734

Now, can you tell everyone what each of these means or refers to?

Okay. Let me guess:

1) "164624": Dunno
2) "242": There is (was?) a band called Front 242
3) "OICU812": It's the answer to a riddle or part of a joke or some such; it reads "Oh, I see you ate one too"
4) "4192": Dunno
5) "8675309": Jenny!
6) "7734": enter this into your calculator, and then turn it upside-down! It says a naughty word!

That was fun.

 

[geni]

They certainly do. The laws of PHYSICS might not apply to all-powerful beings, of course, but LOGIC--what is true in all possible worlds--does. This is what makes logic logic, after all.

You cannot prove this is the case.

 

[Hardenbergh]

Yay! Games!



Okay. Let me guess:

1) "164624": Dunno
2) "242": There is (was?) a band called Front 242
3) "OICU812": It's the answer to a riddle or part of a joke or some such; it reads "Oh, I see you ate one too"
4) "4192": Dunno
5) "8675309": Jenny!
6) "7734": enter this into your calculator, and then turn it upside-down! It says a naughty word!

That was fun.

There's a lot more to Iacchus than numerology. I'm sure most people have noticed.

 

[C.J.]

Re: Re: Re: A New(?) Proof that God Does Not Exist

Okay, back to work....

The problem with this (which indeed is probably the most common believer's response) is that (formally speaking) if earth is possible world E and heaven possible world H out of a set of possible worlds P, then what is the relation between them in terms of "goodness"--that is, is P fully or only partially ordered in that respect?

If P is fully ordered, than either E is less than H, or H than E, andd, in both cases, we have a problem (as I said above).

Assuming E and H are subsets of P, and given our experiences and expectations, I think you are correct in that there is a problem.

However, if neither is the case--E and H are incomparable--then one finds it hard to imagine in what sense is it a good thing to go to heaven. Isn't the whole point of heaven that it is supposed to be far, far superior to this vale of tears?

Yeah, my response in BelieverMode does assume an inability to directly compare, but I don't know that this necessiatates a total incomparability. Earth could still be part of a subset of possible worlds, though the believer would likely consider Heaven a set unto itself. A particular value, say "goodness," can be present for both, which might lead you to believe that you can directly compare, but the qualitative differences make that impossible.

Using the apples/oranges thing again, well, they can both be good, and you may have available to you both the best of all possible apples and the singluar (Heavenly) orange. Are both good? Surely! Ah, but is one better than the other? An objective answer to this does not seem possible, really because of personal tastes. Essentially, you run into the same thing with the "best of all possible worlds" argument, save that "faith" or "belief" is substituted for taste.

Just reading through this makes me unsure I'm clear on the point, but I have to prep for class and so can't spend anymore time right now. I'll check back later to see if I actually typed what I was thinking in a comprehensible way....

 

[ceo_esq]

Heaven as an Argument Against God’s Existence--an article I am writing...

At the risk of sounding a little reductive, your point seems to boil down to this: although classical theistic solutions to the Problem of Evil assert that moral good cannot be produced without also producing moral evil, certain existing theistic doctrines appear to assume that moral good can be produced without also creating moral evil.

The thesis in your argument is not new. I think your version of it is well-written, however, and I hope you bring the article to completion.

I think that in order for your approach to work, you need to be able to defend logically the notion that existence in Heaven (regardless of whether free will can be said to exist there) by virtue of having been created in that state is as morally good, or meritorious, as attaining such a state by previously having freely made the "right" decisions on earth. If you can't, than your argument is vulnerable to a counterargument that a possible world containing only Heaven and no earth is not necessarily better than a world containing both a Heaven and an earth.

 

[Z]

Yay! Games!



Okay. Let me guess:

1) "164624": Dunno
2) "242": There is (was?) a band called Front 242
3) "OICU812": It's the answer to a riddle or part of a joke or some such; it reads "Oh, I see you ate one too"
4) "4192": Dunno
5) "8675309": Jenny!
6) "7734": enter this into your calculator, and then turn it upside-down! It says a naughty word!

That was fun.

I actually wanted to see what Iacchus made of each of those - He hasn't spouted his numerology in so long, I thought I'd fuel his flames a little, and see what he comes up with.

1) was just random. 4) has some signifigance to me, I just don't know what.

The rest? C.J. gets the solid-gold kewpie doll.

 

[Roboramma]

Heaven as an Argument Against God’s Existence--an article I am writing...

In summary, heaven seems a direct refutation of the claim that this is the best of all possible worlds, and an indirect one of the idea that free will explains evil on earth.

I like your article, and agree with most of your points, but there is a possible argument, as I see it.
What if earth and heaven are not taken as two distinct entities, but as a progression. Ie. there is something about heaven that would not work if all souls did not first spend time on earth?
For whatever reason you want to dream up...
It's a place where we need to learn about ourselves.
God uses it to weed out the 'sinners' (I don't like this argument much - why would he create them in the first place then? after all he is omnicient.)
Seeing evil first hand allows us to enjoy heaven more, or avoid sin in heaven, or whatever.

You might also argue that while free will on earth is necessary for whatever reason, once we've been through that, it's no longer necessary in heaven.

And by the way, don't shoot the messenger... I might put forth these arguments as possible but none of it seems at all likely.

 

[c4ts]

Yes, but what is logic, and where does it come from? ... a universe completely devoid of structure perhaps? Indeed, what is logical about something that comes from nothing or, something that comes from something which doesn't mean anything? So, if there was just one thing that was pre-existent over everything else, that would have to be logic don't you think? Yet if that were true, we find ourselves in the position where we have to ask, what is logic without the mind that entertains it? In which case we are left to conclude that logic has always existed, as part of a pre-existent mind or, it hasn't. And if it hasn't, we can only conclude that it was something that came about "after the fact." In which case what are we doing basing anything upon that which was never existent in the first place?

Could you please rewrite that in a way that makes sense?

 

[Sushi]

Most proofs against God's existence suffer similar flaws that proofs for a God's existence suffer. I'm sure this will be no different.

 

[c4ts]

Three things wrong with that:

1. Requires a consistent and specific definition of "God."
2. It's impossible to completely prove a negative.
3. It's impossible to completely prove anything to a deeply entrenched religious mindset no matter what you say.

 

[Ossai]

Roboramma

Ie. there is something about heaven that would not work if all souls did not first spend time on earth?

What about newborns that die. Are their few hours of life enough of an earthly existence?

You might also argue that while free will on earth is necessary for whatever reason, once we've been through that, it's no longer necessary in heaven.

So no freewill in heaven just mindless robots. Why not create heaven that way to begin if that is what god wanted?

Ossai

 

[Iacchus]

Could you please rewrite that in a way that makes sense?

Well, since we're so hung up on logic here, I'm asking if logic has always existed? If so, then where does it come from? If logic has always existed, shouldn't that entail a "logical mind" to entertain it? Indeed, how can we argue the logic of this thing or that thing, pre-existent or otherwise ... unless of course logic has always been?

 

[Iacchus]

So no freewill in heaven just mindless robots. Why not create heaven that way to begin if that is what god wanted?

Ossai

Indeed, why can't God beget "little gods?" After all, we are the "children" of God aren't we?

 

[Beerina]

Roboramma
What about newborns that die. Are their few hours of life enough of an earthly existence?

It's enough, evidently, such that on the Day of Judgement, they will be resurrected, given an indestructible body, then heaved into a lake of molten lava where these newborns will scream in indescribable agony for all eternity.

Presumably, the stillborn and aborted will, too, since they are not baptized, either. The Lord will look down and feel bad that an aborted baby will have to be mercilessly tortured for all eternity, but rulez is rulez.

But what about miscarriages, one-celled fertilized zygotes that never implanted, etc. Will a one-celled human be resurrected as an indestructible cell that is cast into the lake of lava? As it has no nerves, it will experience no anguish. Perhaps The Lord, in his infinite goodness, will advance it's development enough so that it is about a baby in mental capacity, then heave it into the lake of molten lava for all eternity.