A universe with God.

[Pahansiri]

Yes, but the effect could be that you make somebody very unhappy which, could be the cause that they come back and kick the crap out of you!


As I already said, what difference does it make? Are you implying that I should feel something differently?

1-Again your comprehension skills as to what others post is clearly hindered by your desires rather then logical thought.

2-

As I already said, what difference does it make? Are you implying that I should feel something differently?

It makes all the difference in the world to someone being honest. You make the sweeping statement that suffering or evil are due to free will.

Others and I have demonstrated that that is simply too sweeping and the proof is that when a natural disaster happens and many are killed and suffer it was not due to free will.

Nor was it the free will of the child in Fla who was kidnapped, raped and killed to have such done nor was it the desire or free will of her parents, family and friends. Please do give them a call and ask them

what difference does it make?

My friend your desire to be right blinds you to reality and truth also to logic and honest conversation.

I would ask you again does your God only value free will when it is of harm to others?

YES or NO

 

[CWL]

Yes, CWL, your assiduousness is legendary.

Why does this sound like an insinuation pertaining to my backside...?

But allow me to answer for the believers (or at least some of them, based on my discussions with them.) Natural disasters, diseases and such are brought on by man as punisment for them using their free will to do evil. Oh, it's not limited to punishing the evil-doer, but that's what caused it.

So, my main thesis stands. If (and only if) God exists, he's basically an indiscriminating a-hole.

 

[Iacchus]

Why does this sound like an insinuation pertaining to my backside...?

So, my main thesis stands. If (and only if) God exists, he's basically an indiscriminating a-hole.

And just think, He allowed you to say this without blasting you away with thunderbolts.

 

[Pahansiri]

The usual theist answer is that the 'moral evil' is our creation and the existence of the so called 'metaphysical evils' (earthquakes and so on) is deceptive they making part from God's plan,not understood by us for we do not have the overall picture,necessary for the creation of a higher 'good' (metaphysical evil being warnings of God given to humans to cease being evil without interfering with their free will).The usual objection here is that when innocent childrens die in accidents or are killed the necessity to preserve free will and the necessity to punish humans for their moral evils is not an excuse for an all good Being.Why doesn't God save those kids,or at least some of them?One reply is that those childrens will go to Heaven anyway.Another one is that maybe God has saved many of them only that we do not have sufficient reasons to attribute those cases to him (indeed there are many who say,on good reason,that the fact that they survived some critical events is a 'miracle').

As a conclusion God's ways might be incomprehensible for us but this does not make him less all good.One has to prove first that our world is not the best world possible in the actual conditions if they want 'the argument of evil' to be sound.Finally this argument is as unsound logically as those which try to prove the necessary existence of a personal God...I'm afraid logic alone is never enough to settle the problem of God's existence/non existence...

Greetings metacristi

As a conclusion God's ways might be incomprehensible for us but this does not make him less all good.

Not true. I hear this often that Gods ways are the right and perfect way yet we find “his” actions when applied to men as criminal. Please read http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35055 as an example.

One has to prove first that our world is not the best world possible in the actual conditions if they want 'the argument of evil' to be sound.

No, one first needs to prove “God”.

Finally this argument is as unsound logically as those which try to prove the necessary existence of a personal God...I'm afraid logic alone is never enough to settle the problem of God's existence/non existence...

It is logical to assume from the available evidence that reality, the universe arose from natural causes.


Is there a possibility that a God created all? Yes it is but I see no evidence.

Is there a possibility the universe exist in a test tube of a laboratory of a far-advanced life form? Yes but I see no evidence.


Is there a possibility the universe exist in a snow flake like Whoville? Yes but I see no evidence.

Just what I believe

 

[CWL]

What difference does it make? When your number is up your number is up. And, upon death if the material world is all there is your suffering will cease or, if there is an afterlife, things will get sorted out at that point. What else is there to say?

"What difference does it make"?!?

So, if I pull all your toenails out with a pair of tweezers and then offer you some cake, am I worthy of worship in your eyes?

From my point of view it is simple. I see no evidence for an intelligent supreme being. There are thus no rational reasons to believe in a supreme being.

All that remains is wishful thinking, i.e. emotional reasons to believe. The fact that "God" is an obvious meanie takes care of the emotional reasons (which for the avoidance of doubt of course shouldn't influence the choice to begin with - just toying with the thought) for me aswell.

So there you have my simple viewpoint folks, and should I be wrong and sent to hell because of this, I shall certainly join exarch in chucking brimstones at the jerk who's responsible for it all. At least I shall take pride in not being an accessory to the cruel farce that existence in such case is.

 

[CWL]

And just think, He allowed you to say this without blasting you away with thunderbolts.

Yes indeed - and what could this be an indication of...?

 

[Pahansiri]

And just think, He allowed you to say this without blasting you away with thunderbolts.

Proof "he" allowed anything?

 

[El Greco]

Yes indeed - and what could this be an indication of...?

...His supply of thunderbolts being exhausted ?

 

[CWL]

...His supply of thunderbolts being exhausted ?

...Him not being hooked up to the Internet?

 

[El Greco]

...Him not being hooked up to the Internet?

Unlikely

 

[Tricky]

And just think, He allowed you to say this without blasting you away with thunderbolts.

Well then, allow me to second CWL and repeat myself.

If God exists as you describe him, he is an evil tyrant, and I will oppose him and his will any way I can. Now, I dare you to send your lightning bolts, Jehovah or whatever you are calling yourself these days, because I am your sworn enemy.

(sound of crickets)

 

[Iacchus]

"What difference does it make"?!?

So, if I pull all your toenails out with a pair of tweezers and then offer you some cake, am I worthy of worship in your eyes?

From my point of view it is simple. I see no evidence for an intelligent supreme being. There are thus no rational reasons to believe in a supreme being.

All that remains is wishful thinking, i.e. emotional reasons to believe. The fact that "God" is an obvious meanie takes care of the emotional reasons (which for the avoidance of doubt of course shouldn't influence the choice to begin with - just toying with the thought) for me aswell.

So there you have my simple viewpoint folks, and should I be wrong and sent to hell because of this, I shall certainly join exarch in chucking brimstones at the jerk who's responsible for it all. At least I shall take pride in not being an accessory to the cruel farce that existence in such case is.

Hey, did you know that cause and effect won't work after death, unless of course there is an afterlife?

 

[Pahansiri]

Hey, did you know that cause and effect won't work after death, unless of course there is an afterlife?

Not true at all.

Upon your death when Iacchus is dead cause and effect will go on "working" in fact with "your" very body it will go on as the elaments of "your" body will again Appear in other forms.

 

[KonTiki]

Total Recall...
(image removed)

But what about the poor inanimate objects???

 

[Iacchus]

Not true at all.

Upon your death when Iacchus is dead cause and effect will go on "working" in fact with "your" very body it will go on as the elaments of "your" body will again Appear in other forms.

Yes, but where does Iacchus' consciousness go? This is the question everybody wants to know. If Iacchus is not conscious, then what difference will it make, unless of course Iacchus is conscious in another realm?

Oh, and by the way, did you know that the only thing that allows us to experience reality is consciousness? Indeed, how would we even know we were here? Of course we wouldn't. Thus it would seem consciousness goes hand in hand with experiencing reality, Right? ... almost as if the two were synonymous?

So when the body dies, and consciousness passes on, is it possible that it goes on to experience reality in a different state? Hey, now wouldn't that be something!

 

[Tricky]

Yes, but where does Iacchus' consciousness go? This is the question everybody wants to know. If Iacchus is not conscious, then what difference is it going to make, unless of course Iacchus is conscious in another realm?

That is where empathy kicks in. You may have a difficult time conceiving this, but there are those of us who care what happens to the world and to our loved ones even if there is no way for us to know about it. Tell me. If you discovered for sure that there was no afterlife of any sort, would you immediately stop doing anything good that might outlast your life. After all, you wouldn't know about it, so who cares, right? I'm betting you wouldn't. It is a funny thing about caring. You don't even have to be rewarded for it. Just doing good is reason enough. Have you never heard the phrase, "virtue is its own reward"?

Sure, it would be nice to be rewarded for doing good by getting karma points or by getting into heaven or whatever spiritual lottery you subscribe to, but isn't that the wrong reason for doing good? Isn't that essentially selfish? Yeah, atheists/materialists are a little bit selfish because they do things for the sole joy of feeling good about them. They don't do things that they would only do if they thought they were going to get some post-life reward. I believe a person who does good without expecting reward to be more moral.

 

[Iacchus]

That is where empathy kicks in ...

Hey, did you read my edit job? Here, let me repost it ...


Originally posted by Iacchus

Yes, but where does Iacchus' consciousness go? This is the question everybody wants to know. If Iacchus is not conscious, then what difference will it make, unless of course Iacchus is conscious in another realm?

Oh, and by the way, did you know that the only thing that allows us to experience reality is consciousness? Indeed, how would we even know we were here? Of course we wouldn't. Thus it would seem consciousness goes hand in hand with experiencing reality, Right? ... almost as if the two were synonymous?

So when the body dies, and consciousness passes on, is it possible that it goes on to experience reality in a different state? Hey, now wouldn't that be something!

 

[Tricky]

Hey, did you read my edit job? Here, let me repost it ...


Yes, but where does Iacchus' consciousness go? This is the question everybody wants to know. If Iacchus is not conscious, then what difference will it make, unless of course Iacchus is conscious in another realm?

Yes, this is the major point I was replying to. It will make a difference, even if you are not aware of it. To require that you be around to hear the nice things they say about you is ultimately egotistical and selfish.

Oh, and by the way, did you know that the only thing that allows us to experience reality is consciousness?

That strikes me as anthropocentric and arrogant. Of course, there are many definitions for "experience" and "consciousness". May people think that lower creatures, such as plants, do not have consciousness. Does that mean they don't "experience" sunlight?

Indeed, how would we even know we were here? And of course we wouldn't. Thus it would seem consciousness goes hand in hand with experiencing reality, Right? ... almost as if the two were synonymous?

Wrong. Depends on how you define them. See above.

So when the body dies, and consciousness passes on, is it possible that it goes on to experience reality in a different state? Hey, now wouldn't that be something!

It indeed would be something. It would violate many established laws of physics. And while it might be interesting to speculate on such things, it is in no way established that consciousness survives the death of the brain. Quite the opposite. First of all, you have to establish what consciousness is. You might use one of the dictionary definitions like;

1 a : the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself b : the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact c : AWARENESS; especially : concern for some social or political cause
2 : the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought : MIND
3: the totality of conscious states of an individual
4 : the normal state of conscious life
5 : the upper level of mental life of which the person is aware as contrasted with unconscious processes

Now, try to establish which of these definitions can be definately shown to exist without the presence of a human brain. You might believe that some do, but you cannot show it. Thus, the survival of consciousness after death is utterly speculative, and indeed violates most of what we know to be true about consciousness.

Now, I would appreciate it if you would answer this question, since you have ignored my previous statements on it.

"Is it more moral to do good for the joy of doing good or to do good in hope of some reward?"

 

[RussDill]

Hey, did you read my edit job? Here, let me repost it ...


Originally posted by Iacchus

Yes, but where does Iacchus' consciousness go? This is the question everybody wants to know. If Iacchus is not conscious, then what difference will it make, unless of course Iacchus is conscious in another realm?

Oh, and by the way, did you know that the only thing that allows us to experience reality is consciousness? Indeed, how would we even know we were here? Of course we wouldn't. Thus it would seem consciousness goes hand in hand with experiencing reality, Right? ... almost as if the two were synonymous?

So when the body dies, and consciousness passes on, is it possible that it goes on to experience reality in a different state? Hey, now wouldn't that be something!

why do you assume consciousness has to go anywhere? Where does a dream go when you forget it?

 

[Iacchus]

why do you assume consciousness has to go anywhere? Where does a dream go when you forget it?

Why do you people insist on being so dense!