Post Any Evidence For God Here

[Neoteny]

[2dimes]

Why assume something was created or assume it was not created if that is essentially what we are trying to determine in the first place?

"Do - or do not. There is no try."
Gandalf. Mr. Miyagi

[PLAYER57832]

Is there a reply someone can point me towards that doesn't call on tree rings or a radiometric dating technique based on a secular view of history in the first place that assumes a starting point and constant rate of decay through all time?

You are asking for a method of calculating time that ignores known and recorded human history. Of course, it does not exist. ALL our time records are based upon comparisons with known human experiences. Tree rings can be traced directly to known, recorded events, as do other dating methods.

AND.. some of the dates are what you might call "secular", but others are not. Biblical arceologists use the same basic methods.

[notyou2]

This conversation makes less sense than a Lionz post. What is a "Yoda?"

Yoda man what raped my sistah

[john9blue]

i don't understand, neo. why do you think god must care about what happens on earth? do you realize how many alien civilizations there must be out there? and how many people there are on earth alone? why does your version of god have to care about this african kid?

[Neoteny]

Because he created it. He bears responsibility in some fashion. Maybe he's just a bad god, but the picture more counters the benevolent god that the random one posters like to talk about and then not check back on.

[john9blue]

Because he created it. He bears responsibility in some fashion. Maybe he's just a bad god, but the picture more counters the benevolent god that the random one posters like to talk about and then not check back on.

the resources saved by the pictured child's death (that he otherwise would have consumed) instead went to another african who had a far better, more productive, and more fulfilling life.

- God

[Neoteny]

That's a lame attempt at positive justification, but I get your point. I don't buy though that suffering is the sort of thing that is morally transferable. Maybe I can't comprehend the higher purpose. But it is actually really shitty that such a concept can actually be thought up, much less proposed seriously as a justification for the agonizing death of a toddler. If there is a god, then it could, and should be different. Period.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

That's a lame attempt at positive justification, but I get your point. I don't buy though that suffering is the sort of thing that is morally transferable. Maybe I can't comprehend the higher purpose. But it is actually really shitty that such a concept can actually be thought up, much less proposed seriously as a justification for the agonizing death of a toddler. If there is a god, then it could, and should be different. Period.

No no no, the creator of the entire universe can't make the African desert more bountiful. It's just too much to ask that he can create billions of stars in this tiny little galaxy but can't make some soil more hospitable.

-TG

[Army of GOD]

That's a lame attempt at positive justification, but I get your point. I don't buy though that suffering is the sort of thing that is morally transferable. Maybe I can't comprehend the higher purpose. But it is actually really shitty that such a concept can actually be thought up, much less proposed seriously as a justification for the agonizing death of a toddler. If there is a god, then it could, and should be different. Period.

I'm pretty sure john was being sarcastic.

anyway, I've always believed that the best justification for belief in a god is "he/she/it is beyond our feeble human mind and logic". Granted, it's a cop-out, but believing in a god is itself a cop-out, in my mind. Not that it's a bad thing, I just feel like those who believe in a all-good, all-powerful god are ignoring the implications of science and ethics. I mean, think about it, "good" and morality in general are completely subjective. Hitler (Godwin's law) thought what he was doing was "morally good", but does that make him wrong? No and yes, only because there is no wrong.

I still hold the belief that there are two types of stupid people: those who believe in god and those who argue with those who believe in god

[Neoteny]

It's cool if he's being sarcastic, but I don't get his point in making light of his usual position of "but how can we know," unless he knew it would automatically lead to someone criticizing arguing about god in general which would lead to me repeating my mantra about those who complain about these arguments being either Chamberlains or out to ruin everyone's fun, but in that case John would be pretty omniscient. John, are you god? This might save some time.

Maybe I've just missed his point. Probably not the first time.

[john9blue]

i wasn't being sarcastic. smarter men than i have argued that this is the best of all possible universes and that we as humans are too short-sighted to realize it.

think about how happy we would be if we were automatically given anything we wanted. i'd wager that we wouldn't be happy at all. happiness, like almost everything else, is relative. we can only be happy if we have sadness/anger/misery/whatever to compare it to. your shallow idea of a "perfect god" would just be a world full of people constantly eating delicious candy and orgasming and listening to upbeat music. and anyone who's gone to a rave can tell you that that gets old really fast.

[jonesthecurl]

Yes, but there's a long way to fall from a constant e-infused rave to being a kid starving to death as the vultures look on.
Come to that I know which I'd prefer.

[Army of GOD]

think about how happy we would be if we were automatically given anything we wanted. i'd wager that we wouldn't be happy at all. happiness, like almost everything else, is relative. we can only be happy if we have sadness/anger/misery/whatever to compare it to. your shallow idea of a "perfect god" would just be a world full of people constantly eating delicious candy and orgasming and listening to upbeat music. and anyone who's gone to a rave can tell you that that gets old really fast.

Yea, us middle class white folk who live in a world powerhouse can be know happiness from suffering through the short-term sadness of losing a family member or our favorite sports team getting knocked out of the playoffs, but what happiness has that kid ever known? He was born in a shithole and died in one.

I doubt those "smarter men" ever suffered. I mean TRULY suffered, like that kid.

[heavycola]

Yes, but there's a long way to fall from a constant e-infused rave to being a kid starving to death as the vultures look on.
Come to that I know which I'd prefer.

But the mashed raver can only exist happily by comparing himself to the starving african child. i think. which is why the famine happened according to god's word.

[Haggis_McMutton]

i wasn't being sarcastic. smarter men than i have argued that this is the best of all possible universes and that we as humans are too short-sighted to realize it.

think about how happy we would be if we were automatically given anything we wanted. i'd wager that we wouldn't be happy at all. happiness, like almost everything else, is relative. we can only be happy if we have sadness/anger/misery/whatever to compare it to. your shallow idea of a "perfect god" would just be a world full of people constantly eating delicious candy and orgasming and listening to upbeat music. and anyone who's gone to a rave can tell you that that gets old really fast.

Jesus Christ dude. I honestly can't believe you typed the words " this is the best of all possible universes " ...

You do realize that, what? 1/4 - 1/3 of the human population lives in abject poverty? You do realize it was more like 90% of the human population till a couple centuries ago ? Just wow.
So if there weren't quite as many african kids dying of thirst at 3, I wouldn't be able to enjoy my KFC quite as much? Is that your argument?
I think you got so fuckin' wrapped up in abstract philosophy that you can't see what is in front of us anymore. The world is still largely a shithole. And it's not the absentee god that's going to make it better.

If you can suppress your hatred of vocal atheists for 5 minutes, give this a watch.

[jimboston]

This conversation makes less sense than a Lionz post. What is a "Yoda?"

it's from the Twilight books, i think

You suck.... you got me OK?

[Neoteny]

i wasn't being sarcastic. smarter men than i have argued that this is the best of all possible universes and that we as humans are too short-sighted to realize it.

think about how happy we would be if we were automatically given anything we wanted. i'd wager that we wouldn't be happy at all. happiness, like almost everything else, is relative. we can only be happy if we have sadness/anger/misery/whatever to compare it to. your shallow idea of a "perfect god" would just be a world full of people constantly eating delicious candy and orgasming and listening to upbeat music. and anyone who's gone to a rave can tell you that that gets old really fast.

If we were created to like always being happy, that would probably be better than this one where we apparently base happiness on how not unhappy we are.

Also, isn't heaven supposed to be a little like your rave?

[heavycola]

This conversation makes less sense than a Lionz post. What is a "Yoda?"

it's from the Twilight books, i think

You suck.... you got me OK?

Sorry man

i wasn't being sarcastic. smarter men than i have argued that this is the best of all possible universes and that we as humans are too short-sighted to realize it.

Jesus Christ dude. I honestly can't believe you typed the words " this is the best of all possible universes " ...

You do realize that, what? 1/4 - 1/3 of the human population lives in abject poverty? You do realize it was more like 90% of the human population till a couple centuries ago ? Just wow.
So if there weren't quite as many african kids dying of thirst at 3, I wouldn't be able to enjoy my KFC quite as much? Is that your argument?
I think you got so fuckin' wrapped up in abstract philosophy that you can't see what is in front of us anymore. The world is still largely a shithole. And it's not the absentee god that's going to make it better.

+ points for hitchslap

Well said dude. The world is still largely a shithole, and to almost quote Dr Pangloss as if his was a serious ideology is pretty rank. We all won fucking HUGE in the lottery of life, but 400 years ago, before vaccinations and sanitation and any understanding of how disease worked, and before labour laws and human rights and 'accountable' governments etc etc it was a shithole here too. When god was everything to everyone we were murdering each other on points of ecumenical difference. It was what He wanted back then.

What is also interesting is how xians in the west must have felt over the past 50 years, watching more and more images in higher and higher definition of natural disasters - famine, typhoon, earthquake, tsunami, etc etc - and having to justify that, and the incredible standard of living that we in the top 20% enjoy for no better reason than our parents had sex in the right country, alongside a merciful and all-loving creator. I guess once you decide you believe in the mind-reading ghost and his zombie kid, you can pretty much get your head around anything. MAYBE THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT. Life is contradictory and if i thought hard enough about the terrible state of most of the planet ,that would produce some serious cognitive dissonance. Instead - leave it all up to Skydaddy™! He knows what's going on and what's best for everyone. That famine was supposed to happen! Phew. Now can we go back to watching Kim Kardashian's Cock Odyssey please?

[PLAYER57832]

Because he created it. He bears responsibility in some fashion. Maybe he's just a bad god, but the picture more counters the benevolent god that the random one posters like to talk about and then not check back on.

That's a child's view. Like a child saying I want my desert and no broccoli (or, if its my kids... no onions )

We have had multiple threads on why evil, etc, etc, etc... the basic answer is that we don't know, but people who believe in God feel that there was some reason evil was allowed to persist, even if it is just free will or perhaps that we would not truly be "human" without that.

Regardless, its an old argument. Why keep bringing it up?

[crispybits]

Maybe because every argument on this topic is older than the hills themselves, there are no new arguments.

[Neoteny]

Because he created it. He bears responsibility in some fashion. Maybe he's just a bad god, but the picture more counters the benevolent god that the random one posters like to talk about and then not check back on.

That's a child's view. Like a child saying I want my desert and no broccoli (or, if its my kids... no onions )

We have had multiple threads on why evil, etc, etc, etc... the basic answer is that we don't know, but people who believe in God feel that there was some reason evil was allowed to persist, even if it is just free will or perhaps that we would not truly be "human" without that.

Regardless, its an old argument. Why keep bringing it up?

Holding an authority accountable is more childish than putting full, unflinching trust in said authority figure? I'll stick with childhood I guess... pass the mac 'n cheese.

I'm not blaming god or anything. There's no god to blame. I do actually think there is no other way life can be. But I think that because I don't believe in the (religious) supernatural. And to believe that this is the only way to be human is also fine (though the not knowing why aspect is distinctly unsatisfying, it's not a huge deal, I guess). My issue is that, even if this is the only way we can be "human," is it "good?" Just because we are who we are doesn't make the situation inherently good. Indeed, it's childish to assume something is good because we are here, or because it is just the way it is. Where that argument leads is to the idea that this situation is good because god is good. And, by looking at his work, I seriously doubt that conclusion. I shudder to think j9b is right, and that the suffering of that little girl is morally justified. The thought is monstrous.

I've already explained why I've brought this up again. It is an easy response to a one-off post by someone that will never check back. Also, the argument from suffering is my favorite. And, like heavycola touched on, I love to watch Christians squirm and jitter to justify what that child has gone through.

EDIT: my phone added a space between "heavy" and "cola."

[AndyDufresne]

I once had a chat with a man waving fliers who told me that God wasn't responsible for Creation on Earth, but was responsible for Creation elsewhere in the Galaxy, and that we were merely incidental due to something like panspermia. He then gave me a flier for something.


--Andy

[Neoteny]

To elaborate, I'm comfortable with the idea that she was hurtled toward her fate by the cold, uncaring, lurching universe. The idea that she is a product of the machinations of an all-loving god is physically and emotionally unbearable.

Sort of backward from the traditional religious perspective, but it's true. I'd prefer to take the responsibility for her suffering than to let it be somehow justified.

[heavycola]

I once had a chat with a man waving fliers who told me that God wasn't responsible for Creation on Earth, but was responsible for Creation elsewhere in the Galaxy, and that we were merely incidental due to something like panspermia. He then gave me a flier for something.


--Andy

mmm... panspermia. Cute idea but it's a bit like pointing to god as the first cause. Still begs the question - where did it all start?*

*the correct answer is: in a small ice pocket on the 3rd moon of the 5th planet orbiting the twin-star system we know as GH7560-B, around 15,000 light years further inward on the same galactic spiral arm of which we are also a part. Imma get some fliers made up.