Post Any Evidence For God Here

[Army of GOD]

alright, so this thread convinced me that the Christian God is actually the evil dictator that uses unbridled propaganda to force his subjects into blindly loving him no matter how big of a dick he is while Satan is the leader of the universal rebellion and is going to free humanity.

[Haggis_McMutton]

alright, so this thread convinced me that the Christian God is actually the evil dictator that uses unbridled propaganda to force his subjects into blindly loving him no matter how big of a dick he is while Satan is the leader of the universal rebellion and is going to free humanity.

Socrates Meets Jesus

Socrates:
If God wanted man to go to heaven, why did he put man on earth in the first place? Why did he not simply put man in heaven from the beginning? I find it hard to believe that man with all his capabilities, desires, and complexities was created merely to sit and bow and scrape and worship. Certainly there is not, nor ever was, a human tyrant so vain and proud that he wanted his subjects merely to bow and scrape obsequiously and subserviently before him from dawn to dusk, let alone for all eternity. I certainly can understand why Satan wanted to rebel against such a static, regimented, oppressive, boring society. From what you have told me so far, I would have had to side with Satan in the rebellion, for although I consider myself a humble man as men go, I could not bow and scrape and sing praises all day to a being who threatened me with punishment and eternal torment if I did not.

Jesus:
The Lord thy God is a jealous god and thou shalt have no other gods before him.

Socrates:
Why did Satan rebel? Did he know that God was as powerful as you describe him to be and that he was certain to be defeated?

Jesus:
Satan rebelled because he was proud and wanted to rule heaven himself. He knew partly of God's great power (that it was greater than his own), but he wanted power so badly that he was willing to take any chance.

Socrates:
Satan was certainly very brave, then; to strive against a foe he could not defeat.

Jesus:
He was sinful because he was disobedient to the will of God.

Socrates:
It seems to me that the only difference between Satan and God is the degree of power.

Jesus:
God is perfect. He is all powerful, all knowing, and without sin.

Socrates:
Of course; by definition he is without sin because he could not be disobedient to himself. The only real difference between the two is the degree of power. Therefore, Satan was not wrong or sinful to rebel against God, he was only wrong to lose the rebellion. For if he had won, God would be the sinner: because God would have been disobedient to Satan who would be better than God or the other angels because he could not sin against himself, that is, be disobedient to himself, and he would have proven himself all powerful. If Satan had won, he would have become God, by your definition because he would have been all powerful and without sin. Who knows but that this didn't happen? From your description of God, I begin to suspect at this point that it did.

[Army of GOD]

That's awesome. I bet Socrates could turn Jesus into an agnostic.

[heavycola]

That's awesome. I bet Socrates could turn Jesus into an agnostic.

jesus could turn socrates into anything he wanted because he was magic.

[Army of GOD]

That's awesome. I bet Socrates could turn Jesus into an agnostic.

jesus could turn socrates into anything he wanted because he was magic.

Jesus was a virgin. Clearly he wasn't a good magician.

[john9blue]

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.

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?

k, well first of all, i'm not exactly sure how much i buy into the "best possible universe" argument myself. but it definitely has merit and i like to explore it.

surely you guys believe that happiness and suffering are nothing more than chemical reactions within the brain/nervous system, correct? therefore, your version of the "best possible universe" would be filled to the brim with endorphins and whatever other chemicals cause happiness, along with some brains to experience these chemicals. ask yourselves whether such a universe would be preferable to the one we have now. maybe the best possible universe is not necessarily the one that maximizes happiness?

[crispybits]

But heaven is possible right? In fact it's the "world" that we are promised we can all go to if we're well behaved and suitably subservient and grovellingly apologetic for everything we get slightly wrong.

So if heaven is perfect, and heaven is real, then this cannot, by definition, be the best possible world...

[BigBallinStalin]

Isn't J9B talking about proximate causes? Neural transmissions (e.g. endorphins) are not the primary cause of happiness; they're proximate causes. Arguably, one could strap me into a chair, turn on my favorite films, jack me up full of endorphins every day, but without accomplishing anything, I'd likely still get depressed.

[Army of GOD]

Isn't J9B talking about proximate causes? Neural transmissions (e.g. endorphins) are not the primary cause of happiness; they're proximate causes. Arguably, one could strap me into a chair, turn on my favorite films, jack me up full of endorphins every day, but without accomplishing anything, I'd likely still get depressed.

I don't know, but I feel like john9blue is trying to transpose our current biological system onto a fictional "perfect" world. If we were to exist in a perfect world, I doubt we'd have the biological capability to get "bored" (I'm going to assume we get bored of doing fun stuff in this world because we develop a tolerance for endorphins).

[heavycola]

Isn't J9B talking about proximate causes? Neural transmissions (e.g. endorphins) are not the primary cause of happiness; they're proximate causes. Arguably, one could strap me into a chair, turn on my favorite films, jack me up full of endorphins every day, but without accomplishing anything, I'd likely still get depressed.

The solution is to make sure you include plenty of Steve Carrell movies in the mix. I love that guy!

[BigBallinStalin]

Isn't J9B talking about proximate causes? Neural transmissions (e.g. endorphins) are not the primary cause of happiness; they're proximate causes. Arguably, one could strap me into a chair, turn on my favorite films, jack me up full of endorphins every day, but without accomplishing anything, I'd likely still get depressed.

The solution is to make sure you include plenty of Steve Carrell movies in the mix. I love that guy!

I remember that for my next clinical trial with the FDA!

[Neoteny]

k, well first of all, i'm not exactly sure how much i buy into the "best possible universe" argument myself. but it definitely has merit and i like to explore it.

surely you guys believe that happiness and suffering are nothing more than chemical reactions within the brain/nervous system, correct? therefore, your version of the "best possible universe" would be filled to the brim with endorphins and whatever other chemicals cause happiness, along with some brains to experience these chemicals. ask yourselves whether such a universe would be preferable to the one we have now. maybe the best possible universe is not necessarily the one that maximizes happiness?

If the quality of the universe is measured by a metric other than happiness, then sure, this might be the best possible universe. For example, if this universe is a test to see who is worthy to get into heaven and live in eternal bliss. But within the context of the existence of a truly loving, truly omnipotent creator god, this world is a travesty. It's a mess, and it's unnecessary. That's what makes it "bad" from my perspective. My main point is really that if this universe is evidence of god, then blech, did we keep the receipt?

It seems pretty screwed up to think that we were created to take this test, and that, by definition, many would fail. Even the raising of the righteous does not balance the plight of the damned. Even if we truly had free will, we are but playthings in a cosmic contest. This sort of thing would not pass a Division of Animal Resources review.

I curse the day that I was born, and all the sorrow in this world.

[Haggis_McMutton]

k, well first of all, i'm not exactly sure how much i buy into the "best possible universe" argument myself. but it definitely has merit and i like to explore it.

First of all "best possible universe" is completely meaningless untill you explain exactly what you mean by "best". Honestly I can't think of a single definition of "best" where this would indeed be the best, or even a good universe.

Even if, as Neo says, it's all a test. Then at the very least no one should die before adulthood. It seems quite unfair to judge a person's immortal soul based on the actions he took before his mind matured.

surely you guys believe that happiness and suffering are nothing more than chemical reactions within the brain/nervous system, correct? therefore, your version of the "best possible universe" would be filled to the brim with endorphins and whatever other chemicals cause happiness, along with some brains to experience these chemicals. ask yourselves whether such a universe would be preferable to the one we have now. maybe the best possible universe is not necessarily the one that maximizes happiness?

Again, what is "best" ?
If best is maximum happiness, then yeah, the universe you describe would be "best" I guess.

As for the current universe. How about this. It stays exactly the same as it is now, except through some circumstance 1 starving baby that would otherwise die manages to live. He leads a modest life and dies in his forties. No his descendents don't become the next Hitler or anything like that.

How is the above universe worse, in any way, than the one in which the baby dies?

[john9blue]

If the quality of the universe is measured by a metric other than happiness, then sure, this might be the best possible universe. For example, if this universe is a test to see who is worthy to get into heaven and live in eternal bliss. But within the context of the existence of a truly loving, truly omnipotent creator god, this world is a travesty. It's a mess, and it's unnecessary. That's what makes it "bad" from my perspective. My main point is really that if this universe is evidence of god, then blech, did we keep the receipt?

you claim that happiness might not be the metric for judging whether this is a good universe, and then in the next sentence you call this world a "travesty" because there is not enough happiness...?? i don't follow. how can you call this world a "travesty" without taking misery into account? our universe works with a very consistent and precise set of laws. that's not messy at all.

k, well first of all, i'm not exactly sure how much i buy into the "best possible universe" argument myself. but it definitely has merit and i like to explore it.

First of all "best possible universe" is completely meaningless untill you explain exactly what you mean by "best". Honestly I can't think of a single definition of "best" where this would indeed be the best, or even a good universe.

Even if, as Neo says, it's all a test. Then at the very least no one should die before adulthood. It seems quite unfair to judge a person's immortal soul based on the actions he took before his mind matured.

lol, if i knew what was best for the universe then i would be the new messiah. but, as i noted above, the laws of the universe are very consistent... beautiful even.

honestly, you guys are taking a surprisingly anthropocentric viewpoint in this thread. "a universe that produces undesirable nervous sensations in members of my species must be a terrible universe"... =/

surely you guys believe that happiness and suffering are nothing more than chemical reactions within the brain/nervous system, correct? therefore, your version of the "best possible universe" would be filled to the brim with endorphins and whatever other chemicals cause happiness, along with some brains to experience these chemicals. ask yourselves whether such a universe would be preferable to the one we have now. maybe the best possible universe is not necessarily the one that maximizes happiness?

Again, what is "best" ?
If best is maximum happiness, then yeah, the universe you describe would be "best" I guess.

As for the current universe. How about this. It stays exactly the same as it is now, except through some circumstance 1 starving baby that would otherwise die manages to live. He leads a modest life and dies in his forties. No his descendents don't become the next Hitler or anything like that.

How is the above universe worse, in any way, than the one in which the baby dies?

i trust you know about the butterfly effect? i mean, i could make up some convoluted chain of events where the growth of the baby leads to the destruction of mankind, but you get the idea.

suppose, for a simpler explanation, that the baby's early death produced the most total happiness throughout his life. suppose the rest of his life after early childhood was full of hardship and struggle and misery. it was better for him to die young.

and this is assuming that happiness makes a universe "good", which is not necessarily true.

[Haggis_McMutton]

lol, if i knew what was best for the universe then i would be the new messiah. but, as i noted above, the laws of the universe are very consistent... beautiful even.

honestly, you guys are taking a surprisingly anthropocentric viewpoint in this thread. "a universe that produces undesirable nervous sensations in members of my species must be a terrible universe"... =/

The discussion came about from Neo's claim that starving African kids count as proof against god (in his most common definition). So yeah, our happiness would have to be important to this all-loving god.

i trust you know about the butterfly effect? i mean, i could make up some convoluted chain of events where the growth of the baby leads to the destruction of mankind, but you get the idea.

suppose, for a simpler explanation, that the baby's early death produced the most total happiness throughout his life. suppose the rest of his life after early childhood was full of hardship and struggle and misery. it was better for him to die young.

and this is assuming that happiness makes a universe "good", which is not necessarily true.

He's god, he's all-powerfull. He should be able to make the baby live without any negative side effects whatsoever, no?
Why doesn't he ?

[john9blue]

lol, if i knew what was best for the universe then i would be the new messiah. but, as i noted above, the laws of the universe are very consistent... beautiful even.

honestly, you guys are taking a surprisingly anthropocentric viewpoint in this thread. "a universe that produces undesirable nervous sensations in members of my species must be a terrible universe"... =/

The discussion came about from Neo's claim that starving African kids count as proof against god (in his most common definition). So yeah, our happiness would have to be important to this all-loving god.

i trust you know about the butterfly effect? i mean, i could make up some convoluted chain of events where the growth of the baby leads to the destruction of mankind, but you get the idea.

suppose, for a simpler explanation, that the baby's early death produced the most total happiness throughout his life. suppose the rest of his life after early childhood was full of hardship and struggle and misery. it was better for him to die young.

and this is assuming that happiness makes a universe "good", which is not necessarily true.

He's god, he's all-powerfull. He should be able to make the baby live without any negative side effects whatsoever, no?
Why doesn't he ?

the universe's laws are consistent. if we assume that our god does not randomly pop in and change things (i.e. he's a "watchmaker"-style god), then we can also assume that no course of action taken by the child (even assuming that we have free will, which is debatable) would produce a happy life. none of his futures have a good result, and his early death is the best possible outcome.

if you think in terms of natural selection, it makes more sense: the success of people who are more fit for survival (even if it's only due to their geographical location) is an ultimate improvement on our species in the long run.

[BigBallinStalin]

none of his futures have a good result, and his early death is the best possible outcome.

How do you know?

[Haggis_McMutton]

the universe's laws are consistent. if we assume that our god does not randomly pop in and change things (i.e. he's a "watchmaker"-style god), then we can also assume that no course of action taken by the child (even assuming that we have free will, which is debatable) would produce a happy life. none of his futures have a good result, and his early death is the best possible outcome.

if you think in terms of natural selection, it makes more sense: the success of people who are more fit for survival (even if it's only due to their geographical location) is an ultimate improvement on our species in the long run.

So, then god is relegated to the status of not being able to perform miracles and not being able to set up the universe such that the child is happy. Therefore this god is clearly not all-powerfull, correct?

Yes, I agree the starving child would not be evidence against this god, but he is still evidence against the abrahamic god.

[john9blue]

the universe's laws are consistent. if we assume that our god does not randomly pop in and change things (i.e. he's a "watchmaker"-style god), then we can also assume that no course of action taken by the child (even assuming that we have free will, which is debatable) would produce a happy life. none of his futures have a good result, and his early death is the best possible outcome.

if you think in terms of natural selection, it makes more sense: the success of people who are more fit for survival (even if it's only due to their geographical location) is an ultimate improvement on our species in the long run.

So, then god is relegated to the status of not being able to perform miracles and not being able to set up the universe such that the child is happy. Therefore this god is clearly not all-powerfull, correct?

Yes, I agree the starving child would not be evidence against this god, but he is still evidence against the abrahamic god.

yes, the god would not be all-powerful in the sense that he would not be able to break out of whatever "framework" he created the universe in.

none of his futures have a good result, and his early death is the best possible outcome.

How do you know?

i don't know. i'm saying that it's POSSIBLE for this to be the case in a "best possible universe"

[Haggis_McMutton]

yes, the god would not be all-powerful in the sense that he would not be able to break out of whatever "framework" he created the universe in.

he wouldn't be able to break out of the framework nor mold the framework so that it does whatever he wants from the begining( i.e. set the initial variables such that the kid lives).

so you agree the kid is evidence against the god that >50% of the human population belives in, yeah?
I think that's all Neo was stating.

[john9blue]

yes, the god would not be all-powerful in the sense that he would not be able to break out of whatever "framework" he created the universe in.

he wouldn't be able to break out of the framework nor mold the framework so that it does whatever he wants from the begining( i.e. set the initial variables such that the kid lives).

so you agree the kid is evidence against the god that >50% of the human population belives in, yeah?
I think that's all Neo was stating.

well yeah, it's evidence against any omnipotent god. i don't think god's omnipotence is crucial for believing in most major religions, though. and it's certainly not evidence against all possible gods.

in retrospect, this whole argument was like a restating of the "rock so heavy that he can't lift it" question. that's what i mean when i say that a god would be limited to a "framework".

[BigBallinStalin]

none of his futures have a good result, and his early death is the best possible outcome.

How do you know?

i don't know. i'm saying that it's POSSIBLE for this to be the case in a "best possible universe"

And it's possible that it isn't. So.. what's your point?

[Lionz]

Neoteny,

How about simply point out a form of dating that is not resting on a secular based assumption if you are aware of one?

Do you think the atmosphere has had a constant C14/C12 ratio if the flood resulted in fossil fuels and the biosphere just prior to the Flood had 500 times more carbon? How logical is it if we assume the flood did not occur to come up with a ratio for a dating method and then turn around and use the ratio as evidence against the flood having occured? Think about it?

And what can postflood trees do to help us calibrate if we are trying to date preflood organisms?

PLAYER,

What do you consider to be known and recorded history if not this?

"7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered."
-http://yahushua.net/scriptures/gen7.htm













And again? What can postflood trees do to help us calibrate if we are trying to date preflood organisms?

TA1LGUNN3R,

Is earth not pretty hospitable as it is? How much money is spent on things other than food? How about we give Africans non-GMO seed and help them move? And everyone pay more attention to Genesis 3:17-19?

Haggis,

Why would a starving kid be evidence against an Abrahamic Deity if there is Abrahamic scripture filled with stuff concerning famine?

All,

"9:2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?"
-http://yahushua.net/scriptures/john9.htm

Do we know what others did before being born or how much others deserve to suffer or how much anyone else suffers to begin with? And even if there is alot of unjust stuff taking place on earth currently, what should we expect if the devil is considered the prince of this world and Yahushua suggested wheat could be hurt by gathering tares without waiting for them to both grow first? How about we have patience?

"24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come."
-http://yahushua.net/scriptures/matt24.htm

"23:11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
23:12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted."
-http://yahushua.net/scriptures/matt23.htm

"5:3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
5:4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted."
-http://yahushua.net/scriptures/matt05.htm

[crispybits]

You do realise that flood myths have been shown to pre-date the bible right?

It's like me writing a book with stories about hobbits and then claiming that "look - many other books have been written with hobbits in them, therefore my story in my book must be the really true account of hobbits, and therefore must be a true account of everything."

And we won't even start to get onto the theological arguments caused by inconsistencies in the biblical flood myth. Notably that there appear to be two separate stories, or at least accounts told from 2 different and sometimes contradictory perspectives, intertwined with each other in genesis 1-9 where the flood myth is described.

[Lionz]

Why would flood legends not proceed it if the flood came thousands of years before it and people spread across the earth afterwards? How about we simply study history with various sources and without being blinded by religious or secular bias?

What's really an inconsistency regarding the flood if you refer to something concerning how many animals were to be brought on the ark? http://www.apologeticspress.org/apconte ... rticle=656