|
If God isn't real then what happens when we die? Do we just become ghosts that have nowhere to go?
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 01:07 |
|
|
Fansy posted:If God isn't real then what happens when we die? Do we just become ghosts that have nowhere to go? I believe in God but I don't see any reason to suppose she made more than one world. This is it, make the most of it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Ok, so what's your point, that God could lie? Ok, now we have a god that's a liar as well as evil. My point is that God can know your thoughts and my thoughts, thereby having insights that we lack, which forms the core of the mysterious ways argument.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:My point is that God can know your thoughts and my thoughts, thereby having insights that we lack, which forms the core of the mysterious ways argument. So? I can know your thoughts as well, you just need to tell me and not lie. Likewise God just needs to explain those insights for me to understand. There's still no good reason to assume I'm incapable of understanding.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:My point is that God can know your thoughts and my thoughts, thereby having insights that we lack, which forms the core of the mysterious ways argument. Bullshit, the core of the mysterious ways argument is special pleading.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
Fansy posted:If God isn't real then what happens when we die? Do we just become ghosts that have nowhere to go? How luxurious to imagine your consciousness will be preserved, instead of being dissipated like smoke.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
Matt dilihunty on YouTube is the only internet atheist I can tolerate and it's because he concentrates on logical arguments instead of smugness. He was also a pastor for many years so has an empathetic approach. I encourage Christians with that sneaky sense of doubt in them to check him out. Namaste.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
Lampsacus posted:Matt dilihunty on YouTube is the only internet atheist I can tolerate and it's because he concentrates on logical arguments instead of smugness. He was also a pastor for many years so has an empathetic approach. I encourage Christians with that sneaky sense of doubt in them to check him out. Namaste. I'm sorry, but that's just not true.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:So? I can know your thoughts as well, you just need to tell me and not lie. Likewise God just needs to explain those insights for me to understand. There's still no good reason to assume I'm incapable of understanding. I'm trying to do this piecemeal so we can work out the specific places where we disagree. Do you deny that it is possible for an oniscient being to have knowledge that we are not capable of obtaining on our own?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:I'm trying to do this piecemeal so we can work out the specific places where we disagree. Do you deny that it is possible for an oniscient being to have knowledge that we are not capable of obtaining on our own? Even if there was, why would an omnipotent being then be unable to communicate that knowledge in a way that we could understand, even if we could not have originally obtained it on our own?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
Lampsacus posted:Matt dilihunty on YouTube is the only internet atheist I can tolerate and it's because he concentrates on logical arguments instead of smugness. He was also a pastor for many years so has an empathetic approach. I encourage Christians with that sneaky sense of doubt in them to check him out. Namaste. He seems as smug as the rest, which is especially lacking in self-awareness since it apparently took him decades to get there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Even if there was, why would an omnipotent being then be unable to communicate that knowledge in a way that we could understand, even if we could not have originally obtained it on our own?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:I'm trying to do this piecemeal so we can work out the specific places where we disagree. Do you deny that it is possible for an oniscient being to have knowledge that we are not capable of obtaining on our own? Sure, but that God could also give us access to that knowledge as well, so that doesn't actually matter in any way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Sure Can we agree that to have your innermost thoughts known constitutes a violation of one's privacy, such that some people might feel that they have been horrifically wronged to have it happen to them?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:Can we agree that to have your innermost thoughts known constitutes a violation of one's privacy, such that some people might feel that they have been horrifically wronged to have it happen to them? Even if so that has nothing to do with my ability to understand those thoughts, so that's not a concern for this argument. But it does bring up an interesting question about whether God can possess that knowledge and still be called good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Even if so that has nothing to do with my ability to understand those thoughts, so that's not a concern for this argument. But it does bring up an interesting question about whether God can possess that knowledge and still be called good. For the sake of moving forward, I'm going to take that as acceptence. If you'd rather deny it, please say so and I'll back up. So far we are in agreement that God as we have defined them can know the thoughts of others, and from that knowledge gain insights that we as humans cannot unaided. We also agree that that knowledge might be immoral, or that it might cause harm to people. From that, I see several options Deny the knowledge. This makes God's culpability in the suffering of the world harder to pin down than if God is wholly omniscient, to my mind. Accept the knowledge, but hide it; refusing to act on it or share it. Accept the knowledge and act on it, but do not share it. Does anyone have objections or additions to make?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
twodot posted:The argument would be that the omnipotent being would have to do something they don't want to do to do it (for instance elevate you to godhood). I'll assert that it takes non-zero time to explain something to a human, some things take longer than others to explain, therefore it's at least conceivable that there is a thing that takes longer than a human's lifetime to explain to that human, so that human can never understand it. I think the burden of demonstrating that any such thing actually exists such that we need to care about it is still on Keeshhound. I'm not saying he'd have to do anything, rather that if he so desired, he could share knowledge which otherwise would be beyond human ken in a way we could grasp. After all, we're discussing a theoretical omnipotent being, the literal creator of the universe for whom reality itself is but clay to be molded according to his will and whim. Objections that doing anything really would somehow be difficult or time consuming for him are trivial at best.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:For the sake of moving forward, I'm going to take that as acceptence. If you'd rather deny it, please say so and I'll back up. This has nothing to do with my ability to understand his moral reasons, you understand that, right? So now you're changing your argument from "You couldn't understand God's reasons" to "God shouldn't tell you, because it might be immoral". Is that an accurate assessment of your new argument, and do you concede that your previous one isn't valid?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:This has nothing to do with my ability to understand his moral reasons, you understand that, right? And it has everything to do with why such a god would not give you understanding of their motivations. Do you propose to judge actions without context? Or do you want god to raise you up at the expense of your fellows so that you can judge God's actions?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:And it has everything to do with why such a god would not give you understanding of their motivations. Why he wouldn't doesn't matter for this argument. So yes, you have changed from "You couldn't understand God's reasons" to "He wouldn't/shouldn't tell you", and that's not an argument I accept.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Why he wouldn't doesn't matter for this argument. So yes, you have changed from "You couldn't understand God's reasons" to "He wouldn't/shouldn't tell you", and that's not an argument I accept. Sure it does. Mysterious Ways says that God has reasons for allowing suffering, and that they won't share them with us. Unless you can explain why God should engage an immoral act to allow someone else to judge them, you haven't disproven it, and challenge to the problem of evil's logic still stands.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:Sure it does. Mysterious Ways says that God has reasons for allowing suffering, and that they won't share them with us. Unless you can explain why God should engage an immoral act to allow someone else to judge them, you haven't disproven it, and challenge to the problem of evil's logic still stands. Ok, I don't care about it, and God should tell me. Now what?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Ok, I don't care about it, and God should tell me. Now what? I didn't know you were an objectivist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:Sure it does. Mysterious Ways says that God has reasons for allowing suffering, and that they won't share them with us. But Mysterious Ways is built on a bullshit foundation, namely that reasons are presumed for God allowing suffering in the absence of anything suggesting they actually exist. They're invented after the fact because, from the believer's perspective, it would be damaging to the core rationale for believing if they weren't any such exculpatory reasons, so therefore they must exist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:But Mysterious Ways is built on a bullshit foundation, namely that reasons are presumed for God allowing suffering in the absence of anything suggesting they actually exist. They're invented after the fact because, from the believer's perspective, it would be damaging to the core rationale for believing if they weren't any such exculpatory reasons, so therefore they must exist. That only matters if you're looking for an evidence based proof or disprove of god. As challenge to the logic of the problem of evil, they just serve as a set of circumstances under which the problem no longer serves as an adequate rebuttal of their claim that their God, which has those properties, exists.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:I didn't know you were an objectivist. Who cares? Morality isn't a concern for this argument, it has to do whether I can understand, not whether I should be told.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Who cares? Morality isn't a concern for this argument, it has to do whether I can understand, not whether I should be told. If I said anything that indicated that my goal was to prove that the knowledge of god would be harmful or impossible to obtain, then I apologize; that was not my intention. The position I have been trying to advance is the one that the problem of evil is a poor attempt to disprove god, due to it's logical failings. That said, it does seem unlikely that a person could retain their identity if they had access to all the thoughts and experiences of everyone to ever live, even if we ignored the presumably physical limits of the human body.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:If I said anything that indicated that my goal was to prove that the knowledge of god would be harmful or impossible to obtain, then I apologize; that was not my intention. The position I have been trying to advance is the one that the problem of evil is a poor attempt to disprove god, due to it's logical failings. The problem of evil only seeks to cast doubt on the existence of an omni-benevolent God, not every possible concept of a god. And if it had logical failings "mysterious reasons" isn't one of them and never will be, because it isn't an argument to begin with. quote:That said, it does seem unlikely that a person could retain their identity if they had access to all the thoughts and experiences of everyone to ever live, even if we ignored the presumably physical limits of the human body. So?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
If God can set out the rules for good and evil, but fails to demonstrate that he abides by them, God appears to be a piece of poo poo unworthy of worship. Thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:Sure it does. Mysterious Ways says that God has reasons for allowing suffering, and that they won't share them with us. Unless you can explain why God should engage an immoral act to allow someone else to judge them, you haven't disproven it, and challenge to the problem of evil's logic still stands. As I stated before: There can be no reason for suffering, whether or not we are even capable of comprehending the reason being supposed, because any reason at all for required suffering could be overcome or circumvented or produced in a fashion without suffering by an all-powerful god. The existence of suffering is not validly answered by "mysterious ways" as a result, unless your definition of "mysterious ways" is "God is not good".
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I'm sorry, but that's just not true.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
Lampsacus posted:Hm, on further reflection I just find him listenable. You are right and I stand corrected. It's also interesting to me how hard it is to type that out. A sense of shame comes with openly admitting you were right. That shame is so powerful I feel it's the reason people don't change their minds - even though I/we like to focus on attempting to 'logic' somebody over to our side. I hope you don't find real atheists on the internet as smug as internet atheists.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 08:17
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:I hope you don't find real atheists on the internet as smug as internet atheists. EDIT: that shame comment goes both ways as well. A human changing their beliefs is a fascinating topic!
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 08:36
|
|
|
Lampsacus posted:I feel like they are the same things? In my mind the only different is, 'internet atheists' are those who cross the line into smug. I always tend to associate "Internet Atheists" with people who have posters of Dawkins up on the wall, complete with fedora and neckbeard. And yeah, changing ones views is an extremely difficult one to do, it's why we always tend to need more "proof" from the opposing side to believe in it, even if we believe stuff from our own "side" with far less.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 08:55
|
|
|
Anyone who goes to atheist events or groups can be called an "internet atheist." I find them boring, but then I've already been an atheist my whole life so I don't feel the need to join a club or movement.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 09:05
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Anyone who goes to atheist events or groups can be called an "internet atheist." I find them boring, but then I've already been an atheist my whole life so I don't feel the need to join a club or movement.  I mean, it's the sort of thing I might've felt drawn to back when I was a teenager and being an atheist was less socially acceptable back then, but there's no real appeal for me these days, even before we get into the obnoxiousness of many of the prominent New Atheists.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:My point is that God can know your thoughts and my thoughts, thereby having insights that we lack, which forms the core of the mysterious ways argument. According to your logic that would be an immoral act for god to commit though: Keeshhound posted:Can we agree that to have your innermost thoughts known constitutes a violation of one's privacy, such that some people might feel that they have been horrifically wronged to have it happen to them? Alhazred fucked around with this message at 18:02 on Jul 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
gently caress it I'll kick the honey pot. Here's another way to think about this problem of evil business. Where is God relative to the cross? By that I mean, if one looks at a situation of human suffering one can ask a couple of questions. Where is the position of God in this situation? Or where am I as a person in relation to the person suffering in this situation? An example is the cross. One could say, God is behind the cross, in the sense of the Father putting Jesus on the cross. One could say God is on the cross, in the sense that Christ is crucified. One could say God is in all positions, on the cross in the soldiers, in Jesus, in the witnesses, etc. Some of you saw me confront Victor with this way of analysing it with the example of Pipel. The point is, the conversation doesn't have to be bullshit thought experiments or abstraction. Instead of omnipotent blah blah blah, or omniscient blah blah blah. One can look at suffering and say: Where am I relative to this suffering? and Where is God relative to this suffering? I'm sorry the recent death of Elie Weisel made me think of this thread. There are other ways to look at this question.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 06:32
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Here's another way to think about this problem of evil business. Where is God relative to the cross? That's what Jesus was wondering 
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 06:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 01:07 |
|
|
You know that is an interesting set up. I suppose the arguement would be that God is in all of it but disapproves of the suffering part of it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 06:47
|
|