Posts: 14259
Threads: 48
Joined: March 1, 2009
Reputation:
80
Re: RE: God formally disproven
March 27, 2012 at 1:50 am
(March 27, 2012 at 12:59 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Free will is only a good defense if in reality we were free to only choose morally right actions. Otherwise God either isn't omnibenevolent or doesn't have the knowledge on how to create the best world. These technicalities contradict with his properties meaning that such a being doesn't exist.
Your logic is badly flawed. You promote slavery, and non sentient beings over what we have? No, this universe is far superior to the one you propose, and the one that you propose isn't viable.
God couldn't be viable in his benevolence if he had nothing to be benevolent about. If anything your proposal proves God. Which is why the notion of him survives: because it is a rationally coherent answer.
(March 27, 2012 at 12:59 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Because I believe in the Kantian theory that something is only good if everyone is allowed to do that action which you deem to be right. This is keeping in mind that people are the ends and never used as the means. Hurting people doesn't fit either category.
How isn't everyone allowed to do/ be good?
People hurt themselves. God allows that as part of the sentient model that he created.
And biblical references to people being hurt / killed are examples of divine justice in action. ie bad stuff never goes unpunished.
(March 27, 2012 at 12:59 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Something that assumes so much about the world that can be observed and tested begs for an objection. Yes, assumptions about God can be tested and observed. Objection is essential and acceptance demanded with no credible alternative offered.
Posts: 2658
Threads: 121
Joined: March 19, 2012
Reputation:
27
RE: God formally disproven
March 27, 2012 at 2:28 am
(This post was last modified: March 27, 2012 at 2:31 am by FallentoReason.)
fr0d0 Wrote:Your logic is badly flawed. You promote slavery, and non sentient beings over what we have? Huh? Show me where I promoted such things.
Quote:God couldn't be viable in his benevolence if he had nothing to be benevolent about. If anything your proposal proves God.
God with all his benevolence should have made the perfect world for us, instead of this mediocre world where 'good' would be an incredible overstatement if you were to describe the state of our existence. Children dying of starvation every x seconds isn't what I consider 'the best world possible'.
This doesn't even come close to proving God's existence because if you admit he is omnibenevolent then ask yourself, why does suffering exist? It is impossible for God to want to create anything less than what his ominbenevolent desires make him create. Otherwise you have no choice but to admit he isn't ominbenevolent.
Quote:Which is why the notion of him survives: because it is a rationally coherent answer.
Ah you're right... well then.. I have no choice but to praise Allah.
The only reason the notion of him survives is because believers cling on to the only proof they have which is their holy books. I'm not really interested in discussing why your god is the right one over the others on this thread.
Quote:People hurt themselves. God allows that as part of the sentient model that he created.
So that's his ominbenevolence in action? Allow his creations to make themselves suffer? This shows his lack of knowledge on how to create perfect beings or he simply isn't omnibenevolent as to create the best world for us.
Quote:Yes, assumptions about God can be tested and observed. Objection is essential and acceptance demanded with no credible alternative offered.
Show me the physical evidence I can observe please.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
Posts: 8781
Threads: 26
Joined: March 15, 2010
Reputation:
29
RE: God formally disproven
March 27, 2012 at 2:33 am
(March 26, 2012 at 10:32 am)FallentoReason Wrote: One of the properties of God is that he is omnibenevolent. This directly implies certain things about the world he would create. These are the implications:
1. God is omnibenevolent.
Therefore,
2. God must create the best world, otherwise he is not omnibenevolent.
Therefore,
3. The best world must be one where the creatures can freely choose to only do good actions.
Otherwise,
4. God is not omnibenevolent because it is impossible for God to not want to create the best world.
Therefore,
5. If God is necessarily omnibenevolent then evil cannot exist.
Conclusion:
- Evil exists meaning God is not omnibenevolent. Therefore God does not exist.
EDIT: I'm half asleep so maybe my reasoning has a few holes here and there. Feedback on how to improve my argument is more than welcome. Also, feedback on why I'm completely wrong is more than welcome.
What makes you think God would live by your reasoning, full of holes is an understatement, your bucket can hold no water. Where do you find the word omnibenevolent, I see it nowhere in scripture, as a matter of fact I can not find benevolent or benevolence in scripture.
God loves those who believe and those who do not and the same goes for me, you have no choice in this matter. That puts the matter of total free will to rest.
Posts: 2658
Threads: 121
Joined: March 19, 2012
Reputation:
27
RE: God formally disproven
March 27, 2012 at 2:55 am
Godschild Wrote:What makes you think God would live by your reasoning, full of holes is an understatement, your bucket can hold no water. Where do you find the word omnibenevolent, I see it nowhere in scripture, as a matter of fact I can not find benevolent or benevolence in scripture. Then all I was taught at church was misguided as every second word I would hear about God is 'good'. 'God is good' was how we would mutually conclude a deep conversation about God with fellow Christians.
Where do all these blessings come from then?
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
Posts: 3188
Threads: 8
Joined: December 9, 2011
Reputation:
31
RE: God formally disproven
March 27, 2012 at 3:08 am
(March 27, 2012 at 2:33 am)Godschild Wrote: What makes you think God would live by your reasoning, full of holes is an understatement, your bucket can hold no water. Where do you find the word omnibenevolent, I see it nowhere in scripture, as a matter of fact I can not find benevolent or benevolence in scripture.
Atleast the scripture's being honest in that regard. Your god is anything but benevolent.
Posts: 2658
Threads: 121
Joined: March 19, 2012
Reputation:
27
RE: God formally disproven
March 27, 2012 at 3:16 am
genkaus Wrote:Atleast the scripture's being honest in that regard. Your god is anything but benevolent. It's the believers we should really be worried about:
fr0d0 Wrote:God couldn't be viable in his benevolence if he had nothing to be benevolent about.
Godschild Wrote:Where do you find the word omnibenevolent, I see it nowhere in scripture, as a matter of fact I can not find benevolent or benevolence in scripture.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
Posts: 448
Threads: 40
Joined: March 24, 2012
Reputation:
7
RE: God formally disproven
March 27, 2012 at 5:35 am
(This post was last modified: March 27, 2012 at 5:35 am by Christian.)
God is not a separate entity as non-believers picture it to be. God is the universe (this universe and all unknown ones) - not a part of it. You can't separate God from the definition of existence. Picture the universe as hair on God's head... it is not separate from God but part of Him. So all the man-made definitions and the laws of physics, chemistry and biology do not have to necessarily apply to God.
Posts: 3188
Threads: 8
Joined: December 9, 2011
Reputation:
31
RE: God formally disproven
March 27, 2012 at 6:23 am
(March 27, 2012 at 5:35 am)Christian Wrote: God is not a separate entity as non-believers picture it to be. God is the universe (this universe and all unknown ones) - not a part of it. You can't separate God from the definition of existence. Picture the universe as hair on God's head... it is not separate from God but part of Him. So all the man-made definitions and the laws of physics, chemistry and biology do not have to necessarily apply to God.
You can separate a hair from a head - so your analogy: Fail.
If anything, god is a part of the universe (if he exists - which he doesn't). By definition, the universe is the totality of existence - so if god exists, he is a subset of the universe - a wart on universe's ass. if you will.
And with the concept of universe, there is no necessary assumption of consciousness. With god, there is. So, these two concepts are fundamentally separate.
Posts: 12512
Threads: 202
Joined: January 3, 2010
Reputation:
107
RE: God formally disproven
March 27, 2012 at 6:24 am
What about the "other" Universes we are suspecting to be out there??
"The Universe is run by the complex interweaving of three elements: energy, matter, and enlightened self-interest." G'Kar-B5
Posts: 2658
Threads: 121
Joined: March 19, 2012
Reputation:
27
RE: God formally disproven
March 27, 2012 at 6:39 am
(March 27, 2012 at 5:35 am)Christian Wrote: God is not a separate entity as non-believers picture it to be. God is the universe (this universe and all unknown ones) - not a part of it. You can't separate God from the definition of existence. Picture the universe as hair on God's head... it is not separate from God but part of Him. So all the man-made definitions and the laws of physics, chemistry and biology do not have to necessarily apply to God.
So it's as if God is undetectable because he is the fabric of the universe? What happened to the good old days of God being in the clouds?
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
|
