Theology Question

[Dutch Uncle]

Hey Asshole Doc Dutch: Stop posting to me and sending notifications or I will have you retro-banned.

Okay. Let’s retro-ban me. I’ll just start another thread where the same people will show up…including you, dear. LOL

 

[NiftyNiblick]

So how many people have you claimed to have on ignore and who you hate, dear?

Why do you hate your life so much? Despite your anger at the world, you seem reasonably intelligent.

Classic Oom.

People only claim to use the ignore function.
They hate their lives.
They bear anger toward the world.

Perhaps Oom likes to flounce about grinning like an idiot, and that's perfectly OK.

Expectations that we should all do it aren't very realistic, however.
A tiny but nonetheless real number of us, after all, are not idiots.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

The point being that you don’t know and, like Pascal, you’d choose the most beneficial course of action.

But you are understanding how SCIENCE approaches this sort of concept, correct? I am merely attempting to be consistent with scientific approaches to knowledge.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

IMO, the atheist approach is often the same as a Trumpers: they put a lot of faith in false assumptions.

I have explained this now a number of times. It is how science approaches this type of question.

I cannot be more clear on this point.

 

[Concart]

As I understood it meant that God did as good as it could possibly be done while preserving His plans for his creation. This is the best possible configuration of events that can be conceived. As such God performed exactly correctly.

(NOte: I'm not a big believer in any of this, it's just how I understood the "Problem of Evil" to be addressed most efficiently)

That explanation is a tautology. It utterly fails the logic test.

 

[BidenPresident]

That explanation is a tautology. It utterly fails the logic test.

This is Leibniz's idea that God chooses the best of all possible worlds. But suffering is a limit even God cannot prevent.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Incorrect.

What I said was absolutely correct.

It has every applicability. It is the basis of many atheists' approach. It is, in fact, really the ONLY applicable point of discussion. Unless one wishes to avoid scientific approaches to knowledge.

You have decided to play a game here...and I am not going to indulge you.

Of course there is. One could pray and see how often prayers are answered.

Oh, Jesus. That is an absurdity. Are you actually saying one could pray...not get an answer you want...and use that to suggest in any way, "Therefore there are no gods?"

Suppose you do not understand the answer? Suppose there are gods, but they do not want to answer prayers?

Such "studies" have been done. If the default is that God sometimes doesn't answer prayers then that is an unfalsifiable claim and one that cannot be used as evidence either for or against the God hypothesis.

Anyone doing such a "study" is a jerk...and so is anyone assuming anything scientific has been done in the study.

One could compare the various versions of God to see if there is any commonality or any mutually exclusive things that would make it impossible.

There is absolutely no way to test the assertion, "There are no gods."

The list goes on. Miracles, for instance. They can be tested (and when they are usually found to be not evidence).

C'mon. I thought you were better than this.

 

[Concart]

This is Leibniz's idea that God chooses the best of all possible worlds. But suffering is a limit even God cannot prevent.

Understood, but that is the ultimate dodge. The Supreme being who has always existed and created everything that exists in the universe can't stop suffering? Sure.......that makes perfect sense.

 

[BidenPresident]

Understood, but that is the ultimate dodge. The Supreme being who has always existed and created everything that exists in the universe can't stop suffering? Sure.......that makes perfect sense.

Yes, Leibniz is not doing orthodox Christian theology.
He is explaining the world we live in, not the world we wish we lived in.

 

[Concart]

If science is asked 'Does God exist?' the answer is a resounding 'don't know, don't care'. Science is 100% unconcerned with God. God, if one existed, would exist outside of the natural world. It's that simple.

 

[BidenPresident]

If science is asked 'Does God exist?' the answer is a resounding 'don't know, don't care'. Science is 100% unconcerned with God. God, if one existed, would exist outside of the natural world. It's that simple.

Science only asks questions about physical processes.

 

[Concart]

Yes, Leibniz is not doing orthodox Christian theology.
He is explaining the world we live in, not the world we wish we lived in.

It may not be Christian, but it most certainly relies on the existence of God.

 

[BidenPresident]

It may not be Christian, but it most certainly relies on the existence of God.

Yes. But the world has a logic even God cannot transcend.

 

[Concart]

Science only asks questions about physical processes.

Correct. It has to be. Science measures things in that exist in the natural world. You cannot measure God, unless of course, he shows up in Times Square and agrees to an interview. At which point, God has become a natural phenomenon.

 

[Concart]

Yes. But the world has a logic even God cannot transcend.

God is entirely redundant. If God created the world, then God can transcend it. He can do anything he wants. Putting limits on God is a feeble argument that basically neuters the entire concept of a Supreme Being. Doesn't sound very Supreme to me.

 

[BidenPresident]

God is entirely redundant. If God created the world, then God can transcend it. He can do anything he wants. Putting limits on God is a feeble argument that basically neuters the entire concept of a Supreme Being. Doesn't sound very Supreme to me.

Like I said, Leibniz was a rationalist, not a believer.

 

[Ross Dolan]

If one does not understand how english words are constructed. the A- at the beginning of atheist is merely an accession that there is no reason to believe in God. It doesn't say it is a positive belief, nor does it say a negative belief.

It is, perfectly summarized, the lack of a belief. That's how it is defined. Just like "agnostic" means without knowledge (a- gnostic).

Wow...talk about not understanding how English words are constructed!

How do you explain the fact that the word "atheist" came into the English language almost 100 years before "theist?"

The "a" in atheist does indeed come from the Greek...and means without. The word atheist came into English from the French using the Greek...and etymologically meant, "a" meaning "without" + "theos" meaning "a god" = WITHOUT A GOD...not without a "belief" in a god.

Incorrect. I am an atheist who simply fails to believe in God. That is not a belief as they say, anymore than not stamp collecting is a hobby.

Okay...so you are saying that you do not have a "belief" that there are no gods...and you do not have a "belief" that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one...but that even though you see that as "push" you use atheist because...

...well...because what?

Sounds to me like bullshit, but I have been wrong before...so...

I wish that I was allowed to be this in your view but apparently you wish to tell me what I do or do not believe.

I do not wish to tell you what you do or do not "believe."

I am just wondering why you choose to use "atheist" since you do not "believe" there are no gods...and you also do not "believe" that the likelihood of there being at least one god is either equal to or more than the likelihood of there being at least one.

Seems "agnostic" or even "theistic" makes a lot more sense.

But I am willing to hear you out.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Why I put Frank on ignore. He is not very bright and quite belligerent.

You put me on IGNORE (if you actually did) because I was making you look like the fool you are...not because I am not very bright.

I am bright enough to hand you your ass...and that is what is gnawing at you.

 

[BidenPresident]

It was the work of the first theologians to turn "God" into a proposition.
"Does God exist."
Why is God a proposition?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Yes. But the world has a logic even God cannot transcend.

God is entirely redundant. If God created the world, then God can transcend it. He can do anything he wants. Putting limits on God is a feeble argument that basically neuters the entire concept of a Supreme Being. Doesn't sound very Supreme to me.

The word “God” is a place holder for whatever power created the Universe. Agreed such a power would be unlikely to be limited by the Natural Universe. Likewise putting a gender on such a power is equally silly. It’s anthropomorphism to assign human traits to something capable of creating the entire universe.