25 things which make it hard for me to believe in God

Great Debates
141

Initially I thought that I could just extend my argument. There are ample screw-with-our-head opportunities that were passed up the hypothesized Great Evil One (GEO). We’ve had 200+ years of sustained technological progress: at some point you might figure that there is no punch line.

Ok, but Der had the head-mucking occur in the afterlife. But is seems to me that this world isn’t exactly primed for a pull-the-rug-out-from-under-you scenario. After all, there’s a striking absence of rules in 100 foot tall titanium pages and the like. So we’d have to conclude at the very least that GEO prefers atheists to agnostics and both of them to true believers. Or rather, he prefers to prod the latter.

Not sure where this is going.

142

Ok, but you’re not describing an omnimalevolent GEO, but rather a lazy one.

OTOH, the lazy GEO deity (LGEO) could actually be omnipotent - but probably not omniscient, since that would imply that negligible effort would be involved in stamping out all unaesthetic elements in his aquarium.

There are of course a number of other unsuccessful theories to dispense with the Problem of Good. These include “… good is a negative; everything is really evil, but some good is required to achieve evil ends…” etc. [sup]1[/sup] Admittedly, the “Mucking with your head in the afterlife” hypothesis lacks the good/evil symmetry of those other theories.

[sup]1[/sup] John Hospers: An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis

143

While were are discussing the Problem of Evil, could somebody explain to me the scriptural basis of the three Os?

I understand, “G-d is loving, when He is in the right mood,” and “G-d is merciful, but don’t press your luck,” but omnibenevolence seems to conflict with the Book of Job, among other chapters.

Omnipotence links to Revelations 19:6 (After that I heard what sounded like the shout of a vast throng, like the boom of many pounding waves, and like the roar of terrific and mighty peals of thunder, exclaiming, Hallelujah (praise the Lord)! For now the Lord our God the Omnipotent (the All-Ruler) reigns!) and 4:8 (And the four living creatures, individually having six wings, were full of eyes all over and within [underneath their wings]; and day and night they never stop saying, Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty (Omnipotent), Who was and Who is and Who is to come), but it’s not clear whether they were translated properly. Regardless, a little poetic license might be permitted to those giving praise.

Furthermore, methinks Revelations is either the nuttiest chapter in the bible, a careful allegory of ancient Roman politics written under censorship or an early work of science fiction or fantasy. Regardless, it’s an odd chapter to emphasize.

Isaiah 40:4-31, speaks of the Lord’s powers, but doesn’t claim omnipotence.

As for omniscience, I see nothing other than these rather more circumspect lines in Psalms 139:17:

“How precious to me are your thoughts, O God!
How vast is the sum of them!”

144

Would you believe charred leaves?

There is a spiritual dimension. If you wish to learn about it, there are certain steps that must be taken. The same with anything. Learning about material things requires an effort. Far too many on this board think the spiritual dimension should come to them without effort, it won’t happen, and you will never find God in a book written by man.

God is between the lines, in the gaps, all around you, everywhere you look. As Emmanual said: “you are like standing in the middle of a brilliantly lit room, with your eyes tightly shut, yelling for someone to turn on the lights.” Only you can turn on the lights by opening your eyes.

145

God isn’t omnipotent: Judges 1:19

146

Our little agreement didn’t last long, did it? At least say it factually:

There is a remote possibility, even though it’s never been proven (despite thousands of people trying), that maybe there’s a spirit world. Since we have no direct evidence of it other than dreams and hallucinations, we have no idea what it might or might not contain, but it’s pretty clear it has no direct influence over the world we actually live in…

…nah. You’re just not worth doing this with anymore, Lekatt. You have to be the most gullible person I’ve ever encountered. You’ll just believe anything, whether there’s evidence for it or not.

My question is, why would you come to a board like the Straight Dope, populated mostly by people with at least a passing acquaintance with logic and reality, and proselytize here?

147

There is all kinds of evidence, ancient and modern. Enough for 90% of the human race. As for proselytizing, I belong to no organization, get no points, for answering the misinformation of most on this board. I came here to enlighten, to provide straight dope where there is none. I show evidence regularly here, while none is shown to counter it. Can you prove there is no spiritual dimension?

The Magic Brain - Lekatt Thoughtful Living

some more evidence…

148

“What’s the difference between God and Godzilla ?”

“Godzilla can handle iron chariots.”

149

Given that those 90% are in violent disagreement about what they believe, it’s pretty clear that that ‘ancient and modern evidence’ doesn’t actually lead to any true conclusion, but is actually just an excuse for everyone to wander off in their own random direction and believe any old thing.

Real evidence isn’t quite so ambiguous.

150

When you are pushing your religious or spiritual point of view as fact, you’re proselytizing.

The onus is not on me to prove there isn’t. If I say there are fairies at the bottom of my garden, it’s not your responsibility to prove there aren’t. It’s my responsibility to prove there are. We’re in Great Debates here. You have to provide hard evidence to back up your point of view, and you have none. I don’t care what you dreamed last night or what someone else hallucinated while taking drugs or while their brain was oxygen-deprived. That’s not evidence. It’s conjecture.

You’re kidding, right? You post a link to someone’s philosophizing and guessing about what brain research is and call it evidence?

151

Isn’t a debating board for posting opposing views and hoping to convince someone your views are correct? I thought that is what debates are all about. That is not proselytizing, otherwise we all all doing that.

The onus is upon the one who makes the claim, if you claim there is no spirits then you would be obliged to prove it. I have provided hard evidence by research done in universities. You have provided nothing to support your claim.

152

That’s not debating. That’s flinging shit on the wall and hoping it sticks. A debate is a systematic process whereby you present your opposing view along with verifiable studies that support your conclusion.

153

Hey, if Noah could part the Red Sea, he wouldn’t have had to use the Ark. :smiley:

154

I have done that many times. While listening to the only counter evidence offered here as you have exemplified. Name calling and belittling. If that’s all the posters on this board can offer it should be renamed “no opposing views tolerated.” We are always right.

155

After reading this entire article, it is about consciouness, never mentioning a spirit world. It mentions NDE, and other unproven subject material written by one man
who has no real background on the subject, only a strong opinion.

Now what exactly does this article have to do that will refute ANY of the 25 reasons not to believe in god? Are we still on the subject?

And, no, charred leaves wouldn’t convince me either.

156

Now you have 26 reasons.

157

Now, now, of course YOU knew I meant Moses-- er, Jonah? :slight_smile:

Maybe a good addendum to these stories, perhaps in the St. Locrian version, would be to have Moses part that water and the silly whale just pukes out Jonah in the drained path.

(Okay… put down that pipe, Locrian…) :smack:

158

What? The fact that this supreme being created someone who continually posts links that support a completely different personal theory about–

Whoop! You mean the charred leaves. No, the leaves aren’t evidence. I meant the supposed witnesses (many Jews without food and water, the women at the tomb,
those who saw Jesus ascend into heaven, etc… )

159

Yes. Let’s not forget, the website is called “Thoughtful Living, a study of Near Death Experiences.” The OP states debatable reasons, a whole 25 of them ( which IMHO should be 2,500 ), and a near death experience site is going to refute reasons to NOT believe in god? Isn’t this beyond apples and oranges? It’s like, “I have 25 reasons not to like potatoes. What’s wrong with that?” And someone refutes with linking an article about dishwasher waste.

I’m not saying I don’t make mistakes, (hell, Dopers, you know I misquote, er… often)
but when I do, I don’t-- CAN’T refute a correction. If I accidentally posted a link about jazz guitar in a religious debate, I wouldn’t try to back it up. I’d post a :smack:

Lekatt, you’re making me worried, dude…

160

I’d rather make you informed or enlightened.