Did you read my post? I gave you an example of something it may want that explicitly is based on you not knowing what it wants. That is an example that doesn’t require it to make anything clear. And you still think your argument is airtight?
Why do you assume he wants you to know what he wants? You realize you are assuming that, right?
You are not very logical.
Douchebags do exist
A God that is a douchebag has as much chance of existing as one that is not (as far as any of us know).
If he doesn’t want to tell you because his goal explicitly hinges on you not knowing, then I would think you would care about his goal.
I disagree. A world in which everyone voluntarily does the good for its own sake is better than a world in which everyone voluntarily does the good because they are afraid they will be punished otherwise.
This may be a basic difference of values between you and me, though, because I can’t think up an argument to support the claim I just made other than “Isn’t it obvious?”
Trying a bit harder, I can point out that in practical terms someone who has done the good for its own sake is more likely to keep doing good than is someone who has done the good out of fear of punishment.
Sure, it would be better, but that doesn’t mean it’s actually going to happen. We already know what happens without an interventionist deity around to smite any evildoers, because that’s the world we’re living in right now. And in case you haven’t noticed, it’s not all sunshine and lollypops.
You are presenting this as a choice between A and B, when in reality it’s between A and C. It doesn’t matter how nice it would be if you could pick B, because you can’t.
It is probably because I am up at 5AM dreading the prospect of having to be up at 7AM, when normally I should have had at least seven hours of sleep by now. But I can’t understand how anything in this post is responsive to anything I said.
Here’s a start. Where did I “present” anything as a “choice” between anything, much less A and B?
So, what was the point of The Bible or any other ‘holy records’, if god’s point wasn’t to make his presence known? As I’ve said for a while, if believing in a god was anything but a man-made thing, it would be as natural as breathing in air.
And I’ve still not heard an adequate reason why religion arose when it did and not say, 10,000 years earlier. When did homo sapien first become susceptible to ‘god’s messages’, and why then?
Oh, and just so you know where I am coming from, I believe that tomato ketchup is made from the blood of young virgins, Jacob’s Cream Crackers are the embodiment of evil without the addition of cheese, and that the focusing of orgasmic energy helps me call forth powerful spirits, but I don’t go around bragging about my faith, or trying to convert anyone.
I give equal consideration to the debate on whether there is a God or not, so help me better explain this logic i heard an atheist say the other day.
“If there was a God, He would leave more of an impression, something to make Himself known.”
I have heard this on several occassions from a few sources, what exactly does it mean? What are they looking for? A logo?
[/quote]
Well, it all depends on what you make of Ockham’s Razor. I’m an atheist because I look at the universe around me and consider supernatural explanations to be unnecessary given the impressive calibre of natural explanations after millennia of scientific progress.
If gods did exist, I find it curious that they would leave the universe looking so eminently and completely natural to a 21st Century scientist. Some reason, any reason, to depart from this position is surely not too much to ask? Indeed, some “supernatural-looking” phenomenon would not itself constitute “proof”. It would, in fact, kick off a whole new science!
There is still plenty of evidence for gods. I just happen to think that it is outweighed by the evidence against them.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? It doesn’t matter if you presented four alternatives or four thousand, the one you claim God actually selected is not valid.
But your argument that it wasn’t valid had something to do with something about a “choice between A and B” which you were implying was some kind of false dichotomy, or something. But I never talked about such a choice. Your focus on the word “selected” in the abovequoted passage doesn’t explain your position any more clearly.
Here, forget what I said before. Start with this:
If someone is going to do good, it is best if they are doing good for the sake of doing good, and not for some other reason.
Fear of punishment, anticipation of reward, desire to win, and other such motivations make it difficult for a person to do good for its own sake.
If God’s existence were obvious, such motivations would be very strong in those to whom his existence is obvious.
So it is best if God’s existence is not obvious.
God does what’s best.
So God makes his existence non-obvious.
Remember, like I said, if there is a God, I have no idea why his existence is non-obvious. Pixies, probably. But I think the story I just told makes sense, and is a lot more humanistically compelling than the stories most people tell about this issue.
But where is it that you think the story I just told goes wrong, and how?
Do you feel good when you “do good”, or guilty when you don’t? Then you aren’t doing good for its own sake, and I suggest to you that doing good for “its own sake” is pleasant fiction.
People do good without direct external reward or punishment all the time, but they are nevertheless motivated by the culture and context that they were raised in to establish what it is they should feel good or bad about doing.
So, there would be no discernable difference between a society running around doing good to please a manifest and present god or to please the parents, teachers, coaches, priests and peers who established your criteria for guilt or pleasure (except that pleasing a manifest god would likely be more reliable and more universally effective, since there are individual differences in attention, anxiety, impulsivity and other factors involved in cognition and behavior).
Are you sure you are a disinterested seeker of wisdom? Since your writing style is strongly reminiscent of a disingenuous Christian trying unsuccessfully to sow some disinformation. But I’ll take your questions at face value.
It means: if gods existed in any meaningful sense then the universe would not look exactly as if there were no gods. Or, …you can restate it a hundred different ways. Take your pick. A browse through the archives of this very forum will provide hundreds of examples. I suspect that many believers are deliberately trying not to understand.
They are looking for: nothing. Atheists don’t go searching for the gods, since they don’t believe they exist. The search for proof (or any evidence) for the gods is conducted by believers.
A logo: no. A logo proves the existence of a graphic designer. It is evidence for the existence of a corporation or similar body. The believers are searching for miracles. It’s taking longer than they expected.
If you are going to judge the evidence for the gods based on logical analysis, then it is surprising that you have started by challenging the atheist position. Most logicians (cite unavailable) consider that the believers generally employ shakier logic than the atheists. For instance, my pastor told me an anecdote which might be presented as if athiests think god must have a logo: therefore, Jesus is Lord.
That’s probably due to your upbringing and the circumstance of your birth. Surely the child who starves to death prior to the age of five doesn’t feel that life was a wonderful gift.
It’s not really a choice. To have a choice one would have to know the options. Further, it’s never omnibenevolent to allow people to be tortured forever. I can’t see how on earth or anywhere else that such deliberate inaction can be looked at as good.
Um, actually yes, because DtC says so - since he specified that if God wants something from him.
If he wants DtC to believe without proof, then he should have made DtC into a person like some other theists; ie, people who accept claims without proof.
I think what you’ve described is not an agnostic, but a person who calls himself “spiritual but not religious.” We already had a thread on that.
I think you’re missing the point. Sure you can say “what if this” or “what if the other thing,” but the point is that there are infinitely many possibilities, and zero evidence for any of them. How can someone pick one and run with it as if it’s the Truth?
I could just as easily think up a god who thinks critical thinking is the highest Good, and refuses to make himself known to see whether we use these great brains that he created for us. People who believe stuff without evidence (all religious people) get sent straight to hell, while we skeptics are rewarded. In fact, this God is way more plausible than the “faith alone” version of Christianity.
And I still haven’t heard anyone address why faith could possibly be viewed as a good thing by any god. It’s so obviously a bad thing, what’s your justification for thinking that God wants us to have it?
Well, outside the religious realm, “faith” is used only to mean “trust placed in another trustworthy person”, as in “Grunion’s young for this mission, but he’ll do fine. I have faith in him.”
That’s the context for “faith” – trust and confidence in anothewr person’s faithfulness to oneself. Or put a capital P on Person. Faith is not supposed to be, placing one’s credence in a collection of unsubstantiated allegations. It’s putting one’s trust in another person known to yourself to be trustworthy. The secondary meanings of “group of believers” and “what it is that they believe” are just that: secondary. Much as if you said, “I trust Gary,” and in response to my question, “What’s Gary like?” you describe him to me, physical characteristics and personality.
The definition: “faith 3. a level of assurance held by the credulous in outrageous propositions unsubstantiated by facts” is really a misuse of the term – even though it does describe quite nicely the attitude of some who, having been convinced of God’s reality and hence the supposed total reliability of the Bible, take the attitude that what is now self-evident to them should be to everyone else too. But mockery in either direction is a zero-sum game. The point is that nobody in actuality holds that definition I wrote to begin this paragraph; it’s a tool used by the opponents of the folks who are wont to pontificate on what everybody ought to see as obvious.