# Reasons for belief and disbelief in God **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 28, 2006, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964 "2006-01-28T07:02:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/161 "2006-02-01T02:00:21Z")
> [@](#): > > Matthew 17:20 > He replied, “Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.” Apparently mustard seeds are a lot bigger than Jesus realized, given all those stationary mountains. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/162 "2006-02-01T02:09:23Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Exactly! take the hungry child example and compare a lifetime to eternity. Wouldn’t the lifetime be the moment you mention. Wouldn’t a lifetime of let’s say 80 years with extreme hardship be a bruise when the goal {being pulled away from the socket}is heaven and the alternative {sticking a fork in the socket} is hell. I mean these metaphorically since I don’t believe in the heaven in the sky and hell a firey lake, but you get my point. > > That’s why this arguement fails for me because on one hand we say “if God is, and is benevolent then” but on the other hand we measure physical suffering from a human viewpoint. If you start from the “if God is” arguement then we must also assume a few other things. We are eternal spiritual beings and so whatever happens to our physical bodies is only temporary, in fact, a blink. Fair enough. But what if this is not the case? What if suffering exists in the afterlife, or if we are just reincarnated endlessly? There is no telling. And besides even if God did have some fundamental, permanent plan for us if it involves suffering he wrote the plan from his perspective and not ours. So his logic and values aren’t really pertinent to our lives as our values differ from gods. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/163 "2006-02-01T02:11:24Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > Apparently mustard seeds are a lot bigger than Jesus realized, given all those stationary mountains. That reminds me of a Bill Hicks joke about the pope: I love the Pope, I love seeing him in his Pope-Mobile, his three feet of bullet proof plexi-glass. That’s faith in action folks! You know he’s got God on his side. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/164 "2006-02-01T02:16:12Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Exactly! take the hungry child example and compare a lifetime to eternity. Wouldn’t the lifetime be the moment you mention. Wouldn’t a lifetime of let’s say 80 years with extreme hardship be a bruise when the goal {being pulled away from the socket}is heaven and the alternative {sticking a fork in the socket} is hell. I mean these metaphorically since I don’t believe in the heaven in the sky and hell a firey lake, but you get my point. No. Eighty years is eighty years. Besides, your position makes no sense. A God that would allow the suffering we see on Earth to happen either wouldn’t bother to make an afterlife, or would send us all to Hell for the sheer fun of it. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > That’s why this arguement fails for me because on one hand we say “if God is, and is benevolent then” but on the other hand we measure physical suffering from a human viewpoint. Since humans are the ones suffering, that’s what matters. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/165 "2006-02-01T02:35:31Z")
> [@Trust](#): > > Then copy and paste everything that you genuinely think is illogical that has no plausable way of being logical. I will answer any of them that I have not answered. I’m not going to copy and paste anything, You’re perfectly capable of scrolling upthread. Just to make things easy for you, though, I’ll post a simplified list of logical contradictions with Christian doctrine. I welcome your rebuttals. 1. It is logically impossible for evil to coexist with an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God. If evil exists, then God must lack at least one of those attributes. 2. It is logically impossible for an omnipotent God to require a human sacrifice (or anything else) in order to able to forgive people or protect them from his own wrath. 3. It is illogical to say that killing an innocent person relieves other people of culpability for their bad deeds. 4. The existence of people who choose to cause suffering is logically incompatible with the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent creator who can just as easily choose to create people who will NOT cause suffering. There is no conflict with free will in this statement. 5. The idea that humans are created with free will is itself a logically incoherent proposition. In order for people to choose, there has to be something underlying that choice. That is, there has to be some inherent moral quality which _causes_ the choice. If that quality is inherent, then the choice is not really free. In addition to this, I would point out that there are observable human beings who demonstrably do _not_ have any control of their behaviors. Does a person whose behavior is driven by psychosis or physiological anamolies in the brain have free will? The Texas Tower killer had a brain tumor. Did he really have free will? 6. It is illogical that a God who wants people to accept Jesus as their “saviour” (whatever that means) would refuse to communicate this to human beings or provide a shed of evidence that this is the case. The above list is barely scratching the surface. Have at it. > [@](#): > > You still think it is as easy as saying that A does not imply B. No idea what this is suposed to mean. > [@](#): > > If it was, why is this even a religion still? Why is any religion still a religion? Do you think that the mere existence of a religion proves it’s veracity? What kind of logic is that? > [@](#): > > You can prove that a 6000 year old earth is illogical because of the laws of the universe. No you can’t. A 6000 year-old earth, in itself, is neither logical nor illogical. There was, in fact, a time when the earth WAS 6000 years old. What you’re trying to say is that any assertion that the earth is NOW 6000 years old is incompatible with the physuical evidence (not with the laws of the universe. The laws of the universe do not prevent planets from being able to be 6000 years old). > [@](#): > > This leads to three options. > > 1. Someone says that the earth is 6000 years old and says that God does not work according to our laws. This is logical. It is incredibly unlikely since God would have to be incredibly deceitful since evidence says otherwise. The key distinction is that this could be challanged easily. It could not, however, be illogical. This is not a very coherent statement. What do laws have to do with anything? I guess what you’re trying to say is that it is not technically illogical to say that an omnipotent God could create a universe that looks much older than it actually is. While that is true, it’s also a rather useless and uninteresting observation. More importantly, it has no application the the very real logical problems which have been pointed out regarding Christian doctrine. > [@](#): > > Now I am simply showing that I am following number 1 (the same concept; I do not believe the earth is 6000 years old). There is nothing illogical with what I believe. There is plenty illogical, as I’ve already pointed out, and I fail to see how your 6000 year-old earth analogy has any relevance here. > [@](#): > > However, whether mine or yours is more likely is up to debate. If it was as easy as this question poses, we wouldn’t be arguing right now. It is not as easy as this question and is why we still have debates and why some of the smartest people believe one way and other incredibly smart people believe the other way. There is no clear distinction because it is not as easy as saying something is logical or illogical because they are both logical. [Note that my argument is not saying that you should believe one way or the other based on what anyone thinks. Rather my point is that if it were a simple question of looking at what is logical and illogical, there would be almost no smart people believing in it since it is so easily shown to be incorrect.] > > One is more likely though. One thing is for sure, neither point is illogical. Christian doctrine has plenty of logical problems, and plenty have noticed that, and none have resolved those problems . The fact that people still debate it means nothing at all. There are people who still say the earth is flat. The mere existence of a belief does not make it logical. > [@](#): > > I am afraid that you do not understand Christianity. Your bias is that you already understand the religion when you have already pointed out that you do not. With all due respect, you don’t know WHAT I know about Christianity and I promise you, my knowledge is more than casual. > [@](#): > > You have already shown us that you couldn’t even come up with a way that Christ’s suffering is necessary. I don’t understand why you think that’s a problem for ME. The fact that there is no logical way for an ominpotent God to require an external mechanism to accomplish his will is a problem for YOU. not for me. > [@](#): > > I just gave you a way that it was necessary off the top of my head. Just because **you** do not think it is likely, does not mean that it is illogical. The second you say that anything is “necessary” for God to accomplish his will. you’re saying that God is not all powerful. Your explanation made no sense anyway as I’ve pointed out multiple times now. > [@](#): > > The only difference is that people think that God is personal. No, the difference is that people think God is external to the universe (not to mention sentient). Saying that God IS the universe is semantically indistinguishible from saying there is no God. > [@](#): > > I will still argue with you that it is the same argument. The only difference being that we do not back ourselves into a wall by pinpointing one single concept (time) that allows the universe to be. I am sorry if you assumed that I think that God always was is the end of the story. If it was the end of the story, then you could just ask “well where did God come from”. Noone I know that has ever thought of the question thinks that that is the end of the story. They know that there are other premises to go along with this. One _possible_ explanation is Sentients explanation. The problem with this is that as our knowledge increases, it most likely not be anywhere near this simple. For whatever reason some people who do not believe act like we have to get all our answers correct right away. I adjust my viewpoint equally as our knowledge increases. I’m not really sure what any of this means or how it’s supposed to refute anything I’ve said but I will say that your penultimate sentence is utterly false. ---
**Author:** ![Trust](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b38774/32.png) [@Trust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trust)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/166 "2006-02-01T04:49:38Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I’m not going to copy and paste anything, You’re perfectly capable of scrolling upthread. Just to make things easy for you, though, I’ll post a simplified list of logical contradictions with Christian doctrine. I welcome your rebuttals. > > 1. It is logically impossible for evil to coexist with an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God. If evil exists, then God must lack at least one of those attributes. In a strict sense, sure. However, I believe that God allows evil to exist for a purpose so this does not make a difference based on my viewpoint of God. If you can show me that evil does not serve a purpose than you could persuade me to see your point. Otherwise this does not go against my view of God. Besides, if God did not make a concept in the world of “bad” and “good” then there is no discernable way for us to make correct decision in His eyes. This goes completely against other premises of God. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > 1. It is logically impossible for an omnipotent God to require a human sacrifice (or anything else) in order to able to forgive people or protect them from his own wrath. Who said it is required? What we are saying is that it is required if we are going to be able to be saved. Here is the reasoning: Premise 1: God is a just God. Premise 2: God is omnipotent. (Premise 3: God cares for His creation.) Option A: God simply forgives us for everything we have done and allow us to live. _This is invalid because it goes against the premise that God is a just God. All the injustice that other people caused us would go unpunished._ (Option B: God simply forgives us for everything we have done but still kills us_This is not logical since it goes against premise 3 that God cares about us._) Option C: God gives a human sacrifice. \*This is logical since he a)uses His power, and b) does not go against being a just God. There is no other possible way for us to be saved AND for God to be just. \* If you see anything wrong with my logic please explain. For whatever reason you think that God is not allowed to make decisions. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > 1. It is illogical to say that killing an innocent person relieves other people of culpability for their bad deeds. Not at all. It allows God to be just and allow us to live. I must remind you: All of the conclusions have to be true in a logical statement for the conclusion to be true. [Provided the premises are true]. Therefore, if I can point out one possible way that your conclusion is not true, your argument is invalid. Therefore, you cannot claim that I am being illogical unless there is no possible explanation. This also shows that everything comes back to faith. All it takes is **one** example that goes against your logic. How about God makes it so that killing Christ relieves other people of their culpability for their bad deeds. God determines how culpability relates to us. Therefore, your argument is invalid. It makes no difference whether you think this is likely or not, it is still an invalid argument since one example went against your proposal. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > 1. The existence of people who choose to cause suffering is logically incompatible with the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent creator who can just as easily choose to create people who will NOT cause suffering. There is no conflict with free will in this statement. **Everyone** who has free will, causes suffering. You are proposing that a line be drawn at random to decide how “bad” and “good” people are when you have no way of comparing how God defines “bad” and “good”. Suffering is still a concept that we made up. Once again though, I believe that God allows suffering. He doesnt have to, but he does for the greater good. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > 1. The idea that humans are created with free will is itself a logically incoherent proposition. In order for people to choose, there has to be something underlying that choice. That is, there has to be some inherent moral quality which _causes_ the choice. If that quality is inherent, then the choice is not really free. In addition to this, I would point out that there are observable human beings who demonstrably do _not_ have any control of their behaviors. Does a person whose behavior is driven by psychosis or physiological anamolies in the brain have free will? The Texas Tower killer had a brain tumor. Did he really have free will? Might I point out that essentially you’re trying to justify your point of view by saying that simply because we do not have a mechanism by how something works, that it does not work. This is completely illogical. It could work, it could not work. We do not know. Is it possible for something to be true, but we do not have a mechanism by how it is true? Quantum mechanics is not true huh? > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > 1. It is illogical that a God who wants people to accept Jesus as their “saviour” (whatever that means) would refuse to communicate this to human beings or provide a shed of evidence that this is the case. My friend. If there was no way of anyone knowing that Jesus was our savior, then we would have no concept of Him. We are talking about Him right now and the fact that He is a “saviour”, therefore He has given a “shed of evidence”. We have a concept of Him and it is completely clear what is expected of us. Therefore, there is no problem with the logic. You can disagree with how much evidence we have. Fine. But you cannot find anything wrong with the logic. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Why is any religion still a religion? Do you think that the mere existence of a religion proves it’s veracity? What kind of logic is that? No. I think that if you could say that A implies B then 3 out of 4 people in the US would not believe it. It’s that simple. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > No you can’t. A 6000 year-old earth, in itself, is neither logical nor illogical. There was, in fact, a time when the earth WAS 6000 years old. What you’re trying to say is that any assertion that the earth is NOW 6000 years old is incompatible with the physuical evidence (not with the laws of the universe. The laws of the universe do not prevent planets from being able to be 6000 years old). You know very well that I am talking about from today. You use the laws of the universe to determine how the physical evidence applies. Without there being a set rule to how things work, we could not figure out what year anything is from. Besides we are talking about what is logical and illogical. You cannot differentiate between the likelyhood of something happening and whether or not something is logical. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > This is not a very coherent statement. What do laws have to do with anything? The laws prove to us that the earth is older than 6000 years. The easy way to show that a statement such as “Today, the earth is 6000 years old” is by using the laws of the universe. These laws do not change. Therefore, we can use those laws to analyze the physical evidence. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I guess what you’re trying to say is that it is not technically illogical to say that an omnipotent God could create a universe that looks much older than it actually is. While that is true, it’s also a rather useless and uninteresting observation. More importantly, it has no application the the very real logical problems which have This is exactly what I am saying. It is also the exact same when you apply this to Christian doctrine. I can always find an example that shows that you are being invalid for everything that I believe about God. [QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] Christian doctrine has plenty of logical problems, and plenty have noticed that, and none have resolved those problems . The fact that people still debate it means nothing at all. There are people who still say the earth is flat. The mere existence of a belief does not make it logical. It has logical problems when you only consider Christianity from your viewpoint. It does not have logical problems when you consider it from my viewpoint. All we are arguing about is how little your ability is to see another persons viewpoint. You assume that our viewpoints of Christianity are the same. Of coarse they are not going to be the same. The mere number of people who still believe is at least a hint that it is not as easy as you propose. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I don’t understand why you think that’s a problem for ME. The fact that there is no logical way for an ominpotent God to require an external mechanism to accomplish his will is a problem for YOU. not for me. You are the one accusing me of being illogical. Since you are accusing me, you must show a possible alternative that does not go against my premises of who God is. There is none. The only one that comes even close is reincarnation but at the same time you open up a whole nother can of worms. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > The second you say that anything is “necessary” for God to accomplish his will. you’re saying that God is not all powerful. Your explanation made no sense anyway as I’ve pointed out multiple times now. Of coarse it is “necessary”. If God’s plan is to have a relationship with us, then it is “necessary” to have a relationship with us. What kind of statement is that anyway. What you don’t get is that simply because God is not required to do anything, it does not mean that he cannot do anything. This is not a fallacy. ---
**Author:** ![Trust](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b38774/32.png) [@Trust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trust)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/167 "2006-02-01T04:56:45Z")
Look **Dio** , this could go on forever. After you take a look at the above logical explanations and give your opinion, I suggest that we focus our time on the overall example instead of simple examples that you are proposing. I assure you that all you are doing is basing your viewpoint on 90 percent of what I believe. Once you realize that I can always come up with a way that your statement is invalid, you will realize that we don’t have to keep going back and forth. The entire point of what I am trying to say is that it is idiotic to try and attempt to demonstrate how belief in God/Christ is illogical. All I have to do is show you another premise that goes against yours that demonstrated an added viewpoint of God. Therefore, instead of spending your time trying to show that something is illogical when you will not be able to do it, you should spend your time showing why your viewpoint is more likely in your opinion. As soon as you tell someone that they are being illogical, they are going to come up with 20 ways that they are being logical which completely proves your point useless. Then not only did you just accuse someone of being illogical, you also proved that you do not have a grasp on logic. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/168 "2006-02-01T05:04:50Z")
> [@Trust](#): > > Then not only did you just accuse someone of being illogical, you also proved that you do not have a grasp on logic. The second I quote this, a massive number of Irony Meters exploding is heard. But really, Dio (dances in the night), has show a massive ammount of how Christian beliefs, as codified are wishfull thinking, not logical facts, and you have replied by coming up with a few reasons why Christianity would not be illlogical, if it was just completly diffrent. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/169 "2006-02-01T07:36:19Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Exactly! take the hungry child example and compare a lifetime to eternity. Wouldn’t the lifetime be the moment you mention. Wouldn’t a lifetime of let’s say 80 years with extreme hardship be a bruise when the goal {being pulled away from the socket}is heaven and the alternative {sticking a fork in the socket} is hell. I mean these metaphorically since I don’t believe in the heaven in the sky and hell a firey lake, but you get my point. > > That’s why this arguement fails for me because on one hand we say “if God is, and is benevolent then” but on the other hand we measure physical suffering from a human viewpoint. If you start from the “if God is” arguement then we must also assume a few other things. We are eternal spiritual beings and so whatever happens to our physical bodies is only temporary, in fact, a blink. But isn’t one beating worth a lifetime of safety by your argument? If you can prove that the suffering is absolutely required for salvation, fine, but do you really believe that God cannot accomplish his goals with less suffering? Your argument would be perfect for the Inquisitor, who would justify torturing the heretics to get them to convert and gain eternal paradise. Is that where you want to go with this? You have just demonstrated my number one beef against religion - or many religions. The argument of the absolute allows one to treat our human life as trivial. It drives even good and moral people to apologize and countenance immoral actions. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 7:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/170 "2006-02-01T07:46:35Z")
> [@Trust](#): > > Your entire argument is under the assumption that you understand every reason for what happened. You do not know every reason, therefore your argument is invalid. No. To show god is not omnibenevolent, I need only show that one death is pointless. It is you who must show that there is a reason for all of them. One baby who god killed where he could have saved is enough for god to not be perfect. > [@](#): > > It is a perfectly logically question to ask why so much terrible destruction takes place. It shows that if you believe in God, we either need a ton of intelligent reasons to get out of the question, or you simply do not know the reasons. It certainly does not make your argument valid though. It could be true, but at the same time it could be false. The entire reason you think that this argument is valid is because you think that humans are smart. I would argue that we incredibly stupid compared to God. Therefore, just because we cannot come up with a _good_ reason, does not make untrue. Noone is arguing with you on the stance that this is less likely. We are arguing on the fact that this argument is valid. You should try to construct an argument - you have not done so. If I may for you, it is God is omnibenevolent because Even when natural disasters happen, god has a reason for each death and each instance of suffering. How do we know god has a reason? Because he is omnibenevolent. That is a textbook case of circular reasoning. You have no reason to believe god had a reason for this, except your belief that he is good. Since I have given evidence that he is not good, you need to do better than to just assert that he is, that there is a reason for it. Here’s yet another problem. Most of the victims of the flood were not Christian, and thus not in a state of grace by your lights. I’m sure that at least one, and probably more, would have converted if they had lived. God, by killing them early, sentenced them to hell instead of heaven. What’s that about? As for the argument that suffering is required to teach us about god’s grace: most theists say, when challenged about why god does not give a sign, that if god did our free will would be violated. Yet, if the disaster is supposed to be a sign to worship god, isn’t our free will just as violated? If God was in the business of giving signs, how about curing AIDS or miraculously feeding the hungry? I trust that you have a better argument than saying god knows best. That is a very feeble one indeed. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 7:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/171 "2006-02-01T07:56:40Z")
> [@Tevildo](#): > > Two quick points I’d make here. > > 1. I can agree with the conclusion of your argument - “God is not omnibenevolent”. However, I would _not_ include omnibenevolence as one of the necessary attributes of God, unlike omnipotence or omniscience. Indeed, it’s debatable whether or not benevolence is always a virtue - is it a quality you’d want to see in a judge or a general? General no. Judge, yes. Omnibenevolence does not mean making each person happy - it means maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering. Pain protects us, an omnibenevolent god would not remove our capacity for pain. > [@](#): > > I accept that the argument “The amount of suffering that God allows means that He’s evil by human standards, and therefore not worthy of worship by humans” is valid, or, at least, rational. However, it’s not an argument against the _existence_ of God. Quite right. It is just an argument against the existence of one of the many types of gods. The Greek gods were hardly omnibenevolent, so this argument does not work against them at all. **Trust** seems to think God is just wonderful. My argument is that he isn’t all that great. An evil god is still a god, after all. > [@](#): > > 1. I still think the “free will” argument, or something close to it, is valid here. If we can avoid fatalism by allowing the human mind to be free of God’s direct control, I don’t see any reason why we shouldn’t give the same liberty to natural phenomena, such as earthquakes and tsunamis. I don’t want to ascribe anything like “mind” to the Earth, but I still feel there’s room in a theistic universe for genuine chance - for events that aren’t under the direct control of God. If you’re saying something like “God should have intervened to prevent the tsunami”, we can then go on to “God should intervene to prevent any sort of evil”, and destroy free will in the process. Something like “God should have designed the Universe so that tsunamis didn’t happen” implies that the person making the statement knows more about designing universes than God does, and I don’t think anyone’s in that position - as yet. 🙂 If the argument is “God should have made the tsunami cause less suffering”, I would repeat my original point; what objective, non-human standards do we have to say whether a given level of suffering is “excessive”? Rock just gotta be free? 😃 God may not need to control everything, but he knows what will happen and he can control it. Thus, him not stopping it is morally equivalent, for god, of him starting the flood. I have problems with the free will argument also, since it seems to mostly say that any intervention is the equivalent of making us robots. For this argument, I’ll just say that I can accept for the while that not violating free will is an adequate reason for god to not interfere with human created evil. If god had stopped the tsunami, or had directed it elsewhere, no one would have ever know that he was involved. We had a scare in California slightly thereafter - it was nothing. Now if god had indeed stopped that one, my free will seems to be still intact. So I’m not saying that natural disasters should never happen, just that they could be minimized. And remember, in my view it is excessive if even one person died for no reason. That wipes out omnibenevolence. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/172 "2006-02-01T08:12:27Z")
> [@Trust](#): > > Who said it is required? What we are saying is that it is required if we are going to be able to be saved. Here is the reasoning: > > Premise 1: God is a just God. > Premise 2: God is omnipotent. > (Premise 3: God cares for His creation.) > > Option A: God simply forgives us for everything we have done and allow us to live. _This is invalid because it goes against the premise that God is a just God. All the injustice that other people caused us would go unpunished._ A just judge metes out punishment to suit the crime. Would you consider it justice if a mass murderer were given the same punishment as a man who stole a loaf of bread to feed his starving child? But that is exactly your god does. Thus, your premise that god is just is contradicted. > [@](#): > > Option C: God gives a human sacrifice. \*This is logical since he a)uses His power, and b) does not go against being a just God. There is no other possible way for us to be saved AND for God to be just. \* Bullshit. Why is this logical, or even necessary? God told Abraham to spare Isaac and sacrifice a lamb instead, proving that a lamb is good enough. You have given absolutely no reason why god cannot do that now. If he cannot, he is not omnipotent, and your second premise is contradicted. I’d advise you to go out and get a book on constructing logical arguments. You have lots of energy, and you seem very sincere, and a nice guy, but your arguments are a mix of assertions and non sequiturs. I’m sure you can do a lot better. ---
**Author:** ![Taber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ac91a4/32.png) [@Taber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Taber)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 8:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/173 "2006-02-01T08:21:03Z")
> [@Trust](#): > > Who said it is required? What we are saying is that it is required if we are going to be able to be saved. Here is the reasoning: > > Premise 1: God is a just God. > Premise 2: God is omnipotent. > (Premise 3: God cares for His creation.) > > Option A: God simply forgives us for everything we have done and allow us to live. _This is invalid because it goes against the premise that God is a just God. All the injustice that other people caused us would go unpunished._ > > (Option B: God simply forgives us for everything we have done but still kills us_This is not logical since it goes against premise 3 that God cares about us._) > > Option C: God gives a human sacrifice. \*This is logical since he a)uses His power, and b) does not go against being a just God. There is no other possible way for us to be saved AND for God to be just. \* > > If you see anything wrong with my logic please explain. For whatever reason you think that God is not allowed to make decisions. Option C is illogical, as it denies premise 1, unless you care to claim that killing the only non-sinner in a large group of sinners to pay for the sinning is somehow justice. > [@Trust](#): > > Not at all. It allows God to be just and allow us to live. I must remind you: > > All of the conclusions have to be true in a logical statement for the conclusion to be true. [Provided the premises are true]. Therefore, if I can point out one possible way that your conclusion is not true, your argument is invalid. > > Therefore, you cannot claim that I am being illogical unless there is no possible explanation. This also shows that everything comes back to faith. > > All it takes is **one** example that goes against your logic. How about God makes it so that killing Christ relieves other people of their culpability for their bad deeds. God determines how culpability relates to us. Therefore, your argument is invalid. It makes no difference whether you think this is likely or not, it is still an invalid argument since one example went against your proposal. I don’t think you can dispel logic proofs with bizarre hypotheticals, and I think God redefining justice in order to make his actions just counts as a bizarre hypothetical. Consider a sample proof premise: mammals that don’t have wings can’t fly under their own power premise: dogs are mammals premise: dogs don’t have wings conclusion: dogs can’t fly I could argue against this arguement by claiming some genetic engineer could, at some point in the future give dogs wings. By your standard, would that invalidate my proof that dogs can’t fly? ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 10:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/174 "2006-02-01T10:22:14Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > A just judge metes out punishment to suit the crime. Would you consider it justice if a mass murderer were given the same punishment as a man who stole a loaf of bread to feed his starving child? But that is exactly your god does. Thus, your premise that god is just is contradicted… It’s worse than that, take the bread, stealing, go to hell, let your child starve to death, murder, go to hell. **Trust** , I’d really like you to address my questions in post [126](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7052255&postcount=126) ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 10:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/175 "2006-02-01T10:43:37Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > **Trust** , the word “agnostic” doesn’t mean what you think it does. Agnostic does not mean “undecided.” Agnosticism is the position that it’s _impossible to know_ something. A simple absence of belief in gods is called “atheism.” > > With regard to theistic belief. You are mistaken at the outset if you think the proper logical default is to be “undecided” and this to be a question with logically equivalent or plausible answers. The logical default is to assume that X does not exist until somebody proves that it does. > > Do you start off “undecided” about the existence of werewolves or Ewoks? Do you think that non-belief in those things needs to be “rationalized” or “justified?” > > The proposition that “sky gods exist” has no more _prima facie_ plausibility than the proposition that smurfs exist. Interesting. Although I understand the comparison of God to elves and Unicorns I always had the nagging suspicion that it wasn’t actually the same thing, although I was unable to put my finger on it. I suspected it might be my own belief resisting the comparison but now I believe it to be more substantial than that. Terms like Elves or Unicorns and fairies don’t require anything of us other than belief or non belief. God strikes to something deeper within us. Questions like ,why are we here? Is there a purpose to my life? Why is there so much suffering? Where did we come from? Is there something after physical death? All are tied to the term God but not Unicorns and fairies. We may have different opinions, beliefs and feelings about those questions but inevitably they are tied to the term God in a way that sets it apart from other terms. Whether unicorns exist or not does not impact my life in any significant way. The answer to these profound questions, and their connection to the term God, certainly does. As a child we may believe in Santa and as we grow we easily abandon this belief. I think the perennial questions about life persist and inevitably will bring at least a passing consideration of God. For that reason I have trouble believing we start out in disbelief mode. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/176 "2006-02-01T11:00:57Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > I reject the fiirst premise, that everything has a cause. Causation is **dependent upon time** , specifically on there being a time when X is not the case and another time when X is the case. > > Modern cosmology tells us that the universe has [always](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=203743) existed, _ie._ there is never a time of **no** universe, nor any nothing-to-something transition. How can something that’s _always been everywhere_ be “caused”? I believe you mentioned in another thread that the Big Bang, rather than an event in the past, is still going on. Is that right? If so, could you explain? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/177 "2006-02-01T11:29:08Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Here ya go > > I think everyone should read the Bible - not the children’s Bible, with the interesting stuff left out, but the real Bible. It’s full of stuff like this. The religious keep themselves busy finding explanations for all of it. > > As for your quote, I guess no one has faith, since I haven’t seen any mountains moving lately. 😛 I’ve read the NT a lot but not the OT. I did read Leviticus once because someone suggested it might help me understand the sacrifice of Jesus and atonement. Boy were they wrong. It only made me amazed that anyone could read it and still think of the Bible as the word of God. It also changed my view of the blood atonement doctrine. It went from something I never really understood to something I decided I didn’t believe , to something that I found slightly offensive. Thanks Leviticus. Or at least not enough faith, although you might say getting England to allow India home rule was moving a Mt. or the civil rights struggle in the US moving a Mt. Those seem like the important ones anyway. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/178 "2006-02-01T13:11:58Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Here is the logical argument. > Premise: > God allows natural disasters and suffering for some purpose. If suffering existed for no purpose, then god is clearly not omnibenevolent. > Premise 2: God is omnipotent. If not, he might not be able to reduce suffering. > > If god is omnibenevolent, then he will create/allow the minimal amount of suffering to achieve his purpose. Clearly any suffering above this minimum is unnecessary to achieve god’s purpose, and shows that god is not omnibenevolent. > > Observation: Excessive suffering from natural causes happens in the world. We’d clearly be just as awed from 100,000 dying in the flood as 200,000 - or 100,001. Perhaps some of the people killed were evil, and their death would preserve the life of someone else, but surely not everyone! So, if you wish to claim that god is omnibenevolent, you must also claim that the death of each person in the tsunami was necessary. I’ll contend that this is not a rational claim, on the face of it, unless you assume that god is omnibenevolent, so that every action of his is necessary. And this, of course, is assuming your conclusion, and is illogical. > > Conclusion: Based on our observation of the world, god is not omnibenevolent. > > A similar case is those fundamentalists who defend god killing everyone in the flood, or god commanding Moses to kill all of a tribe. I say that any god worth our worship would sentence people who accuse god of these crimes to hell. Since you have stated that you are not a literalist, this does not apply to you, so don’t take me wrong. But do think about the tsunami. If we assume God then we assume that we are spiritual beings rather than physical right? Assuming that the death of our bodies is only change rather than any loss or suffering. Starvation and illness qualify. Even in those examples much of our suffering is self induced. It is the fear of death that induces much of the suffering. Can we consider that we must confront this fear in one way or another to conquer it. Regarding illness. Briefly check out [Mattie Stepanek](http://www.mattieonline.com/about.htm) Do we admire individuals who handle serious illness so bravely? Why? Does it help others in any way? ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/179 "2006-02-01T13:31:36Z")
> [@CJJ](#): > > I’m not sure I did that [accept any possibility that the premise “everything has a cause” might not be absolutely true], and it was certainly not my intention; I apologize if I was unclear. When I said was that some causes can be non-sentient, I did not mean that non-sentience disqualifies something from being a cause of something else. > > To be clear, I assert everything has a cause; my remarks about contingency and the temporal restrictions on causality were merely to illustrate ways one could recognize a cause for a particular effect. Which is why I embarked on the discussion of cosmology to show that that assertion of yours _might not_ be true: your position is that it _is_, mine is that it’s _not_, but I would hope that we could both agree that either of us _might_ be correct. My remarks about the nature of time (_ie. change in configuration_, such that a configuration staying the same can equivalently be described as having time _stop_ or having time _continue back forever without **change** _) were meant to show that “causation” is a very human concept which simply doesn’t apply to the counterintuitive weirdness of either quantum entities or cosmology (or _especially_ quantum cosmology). Again, how can something that has **never** not existed be said to have been “caused”? > [@](#): > > I’m glad you included “perhaps”, because defining logic as “what a Turing machine does” is circular. Logic is the study of the structure of propositions (as distinguished from their content) and of method and validity in deductive reasoning. I questioned whether such a thing exists prior to the appearance of humanity if “truth is the output of a meat machine, and as such did not exist for 13.7 billion years.” Most folk (I’m guessing here) would say logic is independent of humanity, which I think could undermine your definition of truth. Well, arguments _ad populum_ don’t undermine anything much. And my point was that logic, whatever its definition, _is_ what a Turing machine _does_ - to say that it is “independent of humanity” is an extraordinary claim to make, requiring extraordinary evidence to support it. Have you read [Where Mathematics Comes From](http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0465037712/203-3935803-9467112)? Lakoff makes IMO a very strong case that logic came from simple observations in our evolutionary past, such that the organism whose Turing machine outputs had more relevance to the environment would be fitter than those whose outputs bore little or no relevance: _ie._ that simple ‘rules’ of logic (_reductio ad absurdans, modus ponens etc._) arose in animal/human brains over those billions of years and could not really be said to be “out there” (_a la_ Plato) in any meaningful way. I strongly recommend it, at least in order that you, again, appreciate the _possibility_ that I’m right. > [@](#): > > The question is an old connundrum that exposes the defects in many concepts of knowledge. Note that I don’t think there’s _any such thing_ as “knowledge”, except as convenient shorthand for “strong belief” (_ie._ a cognitive output to which is attached a high degree of confidence - a strong deviation of our Belief-O-Meter needle, if you will). After all, there is a [possibility](http://www.simulation-argument.com/) that everything I think I “know” is nonsense. > [@](#): > > For example, by limiting the transmission of cause -\> effect to only physical mechanisms (falling tree -\> sound -\> perception by a listener), one could also apply the same limitation to the cause and effect behind knowing that a falling tree with no observer still makes a sound. Since there is no observer present to be affected by a physical mechanism, one could also argue that we cannot know the tree made a sound because there is no physical cause to produce this knowledge. Ah, but those observers still agree on that physical mechanism for when observers _are_ present, so they would have to propose a **reason for change** in that mechanism when observers _aren’t_. I agree that we can’t “know” that it _doesn’t_ change, but of course my position is that we can’t know _anything_ for “absolutely certain”. But that is beside the point in this instance: it is still incumbent upon those who suggest it _doesn’t_ make a sound to _propose a reason why not_. > [@](#): > > To glibly sum it up, why should the arguer have to propose a physical mechanism for something failing to happen (sounds a lot like requiring someone to prove God doesn’t exist) when the physical mechanism is incapable of explaining how we know that something happened? Because the two are independent, and linking them is IMO a non sequitur. The physical mechanism of how we come to “know” things is the domain of cognitive science and neuropsychology, which are in their infancy - such a goal is the challenge of this millennium, despite enormous progress in just a few decades to date. But the physical mechanism for how sound waves propagate from moving objects is as incontrovertible as the round Earth and the Holocaust: to suggest that an unobserved falling tree mightn’t make a sound is to suggest that the Earth might be flat or that the Holocaust might be a myth. > [@](#): > > I agree (though I think you meant to say the horse must be placed before the cart). Yes, silly me. > [@](#): > > It’s foolish to think “force” isn’t real in some way, and that this reality doesn’t represent some kind of truth independent of whether or not a human being is there to evaluate it. Whoa, I didn’t sign up for that at all! I’m saying that “force” is a human word for a specific arrangement in spacetime, an instance of something massive changing momentum. I’m also saying that things changed direction in those 13.7 Bn years without humans, and continued to after humans appeared. But “truth independent of humans”? That’s taking my position too far. Remember, I say that “truth” is an “output”: without something to do the outputting, I say “truth” is as absent as “happiness”. And I certainly wouldn’t say that _happiness_ existed for those billions of years of swirling galactic dust clouds, for example. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/180 "2006-02-01T13:37:42Z")
> [@Trust](#): > > You must be really proud of your thread. As a straight dope member with quite a few posts, could you please answer my questions honestly. I always try to be as honest as I can, but don’t be fooled by postcounts! Like ayone here, I’m just one six-billionth of humanity trying to make sense of my predicament. > [@](#): > > 1. Can we agree on the fact that the theory that something has always been (time or the universe or God or whatever you want to come up with) does not make sense to us? It is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility, we just cannot grasp the knowledge. It takes a propensity to belief (accept) the position, and is no doubt somewhat easier to take in once we accept it. But that does not change the fact that it still does not make complete sense to us. With all due respect, maybe it doesn’t make sense to you, but it _does_ make sense to me. But then again, I did a PhD in physics (acoustics, actually, but I always kept abreast of cosmology too) and have read around the subject extensively. However, I understand where you’re coming from (more on this phrase in a moment!). Our intuitions of time and space arise from living on a planet where every space _does_ have a “next to” and every time _does_ have a “before” - we simply have no first-hand experience of time stopping or space having a boundary, so we have to make do with analogies and metaphors. [Here’s another thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=6335126&postcount=74) in which I try to make some more helpful ones. > [@](#): > > All you are essentially doing is changing the idea of something coming from nothing to time coming from nothing. No, you fundamentally misunderstand an important point: the phrase “coming from” is still **temporal language**. By using those very words you imply a **time** when there was nothing and a **different time** when there was time. The universe has _never_ **not** existed. > [@](#): > > It’s just a concept. If that satisfies you then you have a propensity to believe in your favor. Without the propensity to believe it you are at the same spot you started at. I suggest _reading some books_ in order to affect (or at least _inform_) your beliefs. Brian Greene’s “The Fabric of the Cosmos” and Stephen Hawking’s “The Universe in a Nutshell” are good starting points. > [@](#): > > 1. Christianity (besides certain viewpoints on genesis as an example), have nothing wrong with the logic. It always comes down to faith. Simply put, if it was as easy as showing that A did not mean B, then we could show that the religion was a fallacy. However, it relies on unknown facts, and is therefore based on faith. Sorry, what’s the question here? One can hold all kinds of strange premises but still _combine_ them in a logical way. I’ll accept that Christian, Hindu or Norse theology might be logically [valid](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity), but since I dispute the truth of the initial premises I don’t accept that they’re logically [sound](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundness). > [@](#): > > Excuse my bluntness, but with all due respect, it appears as if you took a theory that is thousands of years old that says God has always existed, and simply put the “Universe” instead of “God” in there and act like it’s some big break through. Please explain to me why the reaction on this board is to say that there is nothing to argue. Because it _makes sense_ to them. I dunno, perhaps they’ve read the books I suggest. Of course, the big difference is that nobody I know of denies the existence of the universe. They might call it a _subset_ of God, or whatever, but God is definitely an _additional_ entity to the bare minimum which we all agree on. > [@](#): > > Yet when someone says the exact same theory as you and puts the word “God” instead of “Universe” in it, people have no problem saying the theory is not logical and “God had to have come from somewhere”. If that is not a bias, what is? Well, you’ll have to ask the people who say that an eternal God isn’t logical, because I don’t. I just say He’s [unnecessary](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964.md?page=10)