Closer to what Dio is saying would be if the assertion were that the sum of two rational numbers is never a rational number. Then your equation would be a disproof. And your additional premis might be that 3/4 is not rational, therefore the statement might be true.
When you do proofs, they are based on the rules of logic and a set of premises. You cannot claim a proof is wrong because you can throw in another premise at the end!
Consider the Four Color Problem before it was proven. The absence of a known example of a map that needed more than four colors, despite centuries of looking, was strong evidence, if not proof, that no such map existed. (It turns out no such map does exist.) Someone saying that the proposition was not true because someone might find a graph is absurd - all you could say is that it might not be true, which was accepted until the proof was found.
I always thought belief was illogical by definition. That does not mean that the belief is false, just illogical until evidence is found. We can only disprove certain instances of god, as Dio did, just as we could only prove that certain maps needed only four colors. But while believing a god or five colorable map exists without evidence is not irrational, it is not logical.
Yes, if perfectly good means always perfectly good then this is a logical fallacy.
Maybe you could help me by showing me who even believes this in the first place. I have no doubt whatsoever that there is some sect of Christianity that believes this but could you actually find an example so we can make logical judgments taking into account all the other beliefs they hold. I have never heard of anyone saying that God is omnibenevolent. Everytime I have heard someone refer to God they refer to him as benevolent.
(Now the only reason this example does not have an easily added premise is because the only premise that I can come up with is absurd. One could say that human logic is not compatable with Gods logic. This would make the logic valid but it is so stupid that if it is true, it is a non-issue. If God uses logic that goes against ours, we have no way of knowing what anything really is. I dismiss this for obvious reasons. I do not dismiss the fact that God knows infinitely more than us and is thus an incredibly better judge for all things.)
Meh. . I think this also comes down to a propensity to believe. Perfectly good, once again has to be defined better. When I hear that God is perfectly good I think that he is perfectly good and that simply because he allows us to do evil does not make him imperfect.
First off you know that I believe in free will. That leads to two ways of looking at this and the second is a problem.
Since we have a choice, we are not “engineered” to do something a certain way. Noone is denying that our circumstances affect who we are. What I am saying is that perfectly similar circumstances can still lead to two completely different choices.
Since God knows everything, even though he gave us free will, he knows all of the choices that we will/would/have made. This goes back to what Dio was saying. Why would God make people who are evil? In other words, why did God not just make heaven on earth? Why go through all this bullshit? It’s a very good question. I could attempt to answer but I am afraid that my answers wont be all that adequate to our all-knowing maker.
(If you think that this means that Christianity is impossible because I cannot answer this question, then please have an intelligent conversation with me about this. I 100 % disagree that simply because I do not know some answers that something is completely impossible).
I disagree. I think of perfectly good meaning perfectly good other than the necessary actions that got us here today and allow us to have the abilities we have today.
The fact that God chose to allow us to have these abilities today does not comment on whether he is omnipotent or not. It simply means he made a choice. He was not required to do anything, but he did. He could be omnipotent. He might not be. I can start to see your point but I dont see how you can make the jump to illogical. For it to be illogical, that would mean that God is required to disregard human logic. For example, if we are black, we are not white. If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that if God cannot make someone black and white at the same time then he is not omnipotent. Is this correct?
Because if he didnt, he would either have made us be robots or he would have contradicted other premises such as faith being a way that we find God.
This is where I disagree. It was not necessary at all. He could very well have made us with free will but not allowed evil in the world. This is a contradiction on my other premises that says that God gives us a way to decipher what he thinks of as good and bad. He simply chose to allow it for the sake of free will and being able to discern right and wrong in his eyes.
Yes the problem could actually have been proven true with a logical proof. So yes, the actual problem was the opposite of what I am trying to prove. The main point I was showing is that the way the proof was derived is invalid.
Only when it comes to that one set of logic. We are talking about Christianity as a whole. For example, you cannot say that everyone who sees a traffic light sees red,green, and yellow. You have to take into account the premises that go against this that show that some people are colorblind or see different colors.
You have to be consistent with your definitions. You cannot say that I have no proof of Christ, and then say that just because we did not find something after centuries of looking that it is proof. If you are going to use a definition against mine, then keep to the same definition. According to your original definition, simply because we have evidence that points to something, it is not proof. Now here is the difference, we are not saying that the proposition was not true. We are saying that it could be true and it might not be true. It would be a logical fallacy to claim that because something hasnt been found that it is impossible that we will find it. You cannot say this until you show a formal proof that proves for EVERY instance it is impossible for it to be true. The method of exhaustion is impossible to use because there are infinite possibilities. Not only that, but in regards to faith, you are trying to prove the unprovable.
Your definition of illogical is incorrect then. Logic does not state that something that cannot be proven is true. It does not state that something that cannot be proven is false. It simply states that it cannot be proven true or false. A huge point of logic is to show that simply because you do not know that something is there, it does not mean that it is 100% not there.
If you are interested, the word “perfect” is a translation of teleios in Greek and perfectus in Latin. Both strongly connote completeness, independence, and flawlessness. These words carry little if any normative weight in these languages. Curiously, in classical Greek, teleios modifying a god typically signifies omnipotence. This is, of course, a classical usage that may or may not have been in the mind of the writer of the Gospel According to Matthew.
I realize that the argument hardly hinges on this point. I mention these trifles in the hope that someone finds them useful.
But my point was that Dio never asserted anything in the format you gave. So while you are correct that you cannot prove something true by examples, it is irrelevant. If you think he did do this, please show me where.
Look, when you throw in another premise you get a different logical system. Non-Euclidean geometry starts from the premise that two parallel lines can meet. Both systems are just as valid, since matching the physical world is not part of the logic system.
Now, you can throw premises in all you want, but if you can prove contradictory things from them, your system is invalid, and one or more of your premises have to go. That is exactly what we are doing here. Even you have admitted the conclusion that a system with a god who is tri-Omni is inconsistent.
Your example is an existential statement, and is subject to disproof, but not to proof. No matter how many people I interview, I can never prove that everyone sees the three colors, but I can prove that everyone cannot by showing a counter-example. So your example is not relevant. The traditional example is that I cannot prove all crows are black, just that not all crows are.
Did you read what I wrote at all? Where did I say that not finding something is proof that it cannot be found?
The lack of evidence for god does not disprove god, but does eliminate a reason for god belief.
Surely lack of evidence for X does not increase the reason to believe in X?
Now, Dio argued that the premises that God must grant salvation only through Jesus and God is omnipotent are mutually contradictory. God may choose to, but that is different from him being required to. If these premises are what you mean by Christianity (along with others not involved in the argument) then I could construct a disproof. You have never attempted to resolve this, except by saying that a just god must do this for some reason. You’ve never shown that god is just, in fact we have shown he is not perfectly just. You might try constructing a formal argument showing I am wrong. Good luck.
That has nothing to do with logic. Believing in something that cannot be logically proven is illogical. I didn’t say it was wrong, just illogical. Perhaps an exception can be made for something that can be proven to not be decidable, like the Halting Problem. Like I said, believing in Jesus may or may not be rational, but it is definitely not logical. That is why the ancient theologians tried to come up with proofs for god’s existence - unsuccessfully, I feel. You don’t seem to be aware of any of these proofs - you might want to look them up.
Why are the bolded bad reasons ( assuming the first is true ) ? If believing something made you evil, wouldn’t it be good to not believe, regardless of whether or not it’s true ? Doesn’t the behavior of the Inquisition serve as evidence of the harm religion causes to the world ?
They are good reasons to avoid bad religions, but say nothing at all about the existence of god. Since my people were on the wrong end of the Inquisition, I would hardly have used it as a reason for leaving my faith. Believing in a god is different from believing in a church.
Actually an interesting discussion could be done around the proposition: even if we know a god exists, but know nothing about him, is religion still harmful? I’d contend that dogmatic fundamentalist type religion still would be bad, unless we knew exactly what god wanted. Religious people who believed only to the extent of the evidence would be okay. People who believe only to the extent of the available evidence today are us atheists, so I don’t have much hope people would be more sensible than they are today.
I wasn’t argueing against God’s existance; I was asking if we should disbelieve in him whether or not he is real; that’s my personal belief, as it happens. Like the thread title; reasons to believe/disbelieve, not whether or not he is real.
I’d start such a thread myself, but if I do I suspect it would turn into a pile on, not a debate.
Well, Trust, I’ve explained the Problem of Evil as best I can, and if I may say, you’re no closer than any theologian in thousands of years to actually addressing the central question: why did God give us free will if He knew full well that so much evil would come of it? Why didn’t he just stick at robots if he abhors evil so? You said it was necessary, then you said it wasn’t necessary, and now you seem to say that God doesn’t mind evil that much because it makes the worship he does get that much more ‘valueable’. That doesn’t sound “perfectly good” to me, and I can’t think of a better synonym for “perfectly good” (found numerous times in the bible) than “omnibenevolent”.
So I’ll leave the debate here, I think. Of course, if I was ever convinced that I was in the presence of this God who created evil just to make his praise more worthy (rather than it being a Matrix-like illusion), yea, I would say unto him:
Go fucketh thyself, thou egomaniacal fucking psychopath.
This is still logical gibberish. How does nailing some dude to a giant, lower-case t punish anyone else’s bad deeds? Why do bad deeds have to be punished at all? Even if all this is necessary, then why doesn’t God bother to let anybody know about it? Why is so much of his alleged revealed scripture demonstrably ahitirical, contradictory or false?
You’ll have to explain why forgiving people as they are is unjust.
Excellent. So there is no need for faith or worship then? Do you believe there is any reason to try to convert other peopel to Christianity? Any reason for witnessing? Any reason for Christianity to exist at all?
Isn’t this kind of circular? Is there anyone who does not believe what he truly believes?
I’m sorry if I used an incorrect term. I thought your statement that the three Omnis and the existance of evil were incompatible was a premise. What would be the correct term? Conclusion?
If we’re only talking about Christianity then those terms aren’t really relevant. I didn’t see the OP as refering just to Christianity. I agree with you that certain doctrines of mainstream Christianity are incompatible with each other. I can also agree that if we interpret God as a seperate all powerful being and we as this beings seperate creations then your logic makes perfect sense. Thats not how I see it. It’s not just that suffering is temporary. It’s more that our perception of good and evil are all part of one thing, which is ultimatly positive. Ever see a “bad” thing happen that turned out to be a “good” thing? Ever see the movie “Regarding Henry” where Harrison Ford gets shot in the head. Turns out to be the proverbial blessing in disguise. As ridiculously optomistic as it sounds that’s how I see suffering.
I’m not sure I follow your thnking here. If I have a nightmare that seems real does that make the suffering that occured in the nightmare real? I agree that suffering isn’t better by being temporary. And again, if we are being acted upon by a seperate all powerful entity it doesn’t make any sense. If we are part of the greater whole, “I and my Father are one and by the way, so are all of you” then the question again becomes, “Why do we allow suffering?”
Perhaps my arguement and my beliefs don’t really address the issue. If I don’t see God as a seperate entity then attirbutes like the three Omnis may not apply at all.
You may be right. But that perception may not be the ultimate reality.
Under condition of those three attributes right? What if the experience is the point? Remember the story of Buddha. As a prince he was blissfully unaware of suffering. Once he went outside the city he became aware of suffering and sought enlightenment. Then his state of bliss included awareness rather than ignorance.
If the experience of duality is the point then the evil we percieve , which ultimatly can’t harm us as spiritual beings , may not be evil.
As part of the whole we are completely responsible for choosing the truth over illusions.
I am not an atheist, I am a Catholic, I am around Catholics because I work in a Catholic newspaper but I don’t go to church, I don’t pray and I don’t read the bible. I have nothing against people who pray and worship and all that stuff, I just want to feel free to live my life the way I want and that is I see no reason to worship or pray to God (if he/she exists).
I agree with dio and der trihs. They have good reasons why someone will not believe. Just want to add my opinion not to cause an argument but sometimes I, like a lot of people, wonder about the world and if everything is just going according to plan and we can’t see the big picture. I wonder if life is not fair and if things would work out better if it was fair. If “God” could have made things different, for instance, a life of no suffering, but didn’t because of reasons we could never understand. The way I see it is the way the world is (with or without God) things are working in harmony (that includes bad things) because people, classes, races, sexes, whatever, are not equal. But I don’t think it’s fair but probably that is how life has to be for it to “work”.
Now if there is a God who created all this and admit that he is not all-powerful, I could understand why the world has to be what it is in order for things to work (good and bad). But if God (or Christians) claims he is powerful, I can’t see in my stupid, insignificant mind why he could not have created a life where we don’t need all this bull. God could have made a world where we didn’t need bad to appreciate good, where we didn’t need suffering, hate, whatever. We could have all been fairies flying around having fun, eating good food and having sex with mind blowing orgasms all day and still have free will (that is just one way, ok, that’s my fantasy!).
Let’s face it, life sucks for a lot of people (including me at times), suffering sucks, and whether God is powerful or not I don’t see any reason that I should praise him or be thankful for life itself. I don’t hate life but I am here already and trying to make the best of it. When good things happen to me I don’t thank him, when bad happens I don’t curse him. I owe everything I do in this life to myself then I will die. I believe that everything is in the mind. I am no doctor but if I believe God and prayer helped me with something, I guess in my mind I already made the decision to be helped.
There were times in the past I tried to pray to overcome depression, etc. When it did not work people told me that I have to believe and have faith. Well that’s what I did. I had faith that I could overcome it and I did – without prayer.
I will not tell people not to pray but people should live their lives however it suits them.
I have a question. This is not to bash any Christian beliefs or anything but I was wondering about Christ dying on the cross for our sins. If Christ died for us, did he die for the sins of those who lived before him or does it apply to anyone after his death, that includes us, or do we need another Christ to die for our sins?
If Christ’s death also applies to us then does that mean no matter what wrong things we do to each other from here to eternity doesn’t matter because our sins are automatically forgiven, then someone doesn’t need to live a good life if they wanted to, or does Christ’s death only apply to those who try their best to live good Christian lives but make many mistakes (sin)? Not trying to sound stupid or anything, I was just wondering about that.
I don’t know if anybody talked about it here because I didn’t get chance to read the rest of comments
The mistake with the “proof” was that, just because one example can show that something is true, it does not prove that all of the examples are true. When you are working with the unprovable, you cannot prove that it is false or true.
Im not really sure what non-euclidean geometry has to do with logic of faith. You have to take into account all of a persons premises. If you do not, then the logic could seem logical, but the actual premise or conclusion is illogical. For example, I could say:
If carbon exists, its half life property is inconsistent.
carbon exists
Therefore its half life property is inconsistent.
This is I guess you could say “okay logic”, the problem is that the first premise is untrue. If you do not take into account the other premises such as the universal laws, you cannot show how the premise is false. I can simply rely on faith to show a premise that is unprovable.
I completely agree. If you can show me a contradiction then there are two options
I do not have any other beliefs that show how the contradiction is untrue. This means that it is illogical.
I have another belief that proves or relies on faith that shows how the logic is not inconsistent. Example, you say it is illogical that the earth is 6000 years old because of the consistency of the laws of the universe. All I have to do is say that God does not work according to the laws of the universe and this logic is back to being logical. (I fully admit that this argument takes into account that God is deceitful and is why I do not believe this argument).
In this case, I personally do not have any beliefs that say that God cannot be tri-omni (for my particular belief set). If I wanted to say that God is tri-omni, I would probably have to completely change my belief set and that would be a whole new argument.
In human terms I will agree with this. It is much easier to show a contradiction than to prove something is true for every possibility. The point I am trying to make is that it is impossible to prove something that relies on faith true OR false. You just cannot do it.
Not at all. We have millions of reasons for belief in God. None of which come into account in regards to logic. Thankfully for us, logic only states whether something is true, false, or might be true or false. The fact that you do not agree has nothing to do with the logic. You cannot assume that something that is unknown is false. You have to look at the problem from both sides. Otherwise you are bringing bias into logic where logic has no room for bias. It only relies on facts. The facts are, that until you can prove a premise of faith untrue for ALL of the possibilities, then it is considered to be maybe true, and maybe false.
This is the same thing I am saying. He is not required to do anything. He simply chose to. There is not a single contradiction in this. You keep repeating yourself without actually saying where the contradiction is.
If God was required to do something, then he would not be all-powerful. Check.
Noone said that God was required to do it the way he did, he chose to. Your entire argument is arguing against something noone said.
The fact that you are still stuck on the premises shows me that you do not have a grasp on logic. The premise that God is just is based on faith. You cannot prove that God is unjust. That is impossible. You don’t even have close to the amount of data you need to determine what is just and unjust. All you would simply do is use incredibly limited knowledge in human terms to try and act like you are a worthy judge. Please.
No my friend. Your logic skills are lacking once again and show your extreme ignorance. The fact that you think that logic assumes everything to be false until proven true is a complete bias. It has no foundation in logic. The only thing that logic says is that it might be true and it might be false. To claim otherwise is incorrect logic. You are being illogical. Make your proof about Jesus. I am looking forward to all the assumptions you make based on faulty logic. Do you honestly expect to prove anything when you cannot even get the basic foundation of elementary logic down?
I completely agree with the fact that I am no closer than any theologian in thousands of years to actually addressing the central question of why God gave us free will and allowed evil. The obvious answer is because He wanted human beings who had the capacity to love Him on their own free right. If you want a better answer then I am afraid you are gonna take it up with the big guy himself because I cannot speak of what I do not know. I rely on faith. If you do not, I understand your decision as it appears that you consider all of the options on a non-bias viewpoint.
Sure. I expect really bad nightmares every night would be enough to drive one to suicide, or death by an accident due to sleeplessness. Suffering is an experience; it’s physical reality won’t make it more or less suffering.
But we aren’t. I’d notice if I was part of something else. If the connection is one way, that’s more like God being a parasite, not me being part of it ( that kind of god would be an “it” not a “he” ).
Actually, that would likely be worse. A traumatised immortal spirit could very likley be traumatized eternally, with no hope of escape even into death.
April, your reasons for being pissed off are completely rational. I am not disagreeing with you on this and I can completely see where you are coming from. The only point I am trying to make is that Christianity can still be logical. A ton of people might not agree with the way things were chosen to be, but it is still logical.
To answer your questions, nailing some dude to a cross that was sinless does not punish anyone elses bad deeds. It takes them away. The reason being, if God is just (which Christianity assumes to be true based on faith), then he must not allow people to get away with incredibly vicious crimes we commit on other people. If you do not agree with this decision that is fine. But once again, it is still logical.
Why is the scripture demonstatably contradictory? I cannot give you some tell-all answer. I can give you my personal reasoning. When I read the bible, I find no truth in say, the book of genesis or revelations. But when I read Christs words, I find incredibly amounts of truth in it. I base this truth on attributes that improve mankind as a whole and intelligence that improves our lives. He teaches us to live according to love, compassion, honesty etc. I believe at some point you have to make decisions based on what you value as good outside of the bible. Now this is merely my interpretation of the bible and is not meant to be everyones.
Forgiving people as they are is unjust because then mass murderers like Hitler would simply be forgiven without any sort of justice. And before anyone gets smart, I highly doubt that Hitler “tried the best he could” or followed Christs example. That is quite absurd.
The answer to your question is going to vary based on which specific Christian religion you practice. You have a line spectrum of one end being Christ forgives everyone and then at the other spectrum Christ only forgives those who belive only in Christ and demonstrate they followed Christ. According to what I have read in scripture, I feel that for those who are capable of knowing Christ, belief is necessary. I do not have very much knowledge of the old testament, but I think that they way people were forgiven was by offering a sacrifice (animal) in remission for their sins. Someone please correct me if i’m wrong.
“Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?”
“…so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”
