When I read the “I’m programmed to” I had this vision of those “Arbeit Macht Frei” (Work will free you) over concentration camp gates. Any control system works best when people subjected to it beleive they chose it or that they have a choice. Free will is I suppose the illusion necessary in order to beleive we are not puppets to an omnipotent God/god.
Refreshing and scary insight to why “Free Will” is important. Diogenes I’m really loving your replies…
Incorrect. It’s the person asserting the existence of something who must prove it. That’s true of every thing from new species to fairies to crimes; religious people simply insist that their religion is a special case, and it’s not.
Please read what I wrote. I did not claim this disproved any god, just an omnibenevolent one. It is not evidence against an indifferent god at all. Not all definitions of god match yours. Given that, and given that n+1 deaths are worse than n, you would have to show that every single death in an earthquake of flood was vital to god’s plan, and was for the death. Disasters, such as the Lisbon earthquake, turn people away from god also. Do all families get closer to a god who wipes out their kin? Maybe some do, but not familes wiped out totally. The death of Darwin’s daughter turned him into an atheist. I’m sure that helped religion a lot.
Transferred to the political arena, your position is similar to the “Uncle Joe knows best” of the 1930s Communists. I know you consider god different, but if you try to clear your assumption that god is benevolent, and nothing can convince you otherwise, try to examine what disasters actually indicate about god’s nature. I think the universe is a much better place without such a god, myself.
That’s true if you are willing to say you believe without evidence and despite evidence against. Your belief is your own issue. But if you say there is no evidence against an omnibenevolent and omnipotentent god, then we can provide such evidence. Ignore it if you wish, but don’t claim it does not exist.
Hi cosmodan - I guess I still come back to the parent/ child analogy. God may be infinite, but we are not (even if you do believe in an afterlife, one cannot be sure of entrance, right?). And even if you assume we are “timeless”, as you say, and this corporeal existence is but a blink of the eye in our true life, why permit suffering at all? (Not to mention, even assuming timelessness, we are bound by the limits of space and time in this life, and it seems wontonly cruel to induce what is perceived as suffering on a being that cannot comprehend eternity.) Wouldn’t you, as a parent (or with any child, really) want to save your child from any suffering, even if it were but a moment? Of course, it seems from my experience that humans must suffer in some way to learn and grow (we tend to do it the hard way, you know?), so one could argue, as I think you are, that this pain and suffering is simply part of our learning curve. But the learning curve was designed by God, and he set up all the rules - both theological, moral, physical, etc. So, if you, as a parent, have the ability to create an environment for your child in its totality - from how they learn, to the emotions they feel, to the rules that govern them, wouldn’t you choose the one that didn’t involve pain? I cannot fathom a parent that would choose a life that by necessity included suffering - and while you may be able to make the case for a parent who creates a world with the occasional scraped knee, you sure aren’t going to find one who creates one with rape, murder and illness.
I’m not sure I understand what you’re getting at (no pun intended 
With all due respect, point out to me where I said that I have logical proof of my belief. I have all the proof that I want based on the reasons I already said. IIt is common sense that there is no scientific evidence for God. If you would like to put words in my mouth about how I am being illogical that is your baggage. The entire reason I said that 3 out of 4 people in the US are Christian is simple. If it were as easy as saying that A does not mean B, then most likely, that many people would not believe in Christianity. That leaves the fact that you believe that you are incredibly intelligent and the majority of the US is incredibly stupid, or you can come up with a logical inconsistency. So please share if you have a logical inconsistency that noone has been able to come up with for 2000 years. It will always come down to faith.
No, you assumed that I was saying that this proves they are correct. This proves (for the most part), that if it were as easy as saying something was illogical, it would have been done already. The problem is that you will not be able to come with an inconsistency that goes against the Christian religion because there are none. I am sure this bothers you deeply.
Please. You lumped me into the group that believes that the earth is 6000 years old because they are a believer like me. That is discrimination my friend. Just because I am a believer does not mean that I believe the earth is 6000 years old.
This is my whole point of this thread. There is nothing illogical and only genuine belief in either should be accepted. I could just as easily say that believing that God does not exist has nothing to do with logical proof. You have no proof that he does not exist. You would be agnostic since we have no proof either way. I am sure you will come back with a witty comment relating God to UFO’s and other things that have almost nothing in common with God. Once again, you have your baggage to deal with.
Please show me one area where I am being ignorant. The problem is that a ton of people on here are fanboys. I am really stating common sense things, it’s just that it too painful for people to consider the opposite position. What you don’t get is that most of this board only looks at their point of view. That is ignorance. You just don’t like my viewpoint even though there is nothing illogical about my viewpoint.
Congratulations. You just described attributes we both have. There are reasons for my faith. The only one that is justified is genuine belief. Your viewpoint of God obviously goes against science, mine does not.
…okay… Lets all post random facts about ourselves that don’t help the discussion whatsoever.
Here is also a part of my point. You might view God as unconvincing. That is completely fine. What I am trying to say is that there is not any logical inconsistency with the viewpoint.
Are you listening to yourself. Every thing we have come to realize by science that we did not have a mechanism for is untrue? Quantum mechanics is untrue right? Chemistry is untrue because we did not have some mechanisms. Right…
It is a non-issue. If we do not have free will, we are acting randomly or we are just robots. It is perfectly safe to assume that we make choices. Everything in life tells us that we do.
Choice. You could have an exact replica of a person, under free will, and one person could choose to do a completely different thing. Once again, if you dont believe this, then there is no point in talking about anything. We MUST do what we do. That’s provides people even more justfication for evil people more than the little religion can justify things my friend.
If I am understanding you correctly and you need to know HOW this works, then there is no point in this discussion. We dont know how millions of things work. We just know they do. In this case, it is a non-issue. I am afraid that we are completely off base or you have no value in finding something wrong with my logic and would rather try and disprove my character and what I must say are incredibly terrible attempts at trying to dodge the entire question I have posed.
No, it really hasn’t. You are unbeleiveable if you think it is that simple to disprove free will.
I do not feel threatened one bit. What I am trying to tell you is that there is a difference between being unconvincing and between illogical. My point is that there is nothing wrong with the logic. Once again, it is possible for these things to happen, and for God to exist. If you can show me that this it is impossible for God to be omnipotent and benevolent please share it. We have gone over this so many times already. God is not going to go against other rules of this world he has created. It is like saying God is not good because people suffer. Off the top of my head I can come up with the way we treat our kids. We make them “suffer” (ground them) sometimes to learn lessons. That is just off the top of my head. So tell me, where is the logic lacking. We can agree that you are unconvinced. That’s common sense. But the only part I am disagreeing you on is that you can come up with an example that shows logic is inconsistent. Everytime anyone has ever come with an “inconsistency” in this thread, they simply do not know about the religion or cannot come up with a possible reason something is the way it is themselves. My point is that just because you do not have a mechanism, does not make it any less true. I am completely confident if I approached this conversation without religion, then everyone would agree. You just are not looking at both sides of the issue. I know I do look at both sides of the issue. It is the reason for this entire conversation because I already know the reasons for what I believe.
There is a difference between looking at the other viewpoint, and assuming. Looking at the other viewpoint is incredibly important.
My entire argument is that this is not a justifiable reason for not believing in God. It is the reason you do not believe in God. Fine. But just because you do not completely understand why things happen the way they do, has no bearing on whether God exists or not. This is all I am saying and I am failing to see why this is not common sense. Instead of saying yes, that is true, everyone feels the need to give their reasons for believing or not believing when that has no bearing on the question besides to point out that they are not justifiable.
Then please do us a favor and tell me where the logic is lacking so that we can discuss this. Noone has provided one inconsistency with my logic. All that people are providing are reasons why they disagree with my viewpoints. Not ways that my logic is lacking. I have no problem with your viewpoint that my viewpoint is less likely, what I do have a problem with is you thinking your viewpoint is the only possible way when you have no possible way of proving your point. Not one. The only difference between us is that I admit I cannot prove mine. You just simply rely on “well we start out not believing so I dont have to prove anything”. Last I checked, we dont start out believing for or against anything. We are agnostic to begin with. You are taking a viewpoint. Whether it is from a bias or whether you genuinely believe that God does not exist.
For example, I do not believe in UFO’s because every possible sighting has rational explanations and there is no need for UFO’s. I take a viewpoint of disbelief. If someone believed in UFO’s, there would probably be nothing wrong with their logic. I would consider it incredibly unlikely, but nothing is wrong with their logic. Once again, if you want to relate God, to UFO’s, then that is your baggage. It is common sense that whether you believe that God has always existed, or that time started at t=0, which are both concepts, do not make sense on a complete sense to our brains. Both take a propensity to believe. Until you admit this, you are just being a fanboy and are biased to your particular viewpoint. Therefore, the straight dope is no longer the straight dope but is rather full of biased opinions.
That believing in God has nothing to do with logic, right? Look, trust, you either keep repeating “That is all I am saying and I am failing to see why this is not common sense” and no one understands the other any more than before they entered this thread; or you acknowledge (not necessarily agree or admit) that it is not a question of “common sense”, as you put it.
I’m struck that you believe you were “looking at the other viewpoint” - to be blunt, you weren’t. You were loooking at your own perceptions and rationales, definitions that have little to do with atheists and agnostics of flesh and blood (just as mangetout and furt pointed out, for people of faith, either). And you try to cop out of your imposed definitions, saying they were the first thing that popped into your head, that you didn’t spend a lot of time thinking abou them. Of course, this just solidifies my sense that you haven’t really thought about what having or not having faith means; your automatic responses were generalizations, and frankly hostile.
Yeah, that’s not cool, Trust. I have given you no reason to reduce my struggles with Christianity to nothing more than blind following of a trend. I was in the “opposite position”, as much as a teenager raised in a faith that hinders critical thought can be. Indeed, I don’t like your position, but that’s not why I disagree with it. You say there is nothing illogical about your viewpoint, then you seem to say that your viewpoint has nothing to do with logic; it is a question of faith. Which is it?
So, show you a place in which you are being ignorant? Right there, by being so willing to paint thousands of people as simply unwilling to accept something so patently obvious; that we are just ignorant; that your viewpoint is simply unimpeachable and you need explain yourself to no one. And it surprises you that this sort of grand-standing results in some resistance?
on preview:
Sorry, no. You are not following the basic rules of Logic here. Not logic in the colloquial sense, Logic in the philosophical/ debate sense.
The problem of evil IS a logical problem and it’s a problem that no one has yet explained away.
Would you like to hear another logical problem with basic Christian doctrine?
What was the point of the crucifixion? What did it accomplish? Why was it required? What could God do after the crucifixion that he couldn’t do before the crucifixion? What does it mean to say that Jesus “died for our sins?” Why can’t we be forgiven without a human sacrifice?
Christian salvation theology essentially amounts to a belief that God became a human and committed suicide in order to save his own creation from his own wrath. Why could he not just forgive everybody and be done with it?
Here’s another problem- if God will only save people who believe in Jesus, then why doesn’t he offer a shred of evidence that Christianity is true? Arguing that you “just know” from personal revelation is not really evidence. Adherents from every religion in the world acn say the same thing. What do you say to someone who knows for a fact that he has spoken to Kali? Do you believe that Mohammed spoke to the angel Gabriel? How is your conviction about your personal exoerience any more valid than his?
Even if you think that Jesus has spoken to you personally, how does that help the people that Jesus has not spoken to? How is that sort of “evidence” helpful to me?
Here’s a question to ponder considering personal revelation - why is it that no one ever receives a revelation from Jesus who didn’t already know who Jesus was? How come Jesus has never revealed himself to individuals who have never heard of Christianity? Why didn’t he ever talk to (pre-missionary) Bushmen in Australia or New Guinea? Why didn’t American Indians ever hear from him?
As to the defense that “faith” is for some reason either a virtue or a requirement, I have to ask why? Belief in Jesus only counts if you believe it without evidence? Talk about illogical. That just turns salvation into a guessing game. For some reason God will only save you if you correctly guess without evidence what religion is the true one? How capricious and senseless is that? It’s exactly the same as saying that in order to get to heaven, you have to guess what number God is thinking of between one and infinity. It’s ridiculous.
But there is a fallacy, if you believe in an omnibenevolent god. The fallacy involves the fact that you cannot show that the amount of suffering is minimized except by assuming that it is minimized since God is omnibenevolent, so any amount of suffering is minimal. all I have to do is to show one case where the suffering did not bring someone to god, or was pointless.
I’m only talking about suffering from natural events, to avoid the free will argument.
I also do not see how God providing evidence of his existence affects free will. Lawyers present evidence to juries without the free will of the jury being violated. I have a hard time believing why archeological evidence of the Exodus, or multiple eyewitness accounts of Jesus and his actions, would violate anyone’s free will. If god does exist, he seems to be making belief as difficult as possible. I can see that for Judaism, where being in the club just gets you persecuted and not being Jewish has no ill effects, but for a religion like Christianity where not believing sentences you to hell, this seems odd verging on evil.
In your faith, how do you know the devil didn’t win, and you’re backing the wrong horse?
I’m not going to quote the majority of this thread back at you. I and other posters keep pointing out the logical flaws in what you say; just reread them.
No, we start out by not believing. It’s standard logic, as I said earlier. God is innocent of existence until proven guilty.
Actually, UFOs are far more plausible than God. And what do you mean “a propensity to believe” ? It sounds like something I’d say, calling religion a mental illness ( which I believe ).
A truly silly statement. Virtually everything about Christianity is illogical; it’s a mishmash of lies, corruption, stupidity, irrationality and malice. It is worthy only of contempt. Plenty of people have pointed out it’s flaws.
Errr… so if I really like the Honor Harrington books, that somehow makes my opinion on religion worthless ? You were asking for flaws in your logic; here’s a huge one.
Once again, as has been pointed out over and over, the suffering of the world. Only an evil or uncaring god would allow the world to go as it has. I certainly would not; therefore if an omnipotent god exists, I feel safe in declaring myself more benevolent than him, by a huge margin.
Read what you just wrote. You changed his statement “we start out not believing” into “we start out believing against.” That’s the strawman argument so beloved of theists the world over,and I’ve never seen a clearer example of it. Since we start out not believing, you need to give us a logical reason to start believing. If you say you believe illogically, fine, but admit it and stop accusing us of lack of logic.
If you give me a specific instance of a god, I may or may not have good reasons for believing it does not exist. But even the Christian god is such a fuzzy concept that you can’t say anything, except the default lack of belief, for many examples of it.
So, nothing is wrong with the logic of someone believing in UFOs despite the fact that all examples of such have been shown to be explicable by natural causes? Funny definition of logic you have there.
I only have one reason for each.
Reason to believe in God: It’s true
Reason not to believe in God: It can’t be proven analytically as it’s true by definition
I know people hate that kind of answer, but I have never been in favor of believing in God because the belief comforts you. Because then the question is “Does the belief comfort you?” or “Does God comfort you?” and you might be pushing away further knowledge of God by clinging to the belief.
But then again, I can’t say that it is wrong for anyone else, simply because that reason never worked for me.
Erek
I agree with Diogenes’ argument in general–it is a fallacy to argue that non-belief be justified via a mechanism similar to belief–but there is one specific case that gives me pause. The existence of the universe itself argues strongly for the existence of a creator being; in short, I find Aristotle’s first cause argument to be not only convincing, but also sufficiently logical that the burden of proof is on the non-believer to refute it.
Let me also point out that this argument by itself does little to prove even that God exists now, much less support the accretion of logical inconsistency that surrounds the Christian concept of God. But it appears to me a good starting point for Theistic arguments, and a strong impediment for non-believers to overcome. In the spirit of the original thread title, I’d be interested in opinions as to why such an argument is illogical or unconvincing.
The Straight Dope is dedicated to two things: Fighting Ignorance, and Fighting Ignorants, both in equal proportion.
Erek