 
|
|
|
PS: This is an extremely long read, I apologize for the verbosity of the argument, but like I said earlier... this is the entire exchange.
| Author | Comment |
|
showme Visitor (non-registered) (6/11/01 2:09:34 pm) |
NYJ - Let's correct your selective
editing. If, as Christians claim, the OMNI god is the one and only CREATOR, then EVERYTHING that exists is exactly as he wanted it to be. Being omnipotent he could create any kind of world and any kind of ecological system that he wants to have. So the question is why did your god, if he exists, created an ecological system in which virtually every life form [with some exemptions] depends on destroying another life form for it's own existence. In many of these cases this is performed in hideous and torturous ways. He, being omnipotent, could have easily devised a way to avoid this. If this is not EVIL then you tell me what is. In order to save you and the readers some time, why don't you actually stay on topic this time. This question is not limited to vertebrate life forms, I am talking about anything that must destroy another life in order to survive. I'm furthermore talking about suffering and death cased by *natural* [designed by god] disasters. So, just answer the question. Could your all-powerful god have created an eco-system without suffering, mayhem and painful death ? If so, loving all his creatures, why didn't he? If he could avoid all this but chose not to then by any standards that is evil. |
|
nyj member******** Posts: 133 (6/11/01 2:43:19 pm) |
Here we go again... You don't learn... do you? Quote: True. Quote: Partly true. Omnipotence (as it is defined theologically) is not detracted from, by something that would constitute a logical impossibility. Hence, an ecological system (finite resources) that only reproduces would be a logical impossibility. Arguing for infinite resources while maintaining physical laws would also constitute a logical impossibility. Hence, God could not create a world where resources were limited, yet not allow replenishment of that environment (via death). This doesn't mean He is not omnipotent though, because that is not how it is defined.... this is a fallacy that some atheists fall into, and it appears you're right there with them. Quote: Once again, you make a false assumption, and as I showed the last time, you overstate your case. In a very small portion of life, things die "hideously and torturously". Unless of course you consider munching on a carrot "hideous" or boiling corn-on-the-cob "torturous". I also fail to see how an insect that eats another insect that doesn't have a nervous system capable of sensing pain as hideous. Quote: This is based on the assumption that you yourself might have an inkling of a better system. Yet I have never seen you provide the evidence for one. For all we know, this is as good a system as one could devise. Quote: An argument from emotion. You haven't shown that the system that has been designed is evil, or that it was formed through evil intent/design (running on the assumption for the time being that God exists). Matter of fact, you have nothing but your own opinion that things would "somehow be better" if they were different. Talk about a pointless argument to be making. Quote: But your point of "hideous and torturous" does only apply to vertebrates (now I know why you stayed in marketing) because they're the only ones who have any sensory perception of pain (which amounts to less than 5% of the earths species populace and I'd dare say less than 1% of the earths total inhabitants). Your whole argument is meaningless if things don't die "hideously" and then only way I can even understand your term "hideous" is if pain is involved. Otherwise how do you define "hideous" and "torturous"? For a majority of life, that life doesn't even know it is dying. A majority of life doesn't have a conscience, it works solely on instinct, it has no idea of right or wrong and death is not something that is feared or even recognized... so once again... how would this constitute some horrible crime against life? In addition, as I made the claim before... death is very frequently a necessity for survival of life and is actually programmed into life. Perhaps you've heard of apoptosis... where cells automatically undergo a death process... typically for the greater good of the collective (i.e.: surrounding cells and tissues). Many bacteria will undergo lysis, which releases compounds which allow the other bacteria in the culture to survive. How is any of this evil? It actually serves a good purpose as far as I can tell, and it could (if there was consciousness involved) be termed altruistic. Quote: Now we're getting somewhere. But once again you're arguing simply from emotion. You seem to equate that death is a bad thing, that it is evil. I guess for someone who only has "one life to live", it would suck to die but death in and of itself is entirely an amoral process, especially when it happens naturally. And my same comments apply here to natural disasters as they do to your comments in regard to the "hideous" deaths of animals, a majority (95% or more) of which cannot feel pain. Nature needs to constantly replenish herself. Life ALWAYS rebounds from a natural disaster (forest fires are a very typical example). Every year the plains in the sub-Saharan territories go up in flames. This replenishes the soil and allows for a continual and readily available nutrient supply for plants which in turn feed the animals, which in turn feed other animals... and the cycle continues. It is unfortunate that in some instances, man gets caught in these occurances and life is lost. But for anyone who believes in God, while this is somewhat tragic, it is far from evil. First off, the physical body replenishes the earth on which the man/woman spent a small amount of time and second of all, that person is returned to their maker to a place that is devoid of pain, suffering and death. But, putting that aside (my comments about heaven) you have still failed to show that natural disasters are anything more than a threat to your well-being and that they actually represent some sort of evil. Why do I want you to prove to me that nature and natural processes are evil? Well, you call God evil (if He exists of course) for creating these processes. Yet you haven't (and if you're smart, you won't) called these processes evil. Hence, you've failed to provide any evidence to prove your point. Like I said once, and I'll say again... we call a man evil because he does an immoral act. We call a man good because he does a moral act. We do not call a man good or evil because he does something amoral. Nature is amoral, you cannot look at it and say "Oh man, God is a rotten bastard for creating nature!" At least you cannot say that if you cannot provide any proof, and so far all the proof I see is "I say it's evil, so it is!" That won't work here showme... it didn't work before, it sure as heck won't work now. Quote: I don't know... could He have? You're basing this on some sort of assumption that He could have done so, and that it somehow would have been better. So far these assertions are without any support. This is your burden showme, you best provide. Quote: Once again, you fail to show how any of this is evil. And, "by any standards"? Hardly. I've provided explanations why in a world of finite materials, the processes we see are quite necessary. I wouldn't call this evil in the slightest. Do you realize how silly your assertion is here? We find ourselves in a world where almost every biological/chemical process is performed in such a way that it minimalizes waste. As long as man does not severely impact the environment in a negative manner, this process may very well continue unabated for millions of years, just as it has existed for millions of years previously. For ann intents and purposes, the "perpetual motion" properties of the world are simply astounding and I doubt you'll find any scientist worth his or her weight in salt that would argue that this world could somehow drastically be improved upon (which is what you're calling for). Yet, here you are... making this very demand, and if you don't get it... you're ready to condemn God for it. |
|
showme Visitor (non-registered) (6/11/01 9:10:24 pm) |
Limiting god ? >>Once again, you make a false assumption, and as I showed the last time, you overstate your case. In a very small portion of life, things die "hideously and torturously". Unless of course you consider munching on a carrot "hideous" or boiling corn-on-the-cob "torturous". I also fail to see how an insect that eats another insect that doesn't have a nervous system capable of sensing pain as hideous. First of all, this is probably nonsense. All life forms have a nervous systems of some type, they couldn't function without it. Tell me how does a fishing worm reacts when the hook first comes in contact with its skin? How do you know that its violent convulsive reaction is not the result of pain. Secondly it's irrelevant. Even if only the higher life forms suffer in their violent deaths, how does this excuse your god from their suffering? Let's see, not even counting all the predators, how do you justify the myriad of bacteria, germs, viruses and parasitic life forms that he created just for the fun of watching his higher creations suffer. I don't see how we can even control ourselves with all that fun. >>This is based on the assumption that you yourself might have an inkling of a better system. Yet I have never seen you provide the evidence for one. For all we know, this is as good a system as one could devise. You made this same ignorant claim the last time. What I [as an imperfect being] can or can not do is absolutely and completely irrelevant to this argument. This god of yours is OMNIPOTENT remember. Are you now saying that there is SOMETHING that is limiting him in some way. >>An argument from emotion. You haven't shown that the system that has been designed is evil, or that it was formed through evil intent/design (running on the assumption for the time being that God exists). Matter of fact, you have nothing but your own opinion that things would "somehow be better" if they were different. Talk about a pointless argument to be making. No, it's an argument of logic. I don't have any problem with the way nature works because I don't believe in your god. The system is not evil, it just IS. However as soon as you claim that your god is the architect of this system, he becomes evil because he could have easily designed it in a way that would avoid the suffering but he chose not to. >>Why do I want you to prove to me that nature and natural processes are evil? The processes are not evil if that is how nature has evolved, and in my view that is exactly the case. However there is a lot of suffering and waste [on a macro scale] in these natural processes. Again since they *just are*, as a result of how the universe functions and the evolutionary processes developed, there is nothing to pass a judgment on. Period. However, if as you claim they were DELIBERATELY designed in such a way as to cause suffering and mayhem by an ALL-POWERFUL being, that could have avoided it all, then that designer is EVIL. [showme] So, just answer the question. Could your all-powerful god have created an eco-system without suffering, mayhem and painful death ? >>I don't know... could He have? You're basing this on some sort of assumption that He could have done so, and that it somehow would have been better. So far these assertions are without any support. And once again, in order for your objection to make sense you must argue that this OMNIPOTENT god would in some way be limited and thus could not create without causing the suffering we know exists. Doesn't the bible state that "everything is possible with god", you can provide the book, chapter and verse. >>This is your burden showme, you best provide. If you want your god to be OMNIPOTENT then I just did. If you think that there is something limiting your god in his powers to create in a way that would avoid this suffering, then it's up to you to provide the evidence or the logical argument as to why that is the case. I really don't understand what you find so difficult to understand. A naturally evolved eco. system that relies upon pain, death and suffering is obviously amoral. However the same system purposefully designed to function that way by someone that could have avoided this pain and suffering makes said designer evil. |
|
nyj member******** Posts: 139 (6/12/01 9:39:25 am) |
Here we go again... Showme's circular
reasoningQuote: Who said that all life forms didn't have a nervous system? I specifically stated that not all life-forms have a nervous system capable of experiencing pain. It is one thing to have a nervous system that controls bodily functions and a cursory awareness of the surroundings, it is another thing entirely to have a nervous system capable of conducting complex electrical impulses allowing an organism to experience pain. Pictures have been taken of praying manti eating grasshoppers without the grashopper even noticing what was happening. Surely, if the grasshopper experienced pain, this would not be possible. Quote: It's called science Showme... perhaps you should pay attention to it for once in your life. Let me give you a biological introduction. Bradykinin is a chemical that is formed during tissue damage/destruction. It specifically binds to the bradykinin receptor, on nerve endings which has been demonstrated to be responsible for the sensation of pain. This receptor has been located in the human genome (homo sapien), the rat genome (rattus norvegicus) , the mouse genome (mus musculus), cow genome (bos taurus), sheep genome (ovis aries) and dog genome (canis familiaris). Notice the trend (and my point), no insects. This includes Drosophila melanogaster, the fruit fly, which has had it's entire genome sequenced, along with Caenorhabditis elegans which is a worm. Neither of these have bradykinin receptors, hence they are not able to experience pain. So what is the worm reacting to? It's a simple instinctive reaction. The worm wiggles just as much when you pick it up as when you stick it with the hook. The worm senses it is out of its natural environment and hence might be in trouble, hence it will writhe in the attempt to escape. It can sense its surroundings, but not pain. Quote: Translation: "Ok, you've blown a substantial hole into most of my argument, so let me backtrack a bit and try again." So showme, now we get to the heart of your bias. We've gone to "higher life forms" now... and if I pursue this long enough, I bet we could get this narrowed down even further... perhaps to "higher life forms with an actual conscience" and eventually to "humans" and eventually to "showme". And that would effectively expose the desperation of your argument. It's interesting that you'd so quickly drop a sizeable portion of your argument in a better attempt to try to prove your point. But anyways, let us focus in on this suffering for a bit. You wish that suffering wasn't necessary. Join the club, but it most certainly is. Pain is a physical sensory perception which proves to be quite beneficial. It alerts us to danger (hand on a hot stove), it tells us when we've been damaged and need to seek help. Without pain we'd live very short lives because we would probably mangle ourselves irrepairably. If you know of someone who has lost sensation in a limb, they'll be able to tell you how the run the risk of doing severe damage to themselves without even knowing it. Pain, and suffering, is an entirely necessary process. In addition, you seem to think, entirely unproven I might add, that animals go through a lot of suffering. Out in the wild, I don't know if this is necessarily so. It's been shown that under fight/flight response, the pain sensation is greatly diminished. Scientists surmise that when a zebra is hunted and caught, they have so much endorphin (a natural pain killer) in their systems that they do not feel themselves being eaten alive. They know they're in trouble, but they don't feel physical pain, and they don't have a consciousness like man so they don't feel mental anguish either. Perhaps it's time to even further readjust your argument. Quote: First off.. germs and bacteria are synonymous... don't overstate your point. Second, there are very few species of bacteria that actually cause disease. A majority are commensal organisms which are actually necessary for biological processes (i.e.: providing nitrogen for plants , synthesizing vitamins for mammals that cannot synthesize them on their own, forming protective layers on mucosal tissues that prevent pathogens from invading and causing disease). You find one bacteria that causes disease, there are a half a thousand (probably more that haven't been discovered) that are benign and useful for the environment. And for the most part, once again, even the pathogenic bacteria do not typically cause disease outright because they are then held in-check by our bodies. It is only generally when someone is weakened (leading to immunocompromisation) that they are in a state capable of getting sick from bacteria (nosocomial infections being a prime example here). Once again, this brings us back to a natural selection process... which is, in and of itself, entirely amoral. So is suffering necessary? I think I have adequately described that naturally caused pain is a necessity. Of course, I don't think you're so concerned with that, as you are with mental suffering (something you have done a poor job of trying to convey), so let us address that. Is it fair to say that you don't want to suffer emotionally, but you do however want to experience emotional bliss? Talk about materialistic, but hey... that's your right, right? It's the "I want all the glory... I don't want to struggle to get it." attitude... very admirable. How long do you think your brain would be able to handle such a situation if such situations were never interrupted? Take a druggie for example... needing to take larger doses for an equally blissful trip... until the point that they have to OD to get even a minor rush. Unabated pleasure for a physical body is impossible. The body becomes dull to such sensory stimulation. I'd dare say that without pain, pleasure is impossible. Pleasure, without pain just becomes a feeling we sense and cannot appreciate. Some of man's greatest events (emotion-wise) come after a long and strenuous struggle (if you're into rock climbing you'll be able to relate to this comment). So, would you rather struggle at times in order to feel bliss, or would you rather just go around emotionless... hey, at least you won't be suffering, right? Quote: Showme, surely you know this is circular reasoning on your part. Let me throw together an analogy for you. Showme is speeding along and is pulled over by a cop. Cop: Sir, do you know you were speeding? It is against the law and I'm going to have to ticket you. Showme: Why? Cop: Well, it's against the law. Showme: Well, that law sucks, I don't like it. Cop: I don't care if you like it or not, the law is the law. Showme: Well, there has to be a better way. Cop: A better way? What do you mean? Showme: Well, you're the cop... you tell me! Cop: This IS the optimal way. At the suggested speed, people can travel fast enough to get to their destination in a timely manner, and at such a speed where there are very few accidents. All around, things work extremely well. If the speed is too much faster, more accidents occur and lives are lost. If the speed is too much slower then people cannot get to their destination. And we cannot force everyone to drive at the same speed because sometimes it is necessary for people to drive faster (in an emergency) and sometimes people wish to drive slower (in a leisurely drive through the countryside). Showme: No, I disagree. Cop: Do you have a better suggestion? Showme: No. Cop: Then how do you know there is a better way? Showme: I just think there is. Cop: But you have no idea of one? Showme: That's right. Cop: Hrm, that doesn't make any sense. Showme: I don't care. You cannot possibly call into question the environment we live in, unless you know there is a better way. For all we know (as we are imperfect beings) this IS the best way. And I don't see how you can deduce from that comment, that God is not omnipotent. You clearly admit you don't know a better way, you can't possibly hold onto some idea that there is a better way. Well, you could... but like the analogy above shows, you're only going to look foolish. Quote: An argument of illogic you mean. As I have demonstrated above, pain is a necessary part of life. Without pain, we also cannot adequately experience pleasure, which is something I'm sure you're more than happy NOT to complain about. It's really funny that you have no problem with the system UNTIL God becomes involved, and then, for no solid reason whatsoever, you begin to object. You certainly haven't proven that suffering isn't necessary (while I HAVE shown that it IS necessary) and you certainly haven't proven that suffering is detrimental to a person's overall well-being. It comes down to the belief that you hold that suffering is wrong, and that you, yourself don't like it. Some people welcome suffering, they feel it strengthens their person, it makes them stronger and healthier and better able to manage in life. They believe it makes their moments of joy more poignant and fruitful. Perhaps their opinion is the more valid? Quote: I wouldn't argue with you that nature has evolved to this extent. However I believe that this evolution was performed on a scaffolding erected by God, to which this design has taken it's current form. You certainly haven't shown any waste (on a micro or macro scale) and you haven't demonstrated any reasons to disallow suffering, even if there is a God. All you have is this half-brained assertion that if there is a God, God must be evil because there is suffering. 1. Suffering exists. 2. I don't think God exists. 3: Since God doesn't exist, suffering is ok. 1. Suffering exists. 2. People say God exists. 3. If God exists, suffering is bad and God sucks. I don't see how your logic can take such a turn for the worse here. Why is suffering ok if God isn't involved? Why would suffering be any different if He was around? Quote: You either missed my comments (and Metacrock's) in regard to logical impossibilities, you ignored them, or you didn't understand them. As I said once, and I'll say again to create a material world with finite resources, and then not expect death (possibly the primary cause/result of suffering) is ludicrous and inconsistent. This is a logical impossibility and does not impinge on God's omnipotence/omnibenevolence in any way, shape or form. Omnipotence is theologically defined as( www.newadvent.org/cathen/11251c.htm ): Quote: What you're asking for is intrinsically impossible. When the Church discussed omnipotence, they thought of it in the way I have described for you... not how you wish it were (to suit your argument). You are once again overstating your case. Quote: You have misunderstood the principle of omnipotence. Your point is moot. Quote: I have done so in the two arguments I have presented in this thread. If you disagree, I would be glad to see some evidence this time from you. Quote: Well, at least you're learning... and now attempting to adapt at least part of my own argument to your own end. Quote: Only if you can show a reason why it isn't necessary for it to be designed in said manner. You need something to back up your claim, other than your own opinion. You have failed miserably in this area. |
|
showme Visitor (non-registered) (6/12/01 3:55:43 pm) |
Here we go again...nyj's lack of
reasoning As usual, all you verbose antics about biology and ignorant analogies are completely irrelevant to this argument. And I'm certainly not going to get drawn in by your diversionary tactic. Also your argument is starting to become a strange mixture of 'god can't do any better and besides suffering is really good for you'. [how catholic of you] I'll address your one attempt at logic even so it was a miserable failure. [nyj] >>1. Suffering exists. >>2. I don't think God exists. >>3: Since God doesn't exist, suffering is ok. Suffering is not OK, but that is irrelevant because life is what it is and no one is responsible for it. [nyj] >>1. Suffering exists. >>2. People say God exists. >>3. If God exists, suffering is bad and God sucks. Here we have your problem. The above completely misses the point, let me correct you. 1. Suffering exists. 2. Christians claim their ALL-powerful god exists 3. Christians claim their god created EVERYTHING 4. If this god exists, he created the suffering. 5. An All-powerful god could have avoided that. 6. Therefore if he exists, he is EVIL. [he created gratuitous suffering] >>I don't see how your logic can take such a turn for the worse here. Why is suffering ok if God isn't involved? Why would suffering be any different if He was around? Well then read the above, maybe a little slower this time. The difference lies in the *created* part ! Aside from that, this is actually getting kind of comical. Here I am, a skeptic, telling you that your omnipotent god can do whatever [OK, if logical] he wants to do. You, the Christian, on the other hand are doing your best to down grade his abilities in order to avoid the obvious pitfall of his omnipotence. The Obvious problem here [on this subject] is that you have created a little box for your mind to operate in, and then you put your omnipotent god in there with you. You are looking at the world around us and making the assumption that it is the way things HAVE TO BE. Given the world we have, a lot of what you say is correct, but there is nothing that says that this the only way it could be. Just some possible examples: Tell me why would a omnipotent god HAVE to create a material world? Why would the inhabitants HAVE to consume resources at all? Could god create a world where ALL life would be sustained by light, air and water, or for that matter - nothing? You keep looking at the world as it is and then say "well I don't see how it could be any better", because such and such natural process/rules would not allow this or that. Well, god created these processes/rules also and he could have done it different from the start. You need to get out of your box. Why can your god not design a world that has none of these limitations to begin with. Nothing illogical required for this. All you copious writing about how nature operates and how things are not possible, avoid the obvious. Your omniscient god could have created a world with completely different sets of rules that would allow life without suffering. There is only one question here that you have to address: "why is there *naturally* occurring evil in your omnipotent god' creation"? And so far you have claimed that: 1. That this is the best creation possible, and god can't do any better. 2. The suffering is necessary and can in no way be avoided. 3. The suffering is good for us. 4. If I think that there is a better option then it's up to me to come up with it because the omnipotent god sure can't. If it's 1 and/or 2 then you need to show what force is keeping your god from doing better. If you want to claim 3 then we have different argument. As to 4, I'll put my omnipotent hat on and we can talk about it, |
|
nyj member******** Posts: 145 (6/13/01 12:07:40 pm) |
Re: Here we go again...nyj's lack of
reasoningQuote: Actually they're quite relevant. You've made wide-open claims and I'm trying to narrow them down. So far you've made a series of false assumptions and I've been using science to systematically pull each of the rugs out from underneath you. You make mention of "suffering" yet you have failed to define it for me. I've tackled this idea of "suffering" from a purely physical and purely emotion viewpoint, and I've established the relevance and importance and necessity of both forms. When I've done this, you've either reworked your argument or ignored my evaluation, both of which speak to the senselessness of your position. Quote: You mean: I'm not going to allow you to use science to undermine my entire argument.? Isn't that an ironic turn of events for the atheist. Quote: I never said that God could not do any better, this is something that is entirely unable to be known (more on this later)... I am saying that you have not provided any evidence that God could do better and that He chose to willingly NOT do so. So far I've shown quite elaborately (and it appears over your head) that the system that we DO have is quite intricate and makes perfect sense from a logically necessary viewpoint. You are the one that is, without evidence, holding onto the dogmatic point that things could somehow be better... but you have no idea of how. For someone who wishes to prove God is evil, you are not providing a shred of evidence to support your claim. How you expect anyone to buy your position is beyond me. If this was a court, and you were a prosecuting attorney and this was the case you presented to the court, they'd kick you off the bar. Quote: Translation: You kicked my butt with the rest of your thread, so I'll try ad hominem on you and then try to address the one point in your post that I hopefully have a shot at. Quote: So at least you admit that in our present state, it is a necessary occurance (which is something I have shown). But you have failed to tell us WHY it's "not OK". This is, by the way, necessary for your argument to hold any water at all. So you best tell us how you know suffering is "not OK" when science proves that it is necessary and hence "allowable" i.e.: OK. Quote: Once again, you gloss over the Christian meaning of omnipotence. You are trying to argue a point that no one has ever made. Do you always have this much fun playing by yourself? Quote: I don't see how you draw the comparison from items 3,4 and 5 to 6. Why is suffering in and of itself evil? Why is pain evil? Because Showme doesn't like it? You've also danced around what you consider to be suffering... are you talking about physical suffering, emotional suffering, or both? I have addressed both already, only to have you ignore my points. You also have failed to show HOW you know #5 is true. Quote: So you think that some sort of suffering (you've never said what) is evil. Nevermind that some suffering plays a very natural and essential role in our daily activities. Quote: You are ignoring the logically necessary qualifier, which I continually keep trying to bring to your attention. Quote: I'm trying to properly define the Christian position of omnipotence so you won't continually make the same mistake. So far I have been unsuccessful in getting you to correct your terminology. Quote: The problem is that you've made wild accussations and offered nothing but your own opinion as evidence. Quote: I am making the assumption that this is the way things have to be? Ha ha ha... I'm not making an assumption, I'm stating the obvious! The Bible speaks of God's creation, I am looking at the science behind this creation and drawing the logical conclusions. You're looking at *something* and claiming "This sucks!". Quote: A lot? What about ALL of it? And what do you mean that there is nothing that says this is the only way it could be? And you claim theists of making unsubstantiable comments? Do you know of an ecological environment that ISN'T like the one we occupy, and that it's somehow better? If you can find this utopia, let me know and I'll readjust my comments. Showme wishes to box me in with the argument that "I cannot claim that this is the best world possible." Which is a sort of spinoff argument from Hume who claimed that since we have no knowledge OUTSIDE of this world, we could not claim that this is the best world we can have. [This is btw a strawman, and is something I have not argued.] However, back to his argument, to prove that he is correct, he would need to show that there WAS something possible, which... for the exact same reason Hume provides, is impossible. I am, however, arguing that given our knowledge of this world, it makes complete sense in its construction/design (given the assumption of a Creator) and the necessities found in nature (and studied by science) do not provide evidence for any malevolence on the part of that Creator. This might not be the best of all possible worlds, but it what we have to work with. And hence, since it is what we have to work with, we would be best served by sticking with what we do know rather than going off on same fairy-land excursion. Quote: He didn't HAVE to. But He did. And your point? As a sidenote, allow me to give an explanation to the lurkers on why Christians feel God created the universe. Taken from The New American Catechism: God did not need anyone else to make him happy and yet he wished to make the angels and man to share his happiness with them... Man was created for an eternity of happiness. Man's greatest dignity is to be able to know and love God and to be able to talk to him. To reach eternal happiness with God man must freely accept God's love and devote himself to his service. Quote: Because God created physical laws that required it. For all we know, and you have not proven otherwise, and since it is your claim you need to provide the evidence to support your position (which might I add is completely untenable), any formulation of any material world, would have these same restrictions. In order for matter to exist, we here in the real world, know that certain physical laws are required to maintain the balance that we see in nature. We know this for a fact, we can study it, and this predictability is a basic assumption and the foundation of science. But now, an atheist wishes to say "Let's forget all that, let's argue something we have no evidence for and no support of... why? Because I feel it would support my position if I can get someone to buy this silly argument." Quote: So now you want to discuss some sort of "fairy land"? I think that this clearly shows your desperation in regards to this thread. Rather than, like a rational person, discuss the facts that we have and draw logical inferences from that, you'd rather argue something that no one has any inkling (let alone proof) about. Your original argument tried to focus on the suffering that is real, is here, and is measureable and now you're trying to argue the potential of a utopia, a fantasy land, a nonsensical and irrational material world. If this wasn't so desperate and so pathetic, it'd be funny. Quote: Funny, atheists are always bitching that Christians don't do enough of this, and then when they do... the atheist bitches and moans about how we're living in a box. Give me a break! Talk about a double standard... yet, this is par for the course with Showme... one wonders if he even knows what he believes or thinks about all of this... he certainly hasn't done a good job of conveying this to us yet. Quote: I believe I have addressed this ad nauseum. If people think I am repeating myself, I apologize... because I am. Perhaps it is because I am not making myself clear to Showme, or (and probably more relevant) it is because he is being intentionally vague when he frivolously throws out his claims and then dances away from defining them. Quote: What do you mean "I'm avoiding the obvious."? How is any of this obvious? You'd first have to show me (isn't this ironic?) that such a universe is possible. The only way you have tried to do this is to give me some vague notion of your idea of suffering (which constantly changes as I pull the rug out from underneath you) and try me to buy some sort of fairytale universe that you have no evidence for. You're being a hypocrite here. You badger Christians who you feel take this position, and then you do it yourself. Quote: Once again... define "evil". I want an exact and detailed explanation of evil to work with here. Something I can use to nail your ass to the wall with so you will stop wiggling around . So far all you've done is say God is evil because there is suffering in the world. You've failed to show how the act of suffering is evil. You also have not given us an inkling as to how you come to the conclusion that suffering is evil (i.e.: what ideals do you subscribe to that support your position? Hedonism? Materialism?) Quote: Actually: 1. Science tells us that the earth was formed in such a way as to be self-sufficient and no one has offered any substantial way to improve upon it without detrimentally impacting that efficiency. 2. Suffering IS necessary because it plays an important role in biological processes, and if it was eliminated would probably result in the destruction of a majority of life, especially the human race. 3. Given #2, it would appear that suffering does play an important role in keeping us alive. But since showme hasn't stated what suffering he means it's hard to say what he's driving at here. 4. If Showme wants to claim that there is a better way (which he seems hell bent on proving), if he was smart, he'd provide some proof so people would believe him. Quote: Oldest trick in the book: Make an un-supportable claim and then demand that others provide the evidence. Homey don't play that. Quote: True, and the topic of another thread.. but I don't need to argue #3 to blow your silly notion out of the water. Quote: So you mean, at last, I'll get an answer from you? In conclusion: Showme wishes to have us think that because suffering exists, that God is evil because He allows it. First off, this does nothing to prove that God does not exist. If Showme were correct, all this would do is shed a little bit of doubt on our definition of God as we have applied to Him. Of course, this is little concern because with our limited grasp of the world that surrounds us, it should not be surprising that we have an even looser grasp of the mind of the Creator Himself. Showme has failed to provide evidence for any magical, fantastical utopia that could solidify his position, and instead he has abandoned the science that he espouses in a desperate attempt to deny the reality I have scientifically proven. Showme's last chance would be to somehow show that God knew that when He was creating a material world, that suffering was involved and that He was indifferent to this proposition. Of course, Showme has no chance of proving this because we know God is compassionate. Quote: So, what can we deduce from this? When God created the material universe, a natural consequence of this universe is that inorder for it to progress following logical laws, suffering would be an inherent part of the plan. It was simply unavoidable. However, just because there is a potential for some uncomfortable aspect, does not mean the whole enterprise should be forsaken. For example, a mother undergoes great pain during the childbirth process... does this mean that having a child is evil? Rather, God knowing full well the potential for suffering, offers His creations a special spot in the eternal reward in the spiritual realm for the hardships they bear in the material realm. God thought of it all, and He took care of it all. The verses I quoted from Matthew clearly show a benevolent, caring and loving God, who understands what His creations have gone through, and He then assures that they will be greatly recompensed when, as a natural consequence of the material world, they pass from this life to the next. What else need be said? My case is proven. Deo iuvante, |
|
showme Visitor (non-registered) (6/13/01 10:12:59 pm) |
nyj Alright, I'm tired of going in circles with you. There are at least two obvious problems evidenced within you argument. First, you are claiming this to be a scientific argument. It is not, it is an argument about a philosophical question and it's theological ramifications. You don't actually believe that I would start a *scientific* discussion with the assumption that you omni- god existed, do you? This not, and never was, a question about the existing world we live in [that would be scientific] but instead about other possibilities that should logically be available to your omnipotent god. Secondly, you have worked very hard to misdirect my original post into the direction that you felt the most comfortable with. Since in your catholic mind *suffering* is not only acceptable but obviously a virtue, you have steered our whole discussion in that direction. However as you well know that was NOT the main point at all. Let me reacquaint with my original argument: ""If, as Christians claim, the OMNI god is the one and only CREATOR, then EVERYTHING that exists is exactly as he wanted it to be. Being omnipotent he could create any kind of world and any kind of ecological system that he wants to have. So the question is why did your god, if he exists, created an ecological system in which virtually every life form [with some exemptions] depends on destroying another life form for it's own existence. In many of these cases this is performed in hideous and torturous ways. He, being omnipotent, could have easily devised a way to avoid this. If this is not EVIL then you tell me what is."" You might notice that the real point centers on " ...virtually every life form [with some exemptions] depends on destroying another life form for it's own existence." The "... In many of these cases this is performed in hideous and torturous ways." is there to additionally emphasize the nasty nature of this system. You know, I actually missed this little slight of hand of yours to begin with. Oh well, better late than never. Now to get to the real point of this post. Since you quote the bible in support of your position, you must obviously believe what it says to be the word of god. If you don't, then this is would be a cheap and underhanded trick of scoring points, and I know YOU would never stoop to such methods, would you now? Matthew 5:3-12 [as quoted by nyj] "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. "Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted. "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied. "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. "Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. "Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so men persecuted he prophets who were before you." >>So, what can we deduce from this? When God created the material universe, a natural consequence of this universe is that inorder for it to progress following logical laws, suffering would be an inherent part of the plan. It was simply unavoidable. However, just because there is a potential for some uncomfortable aspect, does not mean the whole enterprise should be forsaken. For example, a mother undergoes great pain during the childbirth process...does this mean that having a child is evil? Rather, God knowing full well the potential for suffering, offers His creations a special spot in the eternal reward in the spiritual realm for the hardships they bear in the material realm. God thought of it all, and He took care of it all. The verses I quoted from Matthew clearly show a benevolent, caring and loving God, who understands what His creations have gone through, and He them assures that they will be greatly recompensed when, as a natural consequence of the material world, they pass from this life to the next. There is so much nonsense in just this one paragraph that we could make another entire thread out of it. But let me just take a part of this statement: >> "For example, a mother undergoes great pain during the childbirth process... does this mean that having a child is evil?" NO, it means that the omnipotent creator of the method evil. Go ahead and tell me it could not logically be done any other way by your OMNI god. >>"Rather, God knowing full well the potential for suffering, offers His creations a special spot in the eternal reward in the piritual realm for the hardships they bear in the material realm." OH yeah, I keep forgetting how suffering is good for us and how much god likes it. After all how else would he get his jollies. >>What else need be said? My case is proven. Well, that would be just a little premature. Since you are such a firm believer in the bible, even using it to make your case, I think I will quote it TOO: GENESIS 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. @#%$, looks like god actually created the world that you now claim he could not create, to begin with. Aint that GRAND ? And oh yeah, there was no childbirth pain involved then either, was there? That didn't come about untill your god lost his temper and condemned all of humanity to the system we *now* have. It's called "Game, Set and Match". Live by the bible, die by the bible! |
|
nyj member********* Posts: 154 (6/14/01 1:39:11 pm) |
Round and round we go.Quote: Ok, now perhaps we can get down to business. I've seen your argument, as you have presented (more than once now) and while you've thrown it out there, you have not given me any further definition as I've asked for it. If you truly wish to stop going in circles, you will answer my questions. You claim that I've led the discussion in a number of directions... this is because you have failed to address my points and left me pretty much handling the discussion on my own. Down below, I've shown you why your little hypothesis is fatally flawed, and in order for this conversation to go anywhere, I have given you five questions... please read them carefully and give me some answers... then, we will truly be able to have a productive discussion here. Quote: These might not be problems if you had just answered my questions rather than avoid them. I had no choice but to cover all of the bases so you couldn't run off and claim victory when I couldn't provide an answer for a question you never specifically asked. At any rate, I've done a good job answering what you DID pose as a possible problem from a number of angles, and I did so logically (i.e.: employed science). So, you want to argue your utopia on a philosophical level? Let us look at what philosophy means. Quote: Logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics and epistemology. Let us take a look at each one of these in turn, shall we? Quote: Principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration. Can you either infer (from our experiences) or demonstrate that your mythical world is possible? Quote: Not relevant to the discussion at hand. Quote: This would be a feasible inquiry to undertake in part, but you haven't begun (and I have asked for it numerous times) to explain what your ethical position is. All you have said is suffering is evil, and you have not told us why it is evil. Quote: Not relevant to the discussion. You wish to do away with the fundamental nature of all reality as we understand it, and wish to show us how some sort of new natural process is possible. Problem is... you have nothing on which to base this concept. Other than a grossly misinterpreted idea of omnipotence, which you still have not addressed in terms of the criticisms leveled against your poor definition. Quote: The nature and grounds of knowledge. This is not something you wish to discuss. We have no knowledge of your utopia, but you claim it is a possibility. You haven't told us why it might be possible, or how it might be possible... is it possible? You have not logically explained to us why we should buy into your concept. So Showme, you aren't really trying to undertake a philosophical discussion... at least, you're not undertaking a philosophical discussion in the normal sense of the word. I'd liken it to more of a fantastical rambling. Hume quite agrees with me in this (though in an opposing fashion). In his attempt to bring low the Christian philosopher, he stated that we cannot claim that this is the best possible world because we have no other worlds to compare it to. Which is true. However, likewise... we cannot claim that this ISN'T the best possible world because we have nothing to compare it to. What do we have then? Stalemate, or so it seems. But all is not lost... what both the theist and atheist need to do is argue the facts based on THIS PRESENT WORLD. Which is what I am trying to do, and which is something you're going to great lengths to avoid. Why is that? Quote: Probably not, because if you did, your case cannot possibly prevail. Quote: Logically available? Can you give me some of these logical availabilities and explain them to me? Falling back on the "I'm not omnipotent so I don't know." bit will not work here. You've already said there are other possibilities. I'm saying that from an examination of this world, it works extremely well, and your problem with it (i.e.: suffering) is acceptable, and that it would be a huge detriment to remove it from this world. Can you show me how this view of mine is wrong? Could we do away with suffering? Would it not negatively impact the world as we know it? Oh, and while you're at it... can you tell us exactly what forms of suffering you have a problem with? The physical forms of suffering (i.e.: pain, death, etc) or the emotional forms of suffering, or both? Quote: Showme, you gave me an open-ended topic. Don't cry now that I answered your questions from every available angle. The only thing I have not done is address your fantasical utopia, because you have yet to give me a logical explanation for it. If I don't get a logical explanation for it, I cannot address it. I don't bother with illogical pursuits. Neither should you. Quote: I have not steered it in that direction. I have shown that suffering is a logical necessity given this world, and that it is beneficial for this world. Quote: Ok, I think I know your argument by now, but it's not going to help anyone if you don't address the questions I have for you, because once again... you've left your argument "wide open" and that isn't going to work. You make claims, but don't tell us WHY you make them, and you don't show us HOW you can make them either. Once again... allow me to ask you some questions, which you have to this point, failed to answer. 1)Why is this present system evil? 2)On what basis do you make this judgement (explain your ethical/moral system)? 3)If this system is logically necessary (as I have proven) why would it be evil? 4)Do you have any evidence that God could have designed another world without suffering? 5)If #4 is yes, can you prove God designed THIS world with malevolent intent? Quote: I've read it a number of times already, and you have still failed to explain why it is evil. It's logically necessary, but that would imply that it is not evil. Rather, if it was done away with, THAT would be evil. If consuming a life form for sustance of another life form is a logical necessity (as I have proven) than denying that mode of sustanace would be the actual evil. Quote: This statement is actually a sensationalistic and irrelevant comment. I've twice brought this to your attention... it is erroneous, emotional and of no logical worth. This is not my problem. You've decided to argue with a biologist over the issue of nature... don't blame me when your ill-formed facts are refuted. Quote: Finally? Quote: Showme, why don't you just stop with the insinuations that I am somehow dishonest? I think it is obvious that I believe in the Bible as the Word of God, which is exactly why I did use it in reference to my point. I quoted Matthew 5:3-12 to show that God recognizes that this world requires suffering, however, He does offer recompense. This reaffirms my position that suffering is necessary and God allows it, but it is not some gratuitous suffering imposed upon us by a malevolent God. Rather, God "makes it up to us" when we pass from this life to the next. The same thing goes for parents who raise their children up properly. They impose rules, and punishments as the child grows up, because the parent knows that the child will benefit from them. All the child thinks is that they're undergoing some awful suffering... and in the end, the kids are well adjusted and able to cope with the real world. So, are the parents evil for making their child have a curfew, or eating their vegetables, or only allowing them to play with their Sony PlayStation2 for 1 hour a night so they can spend the rest on homework? Quote: Yes Showme, resort to ad hominem and take only a small fraction of my comments rather than address my points in full... that's the way a real debate works, right? Quote: I don't know if it could or not Showme. The only thing I can say is that in this world it is necessary. Can you show me a situation where this would be possible some other way? Would budding be a suitable alternative perhaps? Perhaps if the woman didn't have any nerves capable of transmitting pain? Exactly what do you have in mind here... some utopia model we can all discuss? You have failed to deal with omnipotence as I have defined it. In the context of my definition omnipotence only makes sense when it is explained in relation to the logically impossible. The logically impossible specifically relates to our knowable universe. The universe we live in is not contradictory to God's omnipotence. As science demonstrates, suffering is logical, is it entirely necessary and any attempt to remove it would do more harm than good... if pain was removed from this world... that would be the real evil. Quote: Quit the sensationalism, would you? I never said suffering is good in the sense of enjoyable. It is good because it helps us survive, because it is necessary. I also never said God likes it, or that He gets His jollies from it. This is just an attempt to red bait me. Quote: Uh oh... I sense something about to be taken out of context. < Quote: Let me point out an inconsistency here with Showme's reasoning. I will admit, I am going to make an assumption, but it's probably very accurate. I am going to assume that Showme thinks that creationists and other Bible literalists are crazy, or at the very least, he thinks their reasoning is faulty. Given our scientific knowledge and advances, it is clear that the earth was not made in 6, 24 hour days. Yet, when Showme thinks that a literal interpretation of the Bible would best suit his cause, he drops that opinion and tries to use it against me. That is what Showme would call a "cheap and underhanded trick". Well Showme, I am not a literalist, nor am I a creationist, so as far as I am concerned, you are taking the Genesis account out of context. Yes, this is going to probably tick off any number of Christians here, but my view is my view. So what do I believe? I believe that the Genesis account is truthful, but at a much more deeper context. The Genesis account was not written as an historical record (The Gospel of Matthew on the other hand, which I quoted, is an historical record) but rather was intended to convey a deep truth through the telling of a mythological story. If God relayed to the original writers of the Genesis account, scientific treatises on an expanding universe, the big bang, evolution, etc etc... it would not have made any sense to them. It would have been wasted words and wasted time. Rather, given the time frame and knowledge of the people, the Genesis account is in a form that they could understand. The Genesis account speaks of creation as an undertaking of God. God alone is responsible for creation. God is also responsible for instilling a man with a soul. Genesis also is an attempt to explain why man is a fallen creature (free will), part of which is explained in the verses you attempt to use against me. Since you love to use the fact that I am a Catholic against me (I dunno why... what is your specific bias against them...) I may as well use it to my own benefit while I have the chance here. The Catholic Church, in 1965 issued an encyclical entitled "Dei Verbum", the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation ( www.geocities.com/okc_catholic/d ocs/dei_verbum.html ). In chapter 3, article 12 they have the following to say on Biblical exegesis: Quote: This is very sound advice... and isn't something you employed in your exegesis of Genesis. Quote: Premature gloating Showme. You have failed to address my 5 points, which are entirely relevant to your position. If I were you, I'd spend less time gloating and more time explaining your position. |
