God does not exist.

[y0lked]

(1) If God exists then he is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent.
(2) If God were omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent then the world would not contain moral evil.
(3) The world contains moral evil.
Therefore:
(4) It is not the case that God exists.


The bible concludes that there is no free will, therefore God has complete control over everyone.

Because there is evil in this world there are only 2 outcomes for god.

1) He does not exist.
2) God is completely evil. Uses human beings as his puppets in which he conducts evil in the world as his stage in which to be entertained.

[Harbinger]

this is not news

[cannadian]

Correction: the christian god does not exist.

[y0lked]

Correction: the christian god does not exist.

Sure.

[y0lked]

this is not news

How then does religion survive? People with no intellect? Blind faith? I honestly have no idea how millions of people can live their life based on a lie.

[BigMass]

(1) If God exists then he is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent.
(2) If God were omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent then the world would not contain moral evil.
(3) The world contains moral evil.
Therefore:
(4) It is not the case that God exists.


The bible concludes that there is no free will, therefore God has complete control over everyone.

Because there is evil in this world there are only 2 outcomes for god.

1) He does not exist.
2) God is completely evil. Uses human beings as his puppets in which he conducts evil in the world as his stage in which to be entertained.

Better call up Alvin Plantinga. You just took him to school in philosophy and produced a knock down argument against God. He might give up his faith based on your awesome analysis.

[mccole2012]

God just sounds like bigfoot.

[Stizzel]

How then does religion survive? People with no intellect? Blind faith? I honestly have no idea how millions of people can live their life based on a lie.

They go after the children.

[y0lked]

Better call up Alvin Plantinga. You just took him to school in philosophy and produced a knock down argument against God. He might give up his faith based on your awesome analysis.

Like any Christian (and indeed any theist), I believe that the world has been created by God, and hence "intelligently designed." The hallmark of intelligent design, however, is the claim that this can be shown scientifically; I'm dubious about that. ...As far as I can see, God certainly could have used Darwinian processes to create the living world and direct it as he wanted to go; hence evolution as such does not imply that there is no direction in the history of life. What does have that implication is not evolutionary theory itself, but unguided evolution, the idea that neither God nor any other person has taken a hand in guiding, directing or orchestrating the course of evolution. But the scientific theory of evolution, sensibly enough, says nothing one way or the other about divine guidance. It doesn't say that evolution is divinely guided; it also doesn't say that it isn't. Like almost any theist, I reject unguided evolution; but the contemporary scientific theory of evolution just as such—apart from philosophical or theological add-ons—doesn't say that evolution is unguided. Like science in general, it makes no pronouncements on the existence or activity of God.

Anyone who believes in Intelligent Design is either a complete idiot, or continues to believe in a lie and uses religion for power.

[lasher]

Better call up Alvin Plantinga. You just took him to school in philosophy and produced a knock down argument against God. He might give up his faith based on your awesome analysis.

lulz.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantin...roblem_of_evil

According to Chad Meister, professor of philosophy at Bethel College, most philosophers accept Plantinga's free will defense and thus see the logical problem of evil as having been sufficiently rebutted.[22]

a b Meister 2009, p. 134




OP its not 1974 anymore. Plantinga put this **** to rest a long time ago.

If you switched over to an evidential argument from evil you'd be a bit more contemporary with current philosophy.

[y0lked]

lulz.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantin...roblem_of_evil

According to Chad Meister, professor of philosophy at Bethel College, most philosophers accept Plantinga's free will defense and thus see the logical problem of evil as having been sufficiently rebutted.[22]

a b Meister 2009, p. 134




OP its not 1974 anymore. Plantinga put this **** to rest a long time ago.

If you switched over to an evidential argument from evil you'd be a bit more contemporary with current philosophy.

Soooo religions defense is in the hands of a inteligent design theorists, and not Gods and his words in the bible.....


"lulz" if u will.

[CreoleFever]

How Christianity still exists

- missionaries to third world countries, hey I'll give you some food, all u have to do is accept Jesus as your savior

-holidays, easter, xmas, lint, etc.

-brainwash

-tradition

[lasher]

Soooo religions defense is in the hands of a inteligent design theorists, and not Gods and his words in the bible.....


"lulz" if u will.

You mean one of the most eminent philosophers of our time? A man who garners respect from both theist and atheist philosophers?

Yea, imma definitely lulz at you.

[BrahTheLegend]

OP I really do feel bad for you... You are focusing entirely too much on the specific dogma of the church and the bible (which is a lot of b.s.) rather than the underlying principles of what religion is all about. You completely miss the point. Making a thread denouncing the slightest possibility that something in this universe exists beyond your tiny brain's comprehension just proves you lack the necessary intellect to even begin to understand such a subject. Please stop posting until you have better arguments than "free will" and "a moral world".. Even diehard theists will not budge at such a ludicrous argument against the existence of God. If that is truly the best you have, I would recommend 4chan.

In short, you really seem quite angry about something and are focusing on the parts of religion that matter the very least. Good luck trying to convince yourself of your own beliefs via trying to get into arguments with teenagers on an internet message board.

Have a nice day.

[Meatros]

Plantinga did refute the logically deductive argument from evil. So we cannot claim deductive certainty that God doesn't exist because evil exists. On the other hand, it still seems reasonable to me to say that evil gives us a reason to not believe in God. I hope that you see the difference between these two positions. If not, keep in mind that 'a reason' does not equate to absolute certainty.

[y0lked]

You mean one of the most eminent philosophers of our time? A man who garners respect from both theist and atheist philosophers?

Yea, imma definitely lulz at you.

"Alvin Plantinga gives philosophy a bad name"
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2...s_philosop.php

Listen to your guy talk about the biggest book in religion right now

Richard Dawkins is not pleased with God:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all of fiction. Jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic-cleanser; a misogynistic homophobic racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal….

Well, no need to finish the quotation; you get the idea. Dawkins seems to have chosen God as his sworn enemy. (Let's hope for Dawkins' sake God doesn't return the compliment.)

The God Delusion is an extended diatribe against religion in general and belief in God in particular; Dawkins and Daniel Dennett (whose recent Breaking the Spell is his contribution to this genre) are the touchdown twins of current academic atheism.1 Dawkins has written his book, he says, partly to encourage timorous atheists to come out of the closet. He and Dennett both appear to think it requires considerable courage to attack religion these days; says Dennett, "I risk a fist to the face or worse. Yet I persist." Apparently atheism has its own heroes of the faith—at any rate its own self-styled heroes. Here it's not easy to take them seriously; religion-bashing in the current Western academy is about as dangerous as endorsing the party's candidate at a Republican rally.

Dawkins is perhaps the world's most popular science writer; he is also an extremely gifted science writer. (For example, his account of bats and their ways in his earlier book The Blind Watchmaker is a brilliant and fascinating tour de force.) The God Delusion, however, contains little science; it is mainly philosophy and theology (perhaps "atheology" would be a better term) and evolutionary psychology, along with a substantial dash of social commentary decrying religion and its allegedly baneful effects. As the above quotation suggests, one shouldn't look to this book for evenhanded and thoughtful commentary.

the guy cant refute anything, and simply doesnt like the "religious bashing" haha and he obviously didnt read the book since it quote "Contains little science"

[y0lked]

OP I really do feel bad for you... You are focusing entirely too much on the specific dogma of the church and the bible (which is a lot of b.s.) rather than the underlying principles of what religion is all about. You completely miss the point. Making a thread denouncing the slightest possibility that something in this universe exists beyond your tiny brain's comprehension just proves you lack the necessary intellect to even begin to understand such a subject. Please stop posting until you have better arguments than "free will" and "a moral world".. Even diehard theists will not budge at such a ludicrous argument against the existence of God. If that is truly the best you have, I would recommend 4chan.

In short, you really seem quite angry about something and are focusing on the parts of religion that matter the very least. Good luck trying to convince yourself of your own beliefs via trying to get into arguments with teenagers on an internet message board.

Have a nice day.

haha thanks theist brah! i actually know alot more about religion than you do. brb questioning the existence of God is "focusing on the parts of religion that matter the very least".

ohh, and thanks for refuting my post instead of simply pulling out insults

[lasher]

haha thanks theist brah! i actually know alot more about religion than you do. brb questioning the existence of God is "focusing on the parts of religion that matter the very least".

ohh, and thanks for refuting my post instead of simply pulling out insults

Your post has been refuted for decades. Get new material. Meatros has it correct. There certainly is evidential objections to the existence of evil in the world being compatible with God, especially the amount of apparent gratuitous evil. But this epicurean argument you are touting has been tossed for a long time. Deductively, the issue is dead.

[pehzan]

[lasher]

reps for 5th element gif.

[y0lked]

Your post has been refuted for decades. Get new material. Meatros has it correct. There certainly is evidential objections to the existence of evil in the world being compatible with God, especially the amount of apparent gratuitous evil. But this epicurean argument you are touting has been tossed for a long time. Deductively, the issue is dead.

You mean "ignored for now till someone else brings it up again and we will just ignore it again, but if someone actually comes at us with knowledge were fukked". Ohh! And I like the part where u told me HOW my argument is invalid.

[Meatros]

"Alvin Plantinga gives philosophy a bad name"
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2...s_philosop.php

Listen to your guy talk about the biggest book in religion right now

the guy cant refute anything, and simply doesnt like the "religious bashing" haha and he obviously didnt read the book since it quote "Contains little science"

Let's assume that Alvin Plantinga gives philosophy a bad name. Let's assume he's an idiot because he believes in intelligent design. Let's assume that he needs help eating because he's simply too stupid to figure out what a spoon is for.

Even with all of those assumptions, his refutation of the problem of evil stands. You can consider him an idiot, but that doesn't refute him.

[BigMass]

"Alvin Plantinga gives philosophy a bad name"
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2...s_philosop.php

Listen to your guy talk about the biggest book in religion right now



the guy cant refute anything, and simply doesnt like the "religious bashing" haha and he obviously didnt read the book since it quote "Contains little science"

Dawkins is a good scientist but a terrible philosopher. You can add Hawking to that list as well. The criticism comes from the fact that they’re writing poor mainstream philosophical books pushing their own dogmas and ideologies on people that don’t know any better. These books are often seen as rather embarrassing in terms of basic philosophy even by other atheists. They should stick to the science and leave the philosophy to the philosophers. But that would make for a very bland book that wouldn’t sell as well.

[lasher]

You mean "ignored for now till someone else brings it up again and we will just ignore it again, but if someone actually comes at us with knowledge were fukked". Ohh! And I like the part where u told me HOW my argument is invalid.

I never said it was invalid.

[209vaughn]

Plantinga did refute the logically deductive argument from evil. So we cannot claim deductive certainty that God doesn't exist because evil exists. On the other hand, it still seems reasonable to me to say that evil gives us a reason to not believe in God. I hope that you see the difference between these two positions. If not, keep in mind that 'a reason' does not equate to absolute certainty.

Yes even though Plantinga shot down a lot of the defeaters for the problem of evil - properly basic belief of the problem of evil still remains. I respect this and even Christians struggle with making sense with it. But our personal experience with God tells us that he created us freely to follow him and he created a free world to choose him thus we will ultimatley encounter evil/bad/sickness.

"Alvin Plantinga gives philosophy a bad name"
[url]http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/alvin_plantinga_gives_philosop.php[url]

Listen to your guy talk about the biggest book in religion right now



the guy cant refute anything, and simply doesnt like the "religious bashing" haha and he obviously didnt read the book since it quote "Contains little science"

LOL @ citing PZ Meyers blog... This is the Atheists equivilant to Creation science. Like the other guy said, 4chan has about as much credibility as PZ Meyers blog.

How many peer reviewed papers has Dr Meyers published since he started that blog? I heard it was 0. LOL. Tax payers are paying Dr. Meyers to be an outlandish public Atheist rather than an honest hard working intellectual.

[Meatros]

You mean "ignored for now till someone else brings it up again and we will just ignore it again, but if someone actually comes at us with knowledge were fukked". Ohh! And I like the part where u told me HOW my argument is invalid.

No, that is not what he means. JL Mackie, an atheist philosopher formulated the argument from evil and put forth what is widely considered it's best formulation. This prompted Alvin Plantinga to respond.

From here:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/evil-log/#H8

Some philosophers feel that Plantinga’s apparent victory over the logical problem of evil was somehow too easy. His solution to the logical problem of evil leaves them feeling unsatisfied and suspicious that they have been taken in by some kind of sleight of hand. For example, J. L. Mackie one of the most prominent atheist philosophers of the mid-twentieth-century and a key exponent of the logical problem of evil has this to say about Plantinga’s Free Will Defense:

Since this defense is formally [that is, logically] possible, and its principle involves no real abandonment of our ordinary view of the opposition between good and evil, we can concede that the problem of evil does not, after all, show that the central doctrines of theism are logically inconsistent with one another. But whether this offers a real solution of the problem is another question. (Mackie 1982, p. 154)

Mackie admits that Plantinga’s defense shows how God and evil can co-exist, that is, it shows that “the central doctrines of theism” are logically consistent after all. However, Mackie is reluctant to attribute much significance to Plantinga’s accomplishment. He expresses doubt about whether Plantinga has adequately dealt with the problem of evil.

Part of Mackie’s dissatisfaction probably stems from the fact that Plantinga only gives a possible reason for why God might have for allowing evil and suffering and does not provide any evidence for his claims or in any way try to make them plausible. Although sketching out mere possibilities without giving them any evidential support is typically an unsatisfactory thing to do in philosophy, it is not clear that Mackie’s unhappiness with Plantinga is completely warranted. It was, after all, Mackie himself who characterized the problem of evil as one of logical inconsistency:

Here it can be shown, not that religious beliefs lack rational support, but that they are positively irrational, that several parts of the essential theological doctrine are inconsistent with one another. (Mackie 1955, p. 200)

In response to this formulation of the problem of evil, Plantinga showed that this charge of inconsistency was mistaken. Even Mackie admits that Plantinga solved the problem of evil, if that problem is understood as one of inconsistency. It is, therefore, difficult to see why Plantinga’s Free Will Defense should be found wanting if that defense is seen as a response to the logical problem of evil. As an attempt to rebut the logical problem of evil, it is strikingly successful.

The dissatisfaction many have felt with Plantinga’s solution may stem from a desire to see Plantinga’s Free Will Defense respond more generally to the problem of evil and not merely to a single formulation of the problem. As an all-around response to the problem of evil, the Free Will Defense does not offer us much in the way of explanation. It leaves several of the most important questions about God and evil unanswered. The desire to see a theistic response to the problem of evil go beyond merely undermining a particular atheological argument is understandable. However, we should keep in mind that all parties admit that Plantinga’s Free Will Defense successfully rebuts the logical problem of evil as it was formulated by atheists during the mid-twentieth-century.

If there is any blame that needs to go around, it may be that some of it should go to Mackie and other atheologians for claiming that the problem of evil was a problem of inconsistency. The ease with which Plantinga undermined that formulation of the problem suggests that the logical formulation did not adequately capture the difficult and perplexing issue concerning God and evil that has been so hotly debated by philosophers and theologians. In fact, this is precisely the message that many philosophers took away from the debate between Plantinga and the defenders of the logical problem of evil. They reasoned that there must be more to the problem of evil than what is captured in the logical formulation of the problem. It is now widely agreed that this intuition is correct. Current discussions of the problem focus on what is called “the probabilistic problem of evil” or “the evidential problem of evil.” According to this formulation of the problem, the evil and suffering (or, in some cases, the amounts, kinds and distributions of evil and suffering) that we find in the world count as evidence against the existence of God (or make it improbable that God exists). Responding to this formulation of the problem requires much more than simply describing a logically possible scenario in which God and evil co-exist.

[209vaughn]

"Alvin Plantinga gives philosophy a bad name"
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2...s_philosop.php

Listen to your guy talk about the biggest book in religion right now



the guy cant refute anything, and simply doesnt like the "religious bashing" haha and he obviously didnt read the book since it quote "Contains little science"

You mad this is on my night stand?

[y0lked]

Let's assume that Alvin Plantinga gives philosophy a bad name. Let's assume he's an idiot because he believes in intelligent design. Let's assume that he needs help eating because he's simply too stupid to figure out what a spoon is for.

Even with all of those assumptions, his refutation of the problem of evil stands. You can consider him an idiot, but that doesn't refute him.

In order to refute the argument from moral evil, then, the theist must show that it is not necessarily the case that if God were omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent then the world would not contain moral evil. Under what circumstances, though, for what reason, might such a God allow such evil?

Theists almost invariably meet this question with the free-will defence. Moral evil is caused by the free choices of moral agents, they argue. Free agency, though, is a good thing; a world containing free agents is far better than either a world containing only automata or a world containing no conscious beings at all. An omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent God would therefore create a world containing free agents, and in doing so would run the risk of allowing moral evil to enter into the world.

The first way in which the free-will defence works, then, is by distancing God from the moral evil in the world. Moral evil is not brought about by God, the free-will defence argues, but by free agents. God is therefore not the author of moral evil, and so is not responsible for it.

This conclusion might be criticised, however, in the following way: Even if it is the free agents that perpetrate moral evils that are directly responsible for them, God does seem to bear at least some indirect responsibility for them. After all, God created the free agents, knowing full well the risk that he was running in doing so, and is therefore at least partly to blame for their abuses of their freedom. God it can be argued, is guilty of negligence in creating free agents, even if not of actually perpetrating any moral crimes himself.

ohh hai!

[jdare77]

(1) If God exists then he is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent.
(2) If God were omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent then the world would not contain moral evil.
(3) The world contains moral evil.
Therefore:
(4) It is not the case that God exists.


The bible concludes that there is no free will, therefore God has complete control over everyone.

Because there is evil in this world there are only 2 outcomes for god.

1) He does not exist.
2) God is completely evil. Uses human beings as his puppets in which he conducts evil in the world as his stage in which to be entertained.

OP, I do not agree or disagree with you on the existence of God. However, you basically stated an opinion of what you think God should be and refuted it. As someone who doesn't believe in God, I would think you would have put more thought into a research methodology for your "scientific" opinion.

Also, you state there are only two outcomes. Why?
3) God really did create us, lost intrest, and moved on.
4) God just creates things and leaves it up to the created to determine thier fate
5) God existed at one time but doesn't exist anymore (Kind of like a star burns out but you see the light traveling for thousands of years)

I don't actually believe any of that, just illustrating that you cannot simply state something and imply that it is some kind of fact.

[y0lked]

OP, I do not agree or disagree with you on the existence of God. However, you basically stated an opinion of what you think God should be and refuted it. As someone who doesn't believe in God, I would think you would have put more thought into a research methodology for your "scientific" opinion.

no opinions were used. The interpretation of God is in the bible, so are his testimonies. Im just putting 2 and 2 together with facts from the world.