The Only Consistent World View

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

-----------------

ROHM

As others have pointed out already, a painting isn't a living, breathing,

feeling creature.  You're just rehashing an "argument" by Paul, but let me

rehash a reply by none other than Thomas Paine:



If the paintings WERE living entities with feelings, emotions, etc. I would

expect them to - and indeed, they have every right to - cry out in protest

against their painters.



Furthermore, if you're going to use this argument, you must take it to its

logical extreme - if I am a painter and I paint something that turns out

awful, whose fault is it?  The painting's?!  The paint's??  No.  It is

clearly MY fault, because I am the painter.  This likewise applies to your

god.


PADRO
How many of you have children?   Do you expect your children to question your
authority? If so, why are kids punished when they challenge their parents
authority?   If I were to question the authority of our government, what would
happen?    Why do they punish us for challenging their authority?   Why is
anyone punished for challenging any authority?   Why do they have the
authority?   Why does anyone have any authority?

ROHM

False.  For one thing, I don't know of any atheist who says, "I know for a

fact that god doesn't exist."  Christians, however, DO claim, "I know for a

fact that god exists, his son is Jesus, you're going to Hell," etc.

PADRO
But all the atheist's on this listing claim that there is a lack of belief
(which I hold to the definition, says that God doesn't exist) in the existence
of God.   Whether it is a 100% or 1% belief, it is a claim.   Therefore, I
have as much right to reject the "burden of proof" as any atheist does for
explaining why he or she doesn't believe.   I don't find that whether a person
believes as a "fact" or not has any bearing to who is bound to explain their
reasoning.

ROHM
Besides, if your theology IS correct, then I can account for the holocaust,

rape, etc.. your god WANTED a holocaust, so he "painted" Adolf Hitler to

create one.

PADRO
Wrong!   It is our nature of evil that has caused all the evil things that
happen.   We condition each other to think with wrong motives, I don't know of
anyone who is 100% selfless and ALWAYS considers others first.   If you know
someone, I would like to meet them.   Like I said before, our finite
perspective on life has not comparison on the infinite perspective that which
God has, so for you to say that you perception says it is wrong, isn't
entirely accurate.   You have only seen one side of the lake. 

ROHM

Simply this: if your god is indeed righteous, holy, good, etc. then he has

to do more than sit on his heavenly throne and talk about how great he is. 

He has to actually DO something.  Actions speak louder than words, and

well, your god's actions show me that he is NOT good nor righteous.

PADRO
This is obviously subjective.   So because you said he isn't good, He
therefore isn't?   I find that he has done more than anyone deserves.   With a
proper perspective of God's holiness and man's sinfullness, it would be
understandable how much he has done.   Technically, He didn't have to do
anything for any of us.   He should be sitting up there doing NOTHING!

BRIDEAN

Well, it is evident to me that God does not exist and there is no reason 

for me to believe that God might exist.  Therefore the burden of proof 

would not be on me either, according to your logic.

PADRO
That is true.   But I am not here to prove that he does exist's.

BRIDEAN

Mathematics is not (and can not be) a complete perfect system.  What I 

mean by perfect is that any theory A can be either proven or disproven.

It is possible to come up with a theory A that can neither be proven

or disproven.  But without a logical system as such, you can't adequately

explain anything.



But I am curious.  What do you mean by mathematics was "created"?

PADRO
In reference to Till's argument, my argument can be sustained.

It is believed that there are certain things that have always existed and will
always exist because they cannot be created nor be destroyed, such as
mathematics.   To a non-believer of God, it is impossible to understand that
it was created.   

I don't find your argument on the lack of perfection convincing.

BRIDEAN

There are many chaotic systems which create order.  A good example in

nature would be a certain cave in Tennesee (I believe) which has a face of

an indian carved in a rock.  Yet this face was produced by random natural

forces.  But better examples can be found in any good book on Chaos 

Theory.

PADRO
Is it really a face of an Indian, or is it a big glob of mess that resembles
one?   

BRIDEAN

And your answer would be because God wanted it to happen that way?

I don't think that you have a convincing answer to the above question

either.  Another example of "I don't know, therefore God" kind of reasoning.

PADRO
It isn't simple like that.   There is a reason that I don't understand, but it
doesn't mean that it isn't the best reason.   I would resolve to that solution
(persoanlly) as quickly as some would like to think.   I, like many atheist,
will question God and his reasoning.   I always seem to find that his way is
best.   Of course, you might (and can) disagree.

BRIDEAN

And you do not want to accept the atheistic worldview because it 

conflicts with your own worldview.  It would also create conflicts within

yourself because you could no longer accept things on flimsy evidence

and logic like you did in the past.  In other words, you would have to

change your lifestyle.

PADRO
This argument is very weak.   As you all know (or should know), it would be a
lot easier to deny the existence of a god in order to have more freedom from
all the rules, the rituals, and whatever else is expected of me if I believe
in a god.   

As far as flimsy evidence, illogical means, I would say the same to you, I am
convinced that what I say is not based on emotions because some of what I say
is not very appealing to me.   On the other hand, I find that atheist's will
argue based upon what makes them "feel" right about themselves.   It is mixed
in with a little bit of logic and becomes very inconsistent.   Tell me, how
many of you actually believe in something to be true, accept it, and still
don't like it.   I will tell you, that is how it is for me with some of the
issues I stand behind.

I have friends who are not going to be saved and it bothers me, but does my
feelings denote a lack of truth?

TILL
Do you get the drift of what I am saying?  If I say that I have no belief in
the existence of invisible, immaterial entities, then I can't explain why
lots of invisible, immaterial entities don't exist.

PADRO
But you said you believe in the wind because it has proven itself through
empirical means.   It still is invisible and is an immaterial entity.

TILL
You're right; the problems I present are not inconsistent, as long as one
adopts the view of an indifferent universe.  However, the moment that one
postulates the existence of a personal god, who is omniscient, omnipotent,
omnibenevolent, omni-everything, then situations like those that I presented
become very inconsistent with that postulation.

PADRO
You can't argue that unless you came from a partial point of view, which an
atheist must be indifferent, therefore you couldn't claim that the situation
was bad or good.

TILL
Your second question begs a couple of questions that you need to prove: (1)
it begs the question of God's existence, and (2) it begs the question of an
alleged right that he has to do as he "wills" with our lives.  Don't you see
that the second question poses all sorts of inconsistencies?  God "wills" do
whatever he wishes with our lives, but he wills that some escape tragedies
like tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, and shooting incidents like the one
at Jonesboro, but he wills that others will not escape.  That is
inconsistent with his alleged nature of omnibenevolence and perfect
impartiality.

PADRO
Yes, I agree that I have not explained the existence of God, but it has little
relovonce as to why the Atheistice World View is inconsistent.

The incidents mentioned are not inconsistent with his impartiality (which you
beg the question as to showing how he favors one over the other).   You would
have to explain how he favored anyone.   The process to which he decided on
what would happen might very well be that it had nothing to do with who was
involved.   You have yet to explain how it is inconsistent.

TILL
On the other hand, a "world view" that accepts the probability of an
indifferent universe that is governed by unconscious laws of physics is
perfectly consistent with the fact that in natural disasters and man-made
tragedies some will suffer and even die and others won't.  You have not even
tried to explain why that this is not a consistent "world view".

PADRO
According to this worldview, you would have to assume that what happens,
happens and there is nothing that can be done to change it.   Which therefore,
we should abolish our government system, we should abolish all justice,
because what happens, happens.   You cannot account for why someone dying was
a mistake, murder or out of self-defense.   There is only one solution and
that is that it happened.   Somehow, we got this crazy idea that killing was
wrong.   If it is, WHY?

On the other hand, too have failed to explain why any other world view is to
be said inconsistent vs. the Atheistic World View.   You have simply stated
how it could be true, which you failed anyway.

TILL
...I don't feel the burden because it is already evident to me that there is
no reasonable evidence that gods exist.

PADRO
You have just presented your "burden of proof".  "...it is already evident to
me that there is no reasonable evidence that gods exist." 

TILL
Your problem is that you don't understand the rule of evidence that says he
who asserts must prove.  If someone asserts that UFOs follow in the tails of
comets, as the Heaven's Gate cult does, my rejection of that assertion
places on me no burden to prove that UFOs do NOT follow in the tails of
comets.  You don't have any problems recognizing the soundness of this
principle in this particular situation, do you?  When people assert that
they have seen Elvis Presley alive, my rejection of that assertion places on
me no burden to prove that Elvis Presley is NOT still alive.  Are you still
with me?  If so, then you should be able to understand that when you assert
that "God" exists, this places on me no burden to prove that God does NOT
exist.  How many times does this very basic rule of evidence have to be
explained to you guys before it finally sinks in?

PADRO
It will never sink in because you, as accused of me, have committed the
fallicy of false analogy.   Unlike proving God doesn't exist, you can prove
that Elvis is dead and that there are no UFO's tailing comets.   As you said
before with empirical evisence, these can be tested.   God's existence cannot,
at least in the aspect that he doesn't exist.

If someone said they saw a UFO, I would in turn be a little skeptical of their
situation, but in order for me to prove that they didn't, I would have to
prove that UFO's don't exist.   Otherwise, they will continue to believe.   If
you would like me to believe that there is unreasonable evidence to the
existence of God, you will have to prove it to me.   Otherwise, I will
continue to believe.

I don't wish to prove that God exist's, I wish to prove that all other
reasoning for the lack of his existence is unreasonable.

TILL
I account for racism, rape, euthanasia, the holocaust, etc., because I
believe that we live in an indifferent universe and not one that is ruled by
an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, omni-everything
deity.  The existence of apparent evil in an indifferent universe is
consistent, but it is not consistent with the view of a universe ruled by
your omni-max deity.

By the way, I don't necessarily consider euthanasia to be wrong.

PADRO
You haven't explained how you account for these things, only why.

In an indifferent universe, there would be no evil.

TILL
Well, let me ask you how you can account for anything being right or wrong?
God accounts for it, you say?  Well, how does God account for it?  In what
way does the existence of an invisible, immaterial deity whom you have never
seen or heard give you any instruction in what is right or wrong?

I urge you to be careful in answering this question, because a typical
biblicist answer will get you in a peck of trouble that many other
biblicists on the list have already experienced and run for cover.  Anyway,
if you want to argue that right or wrong without the existence of a God
cannot be determined, have a go at it.  I will be glad to show you that your
belief that this "God" exists gives you no advantage whatsoever in
determining the difference in good and bad.

PADRO
Are you trying to evade the question by putting the focus on me?

TILL
The same way that you do, by subjective reasoning.  You don't rely on
subjectivity, you say?  Well, go ahead and take that position and see where
it lands you.

PADRO
My evaluation on what is believed is objective is that because someone else
had determined it already for me.   For me to decide whether I was to believe
in it or not is subjective, but the base is entirely objective.   If everyone
was to subjectively decide for themselves what true thought was (solely based
on their own knowledge, rejecting anything that was ever told to them), then
there would be no grounds of accusing anyone to be wrong.

TILL
Well, we have fought this battle too, mainly with presuppositionalists.  If
you want to have another go at it, just present your defense of this
position.  I think you will find an audience ready and willing to take you
to task.  I think also that any attempt to defend this position will shorten
your tenure on the list, because you will probably be like the others who
argued this and quickly discovered that they needed to leave the list for
various reasons.

PADRO
It seems to me that if anyone would want to leave, it would be the lack of
consistent thought on this list. (for the most part)

TILL
Explain the existence of your deity whom you allege created order and logic.
How did this deity come to exist without anything to create it?

TILL
Okay, let's see you prove to us that this "something" was your "God."  In
the process, be sure to explain why it couldn't just have been matter
itself, which has always existed and didn't need creation.  In other words,
if "God" didn't need to be created, why couldn't it be that matter didn't
need to be created?  In terms of complexity, how much more complex would
your "God" be than the simplest particles of matter?  So if it becomes a
matter of believing that one of these two entities just happened to exist,
why wouldn't it be more reasonable to assume that the very simple particles
of matter are self-existing rather than to believe that an infinitely
complex entity like your "God" just happened to exist?

PADRO
How is the creator bound to anything he has created?   When did this become
mandatory?   Are you trying to evade the question again?

TILL
You mean the shootings in Jonesboro?  Sure, the tragedy could have happened
many other ways.  The kids who did the shooting could have poisoned the
drinking water or locked the doors of the school and set it on fire or
thrown hand grenades through the windows.  The question is ridiculous,
because we are talking about what DID happen and not what COULD HAVE
happened.  If the killers had decided to use some other way to do their
carnage, we would still be faced with the same problem.  Since it is
unlikely that they could have succeeded in killing everyone in the school,
some would still have survived, whereas others would have died.  We would
then be faced with the same problem, which could be consistently explained
with the view that everything that happens happens in an indifferent
universe that is governed by unconscious natural laws. Those who died just
happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and those who survived
just happened to be in the right place at the right time, but no conscious
laws of nature conspired to save some and kill others.

Now let's see you explain it in a way that is consistent with your belief in
a universe controlled by an omniscient, omnipotent, omni-everything deity.

PADRO
Seems to me like nothing bad could ever exist in your line of logic.   If it
does, oh well, what happens, happens.

TILL
Yes, I think you have misunderstood the naturalistic world view.  I hope
that this posting will clarify it for you.  I seriously doubt if you
understand much of anything about atheism.

PADRO
All that has been made clear to me is that you haven't made anything clearer.

Padro

• Previous message: The Only Consistent World View
• Next message: The Only Consistent World View
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]