Chain Logic and God

You are quite right. The conclusion should be that the definition of a G-d given by the dominant world religions is contradictive and, therefore, false. This means all dominant world religions are false.

Science does not deal with questions about G-d, since they are out of its domain of interest (non-scientfic claims).

Then, I ask you, what is the need of a concept of a G-d?

You are quite right. The conclusion should be that the definition of a G-d given by the dominant world religions is contradictive and, therefore, false. This means all dominant world religions are false.

Science does not deal with questions about G-d, since they are out of its domain of interest (non-scientfic claims).

Then, I ask you, what is the need of a concept of a G-d?

That is a good point. I will think upon this.

Could God make a burrito so hot he couldn't eat it?

Problems immediately arise if you define omnipotence as infinite power. If omnipotence is being more powerful then anything else God would not need to be more powerful then God. But it would be possible for something to limit itself, as I could limit myself by keeping my eyes closed.

If you come to think of it, every religion deals with 3 unanswered questions:

1) Is there anything after our physical death;

2) What is the place of mankind in the Universe;

3) What is considered ethical.

But, in my opinion, these questions are quite separate and touch on different areas of human intellectual effort. The characteristic of every religion is its tendency to mix the answers of these three questions in quite various ratios and causal connections to gain its dogmatic power.

As far as the first one is considered, it is the only domain where religion has and will have unchallenged supremacy. Why? Because it is not subject to experimental verification, and, therefore, out of the reach of scientific investigation. The only thing science can tell us for certain (mostly from empirical evidence) is that every living being dies sooner or later, and, after death, its body decays irreversibly.

It is exactly the way in which a specific religion connects this issue with the other two that characterizes it. If the religion postulates an answer on question one, and, from there draws its conclusions about the other two questions, it can be called ‘dogmatic’. It is built in the manner of a strict axiomatic system. If, on the other hand, the religion is drawing its conclusions about ‘afterlife’ from current accepted answers of questions two and three, we can consider it more of a philosophy, than religion and call it ‘speculative’.

Question two is what I call ‘the demise of every religion’. Why? Because, in fact, it can and was repeatedly answered in a systematic way by scientific research. This caused some religions to become obsolete and give way to more ‘modern’ ones. In any case, it gives every religion a passing value, because it is causing it to compare its beliefs with an ever improving scientific world view. This might lead to some especially absurd results in the case of ‘dogmatic’ religions, since they build their worldview from first principles and the result, of course, might be in sharp contrast with reality.

Question three, on the other hand, is what I would call ‘the reason to be religious, even if it is not true’. This is the social component of every religion and it gives the guidelines what is considered to be acceptable behavior in a society. This is also the reason why different religions are associated with different geographical, economical and political communities.

I apologize if  this was quite a departure from the theme of the topic, but I felt I had to give my say on the matter in the best way I could. I didn’t mean to offend anyone because of their personal beliefs.

Heh. Failure to find flaws in the argument means that you have to accept the conclusion. Any theists out there willing to participate? 

I agree with your assessment.

Bump for response.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on February 13, 2008, 03:48:39 PM

Not that I disagree, but what is your definition of evil?

I don't have a definition of evil because it doesn't exist. It was created, for what reason, I'm not sure. Perhaps to create a divide, to showcase one group's superiority; something along those lines.

I'm not sure what you are suggesting. Sentence one states evil is nonexistent. Sentence two seems to say you don't know why it was 'created' (thus implying it exists). What groups are you referring to? Please elaborate.   

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on February 13, 2008, 07:03:34 PM

Lesser evil is still a confirmation of evil. The grand plan involves evil but why not no evil altogether?

Because how can we learn good here on Earth if we do not experience evil. What would the purpose of life be, if we learned nothing from it? I believe the very fact that god forgives your sins if you truthfully ask for forgiveness displays this point.

When evil is removed, only good remains. Good would be synonymous with existence thus not needing to be learned... Unless I misunderstood and you are referring to the notion that evil helps us learn how to cope with worse evil, which has its own problems.

Omniscience excludes omnipotence.  Namely, let us say that omniscience is true. This means that everything that will happen in future is already known. Specifically, there is knowledge about the truth value of every logical statement. But, then we know that the negation of any true statement is impossible. This means it cannot be done. This means omnipotence is false.

Fascinating conjecture. This coincides with the conclusion God does not exist, so I will leave this to the atheists... for now. 

This does not seems to be a proof/disproof of god, or the concept of the entity of god as much as an attempted disproof of the definition of god as defined by major world religions. (as I see it)

If Premise 1 is false then the entire proof is null. I see no reason why god, or such an entity as god, if it were to exist need be omnipotent or omniscient, let alone omnibenevolent. How would this proof apply to the Deist concept of god, for example?

This is true. This attempt of disproof is only directed at this notion of God specified in thee first premise. God, as an "omni-4" being cannot exist. Other variations are not influenced by this argument. Consider I believed God to exist without these qualities and in the sense of God is/was the Big Bang or not a conscious entity. Perhaps logic itself is God.

I'm not sure what you are suggesting. Sentence one states evil is nonexistent. Sentence two seems to say you don't know why it was 'created' (thus implying it exists). What groups are you referring to? Please elaborate.   

Evil is only a classification based on a subjective perspective. It exists only in the minds of those who perpetuate the concept. It is as much a social construct as rights and morals.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on February 14, 2008, 10:12:42 AM

I'm not sure what you are suggesting. Sentence one states evil is nonexistent. Sentence two seems to say you don't know why it was 'created' (thus implying it exists). What groups are you referring to? Please elaborate.   

Evil is only a classification based on a subjective perspective. It exists only in the minds of those who perpetuate the concept. It is as much a social construct as rights and morals.

So morals are simply values invented by the mind and have no universal ethical truth beyond our perception? I suppose that separate cultures establishing ethics that happen match relatively closely (despite being in isolation from each other) cannot be used to argue against your point, because it could be a product of common forms of thought persistent in all humans or a product of their environment, evolution, etc. This also forfeits "good" as having a definition, which is one of the aspects of the 'God' in question: (omnibenevolent). Since you do not have a definition for either of these, this conjecture doesn't apply to your beliefs just as it wouldn't apply to a deist or a polytheist. Since it has no influence in the end, it is pointless in your case so neither of us can be successful. That is unless you choose to adopt the common perception of good and evil whether or not the concept is beyond words. 

So morals are simply values invented by the mind and have no universal ethical truth beyond our perception?

Right.

I suppose that separate cultures establishing ethics that happen match relatively closely (despite being in isolation from each other) cannot be used to argue against your point, because it could be a product of common forms of thought persistent in all humans or a product of their environment, evolution, etc.

Having similarities in the self-interest of humans does not go against the idea. It's genetic, a survival trait. Ethics and morality surface from the self-interest of mankind.

This also forfeits "good" as having a definition, which is one of the aspects of the 'God' in question: (omnibenevolent).

Precisely why the thought experiment fails. Due to the subjectivity of the key aspect in question, you cannot get anything meaningful from it. Changing definitions will also affect the outcome. It simply doesn't work, unless you don't mind different answers.

Arguing over what is Evil and can it be defined and all that shizzle really is pointless. Even if we could lay down some concrete definition of good and evil, the original premise is flawed simply because you cannot apply such a scientific approach to Religion. That is where the problem really lies. Religion by it's very nature is ambiguous. Science by it's nature is not (Or rather "should not be").

Quote from: Saint Raist on February 13, 2008, 07:06:40 PM

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on February 13, 2008, 07:03:34 PM

Lesser evil is still a confirmation of evil. The grand plan involves evil but why not no evil altogether?

Because how can we learn good here on Earth if we do not experience evil. What would the purpose of life be, if we learned nothing from it? I believe the very fact that god forgives your sins if you truthfully ask for forgiveness displays this point.

When evil is removed, only good remains. Good would be synonymous with existence thus not needing to be learned... Unless I misunderstood and you are referring to the notion that evil helps us learn how to cope with worse evil, which has its own problems.

I do not believe that evil is a thing. It is simply our perception of a situation. Removing all evil does not make sense under this definition. I believe that dealing with evil teaches us to appreciate good, and celebrate it. If all rainy days were eliminated we would never appreciate a sunny day.

Also I believe much is gained through suffering, meet people that grew up through the holocaust or the great depression and this seems apparent.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on February 14, 2008, 01:14:54 PM

I suppose that separate cultures establishing ethics that happen match relatively closely (despite being in isolation from each other) cannot be used to argue against your point, because it could be a product of common forms of thought persistent in all humans or a product of their environment, evolution, etc.

Having similarities in the self-interest of humans does not go against the idea. It's genetic, a survival trait. Ethics and morality surface from the self-interest of mankind.

Hence:

cannot be used to argue against your point, because...

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on February 14, 2008, 01:14:54 PM

This also forfeits "good" as having a definition, which is one of the aspects of the 'God' in question: (omnibenevolent).

Precisely why the thought experiment fails. Due to the subjectivity of the key aspect in question, you cannot get anything meaningful from it. Changing definitions will also affect the outcome. It simply doesn't work, unless you don't mind different answers.

Fails when applied to people it is not aimed at. I compared you to deists and polytheists because this argument doesn't apply their definition of God. Not to exclude you or anything, but the argument is limited and not including your beliefs. People with a common definition of evil/good and are monotheistic/"omni-4" etc. match the criteria to engage in such an experiment to begin with. 

Well, that's hardly scientific, but I get it.

Well, that's hardly scientific, but I get it.

I think of it as scientific to a group.
"Omnibenevolent" God has to mean something, so using that meaning to build upon adds the structure to the argument. Someone who doesn't believe in an Omnibenevolent God because of their disbelief in 'benevolence' didn't originally use 'benevolent' as a criteria for God and thus is separate from the conclusion.

Premise1:     If there is a God, God is defined as omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
Premise2:     If God exists, there would be no evil in the world.
Premise3:     There is evil in the world.
Conclusion:   There is no God.

Here's an example:
Consider a babysitter taking care of your three year old. You come home to find out your kid drank a bottle of drain cleaner (the evil). The babysitter cannot have all four qualities of being there - able to prevent/stop it - knowing better - and being a 'good' babysitter, and still have the kid drinking drain cleaner. All four 'omni' qualities and evil are inherently mutually exclusive. Since evil exists, no such being exists.

Any thoughts on the evidential argument from evil? 

How are you defining God?  What do youknow about Him?
Since when did baby sitters become omniscient?  Your second premise is flawed.  God created the world perfectly.  With this perfection he gave man a free will to choose to do right or wrong.  Unfortunately, man chose wrong, and sin and evil entered the world.  Man now has a sin nature, the natural, inborn desire to do wrong.  Thus, God is indeed in the world, but He did not create evil, he merely gave man the choice between right and wrong, and man chose wrong.  That is why the world is in the condition it is in today.

I do not know how to simplify it further for you. But come to think of it, the concept of Satan goes to show God is not everywhere/everything and perfectly good. 

And if God does not have control of Satan, he is not all powerful.

How does the presence of Satan prove the absence of God?  No, everything is not perfectly good, but this doesn't mean that there isn't a God. Think about a school. A principal is supposedly over control of the school.  Since there is a principal does that mean that all the students will behave perfectly?  You can't say that just because students misbehave in schools that there must not be a principal.  Why would you think that God does not have control over Satan.  He allows Satan to roam on the the earth, and one day Satan will be bound and cast into the bottomless pit of hell.  God created people to glorify Him.  He allows Satan to roam on earth to give people a choice.

If you believe God created everything, then you must believe that God created the "wrong" also.  Wrong = evil.  If he hadn't created it, then it wouldn't have been an option for man to choose. 

Allowing Satan to roam the earth is pretty fucked up too. 

Nope. God gave man free will, man used it to turn against God, so man made evil (at least as it applies to man).

Allowing Satan to roam the earth is pretty fucked up too.

Why?

Nope. God gave man free will, man used it to turn against God, so man made evil (at least as it applies to man).

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on February 15, 2008, 11:39:49 AM

Allowing Satan to roam the earth is pretty fucked up too.

Why?

And, you know this from?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy

This topic was over before it started.

God created Satan long before he created his perfectly innocent little guinea pigs.  Then he left them alone with him long enough for him to trick them.  How is that not fucked up?  How is allowing evil to roam the earth when, hypothetically, God could put an end to it,  not fucked up? 

Would you let Satan tempt your child?  Or would you look out for him/her?  If Adam and Eve didn't have knowledge of good and evil, how could they have made an informed choice?  What good is freewill if you don't know right from wrong? 

Since when did baby sitters become omniscient?

They aren't. The point is they know better than the naive child.

Your second premise is flawed.  God created the world perfectly.  With this perfection he gave man a free will to choose to do right or wrong.  Unfortunately, man chose wrong, and sin and evil entered the world.  Man now has a sin nature, the natural, inborn desire to do wrong.  Thus, God is indeed in the world, but He did not create evil, he merely gave man the choice between right and wrong, and man chose wrong.  That is why the world is in the condition it is in today.

Isn't God incapable of creating a world without evil but still free will? If evil is man's doing, how do you classify natural disaster? Fires, floods, tornadoes, volcanoes, etc. etc. It seems, the other issues I intended to bring up were already mentioned by Space Cowgirl. 

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on February 13, 2008, 05:23:04 PM

I do not know how to simplify it further for you. But come to think of it, the concept of Satan goes to show God is not everywhere/everything and perfectly good. 

And if God does not have control of Satan, he is not all powerful.

How does the presence of Satan prove the absence of God?

I may not be clear enough in the argument. The thought was that God cannot be omnipresent, in the sense of being everywhere/everything, and also omnibenevolent or perfectly good, because this implies that everything that is part of God is good. Evil exists and is inherently part of God, but this conflicts with the 'good' notion. Therefore, a god of that description cannot exist.

If people keep using wikipedia for sources I'm gonna shit myself. I don't care how minute the detail is wikipedia is not a legitimate source for information. It can be so easily manipulated, especially pages that have banners of critique. If I reference some philosophical topic I have to have some kind of legitimate source or I wouldn't know it to be reasonably true.

Just a general point, not directed at anyone specifically.

God created Satan long before he created his perfectly innocent little guinea pigs.  Then he left them alone with him long enough for him to trick them.  How is that not fucked up?  How is allowing evil to roam the earth when, hypothetically, God could put an end to it,  not fucked up?

If I recall correctly, sin/evil will be destroyed when the apocalypse comes, not any time sooner. And if God had not allowed people to be exposed to evil they would have remained ignorant.

Would you let Satan tempt your child?  Or would you look out for him/her?  If Adam and Eve didn't have knowledge of good and evil, how could they have made an informed choice?  What good is freewill if you don't know right from wrong?

They had one rule to abide by: Don't eat that fruit. They knew what was expected of them and they knew the consequences.

but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.'

Isn't God incapable of creating a world without evil but still free will? If evil is man's doing, how do you classify natural disaster? Fires, floods, tornadoes, volcanoes, etc. etc. It seems, the other issues I intended to bring up were already mentioned by Space Cowgirl. 

Natural disasters are just events, evil requires actions and intent.

Quote from: Rationalizer on February 15, 2008, 08:38:48 AM

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on February 13, 2008, 05:23:04 PM

I do not know how to simplify it further for you. But come to think of it, the concept of Satan goes to show God is not everywhere/everything and perfectly good. 

And if God does not have control of Satan, he is not all powerful.

How does the presence of Satan prove the absence of God?

I may not be clear enough in the argument. The thought was that God cannot be omnipresent, in the sense of being everywhere/everything, and also omnibenevolent or perfectly good, because this implies that everything that is part of God is good. Evil exists and is inherently part of God, but this conflicts with the 'good' notion. Therefore, a god of that description cannot exist.

If Christians were pantheists you might be on to something

If people keep using wikipedia for sources I'm gonna shit myself. I don't care how minute the detail is wikipedia is not a legitimate source for information. It can be so easily manipulated, especially pages that have banners of critique. If I reference some philosophical topic I have to have some kind of legitimate source or I wouldn't know it to be reasonably true.

Just a general point, not directed at anyone specifically.

Find your own source if feel like it. Wiki is sufficient for the vacuous discussion currently underway in this thread

Wikipedia is nothing but lies and slanders, as I recall Pope Zera stating once. Anyone who considers wikipedia to be true in any respect should be cast into a cess pit, in my opinion at least.

On to the topic at hand, although it is possible for a god(s) to exist in coalition with both a "flat" or "round" or "no" earth theory, no one kind of science has determined the exact existence (or location for that matter) of such a being(s). All I may do is offer my personal speculation. I believe that, in accordance with the laws of time/space/gravity/universal bowl movement/court juristiction, that if a god(s) were to exist in an omnipresent/omnibenevolent/omniscient/omnipotent/omnispectrum existance, the way it could be done in thesis, is relevant to the accumulation of many many strands of chronotrons all interconnecting with every state of matter individually causing an interdimensional distortion field that could allow such a being(s) to exist in such a manner. Though this is all just mere speculation.

Premise1:     If there is a God, God is defined as omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
Premise2:     If God exists, there would be no evil in the world.
Premise3:     There is evil in the world.
Conclusion:   There is no God.

Here's an example:
Consider a babysitter taking care of your three year old. You come home to find out your kid drank a bottle of drain cleaner (the evil). The babysitter cannot have all four qualities of being there - able to prevent/stop it - knowing better - and being a 'good' babysitter, and still have the kid drinking drain cleaner. All four 'omni' qualities and evil are inherently mutually exclusive. Since evil exists, no such being exists.

Any thoughts on the evidential argument from evil? 

An omnipotent being can do whatever the hell he wants, even if it seems illogical, contradictory, or inconsistent.  There is simply no way you could falsify the existence of God.  You can't use logic to determine whether He exists or not.

Isn't God incapable of creating a world without evil but still free will?

Of course. That's not to say that a supernatural being would do stuff for shits and giggles.

An omnipotent being can do whatever the hell he wants, even if it seems illogical, contradictory, or inconsistent.  There is simply no way you could falsify the existence of God.  You can't use logic to determine whether He exists or not.

Why can't we use logic to determine his capabilities or attributes? And in turn the possibility of existence of a God strictly with those attributes. A God dedicated to the best and all that is good wouldn't strike people with lightning just for shits and giggles. Erupting a volcano with whole towns of innocent people and children/babies livestock etc. burnt alive because of 'nature'. Are you telling me that this kind of torturous event isn't evil?

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on February 15, 2008, 06:13:32 PM

Isn't God incapable of creating a world without evil but still free will?

Of course. That's not to say that a supernatural being would do stuff for shits and giggles.

Oops. I meant isn't God "capable". 
I think I combined the answer to this in the first response to jdoe. (Omnibenevolence versus shits and giggles)