S.I.N. is wasting your time!

[Ummon]

The problem of evil or Epicurean Paradox
by Fenris

The problem of evil is not something that necessarily contradicts the presence of a "higher being", such as God(s), but the perfection and omnipotence of some religion's God, such as Christianity. Basically, if God was perfect and omnipotent, his creation would have been perfect and evil (as of the respective religions morals) would be absent.
The problem of evil

Usual critics: Some like to say that God has given us free will, or it would have been evil by itself.

Answer: However, God created us as limited beings, we are not able to do what we want. We are limited by our intelligence, by physical obstacles,... but God would have perfectly been able to make us unable to do any evil, inherently, and would not have created us sinner, or maker of evil (to different degrees) by nature, and all that without giving us less free will.

Topic about the Epicurean Paradox
Topic about Omniscience/potence vs freewill

There can be no good without evil. The choice to make a world without evil, would be that of making a world without choice. If we assume that God might have made a world following another, different logic, we are also assuming something which is beyond our reasoning, and hence cannot be discussed. Just like God.

The reliability of the Bible
by DarkKnight

The bible as a reliable source of theology is somewhat unlikely. First off, the very canonization of the bible was chosen by a select few long ago. There were several books that were rejected by the church. Of course theists will argue that the council that canonized the bible was divinely inspired by the holy spirit, but from a secular view this creates severe doubt. The fact that one basis their belief in the inerrancy of the bible (or the Pope if Catholic) based on bible is rather circular logic.
Also the bible has been subject to editing throughout the years. For example Mark 16:9-20 was not present in the earliest manuscripts but was added in later codexes. In the council of Trent the longer version was declared canonical.
Mark 16

Topic about the authenticity of the Bible

This is not an objection to God and religion, but an objection to God and religion as they are portrayed in the Bible.

The creation and Occam's Razor
by Fenris

"Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity."
-William of Ockham

When discussing about the creation of the universe, we have basically the choice between two main options (we will not include the integrist creationism for now): The Big Bang created the universe. God was there and someday decided to create the universe through the Big Bang. But Occam's Razor tells us that, based on the knowledge we have, we must go with the most simple answer eliminating as many suppositions as we can. Since the Big Bang could have very well happened by itself, as far as we know, God is eliminated from the equation by Occam's Razor.


Occam's Razor

Usual critics: There had to be something that started the processus of the Big Bang, why did it happen all of a sudden?

Answer: Before the Big Bang, there was only energy, that means time didn't exist. Time is relative to space and space is relative to matter. This means: No matter, no time. So what was "before" (this is actually an oxymoron" was just a state, where energy always stayed at time 0, this means it was never there in a temporal perspective.
Time

Ockham's razor doesn't apply to non-observable, metaphysical, and supernatural items. It is an epistemologic phormula, not an absolute tool to navigate all fields.

The circular logic of God and the Bible
by Fenris



"God exists because the Bible says so, the Bible is true because God exists." is a circular argument that, in consequent have no value, the justification for any of those claim, be it "God exists" or "The Bible is the word of God or The Bible is true" needs to have an exterior justification.

This is not, as above, an objection to God and religion, but an objection to a specific case.

The plurality of religions
by Fenris

The amount of different religions, mythologies, pantheons, beliefs, etc. Since the dawn of humanity is present by the thousand. This comes to one simple question: If one is right indeed, which one is it? Usually a very strong argument for faith is that million of people have believed in it. However, million, what do I say, billion of people have also not believed in it, often for the profit of other documented religions with Holy Books, rites, institutions,... The vast majority of those religions cannot be proved wrong out of all doubt when using the "escape" arguments of modern religions, and what's more is that many of those religions are not subject to many of the logical fallacies that incriminate,for example, the Christian, Jewish and Muslim God.

Many will say that the abrahamic religions (not to mention the sub-religions among the families) all come from the same source, and all talk about the same God, but with different interpretations (which has the right one, if there is any? This brings us again to the same problem). But it has been observed that many pagan religions also come from the same source, like the ancient greek, the egyptian, the roman, and even oriental religions share many similarities. So the same reasoning could be applied, and we would come to the debate of "Why abrahamic religions over the pagan ones? Have we gone the wrong way?" Theists from abrahamic religions will argue that pagan have been physically proved wrong (Gods living on the Olympus), but all those myths can be taken as metaphors and as having a double meaning, just like the Bible, the Quran, etc.

This objection in truth makes no sense. An infinite, trascendent item can be perceived by finite, material beings, only through contradiction, supposing that in truth one such item exists.

The uncomprehensible nature of God
by Fenris

The main argument against the rational and logical refutations of God is it's uncomprehensible nature. "God is perfect, he is above logic and comprehension of finite beings."


Source - Wikipedia

Today I was reading how it has finally been mathematically proven that science cannot even hope to understand the world, so why should it be able to explain or understand God, supposing God exists?

Bah! So much work for... nothing, nothing at all. :wink:

[Justinian]

Before the Big Bang, there was only energy, that means time didn't exist. Time is relative to space and space is relative to matter. This means: No matter, no time. So what was "before" (this is actually an oxymoron" was just a state, where energy always stayed at time 0, this means it was never there in a temporal perspective.

And where did the energy come from? If there was no matter, thus no time, how did time and matter magically appear? If it was never there, how did it spontaneously become?

There's no answer to the question of how the universe began and you know it. It's a neverending circle.

[Ummon]

No, actually, for science there's no question of creation, quite correctly. This doesn't in any case exclude God. It merely excludes a material, physical God. Which was never the case.

[mongoose]

There can be no good without evil. The choice to make a world without evil, would be that of making a world without choice. If we assume that God might have made a world following another, different logic, we are also assuming something which is beyond our reasoning, and hence cannot be discussed. Just like God.

Agreed to an extent, but that does not explain extreme cases. Face it, most of us here will live content lives without losing an arm, or suffering someother awful medical problem, and yet we still have plenty of freedom.

Ockham's razor doesn't apply to non-observable, metaphysical, and supernatural items..

Why not? This strikes me as being more of an assertion then an argument.

And where did the energy come from? If there was no matter, thus no time, how did time and matter magically appear? If it was never there, how did it spontaneously become?

It didn't come from anywhere. It was always there.

[Denny Crane!]

Agreed to an extent, but that does not explain extreme cases. Face it, most of us here will live content lives without losing an arm, or suffering someother awful medical problem, and yet we still have plenty of freedom.

So your objection is based in quantifying bad things. God should have created good and evil but only a little bit of evil and lots of good. I am not convinced by the rebuttal.

Peter

[mongoose]

So your objection is based in quantifying bad things. God should have created good and evil but only a little bit of evil and lots of good. I am not convinced by the rebuttal.

Peter

Ummon's point was you need some suffering in your life to be happy. What I'm arguing is that despite the fact that most of us are still happy, we have not sufferd some sort of tragic medical problem. Obviously, only a certain degree of suffering is actually needed, and the rest doesn't really serve any purpose.

[Justinian]

It didn't come from anywhere. It was always there.

Why?

[Fenris]

Why?

Man, read what was written in the argument, as of the theory it was always there, but never there at the same time, because you cannot use temporal terms to it because there was no time. So it was always there, since time started, but never there, because it only existed at tme 0, and thus never existed in a temporal perspective.

[Justinian]

Man, read what was written in the argument, as of the theory it was always there, but never there at the same time, because you cannot use temporal terms to it because there was no time. So it was always there, since time started, but never there, because it only existed at tme 0, and thus never existed in a temporal perspective.

I never asked how, I asked why. Your argument is irrelevent to the question of why.

[mongoose]

You don't have to lose an arm to experience suffering, and suffering is what makes you able to experience pleasure. Pleasure is the absence of suffering, in neurochemical terms.

Exactly. Only some suffering is needed in your life, and the extra kind that some people must live with serves no purpose.

It is an assertion: Ockham's own assertion on the razor.

I'm afraid you'll have to educate me more on this, since I am not fammiliar with what you're saying.

[DarkKnight]

Why?

Why is the sky blue?

[Richard the Lionheart]

Why is the sky blue?

Due to the interaction of solar rays and our ozone. :wink:

[Gaidin]

Why?

I think the more important question is how. How did it come to be there.

[Ummon]

Agreed to an extent, but that does not explain extreme cases. Face it, most of us here will live content lives without losing an arm, or suffering someother awful medical problem, and yet we still have plenty of freedom.

You don't have to lose an arm to experience suffering, and suffering is what makes you able to experience pleasure. Pleasure is the absence of suffering, in neurochemical terms.

Why not? This strikes me as being more of an assertion then an argument.

It is an assertion: Ockham's own assertion on the razor. The efficaciousness of the razor, infact, stems from the existence of God, causa incausata...

So what if a world without evil would be without choice? That doesn't prove anything. In fact it stregnthens our arguement because it sets up the paradox that God can't have created under our logic because if he didn't create evil, he is evil for denying us choice, and if he created evil giving us choice, he is evil for creating evil.

But God did create evil, for a good purpose possibly. My argument doesn't imply that God couldn't have created a world with choice and without evil, it does though imply that we don't know what other characteristics (possibly worse than evil) this world would have possessed, and we don't know the motivations of a hypothetic God in choosing this universe instead of another, or no universe at all, because such motivation, and such universes, are beyond our logics. As such the proposition is undecideable.

I understand that you may not have seen my original post in the thread, only what Fenris copied up there, but I specifically said in my OP that it was an arguement against Christianity, not God in general.

Any other related assertion is irrelevant. Christianity is both true and false as any other religion. You cannot describe the undescribable or an infinite variety without making mistakes, which is a well known mathematical truth as well. Besides the undescribable is underscribable because it is contradictory.

I believe that the Sock Gremlin grabs our socks and yanks us down, not what these physicists call gravity. How can we know for certain that there really is a force of gravity pulling us down created by the inherant property of masses attracting? I believe that where ever there are two masses there is the Sock Gremlin who tries to pull the masses together.

Quite obviously, your Sock Gremlin is a physical item. As such he falls under Ockham, and besides, he should be observable. Your assertions of the contrary are contradictory, because the Sock Gremlin has specific physical effects.

BTW- The Sock Gremlin is non-observable, metaphysical, and supernatural.

If the sock Gremlin is a metaphysical item which possesses physical effects, it is a physical item as well. Possibly the physical part of the Sock Gremlin is an item called gravity, making the sock Gremlin an unnecessary hypothesis as well as an item which is surely, not metaphysical, having physical effects which are measurable. This doesn't mean the Sock Gremlin doesn't exist, only that it is not necessary for explaining why objects fall.

Your whole argumentation based on Ockham is a multiple fallacy, including an improper extension of empirical evidence to demonstrate a null hypothesis, something which, is inductively an incorrect proceeding...

Because we have a theory of Gravity which does not add unnecessary terms, Occams Razor tells us that the Theory of Gravity is more likely than the Sock Gremlin. Same thing with creation.

The problem is that there has never, ever been any creation, in scientific terms. Using creation to prove the existence of God is a mistake of religious people, used mistakenly by non-religious people to refute an unrelated argument, the existence of God.

Again...the majority of theists on this board (at least from the impression that I have) are Christian. So of course we have arguements against Christianity that aren't necessarily applicable to all theism.

A double mistake, as you are circumstantiating your argument on a subset of the opposing one, and also aiming to persuasion instead than falsification.

Worship the FSM. We can never hope to understand the FSM assuming he exists, so why bother? Any scientific evidence against Flying Spaghetti Monsterism has been planted by His Noodly Appendage to test our faith. So why don't you worship the FSM? Simply because he doesn't exist, even though we can't prove it in the same manner that we can't prove God doesn't exist. In your statement you made the huge assumption that God exists, if you take that away then your statement makes no sense whatsoever.

Reductio ad absurdum works only if the argument treated as such is the same that the opponent uses. Besides, who knows if God doesn't include a Flying Spaghetti Monster?

You totally miss the argument.

I fear the opposite is true: you don't understand your own argument.

And by consequence, an objection to religions which are based on the Bible version of God.

Which obviously are not based upon any real knowledge (in the rational sense) of God as God is unknowable.

You can apply Ockham's Razor to this quote. ESPECIALLY when discussion non-observable, metaphysical and supernatural items

A completely invalid statement: the validity of Ockham's razor stems from the existence of God.

A specific case that's largely repanded, so it is much better than nothing. And it does support other arguments.

If I tried to say that all satellites are square by proving that the moon is square, how would you call this? An incorrect syllogism... Aside from this obvious consideration, which though you didn't make: there is no correct religion on this planet, and yet this doesn't prove anything about God.

Then you can admit that this arument negates the truth that some religions pretend to hold?

No religion holds the truth. This doesn't mean that no religion holds a truth.

I didn't say science could someday acquire a complete understanding of the world. Refer the Ockham's Razor to answer yourself.

Ockham is an euristic tool to understand reality: entia non sunt ponenda sine necessitate. Entia though means "something which exists" or more correctly, considering also the the time of the participle "something which exists transiently". This definition doesn't apply to God, and/or, as Ockham meant infact, it is used to state that God is the only Ens, thus obviously eliminating the necessity "aliis entibus ponendis".

One should discuss only of what he knows well.

You can dream. That you don't accept these arguments, I don't care much, however these arguments are their value, and you should know that they're like science: Always subject to change.

These arguments may have some value only as a space-filler of little interest. They portray an absolute lack of understanding of the thesis one is trying to demonstrate, and also of the antithesis which is being in hypothesis refuted.

[gigagaia]

Ockham's razor doesn't apply to non-observable, metaphysical, and supernatural items. It is an epistemologic phormula, not an absolute tool to navigate all fields.

It is an assertion: Ockham's own assertion on the razor. The efficaciousness of the razor, infact, stems from the existence of God, causa incausata...

Quite obviously, your Sock Gremlin is a physical item. As such he falls under Ockham, and besides, he should be observable. Your assertions of the contrary are contradictory, because the Sock Gremlin has specific physical effects.

If the sock Gremlin is a metaphysical item which possesses physical effects, it is a physical item as well. Possibly the physical part of the Sock Gremlin is an item called gravity, making the sock Gremlin an unnecessary hypothesis as well as an item which is surely, not metaphysical, having physical effects which are measurable. This doesn't mean the Sock Gremlin doesn't exist, only that it is not necessary for explaining why objects fall.

Your whole argumentation based on Ockham is a multiple fallacy, including an improper extension of empirical evidence to demonstrate a null hypothesis, something which, is inductively an incorrect proceeding...

I'm sorry, but this is all wrong. The way you have interpreted (and perhaps how it has been portrayed) is, quite simply misrepresenting Occam's razor.
Occam's razor relates to all logical and scientific arguments, and states that when presented with two arguments which are equally explanitive, that the more simple one is the correct one.

Now, here is where it gets interesting. When used in argumentation against God, it refers not to God himself, nor his existence, but to his influence in the action. It is used to debunk religious logical arguments as having no basis, and it used perfectly correctly. Obviously you cannot use it to prove/disprove the existence of God directly. How it disproves his existence, is when you use circular logical and say that "because he did this, he must exist." It disproves that God was merely behind the action, and therefore you cannot prove the existence of God using that line of logic. It is perfectly normal to use it in an argument such as this, because if we are capable of using him as a reason in proving an argument, you can use Ockham's razor against him as an explanation.
Thus it refers to God's actions in this world, which are obviously percievable if we, as mere mortals, can argue with atheists about the reasons for actions.

Given this, we cannot disprove God, but provide a strong argument against him. Since God is infintely more complex than humans, science or anything in the metaphysical world, then logic dictates that he is a more complex argument than evolution or any other scientific or non-religious argument. Thus it follows that God cannot be behind any action. This contradicts any religion's teaching.

A completely invalid statement: the validity of Ockham's razor stems from the existence of God.
Ockham is an euristic tool to understand reality: entia non sunt ponenda sine necessitate. Entia though means "something which exists" or more correctly, considering also the the time of the participle "something which exists transiently". This definition doesn't apply to God, and/or, as Ockham meant infact, it is used to state that God is the only Ens, thus obviously eliminating the necessity "aliis entibus ponendis"

Funny how that works. When backed into a corner, this is the usual explanation "X doesn't apply to God. Thus your argument is flawed."
Russel interpeted Occam's work as meaning that if you can explain something without this or that entity, then there is no grounds for assuming the more difficult explanation.

Since we can percieve God, then he must have some form of existence in this world. Perception requires metaphysical existence on the part of th percieved in some way. Thus we can use logic to debate his influence and hand in guiding actions.

Occam also wrote this in a time when science and Logic were not well developed, and God was the simplest explanation for things. But times do change, huh.

[Ummon]

I'm sorry, but this is all wrong.

Really? That's great news for me and Ockham as well... But this is not what transpires from your following statements, which infact confirm my analysis perfectly.

The way you have interpreted (and perhaps how it has been portrayed) is, quite simply misrepresenting Occam's razor.
Occam's razor relates to all logical and scientific arguments, and states that when presented with two arguments which are equally explanitive, that the more simple one is the correct one.

Now, here is where it gets interesting. When used in argumentation against God, it refers not to God himself, nor his existence, but to his influence in the action.

Most excellent, you could as well desume this meaning from my post above, when I speak of the Sock Gremlin.

It is used to debunk religious logical arguments as having no basis, and it used perfectly correctly. Obviously you cannot use it to prove/disprove the existence of God directly. How it disproves his existence, is when you use circular logical and say that "because he did this, he must exist." It disproves that God was merely behind the action, and therefore you cannot prove the existence of God using that line of logic. It is perfectly normal to use it in an argument such as this, because if we are capable of using him as a reason in proving an argument, you can use Ockham's razor against him as an explanation.

And since this thread is about God and religion, and not fallacious arguments in favour of the existence of God...

Given this, we cannot disprove God, but provide a strong argument against him.

Oh yes? How strong? Quantify please.

Since God is infintely more complex than humans, science or anything in the metaphysical world, then logic dictates that he is a more complex argument than evolution or any other scientific or non-religious argument. Thus it follows that God cannot be behind any action. This contradicts any religion's teaching.

You have until here contradicted yourself. God is not to be assumed as a cause of physical events. So much for this long, wrong, self-contradicting series of assertions.

On the other hand, although we don't assume God as a cause, because of the Razor, this has no influence whatsoever on the fact that God may as well be the cause of events. It only exludes him from any human explanation based on science and logics, both limited tools with limited purposes.

Funny how that works. When backed into a corner, this is the usual explanation "X doesn't apply to God. Thus your argument is flawed."
Russel interpeted Occam's work as meaning that if you can explain something without this or that entity, then there is no grounds for assuming the more difficult explanation.

I am not explaining anything with God, not at all, my dear, scarcely attentive reader.

Since we can percieve God, then he must have some form of existence in this world.

How exactly do we perceive God?

Perception requires metaphysical existence on the part of th percieved in some way. Thus we can use logic to debate his influence and hand in guiding actions.

I have personally never perceived God.

Occam also wrote this in a time when science and Logic were not well developed, and God was the simplest explanation for things. But times do change, huh.

They indeed do, but this is of no benefit to the anti-God arguments above...

[Fenris]

I fear the opposite is true: you don't understand your own argument.

God could have let us free will without having made us naturally sinners, you know, hormones and all... And then, if God is omnipotent he could have given us free will without creating evil. And then if God really wanted to give us free will, he would NOT have made us finite beings, it is a contradiction.

Which obviously are not based upon any real knowledge (in the rational sense) of God as God is unknowable.

Well we are discussing about what religions tell us their God is, I agree it is not real knowledge or anything, and that is the point of my argument, basically.

A completely invalid statement: the validity of Ockham's razor stems from the existence of God.

Not at all:
The universe spawned with the Big Bang, which created time at the same time (and this is something that is agreed within the scientific community, before the Big Bang there was most probably no time since there was no matter), so basically, the universe was always there.

God (hypothetical entity) made the Big Bang and then comes the scientific theories about how it happened.

The second claim has more hypothetical entities than the first, one more actually, and it is God. And both claim have equal predictive power.

entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.

Furthermore, when multiple competing theories have equal predictive powers, the principle recommends selecting those that introduce the fewest assumptions and postulate the fewest hypothetical entities.

Aside from this obvious consideration, which though you didn't make: there is no correct religion on this planet, and yet this doesn't prove anything about God.

The argument wasn't aimed at God, it was aimed at religions.

No religion holds the truth. This doesn't mean that no religion holds a truth.

Agreed, but why do people all hold their religions as absolute truth? The correct theist attitude, following your statement would be to consider every religion, not only one.

Ockham is an euristic tool to understand reality: entia non sunt ponenda sine necessitate. Entia though means "something which exists" or more correctly, considering also the the time of the participle "something which exists transiently". This definition doesn't apply to God, and/or, as Ockham meant infact, it is used to state that God is the only Ens, thus obviously eliminating the necessity "aliis entibus ponendis".

One should discuss only of what he knows well.

Why don't you start by talking english. Already that I'm not discussing in my native language, don't start talking in languages I do not understand... If I understand correctly what you said, you mean that Occam's comes to the conclusion of the existance of god because it only has one hypothetical entity involved? That could have been applied when we didn't have evidences of other phenomenons that didn't make them much less hypothetical.

These arguments may have some value only as a space-filler of little interest. They portray an absolute lack of understanding of the thesis one is trying to demonstrate, and also of the antithesis which is being in hypothesis refuted.

No, not at all...

[Obi Wan Asterix]

Moderator test

Testing testing testing

Go ahead and post.

[MaximiIian]

No, actually, for science there's no question of creation, quite correctly. This doesn't in any case exclude God. It merely excludes a material, physical God. Which was never the case.

Well, since there's nothing outside the material and physical, god = nothing, unless god is, like, the ultimate antiparticle.

[DarkKnight]

There can be no good without evil. The choice to make a world without evil, would be that of making a world without choice. If we assume that God might have made a world following another, different logic, we are also assuming something which is beyond our reasoning, and hence cannot be discussed. Just like God.

So what if a world without evil would be without choice? That doesn't prove anything. In fact it stregnthens our arguement because it sets up the paradox that God can't have created under our logic because if he didn't create evil, he is evil for denying us choice, and if he created evil giving us choice, he is evil for creating evil.

This is not an objection to God and religion, but an objection to God and religion as they are portrayed in the Bible.

I understand that you may not have seen my original post in the thread, only what Fenris copied up there, but I specifically said in my OP that it was an arguement against Christianity, not God in general.

Ockham's razor doesn't apply to non-observable, metaphysical, and supernatural items. It is an epistemologic phormula, not an absolute tool to navigate all fields.

I believe that the Sock Gremlin grabs our socks and yanks us down, not what these physicists call gravity. How can we know for certain that there really is a force of gravity pulling us down created by the inherant property of masses attracting? I believe that where ever there are two masses there is the Sock Gremlin who tries to pull the masses together. BTW- The Sock Gremlin is non-observable, metaphysical, and supernatural.
Because we have a theory of Gravity which does not add unnecessary terms, Occams Razor tells us that the Theory of Gravity is more likely than the Sock Gremlin. Same thing with creation.

This is not, as above, an objection to God and religion, but an objection to a specific case.

Again...the majority of theists on this board (at least from the impression that I have) are Christian. So of course we have arguements against Christianity that aren't necessarily applicable to all theism.

Today I was reading how it has finally been mathematically proven that science cannot even hope to understand the world, so why should it be able to explain or understand God, supposing God exists?

Worship the FSM. We can never hope to understand the FSM assuming he exists, so why bother? Any scientific evidence against Flying Spaghetti Monsterism has been planted by His Noodly Appendage to test our faith. So why don't you worship the FSM? Simply because he doesn't exist, even though we can't prove it in the same manner that we can't prove God doesn't exist. In your statement you made the huge assumption that God exists, if you take that away then your statement makes no sense whatsoever.