tcr
sage of six tabs
This point is very true! The very nature of a discussion about deities implies that there is no right or wrong answer, however that doesn't mean that claims can't be backed by logical reasoning. When you contradict yourself in your arguments it implies that your position is inherently weak and holds no real ground. Its all good and all to claim that faith is only as powerful as it is due to the lack of evidence that points to any answer, but that specifically is why faith is a very weak grounds for believing in something. I can have faith that the sky is green and populated by invisible hamsters all I want but when evidence points to the contrary its hard to have a rational discussion about it as faith in God is no different than faith in Santa Claus. That said, while I personally do not believe in any deity figure I hold no qualms about those who do. I am just simply a person who functions off of a more logic-based mindset and I struggle to rationalize an all powerful deity, but in no way do I mean any disrespect towards those who think otherwise.I took Waterbomb's post to mean that the response he was provided was not condescending in words but in how readily his point of view was dismissed. The arrogance that comes off of some of the academic types just isn't that cool. With all due respect we do not have all the answers and trying to shut down, intentionally or not, conversations that need to be had is not a good thing. In order to understand the mind of the believer it is very important to place yourself in their shoes. Having differing opinions is amazing and I do not understand how this is so frowned upon by people who think themselves intelligent. Fact is there is no objective observable verifiable truth to this conversation so regardless of what YOU believe we should be open to hearing these differing opinions, unless you know we are too good to entertain differing ideas, because it may be that we are all wrong about this; nobody knows for sure.
The concept of Free Will disproves any form of an omniscient God though. If humans truly have free will then their decisions are not set in stone, can change. However if God is omniscient and knows everything that has can and will happen, then that means that humans truly do not have Free Will and are simply following the path laid out to them. That God already knows who is actually going to be in Heaven with him. Similarly, if God decided to create sin (assuming of course that God knew that Eve would bite the apple of the Tree of Knowledge, thus creating choices for mankind) why not simply grant humans free will entirely independent of evil, sin, and heartbreak? Why is it necessary to subject humans to trials of fortitude to grant them access to eternal paradise? It seems to me that "Free will" in this sense is no different than saying that pawns on a chessboard have free will because they can move in several different places (forward one forward two or capture) when in reality all of their decisions are pre-determined and the illusion of free will is the only thing that remains. On top of that, the free will argument with respect to a god who allows evil to exist in no way excuses the god himself for allowing evil to exist in the first place. If you choose to do nothing with omnipotence then one is subject to negligence. Omniscience and the idea of Free Will cannot coexist in the same mindset for the two starkly contrast each other in concept.That is where the whole "Free Will" thing comes into play.
While true, this links back to the first paragraph I quoted. Someone doesn't have to be exactly logical to believe something, of course, nor am I knocking people who do believe in a deity. In fact I think that religion as a whole can do great good in this world and helps many people find peace in their lives, whether they're right or wrong. Logic doesn't rule out everything, but arguments should be backed with logical reasoning when presented forward instead of being unquestionably followed. In this instance I wouldn't normally even respond to this type of thread because you can't really discuss something with respect to faith.I agree but logic does not entirely rule out anything. One person's logic is another person's stupidity and what I mean by this is that the idea of a supreme being may not be logical to you but to someone else it very well might make complete sense. Personally, I don't buy the all powerful entity spiel myself.
Absolutely, one can never be certain of any particular thing and doubt will always remain. In my opinion it is best to be skeptical of everything because that leads to an open mind where you challenge the most bare concepts to better understand them. This is why I think this particular question (Does God exist) is pointless, because nothing can really be done about it except changing other people's minds and that hardly impacts them in any significant way. The question shouldn't be "does God exist" it should be "If God exists under these strictures then why or why not should one follow Him?" To that point I find many logical errors behind the very concept of the described deity (for example how one cannot both give free will and also remain omniscient, how one cannot be omni-scient / potent / benevolent, etc).You cannot prove or disprove, that is the way it is like it or not. Perhaps religion doesn't have all the answers, perhaps science does not either. Perhaps that is the way it is meant to be and looking for absolutes is a complete waste of time?
This is what is called "the Extraordinary Happenings fallacy." Descartes actually touched on this a little in arguing that it is possible for humanity to have been hoodwinked by some more powerful yet still mortal being in the cosmoes. Read up on his Meditations on First Philosophy for more on it and the Cartesian circle, it is pretty interesting. You cannot be certain if a God exists simply because you can walk outside and see beauty and wonder all around us, even if you take into account how marvelous physics works or how the number phi is in everything or other Da Vinci code -esque stuff. None of that proves any sort of higher being, and even if it does it certainly does not prove any specific immortal, all powerful being. Rather, more likely as Elon Musk suggests everything is orchestrated in a way by a higher being that is simply perceived to be a god-like figure (or more likely we all live in a simulation). Its like if you go back in time and introduce cave men to sound waves, electricity, lasers, or guns, etc etc. Advanced technology seems like magic to the ignorant. Why then should creation be any different?I agree for the most part but in my life there have been certain times when synchronicity has occurred to a bewildering degree. I cannot wrap my mind around some of the events that take place in this world as just coincidental.
Again though I'd like to reiterate, I mean no disrespect towards any religious person. I am simply super interested in philosophy, theology, and psychology and thus have pondered these certain of questions and this is what has led me to believe in the absence of a creator. Agree to disagree I guess, but I feel it is important to bring up logic based questions with regards to theology as reasoning should always be behind someone's decision to believe in something. Religion plays a huge role in moral codes for people to live by, and offers some sort of foundation for why people believe in things and that is incredibly important. For what its worth, I believe in some arguably silly stuff too like karma, reincarnation, universal oneness, and more. Everyone needs a rulebook to give them purpose, that is just how humans operate, we like to rational things. It is of my opinion that some foundations are simply stronger than others.