Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

i don't know if my argument in 1094.12 should go in this topic or in the
next (1097, argument for agnosticism).

at any rate, it is an argument which makes alot of sense to me.
it is not one for/against god. the argument says, even if god (or any 
other infinite/timeless entity exists), this entity is more than likely 
irrelevant to human existance.



andreas.

    Well, for the sake of devils advocacy...
    
    Never saw him.  
    
    -Jack

believing in god or not believing are both matters of choice.

immanuel kant was one of the first thinkers who proved that the 
existance of god can neither be proven nor disproven. as this was
the case, kant felt it was better to assume that god existed.

as the existance of god cannot be proven nor disproven, i feel 
it is better to assume that there is no god.

this is why i choose to call myself an atheist.



andreas.

    I never saw him either, but I can't see the wind as well.  I also know
    folks who have seen him.

    
    Andreas,
>                      -< a personal argument for atheism >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I had hoped for a public argument for atheism.  One that we could
    discuss.  Should I assume that you are not able to provide/defend an
    argument for the position to which you ascribe - atheism?  If you are
    not able, aren't you somewhat alarmed about being dogmatic?
    
> believing in god or not believing are both matters of choice.

    But the issue at hand is about reality, not whimsy.
    
>immanuel kant was one of the first thinkers who proved that the 
>existance of god can neither be proven nor disproven. as this was
>the case, kant felt it was better to assume that god existed.

    This is not correct.  Kant was an agnostic not an atheist.
    
>as the existance of god cannot be proven nor disproven, i feel 
>it is better to assume that there is no god.

    But I have a proof for the existence of God that is valid.  Whether you 
    understand it or not is another question.  Even given your belief that
    the existence or nonexistence of God is unprovable why is it better to
    assume there is no god? 
    
>this is why i choose to call myself an atheist.

    I don't understand.  Will you elaborate?

    jeff

.4, mike, we had an interesting discussion a while back on transcendental
experiences - see topic 1023 (1023.10, 1023.19 in particular)



andreas.

jeff, i *have* presented a case for public argument in 1094.12

arguing the non-/existance of god is nonsense. the reason being we can only
argue within the bounds of human understanding. if there is such existance 
which can make a triangle have four sides, such existance is nonsense to us. 
why argue a case for such existance which makes no sense to us. also, why 
deny such existance a priori. for my person i conclude that such existance
is irrelevant to us.

>   But the issue at hand is about reality, not whimsy.

just my point. "god" is not a physical reality. god is at best an ideal, 
an abstract.

do the perfect line, the dot, the triangle, the circle exist in reality, 
ie. in the physical reality? does the perfect love exist in the physical 
reality? i think not. i think all these exist are ideas (or ideals) and 
that ideals can well be universal though they remain abstract and are not 
physical. our understanding of "god" as such an ideal being falls into
this category.


> >immanuel kant was one of the first thinkers who proved that the 
> >existance of god can neither be proven nor disproven. as this was
> >the case, kant felt it was better to assume that god existed.
>
>    This is not correct.  Kant was an agnostic not an atheist.

did i say kant was an atheist?


> why is it better to assume there is no god? 

imo, there is a certain danger in believing in unprovable existance, such
as god.
there is no authoritative source about this unprovable existance. because 
of it, who believes in such unprovable existance runs the risk of being
subject to manipulation by others who claim to know more about this 
unprovable existance. the injustices which have been (are being) performed
in the name of god are why i am very skeptical of belief in god.



andreas.

Jeff,

By even asking for an argument to support atheism you show a fundamental
misunderstanding in what it is. Atheism is *not* a belief in anything, and it is
not a belief structure. How does one argue in favor of their lack of belief in
something? An atheist says (properly) that you have posulated God, I see no
evidence to support your postulation, what is your proof?

In my case, I am atheistic toward the Christian God in that I believe that the
description of God as omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenovolent is provably
false. This is a discussion that we can have (and I have had it several times in
this conference already, let's just say that the believers have found my
arguments less than convincing :^), but they make sense to me and to date I have
not been shown any credible flaws in my reasoning.

My belief in the concept of God as creator of the universe is not strictly
atheist (which means the active denial of God), and not truly agnostic (God is
unprovable either way), but more one of open-minded sceptisism. I don't believe
it is true, but am always looking for evidence either way.

My main reason for participating here is to try to understand how intelligent
people can believe so whole heartedly in something that I (as another
intelligent person) see as patently and obviously without merit.

Steve

    
    Hi Steve (and others)!
    
    I'm very busy at the moment and hope to participate again later in the
    week.
    
    jeff

I enter this response in this topic since we have dallied around this issue
in other topics but this seems to be the best place to catalogue a formal
response to the issue of evil in the world and especially "innocent suffering."

It is mistaken for atheists to argue that there is *innocent* suffering (evil)
and that therefore there cannot be a God.  First of all, it is possible that
*all* suffering is deserved and that it is God's mercy which saves men from
more suffering which they do deserve.  Second, what needs to be proved by the
atheist is not that there is *innocent* suffering but that there is some
*unredeemable* or *unjustifiable* suffering.  The theist may argue that some
"innocent" suffering is good and that this world is not the final chapter in
the story of human suffering.  He may contend that this is not the best of
all possible *worlds*, but that it is the best of all possible *ways* to obtain
the best possible world, which world *is yet to come*.  He may argue that
suffering is a necessary precondition for achieving the greatest good.  And in
view of the fact that the most worthwhile things in life are often achieved
only through pain, there is some experiential plausibility to the theist's
claim.  In this way immediate evil may lead to an ultimate and greater good.

One thing is certain, the atheist cannot press his claim that evil is 
ultimately unjustifiable - which is what he must do to eliminate the existence
of God via evil.  For if some evil is ultimately unjust in this world, then
there must be some ultimate standard of justice beyond this world.  All
injustice presupposes a standard of justice by which it is judged to be
not-just.  And an ultimate injustice demands an ultimate standard of justice.
But this brings us right back to God, the ultimate standard of justice beyond
the world.  In short, the only way to disprove God via the problem of evil is
to posit God as an ultimate moral standard of justice beyond the world.  In
this event, if atheism were true, it would be false; its arguments turn out to
be self-defeating.

jeff

I mostly, agree, Jeff.

But like you "proof" of God, this argument does not lead necessarily to a
particular defnition of God.

Also, if'n I undestand the logic correctly, the belief of a God that
does not impose "innocent suffering" would be sufficient, within this
arguement, to disprove a God who does impose "innocent suffering".

TTom

>Also, if'n I undestand the logic correctly, the belief of a God that
>does not impose "innocent suffering" would be sufficient, within this
>arguement, to disprove a God who does impose "innocent suffering".

>TTom
    
    Hi Tom,
    
    It may be that God wills only to *permit* (via human freedom) but not
    to *promote* suffering as a means to the greatest good.  Do you agree
    that a parent may permit the pain of an operation in order to save the 
    life of his child without really promoting pain for his child, for
    example?
    
    jeff

Jeff,

I do believe in the freedoms that God has given me/us and that God
permits suffering. I don't believe God causes suffering, though.

And I also use the analogy of parent-child to help understand God's
relationship with us. It is helpful at times but certainly seems to
conflict with Orginal Sin and eterenal punishment.

The parent-child does strongly emphasize the relationship of love between
God and humans, which I believe is real point.

TTom

    re 1096.13 by HBAHBA::HAAS 

    But as a parent I will prevent my child from suffering... 

    If God is *THE* creator than he had to create suffering. If he is all
    powerful then he can stop suffering. If he is all powerful and all
    loving than he *would* stop suffering. I often wonder if God created
    the rules of nature, but can't always change them.

    Eric

Eric,

I believe that God created everything including suffering, along with such
other related things as hate. Certainly, this belief allows for the
power, if you will, for intervention. Certainly, divine intervention is
often the topic of prayer and the like.

I also believe that God created in us certain creative powers, which are
reflected both in tangible forms like creation of wealth as well as
intangibles like creating trust and love.

I have no real answer to much of the physical suffering that is apparent
in the world - why, why not, etc. - but in many cases the cause is us,
what we do to ourselves and others.

TTom

.10 USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung"

Jeff,

A few assumptions. First, I am atheistic toward the Christian version
of God, specifically. I can easily construct a God toward which I would
be agnostic. Further references toward God will mean the Christian 
version.

To be specific, I find the description of God as omnipotent, omniscient
and omnibenevolent (all-loving) to be contradictory with observed reality.
If you remove any one of these three characteristics I would move from
atheistic to agnostic. 

I will not be attempting to prove or disprove God as a concept, but to 
show that a being posessing the characteristics mentioned previously 
contradicts our current world. 

Finally, I use the three characteristics according to what I believe are 
the generally accepted definitions. What normally happens is that the
definition of omnibenevolent begins to change somewhat as the argument
progresses. I mean omnibenevolent in the sense where God, very much, 
wants nothing but peace and happiness for his creations.

If you agree with these assumptions I will respond to your claims, 
if you disagree please tell me what you don't find as correct and we 
can continue from there.

Steve

    Steve,
    
    I remove the onniscient and onmipotent.  I keep the omnibenevolent.
    
    
    Can I therefore claim responsibility for moving you from Atheist to
    Agnostic(;-().
    
    
    By the way, if I followed your assumptions about the nature of the
    Christian God, I would have to identify myself as an Atheist as well!
    
    
                                 Patricia

    
    Hi Steve,
    
    I'm very busy so we'll have to get to this later.  However, in any
    standard of logical argument, terms used must be clearly defined,
    especially when ambiguous. Think about how we'll come to agreement on the 
    definitions of the "omni-..." terms.  Thankfully,  we can always start 
    with a definition from a good dictionary.
    
    I'm also interested in your construct of a god.  Please elaborate.
    
    jeff

.17 POWDML::FLANAGAN "let your light shine"

    Can I therefore claim responsibility for moving you from Atheist to
    Agnostic(;-().

Patricia,

For your view of God, you have caused me to see the lack of darkness! I am
Agnostic! :^) And you may claim credit (blame) for this amazing transformation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
.18 USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung"

Jeff, 

From the American Heritage dictionary:

Omnipotent: Having unlimited or universal power, force or authority. All
powerful. (I see this as God can do anything, no limits, change the laws
of time and space, etc...)

Omniscient: Having total knowledge, knowing everything. (I see this as
complete knowledge for all past AND future events).

Omnibenevelont: Not in my dictionary. My cut on this is all-loving. He
wants only good things for everything, and will take reasonable steps
to assure this.

My God construct isn't very exciting, or limited. It is merely making
one up that fit the observed facts. For instance:

God created the universe, salted the earth with the ingredients to 
generate life, and went off to create other universes. He plans to come
back later to check out what happened, if he can. But currently he has
no direct involvement in the happenings here. 

Get back to me when you can,

Steve
Steve