Can't we just get along?

[Tres Juicy]

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?

Then why call him God?"

 

~ Epicurus ( BC 341-270)

 

 

I think you've hit the nail on the head with this

[iNow]

It's officially known as "the problem of evil."

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/

 

one very concise way of formulating such an argument is as follows:

 

• If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
  
• If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
  
• If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
  
• If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
  
• Evil exists.
  
• If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil.
  
• Therefore, God doesn't exist.

[immortal]

Though this might sound more like preaching I have to intervene here. God does help the true theists who have surrendered themselves to him. Theists by saying that this world is yours, this body is yours, associate themselves with something infinite, they think they are infinite beings and they don't worry too much even if their bodies are suffering with diseases and all sorts of pain (for example :- Jesus) because whatever has to happen it has to happen. God doesn't want to change the plan and turn this earth into heaven for the desires of those 7 billion people because according to Saint Augustine when god created this universe and saw the end outcome of his creation he saw that it was good and therefore whatever is happening on earth or whatever is about to happen in the future is for the good of the earth and therefore he cannot change his plans however he gives us a way to escape from that suffering and attain infinite bliss if one believes in him and he is kind, all merciful, loves and cares for us unconditionally and he is very much concerned about us. Everything is the play of Gods and just because we don't understand their play and the reason why they have set up a world which contradicts their very existence doesn't mean they don't exist and their existence cannot be disproved untill we have a model to accurately describe this universe from the point of origin or bigbang to the present state without involving the activity of the gods.

[imatfaal]

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?

Then why call him God?"

 

~ Epicurus ( BC 341-270)

 

 

It's a great sentiment and as obvious from my post I agree - but to put it in quotes and attribute directly it to Epicurus is slightly dodgy. The argument and thesis is Epicurus' - but the words themselves (forgetting translation) and monotheistic tone is almost certainly that of a later Xian criticiser of Epicurus - probably Lactantius

[John Cuthber]

"Was Newton wrong because of GR?"

Yes.

However his stuff is often a good approximation.

 

And, on the subject of God and logic.

God is generally defined as being omnipotent etc

Can He set himself a goal that he cannot reach?

OK- so one of His defining characteristics is a contradiction in terms.

Logic doesn't stand a chance of debating things like that.

Edited January 20, 2012 by John Cuthber

[Tres Juicy]

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?

Then why call him God?"

 

~ Epicurus ( BC 341-270)

 

Actually...

 

In the interest of a fair debate I'm going to play devils advocate on this

 

 

You could argue that because god gave people free will he has allowed us to make our own decisions and mistakes and cannot influence us directly without taking that away from us.

 

It could also be said that he has given us everything we need to eliminate evil ourselves.

 

Since evil is a consequence of human action it is no longer within his power (relinquishing power over us by giving us free will - in order for us to grow)

 

I have children myself and I allow them to make mistakes because it is an important learning experience which (however much you might like to) you cannot deny them

 

 

With this in mind the argument above becomes invalid

[John Cuthber]

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the misogyny of a lot of religions.

It does make it rather more difficult for half the population to get along with the other half.

[PeterJ]

I think the main problem is that atheists very rarely take the trouble to understand religion while theists rarely take the time to understand science. Dawkins is a classic example of what happens when we forget that scholarship is as important to religious discussions as it is to scientific ones. The dismissal of evolutionm is what happens when our lack of confidence in our 'faith', or just lack of faith, makes us worry that science is going to prove something that would undermine it. Ridiculous. How can one claim to have faith in a theory and then worry about whether science might falsify it? If we really do have faith then we must believe that all science can discover is evidence that out faith is justified. Thus either science is our friend or our views are temperamental and uncertain.

 

My view would be that a religion that is inconsistent with science is obviously absurd and ad hoc. I'd want nothing to do with it. No scientifically minded person could happily co-exist with a religion that makes claims contrary to scientific data. The trouble is that many scientists make claims about religion that go beyond the data. In fact there's an ongoing epidemic of it. Religion is perfectly entititled to dismiss such claims as temperamental nonsense.

 

I think we need to get along but not to compromise, and to keep arguing politely until we sort out the truth. Impossible to do, of course, because so many people look at their naive model of religion and dismiss it as nonsense, which it probably is, rather than do the research, and assume that's what religion is, while others assume that their religious beliefs will not withstand scientific scrutiny, probably correctly, and so do not do the research, assuming that science is the work of the devil.

 

For an example of what happens if take the trouble to do the research I'd cite the writings Erwin Schroedinger. He shows that religion and science may be bedfellows rather than mortal enemies. Trouble is, of course, his view is considered heretical in both monotheism and quantum mechanics. This is because he sees beyond both to their resolution and reconciliation.

 

I wish we could move on from opposing a naive dogmatic monotheism with a naive dogmatic scientific materialism. Neither is the answer to anything. This argument is a cultural problem, mostly in the US, not an academic one, and takes place mostly between between people who cannot or will not use their brains. It should not concern serious scholars.

[Moontanman]

I think the main problem is that atheists very rarely take the trouble to understand religion while theists rarely take the time to understand science.

 

 

You do realize that 95% of Scientists are theists... right? Most are Christian, One of the most famous and respected paleontologists in the world is a Pentecostal Preacher. The idea that scientists by definition are atheists is simply not true. This is a lie made up by theists who cannot break away from the idea that the Bible has to be the inerrant word of god or god is a liar and all religions are false...

[PeterJ]

It's very frustrating to discuss something that has no rules and can seemingly be backed up with "what the bible says" or "what I believe" or even "magic".

Not worth having such disussions imho.

 

Admitedly this is a bold statement, but on the other hand, can anyone think of an example of religion furthering the advancement of science?

In my opinion religion is the answer to many scientific problems. But try mentioning this to a physicist. Not worth the hassle that follows. It seems to me that scientists are completely determined to make sure religion has no role in our thinking, so it would not be very surprising if it doesn't. The quantum pioneers made a tremendous start, but then it all went pear-shaped.

 

I see your point, but I am open to new ideas and will not deny the evidence of observed reallity. Show me evidence for god and I will give it due consideration, something that the crackpots will not do, even for things as fundamental as gravity in some cases.

Religion does not depend on God. If this is not understood the disussion will be stuck forever in 19th century arguments about the creation. Please can we move on.

 

You don't see any of us posting on religious forums or standing in the street trying to convert people (science doesn't try to convert people it lets the evidence speak for itself).

Hmm. It seems to me there is a constant bombardment of PR eminating from scientists. And why not? It needs the money.

 

However, if someone comes here and wants to preach to the scientific comunity, then I believe their arguments should be disputed with science.

Yes, I would agree completely. In fact I can't see any other way to do it.

 

Again, I will always dispute what I believe to be wrong and I do not pull any punches.

I don't think you need to apologise for this. I look forward to some future battles.

 

People think it's rude to tell someone that their religion is ridiculous, and it would be if I was standing outside a church harassing old ladies with my views on science, but when they come here and try to force it on me it becomes fair game.

Quite so. But I think you need to show it rather than say it.

 

You ask 'who can resist an argument?' In my experience almost everybody, top scientists included, if they don't like the way the logic is working out.

 

You do realize that 95% of Scientists are theists... right? Most are Christian,

Well, I know that many are. If it's 95% I'd be depressed.

 

One of the most famous and respected paleontologists in the world is a Pentecostal Preacher. The idea that scientists by definition are atheists is simply not true. This is a lie made up by theists who cannot break away from the idea that the Bible has to be the inerrant word of god or god is a liar and all religions are false...

Yes. A more famous one was a Jesuit priest. I'm sorry if I gave the impression that that I though all scientists were atheists. My point was that few scientist investigate religion, whether theists or not.

Edited January 28, 2012 by PeterJ

[Arete]

You do realize that 95% of Scientists are theists... right? Most are Christian.

 

Evidence would suggest that this is not true - 97% of Royal society members and 93% of National academy of sciences members answer "No" to the question "Do you believe in a personal god?" http://www.humanreli...telligence.html www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

[John Cuthber]

You do realize that 95% of Scientists are theists... right Most are Christian, .?

Are you sure about that?

China and India have plenty of scientists, but (I suspect) rather fewer Christians.

[iNow]

I think the main problem is that atheists very rarely take the trouble to understand religion...

I stopped reading here. What a nonsensical assertion. You should have instead said that, "Most atheists become non-believers because they've taken the time trying to understand religion and realized it was a bunch of horseshit when they did."

[leugi]

i don't believe in anything because i think that it is unfair for me to choose one believe from another, the only thing that i can be certain of is change. i respect all religions and i think that they all serve their purpose, they will always be people who will tell you what to believe but at the end of the day you get to decide what is real.

[Tres Juicy]

i don't believe in anything because i think that it is unfair for me to choose one believe from another, the only thing that i can be certain of is change. i respect all religions and i think that they all serve their purpose, they will always be people who will tell you what to believe but at the end of the day you get to decide what is real.

 

No, you don't get to decide what's real at all

[leugi]

No, you don't get to decide what's real at all

 

yes, you do, reality is inside our brains, not outside, is it possible to decide what is real, but in my opinion nothing is real, not even science, there is only a probability that it can be possible, science just has a higher probability for me.

[dimreepr]

No, you don't get to decide what's real at all

 

 

I'm sorry tres I have to say I'm a little disapointed in this reply as would descartes. Solipcism is the cornerstone of his philosophy.

[Tres Juicy]

Reallity is reallity.

 

If your house burns down you don't get to decide that it didn't

[John Cuthber]

"but in my opinion nothing is real"

Then you seem to be talking to yourself. Perhaps you should stop.

[dimreepr]

Reallity is reallity.

 

If your house burns down you don't get to decide that it didn't

 

 

Of course you would react to the stimuli of your house burning down, but as Descartes points out, our senses are fallible and so can’t be relied upon. The reality might therefore be that you’re dreaming...

 

 

[John Cuthber]

If the reality is that you are dreaming then the reality is not that your house burned down. But that's at odds with the original assertion. You have just solved the wrong problem.

 

Reality is still real. Our uncertainty about it is our problem, not reality's problem.

Edited January 28, 2012 by John Cuthber

[leugi]

"but in my opinion nothing is real"

Then you seem to be talking to yourself. Perhaps you should stop.

 

what? are claiming that i am insane, all i was saying is that people seem to believe in things that can never be proven 100% correct, therefore nothing is truly real, there is only a probability that things can be real, but they can never be truly real.

[John Cuthber]

You said nothing was real, and you keep on saying it.

To whom do you think you are talking?

[dimreepr]

If the reality is that you are dreaming then the reality is not that your house burned down. But that's at odds with the original assertion. You have just solved the wrong problem.

 

Reality is still real. Our uncertainty about it is our problem, not reality's problem.

 

 

Quite right, having read the thread properly, I can only agree. My post was a reaction to a deviation of the original premise. oops sorry Tres.

 

 

[leugi]

You said nothing was real, and you keep on saying it.

To whom do you think you are talking?

i was giving my opinion based on the topic why can't people get along, in which i think they can't get along because they are very closed minded and believe thing to be 100% real, i was stating that i can accept people as they are because i don't necessarily believe in anything 100%.