Proofs that God is imaginary

[Murky]

Probably because he suffers from a bad case of the Just World Theory cognitive bias, which causes people to think that the moral status of a person is bound up with their circumstances and that everyone is getting their just deserts, and thereon to make up justifications for it, so he thinks that homeless people are some mixture of stupid or evil and will inevitably stay on the streets where they deserve to be because they couldn't do better if you gave them a million dollars.

You should study psychology sometime, BTW. The JWT bias is fascinating, present very early in life, and immense. The best case in point I saw was that of groups of six-year-olds rating a person who found money as being a morally better person than one who helped a friend, and rated a person getting injured in an accident as being a morally worse person than one who stole from another.

The only way such a theory would work is if there are such things as past lives and reincarnation. In that case, people getting dealt a bad hand in their present life are justly getting payback for some wrong they did in a past life. (Aka Bad Karma)

 

[Plotinus]

• A is certain. Unless we talk about original sin (which is a monsterous bit of thought) then you can't argue with it. Even so, an immediate counter-example I can think of - conscripts who were fired on because their officers threatened to shoot them unless they picked up their rifles.

You've refuted yourself then - first you say it's certain, and then you give a reason why someone might not believe it (if original sin existed). Simply saying that the notion of original sin is "monstrous" doesn't prove that it isn't true, does it? And one can easily imagine other possibilities that might mean that all observed suffering is deserved. Perhaps those conscripts were very wicked in previous lives. You cannot be certain that these things are not true. Your certainty that innocent suffering occurs can only be as strong as your certainty that considerations such as these are false, and that can never be 100%, no matter how distasteful you might find them. Unpleasantness is not a guarantee of falsity.

By the way, I assume when you say "original sin" that you mean "original guilt". The term "original sin" refers to many different doctrines.

• As for B; unless we can say that God is a [dare I say it?] Nazi then making one person suffer when they are guilty of nothing is hardly moral/ethical/non-pointless.

Come on, there was a counter-example to this on Smallville just the other week (kill one innocent person or the world will be destroyed). Naturally Clark managed to find some way to avoid killing the innocent person without destroying the world, thereby robbing the situation of all dramatic tension, but suppose he hadn't. Would it have been wrong to kill the innocent person and save the world? The answer is not obvious. How one answers this will depend, to some degree, on what ethical theory you hold; a utilitarian may say that if the suffering of the innocent person will bring about a good that outweighs that suffering, then causing the suffering is not only permissible but morally obligatory. Again, whether that is correct or not is not obvious. But it seems there could be plenty of reasons why making an innocent person suffer could be moral/ethical/non-pointless. If you disagree you must provide an argument to support your view. Just asserting it is not adequate.

Also, do you really mean to say that if God were a Nazi, that would make it moral for him to inflict pain upon innocent people? That's a rather - odd - sentiment.

I don't know enough about them - I'm referring to the idea that God created the world with man as his favourite and gave him laws; and will reward the good and punish the bad.

If you don't know much about what people take "God" to mean, what on earth are you doing starting a thread to mock the idea?

If that summary is what you mean by the word "God", your arguments against him - including the Epicurean argument from evil - completely fail. Because that argument works only against the classical definition of God as an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect being. Your definition doesn't mention any of these properties. There could be a being that created the world, gave human beings laws, and will reward or punish them, without having to be omnipotent or morally perfect; in which case the problem of evil does not disprove such a being.

In any case, your summary doesn't even get Christianity right - most Christians, and certainly most Protestants, do not believe that God will "reward the good and punish the bad". They believe that whether you get rewarded or punished has nothing whatsoever to do with how good or bad you were.

What about the phrase 'almighty God'? Doesn't that give it away just a bit?

No, it doesn't, because "almighty" is a vague word that could perfectly well mean "very powerful". That is not the same thing as "omnipotent". The fact that some early Christians actually denied that God is omnipotent ought to indicate to you that it is not a biblical doctrine.

 

[Flying Pig]

You've refuted yourself then - first you say it's certain, and then you give a reason why someone might not believe it (if original sin existed).

Big if. In fact; as I will outline below,it is incompatible with the idea of a just God.

Simply saying that the notion of original sin is "monstrous" doesn't prove that it isn't true, does it?

Very true... but if God created us in his own image and tought mercy (Jesus, so doesn't work for Jews) then the idea of condemning people for the actions of other people whom they could not influence seems a bit illogical to me. Anyway; we know that the creation story is false which means that the idea is too.

And one can easily imagine other possibilities that might mean that all observed suffering is deserved. Perhaps those conscripts were very wicked in previous lives. You cannot be certain that these things are not true. Your certainty that innocent suffering occurs can only be as strong as your certainty that considerations such as these are false, and that can never be 100%, no matter how distasteful you might find them. Unpleasantness is not a guarantee of falsity.

I see what you mean' but this is getting a bit absurd. To explain the innocent suffering problem we now turn to re-incarnation? And this God does not tolerate reform?

Come on, there was a counter-example to this on Smallville just the other week (kill one innocent person or the world will be destroyed). Naturally Clark managed to find some way to avoid killing the innocent person without destroying the world, thereby robbing the situation of all dramatic tension, but suppose he hadn't. Would it have been wrong to kill the innocent person and save the world? The answer is not obvious.

Yes it is to me. I really don't see why people can say that to do something which causes harm is not the same as refusing to do something which prevents it.

My reason is thus: you have a choice to make which consists of two positive outcomes - you cannot pass the question. These are to act and not to act. If you take a choice, then you are responsible for the outcome. Seeing as you cannot choose to neither act nor refuse to act, you must take responsibility for what happens.

Also, do you really mean to say that if God were a Nazi, that would make it moral for him to inflict pain upon innocent people? That's a rather - odd - sentiment.

The Nazis believed that the good of the individual was inferior to the will of the state; so you can kill jews to make the people as a whole happier

If you don't know much about what people take "God" to mean, what on earth are you doing starting a thread to mock the idea?

I didn't start it.

In any case, your summary doesn't even get Christianity right - most Christians, and certainly most Protestants, do not believe that God will "reward the good and punish the bad". They believe that whether you get rewarded or punished has nothing whatsoever to do with how good or bad you were.

What? So why go to church, or abstain from sin, if God doesn't care? That makes no sense to me

No, it doesn't, because "almighty" is a vague word that could perfectly well mean "very powerful". That is not the same thing as "omnipotent". The fact that some early Christians actually denied that God is omnipotent ought to indicate to you that it is not a biblical doctrine.

Did they? Oh well - all-mighty means can do anything and that's a modern doctrine. As I (think) I've said, you can't disprove the existance of a God who either does nothing or acts randomly (or in a logic which we don't understand)

 

[Plotinus]

Very true... but if God created us in his own image and tought mercy (Jesus, so doesn't work for Jews) then the idea of condemning people for the actions of other people whom they could not influence seems a bit illogical to me.

Right, I would agree with that. Although please be aware that the notion of God's mercy is very important in Judaism as well. It does not just come from Jesus!

Anyway; we know that the creation story is false which means that the idea is too.

No, that doesn't follow. I assume that by "the creation story" you mean Adam and Eve (you should be more explicit). But the doctrine of original sin does not depend upon the truth of that story.

I see what you mean' but this is getting a bit absurd. To explain the innocent suffering problem we now turn to re-incarnation? And this God does not tolerate reform?

Right, but absurd is not the same as impossible or certainly false. That is the point I was trying to make. I don't quite see how the comment about reform fits in.

Yes it is to me. I really don't see why people can say that to do something which causes harm is not the same as refusing to do something which prevents it.

My reason is thus: you have a choice to make which consists of two positive outcomes - you cannot pass the question. These are to act and not to act. If you take a choice, then you are responsible for the outcome. Seeing as you cannot choose to neither act nor refuse to act, you must take responsibility for what happens.

I wasn't appealing to the notion that failing to prevent harm is morally distinct from acting to cause it. I was appealing to the notion that sometimes, acting to cause harm may be done to bring about a greater good, and that in such circumstances, it is not obvious what the right thing to do is. The scenario I mentioned is one in which you have a choice, and one choice will result in the death of an innocent person, the other will result in the destruction of the world. It doesn't make any difference whether these are choices to act or not act; which one should you take?

Now there is surely a very plausible case that in any situation, the right thing to do is the one that results in the greatest good. What other criterion of rightness could there be? In that case, it might well be right to cause or fail to prevent the suffering of an innocent person if it brought about a greater good. And if that's the case, then there could be some greater good which the suffering of innocent people in general brings about, and this is why God allows it. I don't know what greater good this might be, and it seems to me unlikely. But the point is that you can't rule it out. This is why the argument from evil cannot deductively disprove God's existence.

The Nazis believed that the good of the individual was inferior to the will of the state; so you can kill jews to make the people as a whole happier

I know that. My point was that the way you phrased it made it sound like you thought a Nazi who behaved in this way actually was acting morally.

I didn't start it.

Sorry, that was my mistake.

What? So why go to church, or abstain from sin, if God doesn't care? That makes no sense to me

I didn't say that God doesn't care, I said that - on this view - he does not dole out punishments and rewards on this basis. The Christian view is that God saves people through his own mercy and grace, and not on the basis of how good they are, because everyone (no matter how good) is still a sinner and everyone deserves to be punished. If God saves people, then, it is not because they have earned it. Going to church, or avoiding sin, is a joyful response to God's saving activity, not an attempt to earn it. This, incidentally, is another thing that Christianity inherited from Judaism, which in antiquity held that following the Law is a response to the salvation that God mercifully grants to his people.

These are pretty fundamental elements of Christianity and Judaism.

 

[Agent327]

I didn't say that ethics is reserved for religion, and such a view is not at all implied by what I said. I said only that science isn't about ethics. I was pointing out that the church's view on this matter is not a scientific claim but an ethical one, so it's not a matter of the church weighing in on a scientific matter that doesn't concern it. Whether or not one can evaluate this ethical matter in a non-religious context is neither here nor there as far as that point goes.

I apologize for that suggestion, as it was indeed not at all implied by what you posted. (It must have been that papal flag waving that got the worse of me.) I would dispute, however, that science is not about ethics. Pure science may not be about ethics, but ethics is a scientific discipline - as, I'm sure, an institution like the Catholic church is well aware of. Now I do not dispute any Christian claim on ethical matters per se, but I suspect that a Christian God would prefer his children to be alive and enjoying life, rather than susceptible to sexually transmitted diseases. In other words: I don't believe God has any qualms about people using condoms. It's not the ethics of the Catholic church that is in question, but its assumed right to interfere with what the private life of people.

 

[Plotinus]

I apologize for that suggestion, as it was indeed not at all implied by what you posted. (It must have been that papal flag waving that got the worse of me.) I would dispute, however, that science is not about ethics. Pure science may not be about ethics, but ethics is a scientific discipline - as, I'm sure, an institution like the Catholic church is well aware of.

That might be true on some definition of "scientific". It really depends on what you mean by the term. What do you mean by it?

Now I do not dispute any Christian claim on ethical matters per se, but I suspect that a Christian God would prefer his children to be alive and enjoying life, rather than susceptible to sexually transmitted diseases. In other words: I don't believe God has any qualms about people using condoms.

I would agree with you, for the same reasons. But would you really say that these are scientific reasons? If they are, then we're using a very broad definition of "scientific" here - much broader than what is meant when normally talking about the supposed clashes between science and religion.

It's not the ethics of the Catholic church that is in question, but its assumed right to interfere with what the private life of people.

I'd say it's both, really. First there is the question whether the ethical claim (eg, the use of contraception is immoral) is true or not. Then there is the question whether, if it is true, the church has the right to try to impose this standard on other people. I think this latter question is not very clear. Certainly there are some cases where we think not only that an act is immoral, but that it is right to try to prevent other people from performing it. I don't think, for example, that many people would say that murder is wrong but other people have a right to murder if they want to. So I would say that whether or not the church can justify trying to prevent people from using contraception must depend, to some degree, upon what its justification is for thinking that contraception is wrong in the first place. So these questions are linked, or at least that's how it seems to me.

 

[Daryl95]

There are no innocent people .

But isn´t that still a projection of our values? Think of the Old Testament, Hiob etc. That guy suffered a lot as well!
And (I´m certainly no expert in bible interpretation) is justice not something which will be taken care of after your earthly life, not during? Isn´t "heaven" a "reward" for being a stalwart christian in the face of all the suffering and temptations?

If there are no innocent people then why are we here huh? Besides if god is so good he wouldn't let people live in such suffering. He can't exist. Heaven is just something you just want to be there because maybe your relative died and you want to think they are still with you. I'm not calling anyone stupid. Religious people are just weak minded.

 

[Plotinus]

Besides if god is so good he wouldn't let people live in such suffering. He can't exist.

As I said above, that conclusion is too strong. It's impossible to prove that God can't exist with an argument like that. You can only defend it as probable.

Heaven is just something you just want to be there because maybe your relative died and you want to think they are still with you.

That is just an assertion, and as such, worthless without an argument to back it up. It's also completely irrelevant to the topic of the thread.

I'm not calling anyone stupid. Religious people are just weak minded.

Can you explain the difference? And do you really think that that is an accurate description of (say) Duns Scotus, Leibniz, and Newton? Really?

 

[Flying Pig]

Right, I would agree with that. Although please be aware that the notion of God's mercy is very important in Judaism as well. It does not just come from Jesus!

True; indeed I think that the real point of the Jewish lex talionis approach to the law was to be merciful. Indeed, it can be read as 'if a man knocks out your tooth, you may knock out his tooth and then be done; any more is wrong.' The Muslims also agree that to forgive is greater than to punish (Islamophobes read this)

No, that doesn't follow. I assume that by "the creation story" you mean Adam and Eve (you should be more explicit). But the doctrine of original sin does not depend upon the truth of that story.

If the doctrine's central point is that man was perfect then he disobeyed and so all of his sons were cursed because he is all of our anscestor then the lack of a garden of Eden, forbidden fruit and talking snake makes the story impossible (unless it is read allegorically, but that still needs to have a God who talks to people).

Right, but absurd is not the same as impossible or certainly false. That is the point I was trying to make. I don't quite see how the comment about reform fits in.

Absurd does mean that you should not base an argument on it; it's like selling your house to buy lottery tickets because you have a 1 in 170 chance of hitting the jackpot and trebling your money. The comment on reform fits because God is supposedly just, and so he would (I assume) subscribe to the idea that people should have a second chance.

I wasn't appealing to the notion that failing to prevent harm is morally distinct from acting to cause it. I was appealing to the notion that sometimes, acting to cause harm may be done to bring about a greater good, and that in such circumstances, it is not obvious what the right thing to do is.

Morals are, in my opinion, judged on the intent save where recklessness or negligence are involved. If you meant to, for example, shoot your wife but missed and shot Adolf Hitler, you are still evil, and if you aimed for Hitler but shot your wife you are still good. The exception would be if you laid a landmine in a forest on the off-chance that Hitler would walk into it and your wife stepped on it. I've just proven Godwin's Law, by the way.

The scenario I mentioned is one in which you have a choice, and one choice will result in the death of an innocent person, the other will result in the destruction of the world. It doesn't make any difference whether these are choices to act or not act; which one should you take?

Now there is surely a very plausible case that in any situation, the right thing to do is the one that results in the greatest good. What other criterion of rightness could there be? In that case, it might well be right to cause or fail to prevent the suffering of an innocent person if it brought about a greater good. And if that's the case, then there could be some greater good which the suffering of innocent people in general brings about, and this is why God allows it.

I see... as I have said before, I don't hold with the argument which says "God has a mind which we mere mortals cannot fathom". From our end, we can see no difference between that and no God, and so were are compelled to simplicity.

I know that. My point was that the way you phrased it made it sound like you thought a Nazi who behaved in this way actually was acting morally.

This is one of my big dilemmas, philosophically speaking. We know that there is no gold standard of morality (I leave God aside) since some people honestly believe that abortion is right and some that it is wrong; and they cannot both be right and there is nothing which compels either of them to accept the judgement of the other. Therefore; I cannot say that my values are true, and so I think that to be moral is to act in accordance with your values. However, if you believe that it is good to help your friends and tell the truth, then that is in my view 'superior' to believing in promoting self-intrest and greed, but I can't say what reason I have to think that.

I didn't say that God doesn't care, I said that - on this view - he does not dole out punishments and rewards on this basis. The Christian view is that God saves people through his own mercy and grace, and not on the basis of how good they are, because everyone (no matter how good) is still a sinner and everyone deserves to be punished. If God saves people, then, it is not because they have earned it. Going to church, or avoiding sin, is a joyful response to God's saving activity, not an attempt to earn it. This, incidentally, is another thing that Christianity inherited from Judaism, which in antiquity held that following the Law is a response to the salvation that God mercifully grants to his people.

Interesting... in Islam, however, this is not true. But that is a very interesting take on it; in fact it is an awful lot better than any other I have heard. The only problem I have with it is that Jack the Ripper is equal in the eyes of God to the pope; which does not seem right to me.

 

[Plotinus]

If the doctrine's central point is that man was perfect then he disobeyed and so all of his sons were cursed because he is all of our anscestor then the lack of a garden of Eden, forbidden fruit and talking snake makes the story impossible (unless it is read allegorically, but that still needs to have a God who talks to people).

That's not the doctrine's central point, though. At its simplest, the doctrine of original sin is simply the claim that everyone has an inherent tendency to do what is wrong (which is technically termed concupiscence). That seems to me not only plausible but quite probable. The version of the doctrine that's needed for our purposes is the stronger claim that a person can be legitimately punished for the wrongdoing of their ancestors. You don't need the notion that humanity was created perfect for that. You're confusing the doctrine of the Fall with the doctrine of inherited guilt, and calling them both "original sin", but they are quite distinct, even though they may commonly be associated together. That doesn't make the doctrine of inherited guilt much more plausible, of course, but in my view there are perfectly good reasons for rejecting the doctrine of inherited guilt without worrying about the Fall.

Absurd does mean that you should not base an argument on it; it's like selling your house to buy lottery tickets because you have a 1 in 170 chance of hitting the jackpot and trebling your money.

Indeed, but I wasn't basing an argument on it - I was pointing out that it is a hole, however small, in your own. You cannot completely rule out something that is still a possibility, however implausible you may think it. In this case, you may think that the notion of reincarnation (and, with it, the notion that suffering in this life could be a just punishment for sins committed in a past life) is highly implausible, but as long as you admit that it's possible you must also admit that you can't be certain that the existence of suffering disproves God's existence. Neither you nor anyone else has to hold that reincarnation is probable or actual for this point to hold. Of course, this is quite apart from the fact that there are an awful lot of people who don't think this doctrine highly implausible, and who hold it to be actually true. That means that the claim that it's highly implausible must be backed up by some kind of argument. I'm sure there are plenty available, but again, you can't just assume them.

The comment on reform fits because God is supposedly just, and so he would (I assume) subscribe to the idea that people should have a second chance.

Is that necessarily part of justice? I think you're on much shakier grounds if you're now assuming that a perfectly just God would not only refrain from punishing the innocent but also from punishing the guilty as well. Furthermore, it's easy to adapt the reincarnation story to take account of this, even if we all agree that God should give everyone a second chance. Perhaps he does, and the people who are currently suffering are those who had a second chance in the last life and blew it.

Morals are, in my opinion, judged on the intent save where recklessness or negligence are involved. If you meant to, for example, shoot your wife but missed and shot Adolf Hitler, you are still evil, and if you aimed for Hitler but shot your wife you are still good. The exception would be if you laid a landmine in a forest on the off-chance that Hitler would walk into it and your wife stepped on it. I've just proven Godwin's Law, by the way.

That's a common and plausible view - and one which, by the way, goes back to St Augustine (via Abelard). One problem with it is that it's not reflected in the ways we punish people: you get a harsher sentence for murder than for attempted murder. So it seems we punish people for competence. Why this is and what it means is a much-discussed topic, although probably not one that's relevant here.

I see... as I have said before, I don't hold with the argument which says "God has a mind which we mere mortals cannot fathom". From our end, we can see no difference between that and no God, and so were are compelled to simplicity.

It's not an argument, though. It's just a possibility. And whether you "hold" with it or not, surely you must accept that it is a possibility that God, if he exists, could have reasons for doing things that we don't know - even for doing things that seem to us to be abhorrent. Just as the small child doesn't understand why its parents refuse to give it ice cream for every meal. Indeed, if God did exist, I would think it wildly unlikely that there was nothing that he could understand with his eternal omniscience which was beyond our understanding, based as it is on a couple of kilograms of mushy grey stuff.

Besides this, though, there is surely a difference between a God who has motives we don't know (or even understand) and no God at all, just as there is a difference between a parent whose motives a toddler cannot understand and no parent at all. There would even be a difference between a universe governed by a completely amoral God and one governed by no God at all - surely.

And as I said before, I am not convinced that the "simplicity" criterion is relevant at all to this subject, even assuming it can be stated uncontroversially in the first place. Which it can't.

This is one of my big dilemmas, philosophically speaking. We know that there is no gold standard of morality (I leave God aside) since some people honestly believe that abortion is right and some that it is wrong; and they cannot both be right and there is nothing which compels either of them to accept the judgement of the other. Therefore; I cannot say that my values are true, and so I think that to be moral is to act in accordance with your values. However, if you believe that it is good to help your friends and tell the truth, then that is in my view 'superior' to believing in promoting self-intrest and greed, but I can't say what reason I have to think that.

Well, this is a vast topic in philosophy, and a vast number of answers have been given to this. Incidentally, appealing to God to do so is one of the least popular and least successful. Just to begin with, you could look here, here, and here. You see what I mean!

Interesting... in Islam, however, this is not true. But that is a very interesting take on it; in fact it is an awful lot better than any other I have heard. The only problem I have with it is that Jack the Ripper is equal in the eyes of God to the pope; which does not seem right to me.

It doesn't necessarily have that consequence. To say that everyone has sinned, and that everyone is (or would be) justly condemned, is not to say that everyone has sinned to the same degree. You can say that all children are naughty without being committed to the view that all children are equally naughty, or indeed that all whales are big without being committed to the view that all whales are equally big. The notion that everyone is completely sinful is known as the doctrine of "total depravity" and it is associated with the Reformed tradition, and it is not held by most Christians (certainly not by most Catholics). However, even those who hold total depravity would not say that Jack the Ripper is equal to the pope in the eyes of God. They would say that, theologically speaking, they are equally unworthy in God's eyes; but this is still distinct from their moral value. On a human, natural level of course we can distinguish between differing degrees of depravity, and God recognises that; it is only when we consider them in terms of the duty to God that the distinctions become irrelevant.

 

[Daryl95]

As I said above, that conclusion is too strong. It's impossible to prove that God can't exist with an argument like that. You can only defend it as probable.



That is just an assertion, and as such, worthless without an argument to back it up. It's also completely irrelevant to the topic of the thread.



Can you explain the difference? And do you really think that that is an accurate description of (say) Duns Scotus, Leibniz, and Newton? Really?

Ok. You want an argument huh?
How do certain characters in the bible live for hundreds of years? Huh?
Why would god kill billions of living creatures, how could Noah fit every species on Earth on one arc, and how does the entire world flood?
In the bible it says god was nearing the end of his life. If he's so almighty then how does he die?
I hear religious people say that if it is not in the first chapter of the bible it doesn't exist. What about mechanics? What about electricity? What about plastic? What about molecules? Do you read about that? You didn't.
Defending what I said about religious people being weak minded, there is a difference. You are smart enough to figure it out but you need it too much to question it. I have heard of nonreligious people believing in god after a close relative dies because they to think that there is somewhere that they go to live after death. I meant no offense by saying any of that. It's not stupidity, you just need it.
I should write more but I have another thread to go to.

 

[Masada]

Ok. You want an argument huh?
How do certain characters in the bible live for hundreds of years? Huh?
Why would god kill billions of living creatures, how could Noah fit every species on Earth on one arc, and how does the entire world flood?
In the bible it says god was nearing the end of his life. If he's so almighty then how does he die?
I hear religious people say that if it is not in the first chapter of the bible it doesn't exist. What about mechanics? What about electricity? What about plastic? What about molecules? Do you read about that? You didn't.

Biblical Literalism =/ Proof that God is imaginary.

 

[Agent327]

That might be true on some definition of "scientific". It really depends on what you mean by the term. What do you mean by it?

Contrary to what you might expect I'm using "science" and "scientific discipline" in an orthodox fashion. (No hidden meaning intended by use of these terms. I thought that would be clear from the context, though.)

I would agree with you, for the same reasons. But would you really say that these are scientific reasons? If they are, then we're using a very broad definition of "scientific" here - much broader than what is meant when normally talking about the supposed clashes between science and religion.

Scientific reasons? You mean reasons based on scientific research? Or simply causality? (And I'm not really interested in such general terms as "clashes between science and religion", as it broadens the scope to an extent as to make it quite hard to reach any definite conclusion. I'd rather focus on specific cases, such as Galileo's, Spinoza, and, most recently, the readmission of a "bishop" - I thought the term could only be used in clerical context - formerly excommunicated; the latter ofcourse only touches upon science as concerns history as a scientific discipline.)

I'd say it's both, really. First there is the question whether the ethical claim (eg, the use of contraception is immoral) is true or not. Then there is the question whether, if it is true, the church has the right to try to impose this standard on other people. I think this latter question is not very clear. Certainly there are some cases where we think not only that an act is immoral, but that it is right to try to prevent other people from performing it. I don't think, for example, that many people would say that murder is wrong but other people have a right to murder if they want to. So I would say that whether or not the church can justify trying to prevent people from using contraception must depend, to some degree, upon what its justification is for thinking that contraception is wrong in the first place. So these questions are linked, or at least that's how it seems to me.

Again, I think it would help to stay on the focus of specific examples, rather than trying to reach any general conclusion. (Other than that religious stances as concerns contraception and abortion - I noticed your sidestepping by mentioning murder - may very well be "ethically grounded", but methods of contraception - including abortion - have been around since antiquity, maybe earlier. As a personal note however, I might mention that, though I'm personally not in favour of abortion, I consider it a decision to be taken by the ones suffering from its consequences, i.e. women.)

That's not the doctrine's central point, though. At its simplest, the doctrine of original sin is simply the claim that everyone has an inherent tendency to do what is wrong (which is technically termed concupiscence). That seems to me not only plausible but quite probable.

That may certainly be true for the collective (a valid reason for the existence of laws), but not for the individual. (I.e. there must be exceptions to the rule, otherwise no "good" laws would ever come into existence.)

And whether you "hold" with it or not, surely you must accept that it is a possibility that God, if he exists, could have reasons for doing things that we don't know - even for doing things that seem to us to be abhorrent. Just as the small child doesn't understand why its parents refuse to give it ice cream for every meal. Indeed, if God did exist, I would think it wildly unlikely that there was nothing that he could understand with his eternal omniscience which was beyond our understanding, based as it is on a couple of kilograms of mushy grey stuff.

Besides this, though, there is surely a difference between a God who has motives we don't know (or even understand) and no God at all, just as there is a difference between a parent whose motives a toddler cannot understand and no parent at all. There would even be a difference between a universe governed by a completely amoral God and one governed by no God at all - surely.

IMO this reflects a much too anthropomorphic concept of God. (Although I'd agree that most believers - and atheists - adher to such a concept.) As long as people view "God" as anything like a person no definite conclusions can be reached as concerns either "his" existence or intentions. (May basic objection being: Why would God be manlike at all?)

 

[Plotinus]

Ok. You want an argument huh?
How do certain characters in the bible live for hundreds of years? Huh?
Why would god kill billions of living creatures, how could Noah fit every species on Earth on one arc, and how does the entire world flood?
In the bible it says god was nearing the end of his life. If he's so almighty then how does he die?
I hear religious people say that if it is not in the first chapter of the bible it doesn't exist. What about mechanics? What about electricity? What about plastic? What about molecules? Do you read about that? You didn't.

These are arguments against the truth of the Bible. As Masada pointed out, that is not the same thing as arguing against God's existence. I hope you can see the difference. There are rather a lot of people who believe in God but who don't believe in the Bible. So the question of the truth or falsity of the Bible is quite irrelevant both to the topic of this thread and to the assertions you made in your first post. And if there really are religious people who say that things not mentioned in Gen 1 don't exist, all that proves is that those religious people are wrong on that particular question. So what?

But where on earth does the Bible say God was nearing the end of his life?

Defending what I said about religious people being weak minded, there is a difference. You are smart enough to figure it out but you need it too much to question it. I have heard of nonreligious people believing in god after a close relative dies because they to think that there is somewhere that they go to live after death. I meant no offense by saying any of that. It's not stupidity, you just need it.

So your argument that all religious people are weak-minded boils down to the fact that you have "heard of nonreligious people believing in God after a close relative dies". That's not a very good argument. You are confusing the particular with the general. Even if it is true that some people believe in God for such reasons, it does not follow that all people who believe in God do so for such reasons. Furthermore, believing in God is not the same thing as being religious. Even if it were true (which it isn't) that all people who believe in God do so for the reasons you mention, that wouldn't prove anything about religious people who don't believe in God, such as Theravada Buddhists.

Contrary to what you might expect I'm using "science" and "scientific discipline" in an orthodox fashion. (No hidden meaning intended by use of these terms. I thought that would be clear from the context, though.)

But still, can't you spell it out? To me, the standard meaning of "scientific" refers to a particular kind of rational inquiry, involving the formulating of testable hypotheses, the performance of experiments or gathering of empirical evidence to support those hypotheses or their complements, the modifying of the hypotheses in the light of that evidence, and so on. I can't see how ethics can be called "scientific" in this sense. How could you gather empirical evidence for an ethical claim?

Scientific reasons? You mean reasons based on scientific research? Or simply causality?

The former - causality isn't the same as science!

Again, I think it would help to stay on the focus of specific examples, rather than trying to reach any general conclusion. (Other than that religious stances as concerns contraception and abortion - I noticed your sidestepping by mentioning murder - may very well be "ethically grounded", but methods of contraception - including abortion - have been around since antiquity, maybe earlier. As a personal note however, I might mention that, though I'm personally not in favour of abortion, I consider it a decision to be taken by the ones suffering from its consequences, i.e. women.)

I just mentioned murder to illustrate the fact that there are many cases where we think that it is right to impose ethical standards on other people, which in turn means that in the case of contraception we might not be able to make such a clear distinction between (a) whether the church is right to think it wrong and (b) whether the church is right to impose that view on other people.

That may certainly be true for the collective (a valid reason for the existence of laws), but not for the individual. (I.e. there must be exceptions to the rule, otherwise no "good" laws would ever come into existence.)

Not necessarily. It could be the case that everyone has a tendency to do what's wrong, but that not everyone succumbs to that tendency all the time. And there could be tendency to do what's right as well, alongside the tendency to do what's wrong; someone might follow one tendency at one time and the other at another. The notion of universal concupiscence is quite compatible with the view that at least some people do what's right at least some of the time.

IMO this reflects a much too anthropomorphic concept of God. (Although I'd agree that most believers - and atheists - adher to such a concept.) As long as people view "God" as anything like a person no definite conclusions can be reached as concerns either "his" existence or intentions. (May basic objection being: Why would God be manlike at all?)

I think it's part of the classical definition of God that he is a person. The standard answer to your last question is, of course, that God created human beings in his own image, so it is legimitate to suppose that they have features in common. It's not that God is manlike so much as that man is Godlike. In any case I don't really see how what I said depends upon an anthropomorphic view of God, beyond the notion that God acts and has purposes. These seem to me to be part and parcel of most concepts of "God".

 

[Flying Pig]

These are arguments against the truth of the Bible. As Masada pointed out, that is not the same thing as arguing against God's existence. I hope you can see the difference. There are rather a lot of people who believe in God but who don't believe in the Bible. So the question of the truth or falsity of the Bible is quite irrelevant both to the topic of this thread and to the assertions you made in your first post. And if there really are religious people who say that things not mentioned in Gen 1 don't exist, all that proves is that those religious people are wrong on that particular question. So what?

But where on earth does the Bible say God was nearing the end of his life?

Could you use the fact that there are errors in he Bible as a proof against Catholicism? I mean, they admit no error, and they say that it is true, so their worldview does not seem to fit here. I also would like to know where it says that God is nearing the end of his life.

So your argument that all religious people are weak-minded boils down to the fact that you have "heard of nonreligious people believing in God after a close relative dies". That's not a very good argument. You are confusing the particular with the general. Even if it is true that some people believe in God for such reasons, it does not follow that all people who believe in God do so for such reasons.

Very good. I would support that those people who start getting religious when tey look like they're going to die or on of their friends dies are just thinking wishfully. However I would say that an atheist can still, in a manner of speaking, pray for someone.

Furthermore, believing in God is not the same thing as being religious.

True; but the thread is about belief in God.

Even if it were true (which it isn't) that all people who believe in God do so for the reasons you mention, that wouldn't prove anything about religious people who don't believe in God, such as Theravada Buddhists.

They do believe in a 'higher power' and that there is something which will influence you after death, and so I think that could be considered a form of theism.

I just mentioned murder to illustrate the fact that there are many cases where we think that it is right to impose ethical standards on other people, which in turn means that in the case of contraception we might not be able to make such a clear distinction between (a) whether the church is right to think it wrong and (b) whether the church is right to impose that view on other people.

The Church can not give an argument which would convince a 'reasonably prudent [atheistic] person' as the courts would say, and so they have a right to believe it, since they believe their argument is sound, but not to impose it on non-believers.

 

[Fifty]

hey plotinus if god exists then how come nobody has found the garden of eden and how come when we blast off to outer space we never reach heaven and how can hell be beneath the ground when geology says that there is no society of demons in the center of the earth just molton metals and whatnot?

sorry plotinus but clearly u have just been brainwashed to believe in religun and have no real education on these things... i suggest u should study theology and church history and philosophy (wikipedia is a good source and also books like this one) and try to get educated on these issues b4 you go further... contrary to what u say it is far from obvious that the bible is the infallible truth.

 

[Flying Pig]

hey plotinus if god exists then how come nobody has found the garden of eden and how come when we blast off to outer space we never reach heaven and how can hell be beneath the ground when geology says that there is no society of demons in the center of the earth just molton metals and whatnot?

I think...

 

[Imperialmajesty]

God can never be proven or disproved, period.

Trying to do either is like living in a sealed box for your whole life and attempting to ascertain whether the sky is blue.

However, I believe suggestions can be made. The observable Universe and the laws that have been discovered governing it so far suggest that God is not exactly an active participant in this universe, if he even exists at all.

Hell, what is God anyway? Everyone seems to act like it is a coherently defined entity, including me. If this universe was "created" why would such a thing be called "God" ? Why can't it be some nerd in an Alien science class who created the universe? That Alien would be as much a god as the people who make a 747.

 

[Agent327]

To me, the standard meaning of "scientific" refers to a particular kind of rational inquiry, involving the formulating of testable hypotheses, the performance of experiments or gathering of empirical evidence to support those hypotheses or their complements, the modifying of the hypotheses in the light of that evidence, and so on. I can't see how ethics can be called "scientific" in this sense. How could you gather empirical evidence for an ethical claim?

I was just using science in the sense of a study in which you can achieve a degree. But I gather you're referreing to the difference between "hard" and "soft" science. Indeed, I don't believe there's much empirical research in ethics.

I just mentioned murder to illustrate the fact that there are many cases where we think that it is right to impose ethical standards on other people, which in turn means that in the case of contraception we might not be able to make such a clear distinction between (a) whether the church is right to think it wrong and (b) whether the church is right to impose that view on other people.

Irrespecitive if the church is right or wrong it seems to me a task for the lawgiver to impose views on the population.

Not necessarily. It could be the case that everyone has a tendency to do what's wrong, but that not everyone succumbs to that tendency all the time. And there could be tendency to do what's right as well, alongside the tendency to do what's wrong; someone might follow one tendency at one time and the other at another. The notion of universal concupiscence is quite compatible with the view that at least some people do what's right at least some of the time.

That holds at least more nuance. It might also be the case that despite individual tendencies, due to collective or judicial pressure, the tendency to do right prevails. A problem arises ofcourse of such collective and/or judicial influence tends to the wrong side as well. In the final analysis I'd say it boils down to individual free will vs collective norms.

I think it's part of the classical definition of God that he is a person. The standard answer to your last question is, of course, that God created human beings in his own image, so it is legimitate to suppose that they have features in common. It's not that God is manlike so much as that man is Godlike. In any case I don't really see how what I said depends upon an anthropomorphic view of God, beyond the notion that God acts and has purposes. These seem to me to be part and parcel of most concepts of "God".

Indeed. Only there's no evidence to that effect, as to conclude that God is perfect, perfectly good, infinite, omnipotent etc. From experience I'm inclined to believe God is perfect, man is not. (And indeed, attributes such as perfection, good, infinite, omnipotent go well beyond anything human.) I do not know if man is Godlike nor if God created man in his own image (but I doubt it). God in the traditional view is certainly "imaginary" - if only because men seem to need images. Whether this image is in any way relevant to the nature of God seems to me a matter undecided - if only because of man's limitations.

 

[flyingchicken]

hey plotinus if god exists then how come nobody has found the garden of eden and how come when we blast off to outer space we never reach heaven and how can hell be beneath the ground when geology says that there is no society of demons in the center of the earth just molton metals and whatnot?

sorry plotinus but clearly u have just been brainwashed to believe in religun and have no real education on these things... i suggest u should study theology and church history and philosophy (wikipedia is a good source and also books like this one) and try to get educated on these issues b4 you go further... contrary to what u say it is far from obvious that the bible is the infallible truth.

Why do you hate us egotistic and smarter-than-thou teenagers?