Cosmological Arguments for God

[atiguhya padma]

Having seen Sir Martin Rees' programme on Cosmology yesterday, it strikes me that any argument for God based on probability and cosmology is bound to fail. He mentioned the cosmological constant, which, if it differed by a factor of only 0.(120 zeros followed by 1), then life would never have begun and the Universe would not be as we see it today. Now some people would say that this cannot be coincidental, and therefore indicates the existence at some point of an intelligent designer/creator. But, the fact is, you could multiply the Universe by as many factors as is needed to bring about a probability of a cosmological constant, and this would still be easier to defend, than the existence of God. If God is infinite, then using Occam's Razor, any finite proposition, no matter how improbable, will be a more efficient argument for the creation and the nature of the Universe, than a reference to an infinite God.

I may be wrong. What do you think?

[amuse]

ap, why do questions about god/god's non-existence fascinate you, a professed atheist, so greatly?
just curious. have wondered this for months.

[GreenDog]

Well, I think that you are absolutely right, any attempt to prove Gods existence using scientific logic will fail. There is always a better- simpler and more logical explanation to any natural phenomenon, based on well established rules than: " I don't have a better explanation for this- therefore if must be Gods fault!"
Moreover, such explanations, in my opinion, show a wrong perception making God another force in the universe, rather than its master.
The other way around is true, if God exists nothing in the creation should contradict his existence.

[atiguhya padma]

Amuse,

As an atheist, I feel that I have to be sure that there is no room for God. That is one reason. Another, is that there are billions of people in the world that believe in God. That to me is a serious problem. I don't understand why so many people believe something that I feel has no real benefit, other than possibly an indirect benefit (ie a sense of community, a monetary benefit or a psychological one), to anyone. Especially when the proposition of God's existence is so unreasonable. In that sense the question of God fascinates me.

It is because I have a great respect for the general good sense and reasonableness of mankind that I find it very difficult to understand why so many people believe in God. As far as I know, the idea of God working in the world is not an easily defendable position. I don't see much built-in, designer love in the Universe. In fact I see the opposite, a natural world built upon pain and extinction.

So it fascinates me to see and hear people claim that there is evidence for a benign God in the Universe. I think there would be more integrity, (though I would stress that this is certainly not a position I would hold myself) to claim that there is design but no divine love in the Universe, although I would have to admit that Occam's Razor puts paid to such a claim as well. This is the position, as I understand it, of Jocelyn Bell, the Christian physicist. The indiscriminate manner in which nature operates, seems to me irrefutable. I cannot marry this with the idea of an all-powerful God of love.

Anyway, so I'm interested in seeing what both believers and non-believers, scientists and non-scientists have to say about this.

I would also say that those who believe in God have traditionally posed the greatest threat to world peace. And I find this to be as relevant today, if not more so. Those who will threaten the world's future in the coming years, will almost certainly be believers in God. I think that is something that everyone should be concerned about.

AP

[mono]

I have always thought that believing in the existence of a higher Being guides itself more through faith and intuition than reason and logic, being shown by William James to seem superior, in his The Varieties of Religious Experiences; Immanuel Kant also contributed to this idea, in Critique of Pure Reason, that nothing infinite can have a proven existence through linear, logical reasoning, but only through wholistic faith, contradicting step-by-step syllogisms.
The most convincing of cosmological arguments I have found, however, belong to thinkers, such as Cicero, Paley, minorly St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and . . . another whose name I will have to post later, because I cannot remember his name (*laughs).

[baddad]

..... so I'm interested in seeing what both believers and non-believers, scientists and non-scientists have to say about this.

I would also say that those who believe in God have traditionally posed the greatest threat to world peace. And I find this to be as relevant today, if not more so. Those who will threaten the world's future in the coming years, will almost certainly be believers in God. I think that is something that everyone should be concerned about.

AP

I think organized religion has always fomented war, and not peace. Organized religion is about control, it is concerned with containing the thoughts of the proletariat within a confined box of beliefs, leaving the heirarchy as sole interpreters of "God's" word. As always, the elite claim to know what is best for the rest of us. A God would have no need for interpretation, no need for a middle-man, no need for bloodshed, no need to impose his wishes by force. A God would be well aware of human limitations as far as the extremes of good and evil we are truly capable of, and would of course, not allow his followers to corrupt his message of peace, if HE truly existed.

Somewhere along in time someone with suspect reasons realized the power inherently available to one who could communicate with an all powerful being, realized the control that could be exerted over superstitious or fearful people, people in need of reassurance for one reason or another. Power has always been a corrupter of man. Religion is a philosophy, not a political powerbase for a being that exists only in faith. There is no 'God' per se', there is only human kinds manifestations of love, peace, sharing, caring, and humanity to each other.

The 'God' figurehead is just a good marketing ploy on the part of those who want to retain control of the masses.

[atiguhya padma]

baddad,

an excellent post. Full of good sense.

<Somewhere along in time someone with suspect reasons realized the power inherently available to one who could communicate with an all powerful being, realized the control that could be exerted over superstitious or fearful people, people in need of reassurance for one reason or another.>

I think the big change from polytheism to monotheism was a disaster for mankind, for the good reasons you give baddad. That change happened in Egypt with Akhenaten, who monopolised religion into the single worship of Amon Ra, for political control. The kind of theocratic state that Akhenaten instituted, was a dictatorship of the worst kind with the populace being terrorised by Akhenaten and his high priests.

AP

[subterranean]

As far as I know, the idea of God working in the world is not an easily defendable position. I don't see much built-in, designer love in the Universe. In fact I see the opposite, a natural world built upon pain and extinction.

AP

I once read this booklet in title "Why Does A Good God Allow Suffering". This is a Christian booklet, and one of the key points that I get from that small book is that the answer lies in human's, means that all sufferings happened in this world are caused by human's sins. It argues that cause humans don't follow God's rules and laws, then God allows those sufferings to happened..as lessons perhaps. And all the sufferings in the world are the result of human's free wills for not obeying the Divine's rules.

And I watched Schindler's List and until know I keep thinking about the 6 millions Jews killed during the Hitler's reign. And I wonder, did it really need to cost that many lifes to teach humans a lesson or to show humans how awful it is to not follow the Divine's rules and law?
Yet there are lots of sufferings in the world...

[atiguhya padma]

SubT,

Linda Smith, President of the British Humanist Association, and professional comedian, was interviewed on BBC Radio 4 about her beliefs and her atheism. She asked: if there was ever a time for God to reveal himself to the world, you would think the Holocaust would have been the right time wouldn't you? At what point would God have said enough? Another million lives, 5 million, 10?

The Gulag in Russia killed countless more and God still didn't intervene. I would have to say though, that personally, I have a problem with the idea of a God intervening in world affairs when the amount of suffering reaches a critical limit. To me, suffering isn't something that gets better when the number of sufferers diminishes. Suffering to me is an individual phenomenon. A collective does not add anything to the problem beyond its individual sufferers. So for me the presence of suffering anywhere, is sufficient argument against the existence of a God that cares.

Interestingly, I was reading a history of the 20thc recently, and year after year, up until some time into WWI, the amount of deaths in the world due to natural disasters and epidemics, easily outstrips the number of deaths due to violence, aggression and war. The Christian booklet you refer to SubT, I presume would argue that natural disasters came about due to the Fall. But that of course is a very silly argument.

AP

[Scheherazade]

Thank you, AP;I was also thinking about the natural disasters, which surely costs more human suffering and lives at any given time and place. The wars can be justified as human sins as they are started and carried out by humans yet how do we justify the earthquakes, fires, volvanic eruptions, famines??? And is it just to say that humanbeings are meant to suffer and endure all these due to something happened millions of years ago or due to someone else's failings? Why is there no distinction between those who believe and who don't when we are hit by such disasters?? If it is all due to the Fall, as AP suggested, what chance do we have? We are losers from the begining and nomatter what kind of lives we lead, we are all destined for the same punishment. This simply does not make sense.

[mono]

I once read this booklet in title "Why Does A Good God Allow Suffering".

"The problem of evil" seems what drives most followers (or former followers) toward a non-belief of any higher Being, in my opinion; the question seems logical, however: why would a good God permit evil?
Various philosophers have commented on this subject: David Hume believed that all evil stems from imagination, and that all fate seems necessary; Leibniz wrote that all evil exists for the purpose of eventually bringing out the greater good; Aristotle believed evil as a proven non-existence of God; and many other philosophers, more than I can list, have wrote similar ideas.

[subterranean]

There's this argument about the logical problem of evil in phylosophy.

The logical problem of evil is a particular way of spelling out the more general challenge to belief in a perfect God that is posed by the existence of evil and suffering in our world. According to this version of the problem, it is logically impossible for an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good God to co-exist with evil and suffering. A maximally perfect God would not let evil and suffering exist; and since evil and suffering do exist, there cannot be a perfect God. So, theists who believe that God is perfect and yet believe obvious facts about the evil and suffering in our world have logically inconsistent beliefs.

If God is omnipotent (all powerfull), he would be able to prevent all of the evil and suffering in the world. And if God is omniscient (all knowing), he would know about all of the evil and suffering in the world and would know how to eliminate or prevent it. Last but not least, if God is perfectly good, he would want to prevent all of the evil and suffering in the world.

So, if God knows about all of the evil and suffering in the world, knows how to eliminate or prevent it, is powerful enough to prevent it, and yet does not prevent it, he must not be perfectly good. Or, If God knows about all of the evil and suffering, knows how to eliminate or prevent it, wants to prevent it, and yet does not do so, he must not be all- powerful. Or, if God is powerful enough to prevent all of the evil and suffering, wants to do so, and yet does not, he must not know about all of the suffering or know how to eliminate or prevent it is, he must not be all-knowing.

As conclusion maybe we can say that if evil and suffering exist, then God is either not omnipotent, not omniscient, or not perfectly good. And since evil and suffering obviously do exist, we may get the final conclusion that God is either not omnipotent, not omniscient, or not perfectly good.

So basically, Im contradicting my self in my head at the moment.

[Jay]

Or maybe he's neither omnipotent, omniscient, not perfectly good :)

[subterranean]

well thats' what I wrote in the conclusion Jay ;)

[Jay]

Oh, so that's what is the last sentence about, ahem, lol. Brain's tired... has to be because I'm not able to come up with better excuse :p

[mono]

Or maybe he's neither omnipotent, omniscient, not perfectly good :)

That may seem the most logical idea, using deductive reasoning. If one prefers the ideas of Leibniz, however, who, as I mentioned, claims that all evil is imagined, things may conclude differently. The absolute definition of 'good,' I feel, seems subjective; for example, Adolf Hitler, a Nazi, most likely considered the Holocaust a 'good' thing, as most of us, hopefully, perceive the opposite.
I feel this conversation shifting toward this argument: does might make right, or right make might?

[Jay]

Actually it's neither imho again. (do I sense a pesimistic approach? :D)
If you're right doesn't mean you are might... and if you're might there's always enough people to tell you you're not right. :)

[papayahed]

I had a good arguement last night after a few drinks, but now it's all a mismatch in my head. Anyhoo, I think this is what I thought? As human beings we only (borrowing for the objective reality thread) have our perceptions of reality. And since its already been said on here that we can't know objective reality, why would we think we could prove the existence of God objectively?

[atiguhya padma]

Yup. Can't argue with you there Papayahed.

I presume that we cannot disprove the existence of God either. And therefore the whole question of God's existence/non-existence becomes a meaningless question, a la Wittgenstein, Ayer and Popper.

Which may prompt the question of why us atheists and agnostics ever get involved in arguments about God. The answer, I feel, is that arguments do have to be made against religions in order to preserve us all from some of the worst kinds of collective madness. Often those arguments take the form of arguments about God. Alas, it is so.

AP

[papayahed]

You make it sound like atheists are saving us from ourselves.

[baddad]

You make it sound like atheists are saving us from ourselves.

....lol.......quite funny that!!

But now to more serious matters.....

Spirituality is independent from arguments about whether there is or is not a 'God', an overseer of the human experience. Spirituality is what individuals feel, their connectedness to existence, and the strength of that connectedness varies according to how deeply one identifies with all aspects of that existence ( does one identify with the beauty of a flower, the humanity of your fellow man, the incongruities of emotions, a beautiful sunrise, a kind hearted act, the power of the oceans, etc., ad infinitum). The existence of GOD matters not except to the individual.

Religion on the other hand is a creaton of man, a legislated set of rules, a power base that can be used to warn of the dangers of deviation from the 'common' need (a not infrequently used method of control weilded smartly for tens of centuries in both secular and religious societies) and in fact, 'Religion' (the rules thereof) belies the truth of the individualistic nature of spirituality.

Religion is an organization, a body of rules meant to further a cause, and it draws and manipulates groups of people away from an individual perspective on existence, thus limiting those people's spirituality, the very antithesis of what religious groups claim to further (another tactic often used by those in power....tell you one thing, give you something different and convince you that 'they' know what is best for 'you').

Is there a God? In my opinion it absolutely does not matter. As an exercise in logic, or a topic guaranteed to generate as many opinions as there are people partaking in the discussion, it is interesting to speculate. But the answer to whether or not there is a god is rather moot beyond these boundaries.

Spitituality is not Religion. The two have nothing in common.

If there is a 'God' he probably ponders his existence as much as humans ponder their existence.

Its just about peace and love my friends........spread the word.

[atiguhya padma]

Atahualpa and his people were annihilated by Pizarro and his people because they did not possess the technology to defend themselves adequately. The Maoriori's of New Zealand offered peace to the Maori's and were virtually wiped out for all their good intentions. One of the most peaceful races known to us, were the Beaker people of prehistoric Northern Europe, named after the decorative pottery they made. They lasted for near on a thousand years before being wiped out.

The cultivation of peace and love is all very well, but it doesn't tend to work very long term, as these examples show. I think the whole peace and love thing is a pretty modern invention. I can't imagine many people promoting these concepts in the Roman Republic or the British Empire for example. What peace and love really boils down to is a nice idealistic dream, in my opinion. Great if it could work. History suggests it doesn't.

[baddad]

Atahualpa and his people were annihilated by Pizarro and his people because they did not possess the technology to defend themselves adequately. The Maoriori's of New Zealand offered peace to the Maori's and were virtually wiped out for all their good intentions. One of the most peaceful races known to us, were the Beaker people of prehistoric Northern Europe, named after the decorative pottery they made. They lasted for near on a thousand years before being wiped out.

The cultivation of peace and love is all very well, but it doesn't tend to work very long term, as these examples show. I think the whole peace and love thing is a pretty modern invention. I can't imagine many people promoting these concepts in the Roman Republic or the British Empire for example. What peace and love really boils down to is a nice idealistic dream, in my opinion. Great if it could work. History suggests it doesn't.

Well that is exactly my point. History should be used to learn lessons. Mankind is moving into the future at an incredibly rapid rate. Historic paradigms no longer hold sway. September 11, an infamous date noted and abhored around the entire planet has prodded all of humanity to rethink mankind's future. Undeniably, shock and dismay have given way to a new impetus, a new and more peaceful future for all of mankind. Although 9/11 was only the thin edge of the wedge of change, it is abundantly clear to the majority of people on the planet that the old ways will no longer work. Technology is shrinking the planet. Instantaneous communications available to the masses and reaching around the world now allow the people, not just the politicians, to voice concerns and solutions to mankinds current difficulties. We discussed biological 'Evolution' in another thread. But the real changes coming to mankind are of a social nature, a rapid and positive evolution of social change. In the near future (less than 200 years) mankind's societies will be dominated by a volition intent on equality, peaceful resolution of contentious issues, less dominance of those speaking peace while holding a gun.

Successive generations (beginning in the 1960's) have toiled for a freedom for all, equality for women, environmental concerns, political revamping of many countries, and a raft of new and forward thinking ideas. This impetus for a better world will not suddenly stop or go backward to less enlightened days. It is the job of youth to rebel, it is genetic, it is evolution, it is revolution, and guns will not stop it, and apathy by some will not prevent it. Some people find words so powerful that they are uncomfortable to hear. A world of peace is not some pipedream a few hippies dreamed up while they were smoking pot. It is the future, and it is coming whether we like it or not. Evoluiton is not just a biological occurence. Everyone has a choice to make; pitch in and forward the cause, or stand back, out of the way. Either way, the future will take care of itself will a little enlightened help.

Mushy feel good nonsense? Trite and sunny delusional thinking? Forty years of rapid social change (the nay sayers use the term 'upheaval' , designed to make change seem as a negative) belie any concerns along these lines. Peace is going to break out. The people want it. They will have it. Even if it costs lives. I applaud.

[atiguhya padma]

I agree with you to some extent baddad. We do live in a world that seems to want change from the usual kinds of conflict we have been subjected to. Of course, it has taken two world wars and a great deal of high-tech destruction to bring that about. But history seems to be cyclical. We will move towards peace and then move away from peace only to move towards it again. In the end, any excessive reaction to any event creates another eventful action due to its surplus: what I mean by this is that we respond to what goes beyond what is required. If we dive off into an excess of peace endeavours, and an over-focus upon concepts like love, then we will find ourselves facing what the Aztecs, the Beaker people, and all those other peoples faced. Maybe the greatest problem we face in the West for the future, is the problem of affluence and the excessive hedonism, boredom and lack of purpose that this produces. It could be said that this fuels the technological drive towards war. In other areas, I am in broad agreement with you.

AP

[Oliver Twist]

In my belief, God is perfectly good. There's a reason that he let's suffering happen- it's his own reasons that we shouldn't question. I'm saying this, as I am a Christian. Please don't flame me for saying this.

[SuicideKitten]

I find that theory on humans being like viruses suprisingly accurate if you think about it. In that case, god would merely be the host to the infection, animals and plants being the cells that make up the life, perhaps the protons and neutrons of an atom , or subatomic particles. The earth itself being the atom, and then us not so slowly spreading and destroying. What may seem like an eternity to us merely the blink of the eye.
It is an odd theory but one that i find most fascinating....

[baddad]

I agree with you to some extent baddad. We do live in a world that seems to want change from the usual kinds of conflict we have been subjected to. Of course, it has taken two world wars and a great deal of high-tech destruction to bring that about. But history seems to be cyclical. We will move towards peace and then move away from peace only to move towards it again. In the end, any excessive reaction to any event creates another eventful action due to its surplus: what I mean by this is that we respond to what goes beyond what is required. If we dive off into an excess of peace endeavours, and an over-focus upon concepts like love, then we will find ourselves facing what the Aztecs, the Beaker people, and all those other peoples faced. Maybe the greatest problem we face in the West for the future, is the problem of affluence and the excessive hedonism, boredom and lack of purpose that this produces. It could be said that this fuels the technological drive towards war. In other areas, I am in broad agreement with you.

AP





As always, an excess, or extreme of any kind is not the ideal. But like a pendulum swing eventually a centre will be found. Pure Capitalism is an extreme. Pure socialism is an extreme. Pure affluence ( which the earth's resources can not possibly supply to 6+ billion people) is an unattainable extreme (eg. there literally are insuffecient resources on earth for everyone in China to own and operate a venicle). Affluence for all of mankind is impossible as well.
What is possible is a standard of existence geared to comfortalble survival. Not comfortable in the sense of the luxury of many northern hemisphere countries and a few in the southern hemisphere, but a standard of clean water, sufficient amounts of food, medical care and education.

A peaceful world pays dividends:resources currently tied up battling economic wars, political wars, wars against terror (a bit of a misnomer as ecomnomic ramifications are prolific here) can be redirected towards more humane interests. As individuals humans want peace, comfort, education, the right to freedom, and all that that entails. The technological revolution is going to supply the means. The true state of affairs in many parts of the world (much is currently hidden from many peoples) are going to become transparent with the advent of easier and ubiquitious communication and interaction through technology.

Transparency has become ( and will continue to expand) the bane of governments around the world. Lies and half truths are being dragged into the light. People are more aware and this awareness continues to grow in great leaps and bounds. It is people, as individuals, who will dictate the global future. Governments understand this, fear it, and so in the case of Capitalism/Globalization are running full out to stamp their brand of control across as much of the globe as is possible. Unfortunately, the future is coming anyway, no matter what they attempt in the way of control. Current governments know this and so the elite, greedy as always, are grabbing as much as they can before the upheaval to come. As far as paralells to history are concerned, this has always been the behavior of the elite.

In the coming future (oxymoron?) the people of the world will not be denied their voice.

In the days of the Aztecs there where no mass communications systems, there where no opportunities for the entire population of the planet to witness injustice, tyranny, etc. Comparing today's world to a world that no longer exists is somewhat misleading. Today's world is becoming transparent, and many people don't like what they see, and no longer trust what they are told, and no longer blindly follow formerly reliable sources.

People around the world are asking questions of their governments, no longer blindingly accepting what the mass media tells them, and instead are actively seeking solutions with a consensus. Witness what is happening in the Ukraine, the peoples revolution in the Phillipines in the 80's, Romania, Czech Republic, Georgia (formerly part of the ussr) South Africa.....and the list goes on.

People will have their way, a way of freedom.Yes these countries and many like them still have problems. But the future of the world is only just beginning to change.

....blah blah blah, blah blah blah........I'll stop here......but I could write a book on what the future is going to hold for humanity.

"It is the nonconformists who change the world". The quote is from George Bernard Shaw in 'The Anarchist's Handbook'

[atiguhya padma]

What do the non-conformists do once they've changed the world I wonder?:)

All that you have said baddad is fine. As long as we don't pretend that human nature is intrinsically good, and that our desire for peace negates our desire for power and possessions etc. Human nature created many of the awful things of history like Auschwitz or the Gulag. We seem to have collected the darker side of human nature into a category we call 'evil' and then used that category as some kind of example of being non-human or inhuman, when in fact that is part and parcel of what human beings latently are and what they all have the potential to do (I'm sure there are plenty of people who will disagree with me here - however, we ignore our capacity to do mass destruction at our own peril). In feeling connected in a holistic way to the world or the Universe, we are also connecting to Hitler and Stalin and Pol Pot and all the other genocidal maniacs that have tragically contributed to our history. Hylozoism, in its holistic sense, entails that we identify with everything and everyone. For many that may be too much to stomach, when you think of the mass murderers, the sexual offenders, the psychopaths of the world.

Oliver Twist: The problem is, you can adopt that approach with anything regarding God or the world that he is supposed to have created. Do you ask anything of God in your prayers, and if so, why? If you cannot question God's purpose in nature, then why question his purpose in anything?

AP

[amuse]

Amuse,

As an atheist, I feel that I have to be sure that there is no room for God. That is one reason. Another, is that there are billions of people in the world that believe in God. That to me is a serious problem. I don't understand why so many people believe something that I feel has no real benefit, other than possibly an indirect benefit (ie a sense of community, a monetary benefit or a psychological one), to anyone. Especially when the proposition of God's existence is so unreasonable. In that sense the question of God fascinates me.

It is because I have a great respect for the general good sense and reasonableness of mankind that I find it very difficult to understand why so many people believe in God. As far as I know, the idea of God working in the world is not an easily defendable position. I don't see much built-in, designer love in the Universe. In fact I see the opposite, a natural world built upon pain and extinction.

So it fascinates me to see and hear people claim that there is evidence for a benign God in the Universe. I think there would be more integrity, (though I would stress that this is certainly not a position I would hold myself) to claim that there is design but no divine love in the Universe, although I would have to admit that Occam's Razor puts paid to such a claim as well. This is the position, as I understand it, of Jocelyn Bell, the Christian physicist. The indiscriminate manner in which nature operates, seems to me irrefutable. I cannot marry this with the idea of an all-powerful God of love.

Anyway, so I'm interested in seeing what both believers and non-believers, scientists and non-scientists have to say about this.

I would also say that those who believe in God have traditionally posed the greatest threat to world peace. And I find this to be as relevant today, if not more so. Those who will threaten the world's future in the coming years, will almost certainly be believers in God. I think that is something that everyone should be concerned about.

AP
thanks; it's always confused me, but i can see why it's of such passionate importance to you now. :)

[amuse]

(later)
but...these billions of people have exactly the right to believe in God that you have not to.
whether these beliefs cause the world goes to "hell in a handbasket" or not...

[papayahed]

All that you have said baddad is fine. As long as we don't pretend that human nature is intrinsically good, and that our desire for peace negates our desire for power and possessions etc. Human nature created many of the awful things of history like Auschwitz or the Gulag. We seem to have collected the darker side of human nature into a category we call 'evil' and then used that category as some kind of example of being non-human or inhuman, when in fact that is part and parcel of what human beings latently are and what they all have the potential to do (I'm sure there are plenty of people who will disagree with me here - however, we ignore our capacity to do mass destruction at our own peril). In feeling connected in a holistic way to the world or the Universe, we are also connecting to Hitler and Stalin and Pol Pot and all the other genocidal maniacs that have tragically contributed to our history. Hylozoism, in its holistic sense, entails that we identify with everything and everyone. For many that may be too much to stomach, when you think of the mass murderers, the sexual offenders, the psychopaths of the world.
AP

If human nature isn't intrinsically good then why is it that we don't have an even split of "good" and "bad"? If that was the case shouldn't half the population be in a prison?

[baddad]

Atiguhya Padma:


..Another example of what I feel the future holds has just occurred (Dec. 26th 2004) in the Ukraine: peaceful revolution through resolution.

Sure, there are and always will be those who for reasons of their own will not want peace. But the majority of this planet is heading for a future that has learned from its past. We may face more wars, famines, dictatorships etc., but they will be fewer in time, and have less impact on less people. The global village is finally learning we are all in it together.

[subterranean]

Posted by AP: Which may prompt the question of why us atheists and agnostics ever get involved in arguments about God. The answer, I feel, is that arguments do have to be made against religions in order to preserve us all from some of the worst kinds of collective madness. Often those arguments take the form of arguments about God. Alas, it is so.

AP, I still don't get it, why you making a fuss about something you choose to consider doesn't exist and then using the argument "to preserve us all from some of the worst kinds of collective madness" , as a reason to justify your "participation" in discussion about God. And firstly, who do you refer as "us all" ?

[trismegistus]

Oooo! Good thread! I'm sorry I found it so late into the dialogue!


I find that theory on humans being like viruses suprisingly accurate if you think about it. In that case, god would merely be the host to the infection, animals and plants being the cells that make up the life, perhaps the protons and neutrons of an atom , or subatomic particles. The earth itself being the atom, and then us not so slowly spreading and destroying.
Terrible model because it's based on the silly idea that Man is like a virus. (One of my favorite moronic ideas from The Matrix.) ALL animals are like a virus. Know what happens when you kill all the wolves in a given region? The deer overpopulate until they destroy their own ecosystem. (Or until human hunters are sent to save the ecosystem by killing deer.) The same holds true for every plant and animal in the world. Unless there are forces to control population growth, all species will propagate out of control.

Nothing is "like" a virus. Viruses merely function in the same way that every other living thing functions.


The answer, I feel, is that arguments do have to be made against religions in order to preserve us all from some of the worst kinds of collective madness. Often those arguments take the form of arguments about God.
IMO you've misidentified the problem here, ap. Religion/belief is VERY rarely the genuine source of any serious conflict. Is it frequently used as a banner in which to wrap someone's agenda? Definitely but it's nothing more than that, a rag. You mention Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot. None of them exterminated millions advancing a religious agenda. Even religious wars like the Crusades had more to do with plundering the Middle East than proselytizing. Osama bin Laden is not attacking the United States to advance a religious agenda, but a political one. He DOES use Islam as a means to inspire people to the fight, but if there was no Islam there would be something else, like race (Hitler) or a grand political doctrine (Stalin).

If you're worried about the destruction of the world, you'd be better served targeting want. That's the root of the problem. All other things are mere branches. (You might also consider advocating the idea of a common humanity. It is the differences in race, religion, and various other doctrines that are used as levers to get people to perform monstrous acts upon other people. But of course the message that we are all the same has been the central tenet of just about every major world religion of the last 2000+ years.)


A maximally perfect God would not let evil and suffering exist; and since evil and suffering do exist, there cannot be a perfect God. So, theists who believe that God is perfect and yet believe obvious facts about the evil and suffering in our world have logically inconsistent beliefs.
I don't necessarily see this as true, sub. There can be a maximally perfect God who simply decides not to direct lives. In fact if God DID regularly interfere in the individual human's life, he could be nothing other than a dictator. We must be able to exercise free will if we are going to be said to have it. If we do NOT have it, if God directs people like Hitler from mass murder and me from insulting people I don't like, we have a slave master and several billion slaves. Clearly that is not in the interests of good.

I think part of the problem here is that people too easily misinterpret suffering AS evil. Thus if a Deity allows suffering or even death, he is allowing evil. However, suffering is not evil; it is a simple condition of living.

[Taliesin]

khmdrpankhmglosskhm

Oh, sorry. Must have caught a cold somewhere. Please, be not disturbed.


Oh, and about the deers - the ecosystem would probably survive, they're tough things, ecosystems, can't destroy them so easily. But, generally, you are quite correct. In ecology, there's no such thing as a pest.

[trismegistus]

Oh, and about the deers - the ecosystem would probably survive, they're tough things, ecosystems, can't destroy them so easily. But, generally, you are quite correct. In ecology, there's no such thing as a pest.
Agreed. Put better I would have said that the deer would damage the ecosystem until it could no longer support the deer population, at which time starvation and disease would take over where the wolves left off, and the ecosystem would return to its proper balance. (In much the same way that people's homes are burned to the ground when they settle in regions that are arid and have frequent forest and brush fires.) Nature finds a way, which is pretty much my point. The idea that mankind is some kind of plague which will eventually cause the end of Gaia is simply ludicrous (as well as grossly egocentric regarding the importance of man).

[atiguhya padma]

To reply to some comments:

Trismegistus: you seem to forget the Reformation; the Thirty Years War; The European Witch Craze; The Inquisition and all those wars that were indirectly inspired by religion. As well as this type of amnesia, you also forget that the missionary work of Christians in Africa, Australia and New Zealand caused a great deal of suffering through the spreading of disease and the destruction of indigenous cultures. Not to mention what happened in South America.

SubT: I get involved in discussions about God because religion causes a great deal of damage in our world. And I care about that. What damages our world, damages us all. Apart from Buddhism, and the Quakers, I know of no religion that claims that it is OK to worship two or more religions. I know of no religion that doesn't consider itself to be THE religion. It is that kind of elitist and divisive thinking that threatens our future.

Papayahed: I'm not sure what point you are trying to make about the split between good and bad. Firstly, why should there be such a split? Secondly, if goodness was intrinsic, why isn't there more of it? It seems to me that there is more to complain about in the world than to praise. Sure there is a lot to praise. But we have many mountains to climb before we can feel satisfied with the world and our place in it.

[papayahed]

Papayahed: I'm not sure what point you are trying to make about the split between good and bad. Firstly, why should there be such a split? Secondly, if goodness was intrinsic, why isn't there more of it? It seems to me that there is more to complain about in the world than to praise. Sure there is a lot to praise. But we have many mountains to climb before we can feel satisfied with the world and our place in it.

Im just saying that if people aren't intrinsically anything then should the popultaion every person half a 50/50 chance of being good or evil?

Of all the people I know I can't think of one person that I would label as evil, perhaps misguided but not evil. Which is why I believe that people are intrinsically good. I think the bad things in the world just get more "airtime".

[subterranean]

To reply to some comments:

Trismegistus: you seem to forget the Reformation; the Thirty Years War; The European Witch Craze; The Inquisition and all those wars that were indirectly inspired by religion. As well as this type of amnesia, you also forget that the missionary work of Christians in Africa, Australia and New Zealand caused a great deal of suffering through the spreading of disease and the destruction of indigenous cultures. Not to mention what happened in South America.

True AP, but missionary acts also brought some improvements, like education and the ending of "barbaric" act (like sacrificing people). Though I'm not sure whether the benefits are higher or not.


SubT: I get involved in discussions about God because religion causes a great deal of damage in our world. And I care about that. What damages our world, damages us all. Apart from Buddhism, and the Quakers, I know of no religion that claims that it is OK to worship two or more religions. I know of no religion that doesn't consider itself to be THE religion. It is that kind of elitist and divisive thinking that threatens our future.

I don't think Budhism belongs to the group of 'religion".

[trismegistus]

Trismegistus: you seem to forget the Reformation; the Thirty Years War; The European Witch Craze; The Inquisition and all those wars that were indirectly inspired by religion. As well as this type of amnesia, you also forget that the missionary work of Christians in Africa, Australia and New Zealand caused a great deal of suffering through the spreading of disease and the destruction of indigenous cultures. Not to mention what happened in South America.
I haven't forgotten any of them; in fact I encourage anyone to look at all them. When one does, he sees that religion is not original motivator for any of them.

The violence which sprang from the Reformation was a product of politics not religion. Mother Church's temporal power, read "political power," was threatened by the rise of Protestantism. Neither that not the 30 Years War were about religion. They were about power and political authority. The same goes for the Inquisition. None of these things were "inspired" by religion either directly or indirectly. All were INSPIRED by Papal lust for control; religion was the nothing more than the means to an end. If you'd like to bring witch hunts into this, feel free. Feel free, too, to bring in state pogroms against Jews, especially those in Eastern Europe. But while you're discussing them, please don't fail to mention that the great majority of these persecutions were launched by governments looking for distractions. What they found was a religious enemey, but if you believe that they wouldn't have found another type of enemy had religion not been available, I've got some real estate to sell you.

If you'd like to attack missionary work, fine. I'll remind you that missionaries came with conquering armies in the case of South America, and with merchant traders in Asia and Africa. It was not missionaries who introduced small pox to the indigenous people of the New World and Africa. The introduction of missionaries into these regions was nothing more than the by-product of conquest and the search for profitable markets.

You claim that I'm amnesiac; I'd suggest you're intentionally ignoring historical truths in the name of your attack on religion. Except on rare occasions, religion has been nothing more than a way to rally people to do awful deeds, but in that role it is no worse than race, ethnicity, nationalism, language, culture, or political ideology. In spite of this I wouldn't urge you to target those things either, since none of those are the problem any more than religion is.

But I'll tell you what. Go to Sudan or Rwanda right now, and tell the people there that religion is the world's real problem. I think you'll find enlightening their answers about what REALLY drives humans to murder and cruelty.

[trismegistus]

SubT: I get involved in discussions about God because religion causes a great deal of damage in our world. And I care about that. What damages our world, damages us all. Apart from Buddhism, and the Quakers, I know of no religion that claims that it is OK to worship two or more religions. I know of no religion that doesn't consider itself to be THE religion. It is that kind of elitist and divisive thinking that threatens our future.
1. America's century of spreading democracy is elitist and divisive thinking.
2. America's century of spreading the "benefits" of capitalism is elitist and divisive in thinking.
3. America's century of spreading the wonders of American culture is elitist and divisive in thinking.
4. The West's imperialism was elitist and divisive in thinking.
5. All current Soviet-style governments are elitist and divisive in thinking.
6. All patriots are elitist and divisive in thinking.
7. All autocracies are elitist and divisive in thinking.
8. All corporations are elitist and divisive in thinking.
9. Thoughts about differences between races are elitist and divisive in thinking.
10. Thoughts about differences in gender are elitist and divisive in thinking.

In short, any mode of thinking that generates an in-group is elitist and divisive in thinking, so what's your point? I'll state again, YOU were the one who brought up Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot, and none of these guys was operating from a religious agenda. Looks to me that 20th century history shows pretty convincingly that religion really isn't a threat to world peace. If you really want to make a difference, you should be targeting something that actually causes damage in the modern world. I don't even think your argument was valid 500 years ago. History doesn't support you in that assertion, but even if I'd allow you that point, you're a bit behind the times if you think that religion is the model for the things that threaten our future.

[atiguhya padma]

Trismegistus,

Why not just say that whatever is done in the name of religion is done by people, and therefore it is people we should blame and not religion? I mean geez, you can use a whole number of different escape routes if you like. Religion is elitist. Totalitarianism is elitist. Lots of other things are elitist too. I don't like elitism. Therefore I don't like religion, totalitarianism etc.

[trismegistus]

Why not just say that whatever is done in the name of religion is done by people, and therefore it is people we should blame and not religion?
Well of COURSE I'm saying people are to blame!!!! The central, unadulterated message of every major world religion certainly isn't to blame! "Religion" says: "Be nice to your fellow man. Things work better that way."

Who in Vishnu's name COULD I blame other than the people who twist this message to serve their personal agenda's??

When people like Gandhi, Mother Teresa, and countless other anonymous souls live by the ACTUAL message of "religion," good things happen.

Is it really your suggestion that people AREN'T to blame? Until the average Gideon's Bible grows a set of hands with which to fire an Uzi, yeah I'd say people are doing the damage, not "religion." The problem with the way you're looking at this whole thing is that you're confusing the pretext for violence with the cause of violence.

And this is what I mean when I say that you're hacking at the branches rather than the root of the problem.


I mean geez, you can use a whole number of different escape routes if you like. Religion is elitist. Totalitarianism is elitist. Lots of other things are elitist too. I don't like elitism. Therefore I don't like religion, totalitarianism etc.
That's fine but your justification for your attacks is that you feel the world is threatened. The simple fact is that the world is not threatened by religion. I've tried to show you that the driving force behind modern holocaust is nationalism, political ideology, and to a lesser extent race. Religion is LONG dead as a serious cassus belli. So if your real interest is in world peace, why are you griping about a dead issue? Shouldn't you be writing threads against patriotism? That would be far more likely to achieve your stated goal than going after religion.

(Please note, I don't suggest you go after EITHER. Attacking patriotism, or democracy, or capitalism is as fruitless as attacking religion. If you really want to make the world a better more peaceful place, you should be promoting universal brotherhood - the message of religion, by the way - and you should be writing threads on how we can see to it that almost everyone has a living wage and a chance to make their kids grow up in a better world.)

[atiguhya padma]

<Well of COURSE I'm saying people are to blame!!!! >

You mean just like Politics isn't to blame, its the people in politics. Or that racism isn't to blame, its the people. Or it's not Nazism or Communism, or..... whatever. Its always the PEOPLE. Now where have I heard that kind of talk before?

Religious books are always written for the very reasons that you claim the Thirty Years War and the Crusades were fought: power.

You mention Gandhi. Gandhi would have encouraged the slaughter of thousands if not millions in WWII. He advocated that people should lie down in front of the Nazi tanks until they became sick of the carnage and bloodshed. When this happened, Gandhi's followers would have won. Presumably he would have encouraged more people to enter the death camps then, or the gulag, until the authorities tired of their inhumanity. Gandhi shows little understanding of the situation in my opinion.

[trismegistus]

<You mean just like Politics isn't to blame, its the people in politics. Or that racism isn't to blame, its the people. Or it's not Nazism or Communism, or..... whatever. Its always the PEOPLE.
Well you've put together a humorous mishmash of ideas there, the basic tenets of almost everything you write being utterly antithetical to the most basic tenet of every world religion.

Nazism defines itself by differences. Its founder made quite clear that there are some people who are worthy and others who are not.

Racism defines itself by differences in race.

The basic message of Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc. is that everyone on this earth is a human being equally worthy of love and respect. You seem to find this difficult to understand, but that tenet has no place in Nazism. The position of that idea in Communism is secondary at best (although Communist theory at least posits the notion that the end product of revolution should be a world of equality).

Whether you like it or not, people are indeed to blame for the mangling of religious messages to serve their own ends. Your position, stated differently, reads thus:
"The world is full of phony legal suits that reward the unworthy, the lazy, and the cheats. The results of this are:
1. A legal system that is too bogged down to handle cases that have genuine merit
2. The creation of a universal mindset that nothing is any individual's fault. The other guy is always to blame.

Given these things we can come to only one conclusion: law sucks, is hurtful to the human spirit, and should thus be eliminated."

You don't seem to see that it is the application of law (or religion) that is the problem. The problem is not with the ideology, it's with the practioners.



Religious books are always written for the very reasons that you claim the Thirty Years War and the Crusades were fought: power.
Ah, ah, ah! "Religious" books are indeed written by those with an agenda, but whether those same books reflect the basic doctrines of the very faith to which the writer claims he belongs is another matter entirely.

I can easily pen a book loaded with hatred but filled with passages from the Bible. That's easy and all I need do is ignore the two commandments that Christ said were the most important: Love God and love your fellow man.

The KKK puts out this kind of crap all the time. Have they written "religious books?" Maybe. Depends on how you define that term. I assume you would take the position that they have indeed written a religious book. I'd laugh at that and argue that they most certainly have not, given that they've elected to ignore one of the two most basic doctrines of Christianity. Can't be a Christian book if you're ignoring Christ. Same goes with Buddhism, Judaism, or Islam.


You mention Gandhi. Gandhi would have encouraged the slaughter of thousands if not millions in WWII. He advocated that people should lie down in front of the Nazi tanks until they became sick of the carnage and bloodshed. When this happened, Gandhi's followers would have won.
*snicker* Nice try. Gandhi encouraged sacrifice not slaughter. Let's discuss that why don't we?

And I'm hoping that at some point you can build a real contention that religion is the world's great threat. You've chosen to ignore the argument that you're attacking a straw man when you're attacking religion. Religion in the 21st century falls FAR behind nationalism, political ideologies, and ethnic hatreds as a threat to the world. Will you be contending against that at any point, or are you simply conceding this and thus conceding that you are indeed jousting with windmills?

[mono]

You mention Gandhi. Gandhi would have encouraged the slaughter of thousands if not millions in WWII. He advocated that people should lie down in front of the Nazi tanks until they became sick of the carnage and bloodshed. When this happened, Gandhi's followers would have won. Presumably he would have encouraged more people to enter the death camps then, or the gulag, until the authorities tired of their inhumanity. Gandhi shows little understanding of the situation in my opinion.

trimegistus hit the nail on the head that Gandhi encouraged 'sacrifice,' if necessary, rather than slaughter. In a biography written about Mahatma Mohandes K. Gandhi, he seemed to feel more interested in one placing him/herself in danger, rather than placing others in danger, to have their voices heard (hence, he himself committed to numerous fasts, dangerous in length for his chronic heart condition); he NEVER advocated for war, but for peace - the most he served was as a volunteer nurse during the Boer War and either World War I or II (I cannot remember).

[Bongitybongbong]

In one sense PA has a point but everyone against him also has a point. I believe in a God (I'm protestant), but I also belive that organized religion has done some pretty bad things to its believers in the past. I don't believe in organized religion because of the way people twist the original ideas. I don't think religion has much to do with threatening peace. As said before Osama Bin Laden uses religion as tool to manipulate the people for political reasons. I understand and respect your side of this debate, but I think that man must have faith somewhere. If I'm wrong I'd be disappointed but I'd still follow my direct, unorganized beliefs.

[Stanislaw]

I think that perhaps it is very easy to say 'that no God' exists, but if one looks at their surroundings they will notice that there is ample proof for God's existance. ie. DNA : the complexity of life, is by far to great just to be a coincidence. (The concept that convinced Anthony Flue(sp.) that there is infact a god.)

About the abuses of organized religion, that does not make the religion bad it makes those who committed the abuses, worse off, and allows there sin to be much worse than that of a 'non-follower'. Generally, one would say that communism was a swell idea, just that those who practiced it warped it and corrupted the original concept, Same is for those who commit acts against there religion (corrupting it by not doing as they were told).
Personally, I am a Roman Catholic, and I follow those teachings. It always iratates me when organized religion is fround upon, many followers of secular beliefs have commited horrible autrocities, ie. Stalin, Hitler, Gengis Khan. Not following a religion, but still commiting horrible crimes.
I think that people will always commit these sins, regardless of which name, banner or god they follow.

[atiguhya padma]

Anthony Flew was always looking for another pathway back into religion. How come it took him so long to articulate his argument re: DNA? What does Anthony Flew know about DNA that Richard Dawkins, his recent critic, doesn't know? Flew has just given in to his wishful thinking.

What evidence is there for a creator? and furthermore, what kind of evidence would necessarily show that there is a creator? There is certainly a vast amount of phenomena that suggests that there isn't a creator

[Stanislaw]

Well there is always the Teleological argument for God ie. "if one finds a watch at the beach, they know there was a watch maker...not that the watch evolved from its surroundings" used by William Paley

or perhaps the argument used by St. Thomas Aquinas (rough paraphrase): All changes must have a cause, but there first must be a first 'uncaused' cause...namely God.

There is also the moral argument (used by Immanual Kant, or even more recognized, C.S. Lewis): a moral consiousness points to a moral creator.

[Scheherazade]

What if you had never seen a watch before? Would you still assume that there is a watchmaker? Or would you be simply amazed that something like that was created??

[mono]

What if you had never seen a watch before? Would you still assume that there is a watchmaker? Or would you be simply amazed that something like that was created??

I think, especially according to William Paley's analogy, that seems where a 'mysterious creator' comes. I never particularly enjoy the 'design argument,' for or against the existence of God, but in very strong deductive manner of thinking (assuming that God proves more infinite than a watchmaker), Paley writes that everything begins with an act of origin, usually done by some living thing - the formation, the place where the watch sits, the working of the watch, and almost anything that moves or perceives the watch.

[atiguhya padma]

The analogy between a watch and a stone is extremely poor. Paley is saying that they are both complex objects, therefore they both suggest design. This is a false premise.

Evolution is the idea of incremental adaptation to the environment. So in the case of an eye, for instance, at each stage of its development, the new product is more fitted to its environment than its predecessor, and so on, until we arrive at the eye we have today.

I am not sure that there has to be an uncaused cause. Besides, the notion of God and the notion of a simple uncaused cause seem quite different to me. Maybe our ideas of causation are wrapped up in our ideas of time, and if we believe in the linear nature of time, then maybe we need an uncaused cause. Should we see time differently, then the uncaused cause might be an obsolete requirement.

I would have thought that the indiscriminate nature of suffering suggests an immoral god at best, but most likely no god at all, rather an indifferent process.

[atiguhya padma]

<trimegistus hit the nail on the head that Gandhi encouraged 'sacrifice,' if necessary, rather than slaughter.>

Encouraging thousands maybe millions of people to sacrifice themselves is hardly a good thing in my opinion. Someone who encourages sacrifice of life, whether Heaven's Gate, Jim Jones or Mahatma Gandhi, isn't someone to respect or be proud of in my opinion. Especially when it is naively believed that this would somehow improve things. I know that Jim Jones forced people to die, but he also encouraged sacrifice of life, as did the Heaven's Gate people. I find the idea of sacrifice of life despicable. Why should sacrifice of life be respectable? I would encourage people to live myself. I dunno maybe its just me...

[Stanislaw]

With this idea, one could argue that watches have also evolved, from sundiles - grandfather clocks - pocket watches - wrist watches. So going on the idea that improvement of design denotes no designer is still flawed.


The analogy between a watch and a stone is extremely poor. Paley is saying that they are both complex objects, therefore they both suggest design. This is a false premise.

Evolution is the idea of incremental adaptation to the environment. So in the case of an eye, for instance, at each stage of its development, the new product is more fitted to its environment than its predecessor, and so on, until we arrive at the eye we have today.

I am not sure that there has to be an uncaused cause. Besides, the notion of God and the notion of a simple uncaused cause seem quite different to me. Maybe our ideas of causation are wrapped up in our ideas of time, and if we believe in the linear nature of time, then maybe we need an uncaused cause. Should we see time differently, then the uncaused cause might be an obsolete requirement.

I would have thought that the indiscriminate nature of suffering suggests an immoral god at best, but most likely no god at all, rather an indifferent process.

[atiguhya padma]

Improvement of design does not denote a designer. It is not through improvement of watches that we discover they are designed. It is through discovering the designer of watches that we know they are designed. If we could observe watches improve their design without also observing someone improving them, would we be justified in saying they were improved by a designer? I think not. But we can see life forms improve or change without observing a designer improving or changing them.

[Stanislaw]

It would be ludacris to assume that watches design themselves, however, lets try another example.
A computer, a computer can better itself and design automatically. ie, norton updates, automatic window updates. Now those we don't observe the designer changing them, they are just done. That does not mean that there was not initially a designer. (regardless if the designer still interacts with the computer, there still was one.)

[Scheherazade]

The expression "can't see the wood for the trees" comes to mind... :rolleyes:

[atiguhya padma]

In a world where there was no evidence of anyone observing a designer designing computer updates, nor any theoretical possibility of such an observation, would we be justified in saying 1) that there is a designer or 2) that there is a process by which the appearance of design comes about of it's own accord? I would opt for the second option. I would see no reason to assume the first. Nothing would convince me that it is legitimate to postulate the existence of a designer when the possibility of observing the act of design is unavailable. It takes more than the appearance of design to convince me of the existence of a designer. When I ask myself does x exist? the most conclusive proof of x's existence to me, is to have a sensory experience of the existence of x (not just some obscure internal experience), or to be able to hypothesise how such a sensory experience would be possible, and then test the hypothesis. With regard to the existence of a designer of the Universe, it seems neither of these options are available.

[Stanislaw]

That is your view, but we know that a computer programmer designed those updates, even though we cannot observe them, just as I know there is a god, even though I can't observe him.

[Adelheid]

SubT,

Linda Smith, President of the British Humanist Association, and professional comedian, was interviewed on BBC Radio 4 about her beliefs and her atheism. She asked: if there was ever a time for God to reveal himself to the world, you would think the Holocaust would have been the right time wouldn't you? At what point would God have said enough? Another million lives, 5 million, 10?

The Gulag in Russia killed countless more and God still didn't intervene. I would have to say though, that personally, I have a problem with the idea of a God intervening in world affairs when the amount of suffering reaches a critical limit. To me, suffering isn't something that gets better when the number of sufferers diminishes. Suffering to me is an individual phenomenon. A collective does not add anything to the problem beyond its individual sufferers. So for me the presence of suffering anywhere, is sufficient argument against the existence of a God that cares.

Interestingly, I was reading a history of the 20thc recently, and year after year, up until some time into WWI, the amount of deaths in the world due to natural disasters and epidemics, easily outstrips the number of deaths due to violence, aggression and war. The Christian booklet you refer to SubT, I presume would argue that natural disasters came about due to the Fall. But that of course is a very silly argument.

AP
Do you remember, that during the time of Jesus "trial" just before he was crucified, and th people were given a choice between Barrabas and Jesus? And they chose Barrabas? Pilot told the (jewish) people I wash my hands of this affair. And you know what the Jewish people said? His blood be upon us. Then in Psalms, God already said that He is a jealous God, visiting the sins of the forefathers upon the present generation, even to the 3rd and 4th generation. Perhaps that might help to clear some part of the "mystery". Sorry, I can't find a better word. :-)

[Adelheid]

In one sense PA has a point but everyone against him also has a point. I believe in a God (I'm protestant), but I also belive that organized religion has done some pretty bad things to its believers in the past. I don't believe in organized religion because of the way people twist the original ideas. I don't think religion has much to do with threatening peace. As said before Osama Bin Laden uses religion as tool to manipulate the people for political reasons. I understand and respect your side of this debate, but I think that man must have faith somewhere. If I'm wrong I'd be disappointed but I'd still follow my direct, unorganized beliefs.
That's true, consider the priests, and Bloody Mary who was said to be a catholic. (I mean no offense to any catholics here.) But then, we should always stop to think, isn't it, whether what we do is pleasing in the sight of God.

[Miss Darcy]

Do you remember, that during the time of Jesus "trial" just before he was crucified, and th people were given a choice between Barrabas and Jesus? And they chose Barrabas? Pilot told the (jewish) people I wash my hands of this affair. And you know what the Jewish people said? His blood be upon us. Then in Psalms, God already said that He is a jealous God, visiting the sins of the forefathers upon the present generation, even to the 3rd and 4th generation. Perhaps that might help to clear some part of the "mystery". Sorry, I can't find a better word. :-)

So basically, you're saying that God let the Holocaust go on because he was against the Jews - because in legend it was a group of Jews who crucified Jesus? Whew! That really hurts my sense of justice. And God is meant to be just, so I can't see how that fits in with his actions, or rather, non-actions.

Jews are HUMAN BEINGS, and they can't help what's written in the Bible or other religious texts. They believe in God, don't they? So what's wrong with them? Simply the fact that, apparently, some of their forefathers let Jesus die. And so for the death of one man (among many, might I add), God punished millions who had nothing at all to do with it. Justice just does not work that way. I'm sorry, but if that's the way it is then the Christian god is a -

Dear me, I think I'm getting carried away - again. Someday soon I'll start up a nice little thread on atheism, but until then, peace out,

Darcy.

[Miss Darcy]

I know I said I'd stop, but :D


That's true, consider the priests, and Bloody Mary who was said to be a catholic. (I mean no offense to any catholics here.) But then, we should always stop to think, isn't it, whether what we do is pleasing in the sight of God.

Not being a Catholic, I'm not offended really, but I do think it's rather strange (see some of my other posts) that one religion can be so torn apart. Into so many different sects, I mean. And feuding sects, might I add. They worship the same God, read the same Bible, and yet - they call themselves different names, and are often so prejudiced against the other groups......

In the eyes of God, aren't we all supposed to be equal? What difference does it make whether you're Catholic or Protestant, Anglican or Methodist, Orthodox or Unorthodox?

What difference does it make if you're a Christian, or a Jew, or a Muslim? You still worship A god, you're still a monotheistic religion; so even if he's jealous, can't we say that Allah is simply another name for the same being? Surely God isn't racially discriminating.

I've been donating quite a few two-cent pieces lately, haven't I.....;)

Miss Darcy

[atiguhya padma]

Basically, as far as I'm concerned, the Holocaust is more than enough evidence that if there is a God, he doesn't care. I mean, the Holocaust has put paid to the idea that prayer works for instance. Because, if you are a Christian, and you claim to have asked God to help you, and you believe that God has helped you, then you have to somehow justify why he helped you and yet didn't help 6 million Jews. What makes you better than them? In fact, merely believing that God has answered your prayer about something mundane and trivially personal, makes you judge the 6 million Jews that died in the Holocaust in my eyes. After all, you have to then believe that God was somehow justified in not helping those 6 million Jews and yet helping you with your job interview, or your love interest, or your examination, or whatever other trivial matter you have prayed about. Next time anybody prays, they ought to think about all the prayers that must have been said in the concentration camps, all those prayers that were never answered.

Of course, you can take the Adelheid approach and come up with some argument that sounds rather anti-semitic and elitist. But in the end, it seems to me you are forced into one of two positions: either anti-semitism or denial of the effectiveness of prayer.

Or is there an alternative? You could of course just ignore the whole matter, like many have and did during the Holocaust; or you could claim that God has his reasons unknown to man. Which is also an approach that was used during the war to help people turn a blind eye. In fact, I wonder what all those Christians actually did in Germany from 1933 to 1945. Probably sat in their pews and prayed.

[subterranean]

Here, here..!!

Also I was so tired with the explanation that God always gives human the best thing according to his plan. Yet, I kept on failing to get the jobs I wanted so badly, eventhough I have asked in prayers so many many times ...Now I believed that I didn't get those jobs because there are people who are more qualified than me rather than taking pointless explanation which would make someone tired of waiting and loses his/her self confidence eventually.


Basically, as far as I'm concerned, the Holocaust is more than enough evidence that if there is a God, he doesn't care. I mean, the Holocaust has put paid to the idea that prayer works for instance. Because, if you are a Christian, and you claim to have asked God to help you, and you believe that God has helped you, then you have to somehow justify why he helped you and yet didn't help 6 million Jews. What makes you better than them? In fact, merely believing that God has answered your prayer about something mundane and trivially personal, makes you judge the 6 million Jews that died in the Holocaust in my eyes. After all, you have to then believe that God was somehow justified in not helping those 6 million Jews and yet helping you with your job interview, or your love interest, or your examination, or whatever other trivial matter you have prayed about. Next time anybody prays, they ought to think about all the prayers that must have been said in the concentration camps, all those prayers that were never answered.

[baddad]

Ditto Miss Darcy's comment in post #63, this thread



I'm sure someone here will correct me if I'm wrong, but...

...I believe that prayer, and any perceived answer in response to one, has a power that only transcends the spiritual plane/concrete plane interconncetedness on a level that, at best, bestows a sense of strength of spirit, and not that kit-kat bar you wished for, or the new car, or material gain, nor actual relief from trials and tribulations... but only delivers personal peace, and that, only to those that comprehend that true nature of spirituality (within oneself)....

As for the victims of any holocaust (there are more, not just the great Jewish annihilation) their prayers may have been answered in the above manner at their most difficult hour, or not, we'll never really know, but prayers hardly provide armor against human condoned horrors......nor are they meant to. But all mantra's serve some purpose........