Challenge; Can you argue a case you don't actually agree with?

[Removable Mind]

When something happens that is contrary to what we know about nature, then that would be your first clue that it is a divine intervention.

Really? We know all there is to know...except for somethings about nature...and those few things we don't know is divine intervention? What's nature have to do with god's eternal plan? How is "nature" acting on human behavior in such a way that it sometimes influences "free will" and other times denies free will so that an divine act can intervene?

 

[csbrown28]

Is it irremovable intelligence when you base an opinion on nothing but speculation and present it as fact?

The reason religion exist: Human fear and gullibility - that is relieved by ancient stories that there is an entity, which gives us an eternal life if we just believe that the entity exists and are willing to beg for our lives, beg for it to take away our suffering, and end or control our self-will, which is used to defy the wishes of the entity, which will lead us to our damnation if we don't comply.

Hey, the story's been selling tickets for a long time. As long as it sells...a lot of people are willing to take the money.

That statement looks more like a well reasoned opinion, than a statement of fact. There is lots of evidence for his position that relate to human behavior, but I don't think it's necessary to go into something so complex to debate the existence of a god.

The thing that really gets to me, is that someone makes a statement and you ask for evidence, yet if I gave you evidence of the same standards by which you accept evidence for god, you would deny it.

Then you equivocate a statement like "The reason religion exist: Human fear and gullibility" and proceed to place it on par with a statement like god exists (I assume that's what you mean when you say "christian faith").

You can understand that the two statements are not the same, right? One is an opinion that asks nothing of you, but to consider it, the other asks everything of you.....

 

[Quag]

I wasn't trying to prove God with this argument, just arguing against the idea that everything should be perfect in the world that was created by God.

You quoted me where I quoted someone who used that argument.
Still no hard feelings have some fruit.

 

[phattonez]

Really? We know all there is to know...except for somethings about nature...and those few things we don't know is divine intervention? What's nature have to do with god's eternal plan? How is "nature" acting on human behavior in such a way that it sometimes influences "free will" and other times denies free will so that an divine act can intervene?

That's not what I said. Try again instead of going straight for snark.

 

[phattonez]

That statement looks more like a well reasoned opinion, than a statement of fact. There is lots of evidence for his position that relate to human behavior, but I don't think it's necessary to go into something so complex to debate the existence of a god.

The thing that really gets to me, is that someone makes a statement and you ask for evidence, yet if I gave you evidence of the same standards by which you accept evidence for god, you would deny it.

Then you equivocate a statement like "The reason religion exist: Human fear and gullibility" and proceed to place it on par with a statement like god exists (I assume that's what you mean when you say "christian faith").

You can understand that the two statements are not the same, right? One is an opinion that asks nothing of you, but to consider it, the other asks everything of you.....

No. What Removable Mind offered contained no evidence. There are plenty of arguments that dictate the logical necessity of God, not to mention the countless miracles that I could cite which offer more existence of divine intervention. To equate the statement "God exists" to "religion is all made up" is ludicrous.

 

[Removable Mind]

That's not what I said. Try again instead of going straight for snark.

Your example is failing to meet the question I asked Mr. Thomas. It's a very antiquated way of looking at our modern world, how we problem solve, and perceive nature.

Our understanding of nature or lack of understanding - isn't related to free will vs divine intervention.

 

[phattonez]

Your example is failing to meet the question I asked Mr. Thomas. It's a very antiquated way of looking at our modern world, how we problem solve, and perceive nature.

Our understanding of nature or lack of understanding - isn't related to free will vs divine intervention.

So when someone rises from the dead it isn't a miracle, but just a lack of perception of the typical laws that people don't rise from the dead?

 

[Removable Mind]

So when someone rises from the dead it isn't a miracle, but just a lack of perception of the typical laws that people don't rise from the dead?

I see that you also subscribes to: "Just because I made it up doesn't mean it isn't true!"

 

[What if...?]

Such as what? If you're going to criticize then let's hear specific alternatives.

Better immune system design. Or an "envelope" to limit how powerful viruses and bacteria can become, how much malfunction can enter genetically.

When we design an engine we include a cooling system. We don't just let each one run til it burns up and then build another one.

 

[phattonez]

Better immune system design.

It's pretty phenomenal how it is now. How would you design a system that adapts to organisms that change their epitopes?

Or an "envelope" to limit how powerful viruses and bacteria can become, how much malfunction can enter genetically.

Such as?

When we design an engine we include a cooling system. We don't just let each one run til it burns up and then build another one.

Why can't you design a car that doesn't run out of gas?

 

[Gathomas88]

Mr. Thomas. One question. Don't know if you know the answer, but just asking for your opinion.

How is it possible for mere humans to determine the difference between divine intervention vs and act of free will - regardless of an observed behavior or event by individuals or nations? I say "nations" because I assume that some humans have the right to override or coerce another in a way that prevents others from engaging in behaviors that are derived from "free will". For example: Governments sending citizens into war for the purpose of killing others.

I suggest that the only way it would be possible for a human being to know the difference between divine intervention and act of free will would be to have direct access to god's entire plan for all of eternity.

However...

A safe way of looking at this concept is: Everything that happens is being orchestrated exactly by THE PLAN - no matter how bizarre, cruel or disgusting the behaviors and events that unfold in front of our eyes. Therefore we just accept it.

Now my previous sentence would be great if every person looked at human behaviors in that light. It would save themselves from having to be so judgmental about their fellow beings.

Man, I'd hate to be in charge of The Plan.

Thank you, Mr. Thomas...and my post isn't a direct criticism of your post. It just raised a lot of questions...and I only hit you with just one them.

From a human perspective? It is essentially impossible to tell the difference between the two. We simply lack that kind of insight into the workings of the world.

The best way I can conceptualize the idea is to say that we all are responsible for our own actions, even if we cannot control our circumstances.

Beyond that, God already knows how things will ultimately play out, and has known since the very beginning. As a matter of fact, he knows every way things ever possibly could turn out, and has accounted for them accordingly.

All possible paths ultimately lead to same inevitable conclusion in the end; judgement, for the wicked and righteous alike, followed by the "ideal" world God had envisioned all along, for those who have chosen to accept it.

Edit:

Imagine if there actually is such a thing as a Multiverse. God would not only be judging you, but every possible version of you, making every possible decision you might ever make, at the same time.

Kind of mind boggling, isn't it? :lol:

I wonder if he would judge all versions as a single whole, or each individually.

 

[TobyOne]

Maybe he *is* saving us from the unimaginable ones. How would we know? We might be the lucky ones. Maybe in other universes created by the same god and then abandoned there are flesh eating zombies that reproduce. This universe would look pretty good in comparison. These type of arguments about the existence of god become mostly about the existence or non-existence of the judeo christian god. As usual, it comes down to discussion about religion and not a discussion about the existence of a creator.

Knives have nothing to do with why a compassionate loving god would create diseases that are so horrible that they are like something out of a science fiction horror film.

 

[What if...?]

I wasn't trying to prove God with this argument, just arguing against the idea that everything should be perfect in the world that was created by God.

It WAS though. Until the whole apple incident. Which however you interpret it is a Fall from perfection. Original sin.

So its a punishment. For a crime we didn't individually commit but for which we all are held accountable. A state from which we must be saved.

The whole faith is based on the Fall from perfection. So all the suffering from our various maladies is an intentional situation, deemed appropriate by Yahweh, who knew exactly what would happen to everyone for all time when he cast Adam and eve out of the garden.

Because he created time. Time is an integral part of this universe. As such, he isn't bound by it and would perceive all events experienced throughout a spacetime universe's span simultaneously. (Meaning incidentally that we can't have more than at best a perfect illusion of free will, because from "God's" perspective one's life begins and ends in the moment of creation.)

 

[Removable Mind]

From a human perspective? It is essentially impossible to tell the difference between the two. We simply lack that kind of insight into the workings of the world.

The best way I can conceptualize the idea is to say that we all are responsible for our own actions, even if we cannot control our circumstances.

Beyond that, God already knows how things will ultimately play out, and has known since the very beginning. As a matter of fact, he knows every way things ever possibly could turn out, and has accounted for them accordingly.

All possible paths ultimately lead to same inevitable conclusion in the end; judgement, for the wicked and righteous alike, followed by the "ideal" world God had envisioned all along, for those who have chosen to accept it.

Edit:

Imagine if there actually is such a thing as a Multiverse. God would not only be judging you, but every possible version of you, making every possible decision you might ever make, at the same time.

Kind of mind boggling, isn't it? :lol:

I wonder if he would judge all versions as a single whole, or each individually.

Thanks for your reply, Mr. Thomas. Interesting perspective.

 

[Tim the plumber]

No. What Removable Mind offered contained no evidence. There are plenty of arguments that dictate the logical necessity of God, not to mention the countless miracles that I could cite which offer more existence of divine intervention. To equate the statement "God exists" to "religion is all made up" is ludicrous.

Hang on there. In this thread you are supposed to be arguing a position you don't believe in.

If you are going to argue that there are logical reasons why God must exist then you are going to have to back that up. Just throwing it in makes you look just as silly as the actual God botherers.

 

[phattonez]

It WAS though. Until the whole apple incident. Which however you interpret it is a Fall from perfection. Original sin.

So its a punishment. For a crime we didn't individually commit but for which we all are held accountable. A state from which we must be saved.

The whole faith is based on the Fall from perfection. So all the suffering from our various maladies is an intentional situation, deemed appropriate by Yahweh, who knew exactly what would happen to everyone for all time when he cast Adam and eve out of the garden.

Because he created time. Time is an integral part of this universe. As such, he isn't bound by it and would perceive all events experienced throughout a spacetime universe's span simultaneously. (Meaning incidentally that we can't have more than at best a perfect illusion of free will, because from "God's" perspective one's life begins and ends in the moment of creation.)

How is the choice of Adam an intentional choice by God to punish humanity? Further, the whole issue of redeeming man throws a little wrench into the idea of punishing humanity.

 

[phattonez]

Hang on there. In this thread you are supposed to be arguing a position you don't believe in.

If you are going to argue that there are logical reasons why God must exist then you are going to have to back that up. Just throwing it in makes you look just as silly as the actual God botherers.

Ignorance of the quinque viae while claiming to be an atheist is the height of arrogance.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Ignorance of the quinque viae while claiming to be an atheist is the height of arrogance.

Your also doing the being annoying part of the Christian side as well.

That's not what I had in mind. I don't want you to argue just like they do but better...

 

[sangha]

Your also doing the being annoying part of the Christian side as well.

That's not what I had in mind. I don't want you to argue just like they do but better...

It's ironic that you started a thread asking people to argue an idea they didn't believe in and everyone ended up arguing what they did believe in

Except me. I think I'm the only one who rose to your challenge

 

[Quag]

It's ironic that you started a thread asking people to argue an idea they didn't believe in and everyone ended up arguing what they did believe in

Except me. I think I'm the only one who rose to your challenge

I started out arguing an opposite position, or have you forgotten my banana?

 

[Jerry]

I'm currently off work because I've somehow pulled a muscle in my leg walking slowly back from the pub 2 weeks ago. So I'm bored.

Here is a thread where I would like to see the best arguments made for cases you don't actually believe in. I'll start I'm an atheist. I have a good argument for justifying God, or at least divine intervention in the development of humanity.

Can you see why it's wrong and can you do better with any other topic or the same?

I've been working with a messed up back all week and you're at home because of a 'lil muscle?

 

[sangha]

I started out arguing an opposite position, or have you forgotten my banana?

So you don't really believe in bananas?!!!!

That's crazy talk!

 

[Quag]

So you don't really believe in bananas?!!!!

That's crazy talk!

I think you're bananas!

 

[Jerry]

If we look at the Earth we see a planet which is too lucky for words. It's just too good for life to be the result of blind chance. Like walking into 20 casinos and getting the million $ jackpot out of each slot machine after a 1$ gamble. Just not credible.

The Earth has the third biggest magnetic field in the solar system after the Sun and Jupiter which is almost a star in it's own right. Without it life would be very harh pressed to get at all advanced on the surface or anywhere near it.

Earth has a very unusual atmosphere. That is it does not have the slim to none of Mars or the Moon which are understandable levels of air or the also understandable result of lots of air like Venus or the gas giants. Having a thinish atmosphere this close to the star is difficult to understand just how that happened. If the air was a little thinner then there would be too little of it to stop the world from becoming too cold and just snowballing. If there was a little more of it the water in the oceans would be vaporized much more which would result, quickly in a positive feedback loop and we would be Venus II.

We have a lot of water. But not so much that there is little land for the development of lots of terrestrial ecco-systems. Lucky that.

We have fairly stable vulcanism. With a little more we would have too much CO2 dominated air and be Venus II or a little less and snowball. Lucky that.

The Earth Moon system is a double planet which is difficult to understand how that formed. The result of that is that the Earth wobbles. But it wobbles in a limited way. The other planets can wobble to such a degree that they sometimes end up with their poles pointing at the Sun. If this were ever to happen the the Earth all ecco-systems would be destroyed. The limited wobble is just enough to give us ice ages which are a very strong inducement to rapid evolution without blasting all the results of the last one. Lucky that.

The Moon also causes tides. These used to be more bigger than now. These tides make the task of life evolving out of the seas a lot easier than otherwise. Lucky that.

We have had a few big asteroid/meteor strikes which have killed the dominate life forms off and allowed new ones to flourish. Not too many though because Jupiter is out there hovering up most of them before they get to us. Both results are very lucky for us.

Given all this and plenty of other lucky things it is quite reasonable for the Earth to be the only planet in this galaxy which is capable of supporting decently advanced land life. There may well be life all over the place, I expect there is, but it is unlikely to be more impressive than a worm unless it's on a planet as lucky as Earth.

Well, there's not much to my argument against the existence of the Judeo-Christian god. Everything we observe can be easily explained by natural phenomina, including the very belief in god itself:

 

[sangha]

I think you're bananas!

Therefore, I exist!!!