Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Morbert

Here's what I propose. We have situated our discussion in terms of likelihood. Which is more likely that God as a Creator exists or he doesn't. Here's the cosmological argument given both in its traditional terms and in the modern form of the argument. We can probe into whether or not it is more likely that the universe as a finite existence has a cause or whether it doesn't.

Traditional form:
Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
A causal loop cannot exist.
A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.

Modern form:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The Universe began to exist.
Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

If the universe is finite, it also must have had a cause. Finite things cannot cause themselves at least as far as I can tell. Therefore it seems more rational to believe that the universe had a cause rather than not.

Which seems more likely that there is a Creator which brought all things into existence, or that this existence came out of nothing? Simple question.

I will deal with the modern form. It is correct(-ish) to say the universe began to exist if we define "universe" as our spacetime manifold. It is incorrect to say it began to exist if we define the universe as all of natural existence. Much of the structure of the universe is atemporal. Time and space themselves are products of this atemporal structure. When you hear a scientist say the universe arose from nothing, it must be stressed that there is a difference between a scientist's "nothing" (which has a structure described with a Hilbert-space and definable creation and annihilation operators, and can produce universes), and a theologian's ex nihilo.

You might think the scientist's nothing is a silly notion. But remember that this notion is the bedrock of quantum field theory, and has been used extensively in superconductor physics.

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

The point is morality is subject no matter what your world-view. However one world-view has a better explanation of morality than the other.

When push comes to shove, if you wrong me, why do I rebuke you? Is it because there is an objective standard by which I can expect you to understand? If not why would I aim to do so?

Every human being has a conscience with general rules of civility as to how to behave in the vast majority of cases. I don't doubt that it is possible to suppress ones conscience in certain areas if one desires to, but overall we operate using objective standards. We can be deceived but ultimately in our discourse we expect the other to understand.

If morality was truly subjective and if it was truly relative then who am I to enforce my standards of morality that suggest that fieldshooting individuals during Sunday lunch is a bad idea? Perhaps that's his idea of fun, and perhaps he has a different understanding of morality than I do? Why am I right, and why is he wrong? Unless ultimately there is an objective moral law which we are obliged to obey. If there is a moral law, it follows that there is also a moral law giver.

Zombrex

Quo Vadis wrote: »

Where ?

Every time you say God doesn't choose what hell is or that we go there.

Quo Vadis wrote: »

Yes, and for the atheist, as hell and God does not exist, any description of hell is irrelevant for them

Correct. So explain to me again how I'm choosing to go to hell?

Quo Vadis wrote: »

as far as they are concerned they have chosen to believe there is no eternal consequences for their actions of lack of belief in God.

God decides the consequences of not believing in him, doesn't he?

Unless you are suggesting that if I believe there are no consequences for not believing in God that means there won't be even if God exists.

Quo Vadis wrote: »

That was their adult choice, and in the adult world if you're wrong you take the consequences that comes with your choices.

And who is responsible for what those consequences are? Remember, you believe in an omnipotent God

Quo Vadis

ShooterSF wrote: »

What you are saying is that IF our state claims that we all have free-will then God must have created us with it and can't influence it?

Where have I said that ?

ShooterSF wrote: »

Anywho I'm more interested in my other question that you still haven't answered

Sorry about that, forgot about them, I'll have a look at them now.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

When push comes to shove, if you wrong me, why do I rebuke you? Is it because there is an objective standard by which I can expect you to understand? If not why would I aim to do so?

Imagine the alternative, that isn't an objective moral standard, but instead their is a shared subjective moral standard shaped by evolutionary biology.

How which explains human interaction better, given that some of the time you will feel wronged but the person who you feel wronged you doesn't think they did anything wrong at all.

It seems one explains this far easier than the concept of an objective moral standard that then requires a convoluted explanation to why we don't all agree what it is.

philologos wrote: »

Every human being has a conscience with general rules of civility as to how to behave in the vast majority of cases. I don't doubt that it is possible to suppress ones conscience in certain areas if one desires to, but overall we operate using objective standards. We can be deceived but ultimately in our discourse we expect the other to understand.

All humans are human, and have very similar evolved brains. Despite this we often change and shift in moral outlooks. What is considered immoral in some cultures is considered moral in others, or what was considered moral in the past is considered immoral now.

This makes little sense if we suppose objective morality, rather than a shifting notion of subjective moral shaped by the evolution of our brains and the ever shifting influences that effect our perceptions.

For example it is quite well understood that we have an evolved instinct to be more "moral" to people we are closer to than strangers or foreigners. This has changed as communication and education has widened the group that we consider to be like us. And one of the first things you do if you want to promote something like a war against another people is to try and counter this.

philologos wrote: »

If morality was truly subjective and if it was truly relative then who am I to enforce my standards of morality that suggest that fieldshooting individuals during Sunday lunch is a bad idea?

Who says you to be anyone?

Modern cultures operate on a system of mutual agreement and co-operation.

philologos wrote: »

Perhaps that's his idea of fun, and perhaps he has a different understanding of morality than I do? Why am I right, and why is he wrong?

Man alive, what is it with you guys. You are appealing to objective morality after just saying imagine it doesn't exist.

If there is no objective morality you can't say he is right and you are wrong in an objective sense. But then why does this matter?

The point you are failing to get is that this has never mattered. If you could say you were right and he was wrong would that stop him doing what he was doing? No. So it holds no point other than perhaps making you feel better about not doubting your own moral position.

Quo Vadis

ShooterSF wrote: »

What about Moses' free will? Did god not prove he existed to Moses? Was his free will taken from him?

God chose to reveal himself to Moses in order to reveal more details to mankind, including his commandments. Many chose to believe Moses and many did not. Free will for mankind remained, and remains intact.

ShooterSF

Quo Vadis wrote: »

God chose to reveal himself to Moses in order to reveal more details to mankind, including his commandments. Many chose to believe Moses and many did not. Free will for mankind remained, and remains intact.

But you said

There is no irrefutable proof that God does / does not exist.

There cannot be, because if there was it would remove all free will, and we would be nothing but automatons serving God.

Like any loving parent would, God wants us to love him voluntarily, hence our free will to choose to believe or not.

So did god not remove Moses' (and Mary and Josephs and people in the gospel where angels appeared to them at Jesus' tomb, and Lot and many others I probably just can't think of) free will and turn him into an automaton? Did he not lessen their "test" here by proving himself?

Why can he appear to them but not me?

Quo Vadis

Wicknight wrote: »

Correct. So explain to me again how I'm choosing to go to hell?

In fairness I don't know what you believe, and I don't know what your going to choose in life, so rather than make this personal about you . .

Because an atheist chooses to reject God and his teachings.

Wicknight wrote: »

God decides the consequences of not believing in him, doesn't he?

Unless you are suggesting that if I believe there are no consequences for not believing in God that means there won't be even if God exists.

And who is responsible for what those consequences are? Remember, you believe in an omnipotent God

You are responsible for the consequence of your actions. There's no getting away from that.

Zombrex

Quo Vadis wrote: »

In fairness I don't know what you believe, and I don't know what your going to choose in life, so rather than make this personal about you . .

Because an atheist chooses to reject God and his teachings.

I'm an atheist, and you just explained to me that I don't believe God exists in the first place.

So how am I choosing to reject God and his teaching if I don't even think he exists in the first place.

And secondly how am I choosing to go to hell, a place I don't even think exists? Am I also choosing not to go to the ice planet of Hoth as well, or Hogworts?

If your religion is correct and God exists then he chooses all this stuff for me, I get no choice. He decides I go to hell. He decides what hell will be like. He decides it is a place of eternal torture. He decides what criteria is required to go to hell in the first place.

Being an atheist I choose pretty much nothing.

Quo Vadis wrote: »

You are responsible for the consequence of your actions. There's no getting away from that.

And who decides what the consequences of my actions are?

You seemed to have missed the bit about Sophie's choice. In that movie Sophie chooses to hand her daughter over to the Nazi rather than hand over her son.

So under your logic she is responsible for her daughter dying. We are after all all responsible for the consequences of our actions, aren't we?

Of course that is nonsense. The person responsible for her daughter dying is the Nazi who placed her in that position in the first place.

If she had an actual choice it would be that neither of her children die. But she isn't given that choice. That choice is made for her. The consequences of her actions, either way, are already decided for her by the Nazi guard who will kill both her children if she does not pick on.

You admitted that God is omnipotent and thus is responsible for the entire frame work that our choices are placed in. He decides what the consequences of my "choice" will be, he decides that there isn't going to be enough evidence to convince me Christianity is true, he decides that hell will be a place of eternal suffering, he decides that I will go their if I don't accept Christianity.

My "choices", as decided by God, are eternal suffering in hell or accepting a religion I don't even think is real.

So how this notion you have that we choose these things is a fallacy.

I appreciate you have no answer to this, I'm merely pointing out that this is a major flaw in Christian doctrine, one that has become more evident as modern society has become less and less comfortable with the notion that eternal suffering is a fair and just punishment for not doing as God commands.

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

Imagine the alternative, that isn't an objective moral standard, but instead their is a shared subjective moral standard shaped by evolutionary biology.

Which doesn't go a long way to refuting the Christian claim that God created all people with a conscience. It arguably backs it up. Unless we are to assume that Creation and what brought all humanity into existence is essentially godless. It's profoundly unreasonable to assume this given that it is extremely unlikely that this universe would even exist without a cause. That is if it is of finite age as most physicists agree it to be.

Wicknight wrote: »

How which explains human interaction better, given that some of the time you will feel wronged but the person who you feel wronged you doesn't think they did anything wrong at all.

People can and do suppress their consciences, but in the vast majority of cases people will be able to agree on what is good and what is evil. I don't for a second assume that people can't be mistaken, but humans instinctively act and live according to a universal moral framework rather than a relativistic one.

Wicknight wrote: »

It seems one explains this far easier than the concept of an objective moral standard that then requires a convoluted explanation to why we don't all agree what it is.

How is it convoluted, it's quite easy to explain why disagreements arise.

Wicknight wrote: »

All humans are human, and have very similar evolved brains. Despite this we often change and shift in moral outlooks. What is considered immoral in some cultures is considered moral in others, or what was considered moral in the past is considered immoral now.

Your problem is that evolution doesn't explain away God, nor is it an alternative framework to consider. It is possible that evolution is a part and seal of God's creation.

Wicknight wrote: »

This makes little sense if we suppose objective morality, rather than a shifting notion of subjective moral shaped by the evolution of our brains and the ever shifting influences that effect our perceptions.

It isn't about supposing anything. We instinctively work with an objective framework of morality even if people may be mistaken on occasion. Human behaviour works this way. All I need to do is observe how people generally deal with moral conflict. People generally don't ignore situations in which they are clearly wronged because they think that each person is entitled to their own moral standards which they themselves set.

Wicknight wrote: »

Modern cultures operate on a system of mutual agreement and co-operation.

And majorities can't encourage the most heinous behaviour? Is what is right right because the majority agree or is it just right. If we hinge it to the majority we can conclude that in some societies racism and anti-Semitism were morally acceptable.

Wicknight wrote: »

Man alive, what is it with you guys. You are appealing to objective morality after just saying imagine it doesn't exist.

A mere rhetorical device to show how fundamentally unreasonable it would be if we actually believed that morality was relative.

Wicknight wrote: »

If there is no objective morality you can't say he is right and you are wrong in an objective sense. But then why does this matter?

It matters because it directly contradicts how humans resolve moral problems.

Wicknight wrote: »

The point you are failing to get is that this has never mattered. If you could say you were right and he was wrong would that stop him doing what he was doing? No. So it holds no point other than perhaps making you feel better about not doubting your own moral position.

So something is only wrong if you get caught? Interesting theory Wicknight.

If God exists, and if there is a moral law that He has guided our consciences towards it also follows that He can punish us according to the decisions that we make in the here and now. If we assume that God doesn't exist, the State and only the State can punish crime, and morality would solely be in the hands of the ruling majority.

Doctor DooM

philologos wrote: »

If God exists, and if there is a moral law that He has guided our consciences towards it also follows that He can punish us according to the decisions that we make in the here and now.

Why?

I keep hearing people comparing the relationship between god and people as parents and children- if my parents (who created me) tried to punish me for not following their whims, they'd be commiting a crime.

CerebralCortex

Philologos the human brain and human behaviour looks exactly like we would expect if it were evolved. Why do you need to add other conclusions? Evolution shows that no intelligent design what so ever is involved. FFS humans themselves could do a better job!

Quo Vadis

ShooterSF wrote: »

So did god not remove Moses' (and Mary and Josephs and people in the gospel where angels appeared to them at Jesus' tomb, and Lot and many others I probably just can't think of) free will and turn him into an automaton? Did he not lessen their "test" here by proving himself?

God had specific tasks for them.

ShooterSF wrote: »

Why can he appear to them but not me?

Why would he appear to you or I ?

And If he did appear to you, what would it prove, you might conclude it was a hallucination.

I think therefore I am, but ontologically, you, and these physical surroundings, could just be a figement of my imagination.

“Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

And they are blamed by Christians, which was my point.

Just like some atheists assume theists are credulous morons. But as we try to avoid such generalisations here (as per the charter) we don't need to go there. You wouldn't be generalising, would you?

Wicknight wrote: »

I would have much less issue with religion if the presences of atheists just made you guys all go "Umm, maybe our arguments aren't that convincing, can't really blame these guys for not believing us"

Ah, so you are generalising! OK, if religious people said what you tell them to say you'll leave us all alone. Great. I'll state your demands at the next hive-mind meeting. Until then you'll just have to live with the knowledge that some people think differently.

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Philologos the human brain and human behaviour looks exactly like we would expect if it were evolved. Why do you need to add other conclusions? Evolution shows that no intelligent design what so ever is involved. FFS humans themselves could do a better job!

I don't deny biological evolution. I don't see it as a process without any form of cause however.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

Which doesn't go a long way to refuting the Christian claim that God created all people with a conscience.

Its not suppose to. It is supposed to explain human behavior, which it does without requiring that we invoke some external objective moral standard.

You can argue that God put this standard in us, but that is rather unnecessary when the behavior of humans is explained so well based on evolutionary principles. IE we act as a species who evolved the way we did would be expected to act.

philologos wrote: »

Unless we are to assume that Creation and what brought all humanity into existence is essentially godless. It's profoundly unreasonable to assume this given that it is extremely unlikely that this universe would even exist without a cause.

Umm. You seemed to have skipped, as I figured you would, from asking the question what caused the universe to concluding it was a first cause to concluding that this first cause was intelligent to concluding this first cause was your god.

Back up a minute. Remember my question, what is more likely God or string theory.

philologos wrote: »

People can and do suppress their consciences, but in the vast majority of cases people will be able to agree on what is good and what is evil.

Exactly. So what is the requirement for objective morality?

philologos wrote: »

I don't for a second assume that people can't be mistaken, but humans instinctively act and live according to a universal moral framework rather than a relativistic one.

No they don't, you just said so. They act and live according to a shared agreed moral standard, the one that is present in the society at the time. Which is why we don't have slaves any more, where as if you lived 300 years ago in America slavery was considered the norm.

It is disingenuous to say that any time anyone does anything that is what we may consider immoral they are ignoring their conscience, rather than genuinely thinking that it is in fact perfectly moral.

philologos wrote: »

How is it convoluted, it's quite easy to explain why disagreements arise.

Saying that they are ignoring their conscience is convoluted.

philologos wrote: »

Your problem is that evolution doesn't explain away God, nor is it an alternative framework to consider. It is possible that evolution is a part and seal of God's creation.

My problem is that the notion of an objective moral standard doesn't explain human behavior.

philologos wrote: »

People generally don't ignore situations in which they are clearly wronged because they think that each person is entitled to their own moral standards which they themselves set.

Why would they?

You make the false conclusion that if objective morality isn't real then we cannot feel anything anyone else is wrong or that anyone has acted against us.

That is nonsense. We can feel this and we regularly do.

philologos wrote: »

And majorities can't encourage the most heinous behaviour? Is what is right right because the majority agree or is it just right.

Neither of those things.

Again you are appealing to objective morality while supposing we imagine what it would be like if objective morality didn't exist.

Without objective morality the only question to ask is do you think it was right or wrong.

philologos wrote: »

If we hinge it to the majority we can conclude that in some societies racism and anti-Semitism were morally acceptable.

Only if you think it was. If you don't think it was then it is irrelevant what the majority thought.

philologos wrote: »

A mere rhetorical device to show how fundamentally unreasonable it would be if we actually believed that morality was relative.

No, it is frustration. You did it just above this quote. You asked if the majority "right". Right according to what? The objective moral standard which we are supposing doesn't actually ist. :rolleyes:

Even when you are giving examples of what you think reality would be like without this objective moral standard you are still appealing to it. Until you stop doing that you are not accurately describing what actual relative morality is like, and as such cannot say it is or isn't reasonable since you are arguing a straw man.

philologos wrote: »

It matters because it directly contradicts how humans resolve moral problems.

No it doesn't. Show me one society in the history of humanity who has ever stopped doing what they were doing because the other side said "Hold on a minute, what you are doing is wrong according to this objective standard of morality"

philologos wrote: »

So something is only wrong if you get caught? Interesting theory Wicknight.

Something is only wrong if you think it is wrong. And this is how humans have acted since the dawn of time, doing what they thought was right or wrong, what ever that may be.

philologos wrote: »

If we assume that God doesn't exist, the State and only the State can punish crime, and morality would solely be in the hands of the ruling majority.

According to who exactly?

That sounds awful like a relativist moral argument.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Ah, so you are generalising! OK, if religious people said what you tell them to say you'll leave us all alone. Great. I'll state your demands at the next hive-mind meeting. Until then you'll just have to live with the knowledge that some people think differently.

Well if you like you could perhaps ask them to change the Bible, the source of the blaming the non-believers stuff.

Thought that would mean you weren't a Christian though, wouldn't it.

See how helpful labels are

ShooterSF

Quo Vadis wrote: »

God had specific tasks for them.

Which still does't solve the problem that your claim god doesn't allow his existence to be proved as it removes free will doesn't seem to hold. Unless they all turned into what was the word "Automatons"?

Why would he appear to you or I ?

And If he did appear to you, what would it prove, you might conclude it was a hallucination.

I think therefore I am, but ontologically, you, and these physical surroundings, could just be a figement of my imagination.

“Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Depends on what he did or told me. I'd say he would need accurate detailed predictions of my near future, anyway that's not the issue. It's not whether he would prove himself to exist but rather your point that he doesn't because I'm being tested.

How come Moses got an easier test than me? He was allowed know God existed, he appeared to him. Also, again, did that compromise his free will?

Zombrex

Quo Vadis wrote: »

And If he did appear to you, what would it prove, you might conclude it was a hallucination.

If only we had some sort of methodology that can be used to help with this

oh yeah, thats right
:P

Quo Vadis

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm an atheist, and you just explained to me that I don't believe God exists in the first place.

So how am I choosing to reject God and his teaching if I don't even think he exists in the first place.

Because if you don't believe something you are rejecting it, how can you accept something you choose not to believe ?

Wicknight wrote: »

And secondly how am I choosing to go to hell, a place I don't even think exists? Am I also choosing not to go to the ice planet of Hoth as well, or Hogworts?

Because your choice has consequences, are you still trying to deny your choices have, or should have, no consequences ?

Wicknight wrote: »

If your religion is correct and God exists then he chooses all this stuff for me, I get no choice. He decides I go to hell. He decides what hell will be like. He decides it is a place of eternal torture. He decides what criteria is required to go to hell in the first place.

Being an atheist I choose pretty much nothing.

Well for a start you choose atheism over theism, knowing the potential consequences.

Wicknight wrote: »

And who decides what the consequences of my actions are?

God will judge you according to your choices and actions. Is it a courts fault that someone is in Gaol because of the choices they made, or is it the offenders fault? If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

Wicknight wrote: »

You seemed to have missed the bit about Sophie's choice. In that movie Sophie chooses to hand her daughter over to the Nazi rather than hand over her son.

So under your logic she is responsible for her daughter dying. We are after all all responsible for the consequences of our actions, aren't we?

Of course that is nonsense. The person responsible for her daughter dying is the Nazi who placed her in that position in the first place.

If she had an actual choice it would be that neither of her children die. But she isn't given that choice. That choice is made for her. The consequences of her actions, either way, are already decided for her by the Nazi guard who will kill both her children if she does not pick on.

How did Sophie have a choice between heaven or hell ? God or no God ?

Wicknight wrote: »

You admitted that God is omnipotent and thus is responsible for the entire frame work that our choices are placed in. He decides what the consequences of my "choice" will be, he decides that there isn't going to be enough evidence to convince me Christianity is true, he decides that hell will be a place of eternal suffering, he decides that I will go their if I don't accept Christianity.

My "choices", as decided by God, are eternal suffering in hell or accepting a religion I don't even think is real.

So how this notion you have that we choose these things is a fallacy.

I appreciate you have no answer to this, I'm merely pointing out that this is a major flaw in Christian doctrine, one that has become more evident as modern society has become less and less comfortable with the notion that eternal suffering is a fair and just punishment for not doing as God commands.

No your choice, decided by you, is to believe in God or not. I'm sure you realise a choice has consequences, and you can choose to believe those consequences or not, your beliefs will in turn affect how you live you life and the choices you make, and those choices have consequences.

BTW I don't believe in God because of the possible consequences of not believing in him. I would imagine no true theist does.

Quo Vadis

ShooterSF wrote: »

How come Moses got an easier test than me? He was allowed know God existed, he appeared to him. Also, again, did that compromise his free will?

Why do you think being Moses, and what God required him to do was easy ?
Moses led a long life of believing in God before God appeared to him. How was Moses life, and his tasks "easier" than yours ? How do we know God will not appear to you someday, and ask you to do something that you may find very difficult to do ? How will that be "easy" ?
How was the test of Abraham "easier" ?
In general why is your life currently easier than someone worse off than you ?
Why do millionaires who won the lotto have it easier than you ?

Quo Vadis

Quo Vadis wrote:

Because if you don't believe something you are rejecting it, how can you accept something you choose not to believe ?

Do you reject the Great Pink Cthulhu and his teachings? No. You simply lack belief in him. Replace Great Pink Cthulhu with God and you have atheism.

To reject something you have to acknowledge its existence, I'd have thought. Otherwise we'd have to actively reject literally an infinite number of imaginory entities.

ShooterSF

Still not answering point re: free will

Did god appearing to people compromise their free will?

Quo Vadis wrote: »

Why do you think being Moses, and what God required him to do was easy ?
Moses led a long life of believing in God before God appeared to him. How was Moses life, and his tasks "easier" than yours ? How do we know God will not appear to you someday, and ask you to do something that you may find very difficult to do ? How will that be "easy" ?
Why is your life currently easier than someone worse off than you ?

Did you not say earlier he won't prove himself to me as it ruins my free will?

Also I'm not talking about my or his "life" being easier, sure this life is only a speck in eternity according to Christianity it's only a test. He however got an easier test than me or any atheist as he proved himself to Moses (and Mary etc..) yet he won't prove himself to me because of free will which leads me back to my original question.

Here is your post again:

There is no irrefutable proof that God does / does not exist.

There cannot be, because if there was it would remove all free will, and we would be nothing but automatons serving God.

Like any loving parent would, God wants us to love him voluntarily, hence our free will to choose to believe or not.

This short life is a test for the next life which is eternal.

Ergo God proved himself to (just not to pick on poor Moses) say Mary, removing her freewill (correct?) and making her test easier (or did it as she did not have the free will to love him or not?).

(Those question marks are NOT rhetorical btw)

Quo Vadis

Wicknight wrote: »

If only we had some sort of methodology that can be used to help with this

oh yeah, thats right
:P

Really, Is that why many eminent scientists believe in God ?

Science, as important as it is, only deals with small amount of knowledge we have about the physical Universe. Science cannot explain what is moral for example etc. etc.

Zombrex

Quo Vadis wrote: »

Because if you don't believe something you are rejecting it, how can you accept something you choose not to believe ?

Er, it is the other way around. How can I accept something from someone I don't believe is real.

You might as well say I reject the authority of the Emperor out of Star Wars. I neither accept nor reject that authority because I don't believe the Emperor is a real person in the first place!

Quo Vadis wrote: »

Because your choice has consequences, are you still trying to deny your choices have, or should have, no consequences ?

And who decides these consequences? I certainly don't. So how am I choosing it?

Quo Vadis wrote: »

Well for a start you choose atheism over theism, knowing the potential consequences.

Which are beyond my choosing.

Quo Vadis wrote: »

How did Sophie have a choice between heaven or hell ? God or no God ?

She didn't. She had a choice between which one of her children was executed. So it was her fault that he daughter was killed, right? She after all decided to pick her daughter. Can't blame the Nazi, after all Sophie should know her actions have consequences.

Quo Vadis wrote: »

No your choice, decided by you, is to believe in God or not.

God doesn't exist, how can I believe in him? You might as well ask me to believe that Harry Potter will save us all. When I say I don't believe that I'm not saying Harry Potter won't save us all, I'm saying Harry Potter doesn't exist in the first place.

I can no more reject God than I can reject Harry Potter, since I do not believe either actually exist.

Quo Vadis wrote: »

I'm sure you realise a choice has consequences, and you can choose to believe those consequences or not, your beliefs will in turn affect how you live you life and the choices you make, and those choices have consequences.

Just as Sophie's choice had consequences. So not the Nazi' fault, but Sophie's fault.

Or would you accept that a choice like that isn't really a choice at all.

Quo Vadis wrote: »

BTW I don't believe in God because of the possible consequences of not believing in him. I would imagine no true theist does.

But you expect me to? Some what hypocritical, no?

Zombrex

Quo Vadis wrote: »

Really, Is that why many eminent scientists believe in God ?

What does that have to do with anything? You claimed that if God turned up we couldn't assess him anyway so he doesn't bother. That is flawed reasoning.

Quo Vadis

ShooterSF wrote: »

Still not answering point re: free will

Did god appearing to people compromise their free will?



Did you not say earlier he won't prove himself to me as it ruins my free will?

Also I'm not talking about my or his "life" being easier, sure this life is only a speck in eternity according to Christianity it's only a test. He however got an easier test than me or any atheist as he proved himself to Moses (and Mary etc..) yet he won't prove himself to me because of free will which leads me back to my original question.

Here is your post again:

Ergo God proved himself to (just not to pick on poor Moses) say Mary, removing her freewill (correct?) and making her test easier (or did it as she did not have the free will to love him or not?).

(Those question marks are NOT rhetorical btw)

If fairness now if I'm going to answer your questions, perhaps you would answer mine as well ?

Quo Vadis

Wicknight wrote: »

What does that have to do with anything? You claimed that if God turned up we couldn't assess him anyway so he doesn't bother. That is flawed reasoning.

If God did turn up I would believe it, you would probably try to claim you had a hallucination.

So why does he not turn up for me ?

Why did you post the science link then ? What's your point about Science and God's existance ?
Why do you believe you only need Science ? How does Science determine what is moral ? How can Science answer philosophical questions ?

Quo Vadis

Wicknight wrote: »

Er, it is the other way around. How can I accept something from someone I don't believe is real.

You might as well say I reject the authority of the Emperor out of Star Wars. I neither accept nor reject that authority because I don't believe the Emperor is a real person in the first place!

And who decides these consequences? I certainly don't. So how am I choosing it?

Which are beyond my choosing.

How is it beyond your choosing to believe if Star Wars is real or not ?

Wicknight wrote: »

She didn't.

So Sophie is not choosing between God and no God, Heaven or Hell. (the topic) Good, I'm glad you've got that.

Wicknight wrote: »

God doesn't exist, how can I believe in him? You might as well ask me to believe that Harry Potter will save us all. When I say I don't believe that I'm not saying Harry Potter won't save us all, I'm saying Harry Potter doesn't exist in the first place.

But you expect me to? Some what hypocritical, no?

I expect you to understand the concept of there being consequences for your beliefs, and that you are responsible for your own beliefs and actions, after that I'm telling you what I believe, not what you believe.

ShooterSF

Quo Vadis wrote: »

If fairness now if I'm going to answer your questions, perhaps you would answer mine as well ?

I thought I did but have made every effort to stay on my original point at the same time.

To be fair I'll revisit your last post in more detail. Then I'd ask you approach my questions in regards your original post.

Why do you think being Moses, and what God required him to do was easy ?


I don't. I think he made his "test" easier not his life. This was my concern.


Moses led a long life of believing in God before God appeared to him. How was Moses life, and his tasks "easier" than yours ?

They weren't. I have a much easier life. But as you have said this life is just a test and he had an easier test than me and has an easier access to an eternity of bliss. (assuming he passed his test without freewill)

How do we know God will not appear to you someday, and ask you to do something that you may find very difficult to do ? How will that be "easy" ?

Other than you saying he won't prove himself to me or it will remove my freewill? I don't. Nor do I think the task would be easy but he'd at least then be giving me a fair chance of saviour as I have none right now!

Why is your life currently easier than someone worse off than you ?

What do you mean by easier? Is someone,s life who is born, baptised and dies a few years later from starvation but is brought up to believe easier or harder than mine? Some would say harder but their "test" was easier right?