The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free! Why would an all-good god be more likely than an all-evil god?in Philosophy

Dee

The idea of a gods or gods to me is absurd and just the unfortunate consequences of indoctrination, why do theists assume a good god is more likely than an evil god?

MayCaesar

I suppose any god is all-good by definition. If there was a god which we would call all-evil, then that god's followers would still call him all-good - the definitions of "good" and "evil" would simply be different in their eyes. In a way, it is the god who defines what is good and what is evil from the theological point of view.

Dee

@MayCaesar

Yes you have a point there , the problem for the theist though is no matter what defence he/she attempts to state a maximally all good god exists likewise it can be just as robustly stated that a maximally all evil god exists and every argument they throw up using the usual arguments can be easily countered with the reverse , with one canceling the other out each time.

Some religions get around this by stating that there are two gods one good one bad which to them explains where good and bad come from 

sear

[quote] "The idea of a gods or gods to me is absurd and just the unfortunate consequences of indoctrination, why do theists assume a good god is more likely than an evil god?" D #Lead [/quote]

"The fact that somebody over-sells an idea doesn't make it a bad idea. It makes them a bad salesman." Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA ret)

It is unwise in the extreme to accept the wild if not impossible claims ignorant religionists make for god.

 BUT !!

We KNOW god exists. There's no disputing it.

The PROOF:

There is a CreaTION. If you've forgotten, take a leisurely stroll through the forest, or enjoy a placid moment at ocean's shore.

That's not there due to some hare-brained government program run amok. That's Creation.

 Well ?!

If there is a CreaTION then there MUST be a CreaTOR, by definition.

It's not my fault. I had no role in the matter. Those that preceded me declared the name of this CreaTOR "god".

So be it.

RELIGION however is an entirely separate matter. Probably best to keep several light-years distance between yourself and that.

“Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?” ― Epicurus (341-270BC)

Dee

@sear

>We KNOW god exists. There's no disputing it.

No,you may say you KNOW but you cannot reasonably say WE. There certainly is as I do 

sear

"No,you may say you KNOW but you cannot reasonably say WE. There certainly is as I do" D

I say "we" based on universally accepted standards of cognition, and facts beyond dispute.

 Ever seen a tree?

 Who built it? Is there a carpenter named Jeoffery that skulks around after midnight slowly aggregating forests under cover of darkness?

 ABSURD !!

Creation exists!! And the religionists call the creator god.

Cards on table

I'm an agnostic, not a religionist.

But know it or not, believe it or not, like it or not, admit it or not, there is a creation (including trees) and therefore there MUST be a creator.

We call that creator "god".

Forget that nonsense in Genesis. That's all bullogna.

Dee

@sear

> Ever seen a tree?

 Who built it? Is there a carpenter named Jeoffery that skulks around after midnight slowly aggregating forests under cover of darkness?

 ABSURD !!


Your argument from design has been debunked since it was first formulated ,if you find this “creator” let me know until then all you’re doing is speculating.


Facts beyond dispute? Incorrect if that was the case scientists would agree with your assessment to start and they don’t .

Your statement about Universal standards of cognition is incorrect also 

sear

 "Your argument from design" D 

But I didn't use the term "design". You're persuasively refuting a point I never attempted to make.

"if you find this “creator” let me know" D

Consider yourself notified.

It's a fundamental failing of the simple human mind to perceive a distinction between creation and creator.

"god" (the name religionists use), or "Nature" (the name I prefer) exists.

And Nature is fundamentally self-creating.

After you prove trees don't exist, I'll recant my acknowledgement that god exists.

UNTIL  you do, I am in no position to deny reality. Nature exists. Religionists call it god. Who am I to argue with their definition?

"Facts beyond dispute? Incorrect if that was the case scientists would agree with your assessment to start and they don’t" D

Please quote one scientist denying the existence of trees.

Thanks.

."Your statement about Universal standards of cognition is incorrect also " D

 EXCELLENT !!

Please cite one example of an  ALTERNATE universe.

I've referenced only one. And no rational person I've ever communicated with has ever denied the existence of the universe I refer to.

http://images.yuku.com/image/pjpeg/bfb25d34ab68b1ff95c7a2cf2794f51d59f9512.jpg

Dee

>But I didn't use the term "design". You're persuasively refuting a point I never attempted to make.

You said ever see a tree who built it .......Do go on and tell me who built it? 

You do realise the term creator who’s definition is also designer which you claimed you didn’t reference 

>Consider yourself notified.

It's a fundamental failing of the simple human mind to perceive a distinction between creation and creator. 

Yet you said there is a creator/ designer , religionists call it god you do not argue with their definition well good for you don’t then 

>”god" (the name religionists use), or "Nature" (the name I prefer) exists.

Wow ! That’s your argument nature exists , yes I agree , why call it god?

>And Nature is fundamentally self-creating.

After you prove trees don't exist, I'll recant my acknowledgement that god exists.

Where did I say trees or nature don’t exist?

>UNTIL  you do, I am in no position to deny reality. Nature exists. Religionists call it god. Who am I to argue with their definition?

Well maybe use the term nature instead of god it’s pretty dishonest 

>Please quote one scientist denying the existence of trees.

Thanks.

Please quote me one reputable scientist who states  nature is god?

 >EXCELLENT !!

Why block letters?

>Please cite one example of an  ALTERNATE universe.

You seem to be arguing with yourself over what is beyond me 

>Ive  referenced only one. And no rational person I've ever communicated with has ever denied the existence of the universe I refer to.

What you’re on about at this stage is known to you alone as you’ve totally lost me


Incidentally I note you send on a snarky cartoon ....fine , I play nice here until someone like you decides to take it down a notch by attempting to act the ”big guy “ which is fine by me as I can take it down as far as you wish and then what?

sear

"You said ever see a tree who built it .......Do go on and tell me who built it?" D

I already have. But I'll tell you again. Nature "built" it.

 "You do realise the term creator who’s definition is also designer which you claimed you didn’t reference " D

Create & design CAN be synonyms. That does not prove they have absolutely identical definitions in ALL uses.

The cosmos is creation. There's no plausible refutation.

 BUT !!

"Design" (your word) designates deliberate intent and action. I have NEVER expressed or implied any such thing. That's 100% your defect, not mine.

">”god" (the name religionists use), or "Nature" (the name I prefer) exists.
Wow ! That’s your argument nature exists , yes I agree , why call it god?"

Ask them.

"Where did I say trees or nature don’t exist?" D

I'll quote you:

"Your statement about Universal standards of cognition is incorrect also "

"Well maybe use the term nature instead of god it’s pretty dishonest" D

dishonest (dîs-òn´îst) adjective
1.Disposed to lie, cheat, defraud, or deceive.
2.Resulting from or marked by a lack of honesty.

[Middle English dishoneste, dishonorable, from Old French deshoneste, probably from Medieval Latin *dishonestus : Latin dis-, dis- + Latin honestus, honorable. See honest.]
- dishon´estly adverb

Synonyms: dishonest, lying, untruthful, deceitful, mendacious. These adjectives mean lacking honesty or truthfulness. Dishonest is the least specific: a dishonest answer; a dishonest car dealer; dishonest profits. Lying conveys a blunt accusation of untruth: Inconsistencies in his testimony made it obvious that he was a lying witness. Untruthful is a softer but closely related term; it suggests both lack of veracity and divergence from fact: made an untruthful statement. As experiments are completed the hypothesis seems increasingly untruthful. Deceitful implies misleading by falsehood or by concealment of the truth: deceitful advertising; a deceitful person. Mendacious, a more formal equivalent of lying, suggests a chronic inclination toward untruth when it is applied to persons: submitted a mendacious insurance claim. Even when she is not being overtly mendacious, she tinkers with the truth.

Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition  © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

Enlightenment is not dishonest D. I offer insight. Do with it as you will. "Ideas are not for believing. Ideas are for using." psychologist Joy Browne

"Please quote me one reputable scientist who states  nature is god?" D

a) It is neither the purpose of science nor the role of scientists to make such assertion. They leave such minutiae to publishers of dictionaries.

b) Please quote one reputable scientist that denies it.

"Why block letters?" D

For emphasis. The same reason we highlight an exclamation with an exclamation mark.

"You seem to be arguing with yourself over what is beyond me " D

"None are so blind as those that do not see." I respect your apparent sincere grope for the truth. But you are clearly very early in your journey toward enlightened understanding. PLEASE do not misinterpret that as insult. I was once where you are now. If I were to insult you I would be insulting myself as well. I may be your senior. I am in no way your superior.

I offer an alternate perspective.

Some refute religion.

Some refute atheism.

I offer a truce, a means to de-combat the two. Knowledge is a gift. You can display it on the mantle of your being. Or you can toss it in the trash. "You can lead a horse to water ..."

"What you’re on about at this stage is known to you alone as you’ve totally lost me" D

Trees exist.

Denying the existence of trees alludes to an alternate universe.

I don't commonly address such thing. I accept the existence of trees, and the cosmos they inhabit.

"Incidentally I note you send on a snarky cartoon ....fine , I play nice here until someone like you decides to take it down a notch by attempting to act the ”big guy “ which is fine by me as I can take it down as far as you wish and then what?" D

Your critique is welcome.

"Snarky"?

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition  © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version does not offer a definition for that term.

So I will accept your assertion based only on your own integrity; even though I don't know what you mean.

The cartoon eloquently satirizes "intelligent design" a brief religionist fad popular years ago. That cartoon is one of my favorites, not so much because of the position it takes, but for the brilliant, charming, concise way it expresses it.

 

Thanks D.

Best of luck to you.

Dee

@sear

Let’s  roll back and have a look at your original post and re-examine what you said  ...

>”The fact that somebody over-sells an idea doesn't make it a bad idea. It makes them a bad salesman." Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA ret)

Well  it actually can I’m sure you can think of one or two examples 

>It is unwise in the extreme to accept the wild if not impossible claims ignorant religionists make 

which is why I don’t 

>We KNOW god exists

God is defined as a supernatural entity so no I don’t know that 

>There's no disputing it 

Prove god exists and I won’t then ......fair enough?

>The proof 


The following is not proof of the supernatural entity you claim exists 

>There is a Creation 

There is a natural world , yes 

>If you've forgotten  

I haven’t , thanks for asking 
 
>take a leisurely stroll through the forest, or enjoy a placid moment at ocean sea 

I just finished a nice stroll actually 

>That's not there due to some hare-brained government program run amok 

Whos saying it is?


>If there is a CreaTION then there MUST be a CreaTOR,

Where there is nature there is a natural process , you’re dishonestly trying to shoe horn your argument into this thread why? To Troll? 



>by definition.

incorrect 

>It's not my fault. I had no role in the matter

What is that meant to mean 

. >Those that preceded me declared the name of this CreaTOR "god".

So be it.

And why do you think I’m remotely interested in what people declared before you?


If you want to post up a separate debate on your God /Creation argument do so but please address my debate title or just go as I’ve no wish to debate another Troll 

I’ve answered your questions honestly and your ego has you puffed up for a fight by trying a different tack on the Creation /Design argument I’m not interested, don’t worry at least I know you’re another one to avoid on here 

Definition of God is below as you seem to think the “real” definition is nature 


Dictionary result for God

/ɡɒd/

noun

1. 1.
   (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
   
   
   
2. 2.
   (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

sear

">”The fact that somebody over-sells an idea doesn't make it a bad idea. It makes them a bad salesman." Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA ret)
Well  it actually can I’m sure you can think of one or two examples " D

Impossible.

Asserting an ice cube is a nice warm dry soft cushion does not render it so. Reality is reality.

>We KNOW god exists

"God is defined as a supernatural entity so no I don’t know that " D

And therefore god is not supernatural !

And therefore those that claim otherwise are wrong.

"There is a natural world , yes" D

QED

>by definition.

"incorrect " D

Superb!

I'll quote Holy Scripture.

"IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED ..."

You've already confessed / acknowledged creation. WHEN there is a creaTION there must be a creaTOR.

All this is a simple quibble about him / her / it.

"Definition of God is below as you seem to think the “real” definition is nature Dictionary result for God

/ɡɒd/

noun

1. 1.
   (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
   
2. 2.
   (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity."

I'm not interested in your unattributed sources.

I'll quote my unimpeachable source, WITH ATTRIBUTE !!

"In the beginning god created ..." Holy Scripture

Holy Bible / KJV

I've already explained CreaTION / CreaTOR. The rest is up to you.

Dee

@sear

Sear is a Christian because .......Christianity: "The belief that a Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree." 

You half- witted donkey , you really are mad buddy 

>Asserting an ice cube is a nice warm dry soft cushion does not render it so. Reality is reality.

Which is why I never asserted it you village idiot 

>And therefore god is not supernatural !

And therefore those that claim otherwise are wrong.

I haven’t a clue what you’re bleating about 

>QED

Your insanity is worrying 

>Superb!

I'll quote Holy Scripture.

No thanks I’m not into fiction or BS

> “IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED ..."

Thank for the BS from the book of BS

>You've already confessed / acknowledged creation. WHEN there is a creaTION there must be a creaTOR.

Youve already confessed you’re a Muslim who beats his wife 

>All this is a simple quibble about him / her / it.

If you grow up to be half the man your mother was I guess that’s something .....had she a beard?

>I'm not interested in your unattributed sources.

im not interested in the words of a wife beater 

>I'll quote my unimpeachable source, WITH ATTRIBUTE !!

Drop your pants and shove it where the other S is 

Sears “unimpeachable “source says

 Christianity: "The belief that a Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree." 

Bwaaaahahahahahahahahahaha......“Unimpeachable “ ......got ya buddy 

>"In the beginning god created ..." Holy Scripture

Holy Bible / KJV

It’s tragic religious loonies like you fall to their knees on Sunday and revert back to their usual two faced hypocrisy on a Monday 

>I've already explained CreaTION / CreaTOR. The rest is up to you.

No you’ve already proved you’re special needs now run off and get your lickle lickle cwayyons and coloring book 


Sear believes BS here’s what he believes .......Christianity: "The belief that a Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree." 

Wow! Oh dear , oh dear ........get help buddy

sear

"Sear is a Christian because ......." D

"Cards on table

I'm an agnostic, not a religionist." s 4:14AM

Lower case please D.

Dee

>"Cards on table 

I wouldn’t believe a word out of your mouth as you’re a lying ,disengeous donkey 

>I'm an agnostic, not a religionist." s 4:14AM

I don’t care and couldn’t give a f- -k as you’ve shown you’re dishonest and shallow 

>Lower case please D.

F- -k off 

sear

"I wouldn’t believe a word out of your mouth as you’re a lying ,disengeous donkey" D

That's name-calling, not logical refutation.

You've already accused me of Christianity, and I've already refuted you by repeating my previously posted words.

 - You haven't proven me wrong.

 - You haven't specified a single logical inconsistency I've posted, though you've tried (and failed).

"I don’t care and couldn’t give a f- -k as you’ve shown you’re dishonest and shallow " D

Right.

You're willing to fling reckless accusations. Clearly you are right, the truth is of no interest to you.

"F- -k off " D

If you'll pay the hotel bill, I may consider it. What's your bra size?

Dee

@sear

> If you'll pay the hotel bill, I may consider it. What's your bra size

Stop it .........now you’re being ridiculous we all know you’re into kids even your own when things are “tight” ......Whats it about your look as in the beer belly , beard and hooked nose that you think attracts kids to you?

AlexOland

@sear "WHEN there is a creaTION there must be a creaTOR." yes. That is correct. If there was a creation, it would have a creator by definition. But you haven't proven that anything is actually a creation, which is only provable by showing that a god created everything. In order for that statement to prove a creator's existence, you need to prove that a creation exists, and to prove that you need to prove a creator exists. Therefore, the statement you provided is nothing more than the statement: "If x is equal to y, then x must be equal to y."

sear

"If there was a creation" AO

But there is.

Have you never seen a tree?!

Plaffelvohfen

@sear

Sounds to me you're more of a deist than an agnostic, because if you say you KNOW that god exist, you can't be agnostic by definition... 

Another thing that sounds vague to me, is your definition of "nature"... You use many words that are not necessarily synonyms like creation, universe, nature, etc... This blurs your argumentation IMO, not saying it invalidates it, just that it's vague and you risk talking past any other debater... Ontology suffers no synonyms, in a ontological discourse words can relate but not equate, the more synonyms the less solid is the understanding of the logical construct one is trying to pass on...

Just throwing questions here; Do you make any distinction between "creation" and "existence" and "nature"? Would a multiverse equate "nature" in your argumentation or would each separate universes would each be it's own "nature"? How about a single ever recurring universe? Would "creation" include the infinity of previous universes and the infinity of future recursion as well as the state in between, as in "out of space-time" in such a definition? Do you think that "nonexistence" exists or even possible, concretely? 

sear

Pv,

Superb point Pv.

I sincerely appreciate your razor sharp mind.

Problem is:

I might also be accused of being a pantheist.

Problem with that is:

 - I EVERYthing is god, then

 - there is no god.

See the dilemma?

We often think of spectra as linear.

But in some rare exceptions, they're circular. And the "there is no god" crew meet with the "everything is god" crew at the back of the loop.

I can't fault your logic. In fact I deeply appreciate and admire it.

But this is the mire we're stuck with after millennia of ignorant holier than thouers planting their flag.

"Do you make any distinction between "creation" and "existence" and "nature"?" Pv

You're pressing the limits of my meager ability Pv. I'll answer to the best of my ability.

"Creation" is a noun.

"Existence" is too, according to the dictionary.

 BUT !!

I can tap a tree (creation) for syrup. I can fell a tree for firewood, or lumber.

Try using a chainsaw on "existence".

nature (nâ´cher) noun
    The material world and its phenomena. *

My sincere thanks to you Pv. If I have erred in fact or logic I hope you'll correct me (again).

 * Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition  © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

sear

PS

Pv,

I'm an unrepentant pragmatist. Rarely if ever will you find me reporting: WATER IS WET !!

I find no point in stating the obvious.

 BUT !!

I sometimes lapse into failing to recognize that what is exquisitely obvious to me is completely obscure to some others.

"Sounds to me you're more of a deist than an agnostic, because if you say you KNOW that god exist, you can't be agnostic by definition... " Pv

Please only regard the following in the most constructive intent:

Atheists define themselves by what they do not believe. I used to think of myself as an atheist. There's some doubt about whether the prefix a- in "atheist" means "without", or "against". That's above my $pay $grade.

Agnostics define ourselves not on what we believe, but on what we know.

I've been around the block too many times to have absolute faith in "knowledge". Anyone that's seen a skillful magician perform his act should understand the frailty of "knowledge".

"Sounds to me you're more of a deist than an agnostic, because if you say you KNOW that god exist, you can't be agnostic by definition... " Pv

I can (and have already) prove(n) there is a god. That does not mean it's a certitude.

I can prove that 3.999... = 4.0

It isn't of course.

But I know the mathematical proof that it is.

"The Devil is in the details."

“Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?” ― Epicurus (341-270BC)

Plaffelvohfen

@sear

I find that trying to have a dialogue over a debate is more constructive...  

Problem with that is:
 - If EVERYthing is god, then there is no god.

Or as I put it, why call it "god" since there are already other words for it...

But in essence I agree that there's no real point in neither propositions (deism or pantheism). But I'm much more tolerant of these then of Theism, I'm pretty much an anti-theist or theo-intolerant, this last one sounds like a medical condition no?   

It can be tricky when we argue about the ontological nature of concepts like Existence, reality, nature, etc... That's why precise definitions must be made as clear as possible to avoid misconstruing arguments... 

For myself, to use your terms, "creation" or the sum of all physical things, wasn't created per se, rather "it happened" because it had no choice but to happen due to the probabilistic nature of the quantum domain, which is what exists once you've removed any possible physical things, or said otherwise, once you go out of the realm of "space-time-matter-energy". 

Nature didn't come out of nothing but out of probabilities... As unsatisfying as it may be to some people, it is in my opinion, the only rational conclusion. 

sear

Some say:

 - something can't BURST out of nothing -

(a slight to Big-Bang theory)

Why not?

 a) What law of physics does it violate?

 b) What proof is there that it hasn't happened a quadrillion times before?

""creation" or the sum of all physical things, wasn't created per se, rather "it happened""

I distinguish between my car keys and a fist full of beach sand.

Thus my formulation:

 - that which is man-made, vs

 - everything else.

Plaffelvohfen

@sear

Some say:
 - something can't BURST out of nothing - (a slight to Big-Bang theory)
Why not?  a) What law of physics does it violate?

Well, technically, "nothing" doesn't actually exists so physics have nothing to say about it...  

b) What proof is there that it hasn't happened a quadrillion times before?

It is quite possible that it indeed happened an infinite number of times before and will happen an infinite number of time in the future, quantum theories allows this...

I distinguish between my car keys and a fist full of beach sand.
Thus my formulation:
 - that which is man-made, vs
 - everything else.

Not quite sure what you want to say here...

Plaffelvohfen

@sear

I sometimes lapse into failing to recognize that what is exquisitely obvious to me is completely obscure to some others.

Guilty of the same...  

I've been around the block too many times to have absolute faith in "knowledge". Anyone that's seen a skillful magician perform his act should understand the frailty of "knowledge".

I can relate to that too...

I can (and have already) prove(n) there is a god. 

Here we have a profound disagreement though...  

sear

"Well, technically, "nothing" doesn't actually exists so physics have nothing to say about it...  " Pv

We may come close on small scale, with inter-galactic space. That doesn't matter.

The premise of the Big Bang Theory is that before the Big Bang there was nothing. Then it suddenly exploded.

That is in fact the Big Bang Theory.

"It is quite possible that it indeed happened an infinite number of times before and will happen an infinite number of time in the future, quantum theories allows this..." Pv

What has quantum theory to do with it?

"Not quite sure what you want to say here..." Pv

It's the premise of the proof of the existence of god. You'll recognize it if you read the proof as a whole:

THE PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD:

a) The cosmos can be divided into two unequal parts:

 a1) that which is man-made, &

 a2) everything else

b) Everything else has a name: "creation".

c) If there is a creaTION then there MUST be a creaTOR, by definition.

d) Some may call it "the Big Bang". There are other names. But a broad virtually ecumenical sweep of religionists call the creaTOR "god".

They're the experts. It is not my place to deny their ideology. If they say the creator is god, so be it.

We know creaTION exists. The rest is obvious.

Plaffelvohfen

@sear

The premise of the Big Bang Theory is that before the Big Bang there was nothing

It has been updated to : "Before the Big Bang there was Quantum fluctuations."

What has quantum theory to do with it?

It was introduced in the premise a few years back, as early as the 40's but gained ground in the 90's and is now the most adhered to Theory about the "Big Bang" in the field. Other notions are obsolete... 

THE PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD:
a) The cosmos can be divided into two unequal parts:
 a1) that which is man-made, &
 a2) everything else

That which is man-made is made of everything else. The Cosmos can not be divided this way sorry, well it obviously can but it's not an objective method...

All that exists (and I assume you include thoughts, the Self, conceptual objects like Democracy, etc, maybe a soul, etc? Do deist/Pantheist believe in the soul? Anyway...), all that exists can be reduced to elemental particles, quarks, muon, and gluon and such, and underlying this "everything else" are quantum fluctuation fields...

Thoughts, the Self, consciousness, etc, are all contingent on these particles because the brain is made of these particles. Without a brain there is no consciousness, no thoughts, and the soul is just a mental conceptual construct... 

The premise is unfounded... Sorry...  

sear

"That which is man-made is made of everything else." Pv

Obviously true, but irrelevant.

" it's not an objective method..." Pv

I didn't think of it as a method at all. It's a thinking tool. One needn't clear off the work-bench and start stacking.

All that one need do is exclude those things that are not purely natural.

It may be 99.999 ...% of the cosmos.

BUT !!

It ("everything else") is technically a subset.

It's not necessary for humans to extract Iron from the ether for a cast Iron skillet to be man-made.

I understand, at the fringe there may be some ambiguity. That's typical, an intrinsic complication of classification.

I never expressed or implied humans are entitled to credit for raw materials.

Instead, I wouldn't cite a brand new Cadillac as proof that god exists. I doubt god is a member of the UAW.

See?

Plaffelvohfen

One needn't clear off the work-bench and start stacking.

I think we do... What do you mean by "not purely natural" and "It ("everything else") is technically a subset" of what? In my first comment, I talked about presenting your arguments without using synonyms, of the traps it invariably sets when discussing ontology, yet you reply with this...
  
It doesn't really mean anything concrete, it's vague at best... Hope I'm not coming across as harsh, I'm trying to get what you mean... Or trying to find the words to help you understand where you're probably wrong...  

"I never expressed or implied humans are entitled to credit for raw materials."

Where did I say you did???

c) If there is a creaTION then there MUST be a creaTOR, by definition.

Our accumulated scientific knowledge says it's not true.

Instead, I wouldn't cite a brand new Cadillac as proof that god exists. I doubt god is a member of the UAW.

See?

You did write about "Tapping a tree" for syrup originally when talking about "creation", which doesn't make more sense than a Caddy, there are no existential differences between the 2 in the context "Creation", of "what exists at a fundamental level", they are just different arrangements of the same basic and fundamental particles... That the car is "man-made" is irrelevant, sorry but that's what it is... 

You may think it's absurd to have a creation without a creator, it would be an understandable and valid statement, but "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable (or apparently absurd) must be the truth." - Sir Conan Doyle 

I think you're making a "leap of faith". When confronted by the inherent absurdity of Existence, rather than lucidly face it, you create an abstract belief in a transcendent realm, being, or idea : a solution in which one believes in the existence of a reality that is beyond the Absurd, and, as such, has meaning. All religions and spiritual whims stems from that choice, that Leap of Faith...

Kierkegaard stated that a belief in anything beyond the Absurd requires an irrational but perhaps necessary religious "leap" into the intangible and empirically unprovable (now commonly referred to as a "leap of faith"). However, Camus regarded this solution, and others, as "philosophical suicide". I would tend to agree...

At this moment in time, our accumulated knowledge can demonstrate that a creator is not necessary to explain the cosmos. That's as simple as that. I honestly hope I didn't come across as brutal or inconsiderate...

Dee

@Plaffelvohfen

You have been entirely fair and your argument sound. I set this debate up and sear came on to steer it in a completely different direction. Our conversation ended up in him basically doing what he’s doing with you as in saying he’s agnostic but yet here is his final “proof” to me yesterday in his own words ......

I'll quote Holy Scripture.

"IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED ..."

You've already confessed / acknowledged creation. WHEN there is a creaTION there must be a creaTOR.

This is totally disengenous and why he’s doing it is beyond me 

sear

"What do you mean by "not purely natural" and "It ("everything else") is technically a subset" of what? " Pv

Of the whole.

"I never expressed or implied humans are entitled to credit for raw materials."

Where did I say you did???

"That which is man-made is made of everything else. The Cosmos can not be divided this way" Pv

"Our accumulated scientific knowledge says it's not true." Pv

EXCELLENT !!

Please quote the exact wording of "Our accumulated scientific knowledge says it's not true."

"This is totally disengenous and why he’s doing it is beyond me " D

Indeed !

I do so to state truth.

Thus as you verify, the truth is beyond you.

Dee

@sear


>Indeed !

I do so to state truth.

When you start doing that let me know 

>Thus as you verify, the truth is beyond you.

Incorrect , the only thing I verified is you’re dishonest and you think posting up a wall of contradictory text is somehow the “truth” , well it’s not but no doubt that will not stop you from Trolling 

Whats not beyond me is the ability to see through a character such as you whos dishonesty is appalling , everything you’ve said so far is void of implication but do go on I know how important your Trolling is to you

Joeseph

@sear

Hey!    I remember you the born again Christian who let's on to be an agnostic , what's the point what do you gain from it?

You also voted Trump how's that going for you?

Dee

@Joeseph

Long time no see , how the studies going?

Ahhh ,I was curious about the Bible quotes so that’s it he’s a Born again  Christian, ok well why not just say it from the off and make his point 


He voted Trump ,ok , not my cup of tea but hey it’s a free world 

sear

"Incorrect , the only thing I verified is you’re dishonest and you think posting up a wall of contradictory text is somehow the “truth” , well it’s not but no doubt that will not stop you from Trolling" D

My posting style is:
 - quote
 - respond

All you need do to prove me "dishonest" is to quote ONE assertion I've ever posted which is dishonest. You haven't. Instead you make unsubstantiated accusations.

 Please quote ONE dishonest assertion I've posted, and I'll concede your point. Until you do, you make persuasive if inadvertent argument that I'm right.

"Hey!    I remember you the born again Christian who let's on to be an agnostic , what's the point what do you gain from it?

You also voted Trump how's that going for you?" J

I've never been a Christian, born again, or any other. My parents were Unitarians. My mother demanded that I attended Sunday school there, not for religious education, but as baby-sitter while parents were upstairs @sermon.

Regarding my vote, I voted against Trump, and iirc Trump did not win any electoral vote from New York, his home State.

Where is it you think you know me from?
I consider it a virtual impossibility that someone else could post here under my pseud. Do you think I've used two pseudonyms at this site? Why would anyone do that?

Joeseph

@sear

>My posting style is:

 - quote

 - respond

No it's not , you state things that were never said and your responses contradict each other 

>All you need do to prove me "dishonest" is to quote ONE assertion I've ever posted which is dishonest. You haven't. Instead you make unsubstantiated accusations. 

You claimed you were never Christian yet here is your dishonesty in print where you use this to close your argument yesterday making you a liar again .....

Here you go your words liar not mine ......

Sear stated .....,

I'm not interested in your unattributed sources.

I'll quote my unimpeachable source, WITH ATTRIBUTE !!

"In the beginning god created ..." Holy Scripture

Holy Bible / KJV

So there you have it a no Christian using the bible to make his point 

I've already explained CreaTION / CreaTOR. The rest is up to you.

 >Please quote ONE dishonest assertion I've posted, and I'll concede your point. 

Just have but I bet like the coward you are you will deny it 

> Until you do, you make persuasive if inadvertent argument that I'm right. 

I just have proved you're a liar 

>I've never been a Christian, born again, or any other. My parents were Unitarians. My mother demanded that I attended Sunday school there, not for religious education, but as baby-sitter while parents were upstairs @sermon

.

So you're an agnostic who uses a Bible in an attempt to prove his claim , are you insane?

> Regarding my vote, I voted against Trump, and iirc Trump did not win any electoral vote from New York, his home State.

I wouldn't believe a word out of your mouth , you contradict yourself every time Dee called you out and you haven't even the honour to admit your deceit 

>Where is it you think you know me from?

I consider it a virtual impossibility that someone else could post here under my pseud. Do you think I've used two pseudonyms at this site? 

Yes I sure do 

> Why would anyone do that?

To Troll which you're obviously doing on this thread 

YeshuaRedeemed

Why would an all evil deity exist but not Jesus, the God of the Bible?

Dee

@YeshuaBought ;

Why would either of them be more likely?

Dee

@Joeseph

Oh dear , he states he was never a Christian but uses the Bible to make his case , there’s a word for a person like him 

sear

The quotation:

-My posting style is:
 - quote
 - respond- s

"No it's not , you state things that were never said and your responses contradict each other " J

 EXCELLENT !!

Please quote one example.

Thanks.

NOTE: I avoid reading and re-typing a quotation, out of respect for the author. There's a minuscule chance I might err, and thus mis-attribute.

So I routinely cut-&-paste the quotations I respond to, as I've done here. So your "you state things that were never said" accusation raises questions.

I see no point in re-stating what has already been stated. I may not read a thread I've not posted in before, from start to finish, if it's got hundreds of posts in it. But by and large my comments are both on topic, and offer some insight beyond the obvious.

But if you are accusing me of posting false quotations, that's false, except for a few rare examples such as:

"Firearms stand next to the Constitution itself. They are the American peoples liberty teeth, & keystone under independence."

sometimes attributed to George Washington, but this source says no: http://www.republicaffair.com/fake-george-washington-quotes-liberty-teeth.html

So even if I mis-attributed this quotation in years past, it wasn't due to any deliberate deception on my part, but instead because I too was deceived. And apparently enough were so that it was necessary for the mis-attribute to be debunked.

"Oh dear , he states he was never a Christian but uses the Bible to make his case , " D

I quote from a wide variety of sources, including multiple holy scriptures. That includes but is not limited to the Holy Bible and the Holy Qur'an. Do you think I'm Christian, and Muslim too?!

"there’s a word for a person like him " D

More than one I imagine. But let's set my irresistible animal magnetism aside for now.

Please do not initiate ad hom here. sear is not the topic. If YOU don't start no spit, there won't be no spit.

The topic is

Why would an all-good god be more likely than an all-evil god?

If this point hasn't been made, I'll make it now.

We'd need practical definitions of "good" & "evil".

All are invited to propose such definitions. Until then I'll suggest "good" is what is constructive, and "evil" is what is destructive.

With that as premise: (No disrespect to Satan intended)

The notion of "an all-evil god" would seem to indicate an omniscient, omnipotent, destructive force in the world.

After a few billion years, there'd be nothing left to destroy. S/He'd merely be stirring the rubble. So for life to be sustained, it's a practical necessity that while there is surely perpetual destruction and degradation, Life is a chief violator of the law of entropy.

"Those who consider the Devil to be a partisan of Evil and angels to be warriors for Good accept the demagogy of the angels. Things are clearly more complicated." Milan Kundera

Dee

@sear

I’ve no desire to debate with you as your dishonesty is on a different level and your opinions are void of implication, but do carry on trolling 

Joeseph

@Dee

The guy was nailed in his lies and when pointed out says ....., Thanks 

Not even the guts to apologise but hey he's a fan of Donald and born again it's not surprising really is it?

Joeseph

@sear

You're strange even for a born again "Christian " you say thanks for your lie being pointed out , then you post a piece of rambling nonsense that makes no sense 

Don would be proud of you 

sear

 "You're strange even for a born again "Christian " you say thanks for your lie being pointed out" J

I'm not a Christian. That doesn't mean I don't do some things mentioned in the Holy Bible. The Holy Bible mentions eating. I eat nearly every day. Does that make me a Christian?

 "You're strange even for a born again "Christian " you say thanks for your lie being pointed out" J

You resorted to name-calling. You didn't quote an alleged lie, despite the fact that I invited you to.

It's fine.

I didn't expect you to. I knew you wouldn't because I know you can't, because I know I don't.

"then you post a piece of rambling nonsense that makes no sense " J

Perhaps if you'd get your GED you'd be better able to interpret the meaning of simple English sentences.

Joeseph

@sear

 

> I'm not a Christian.

You are your denial is hilarious 

> That doesn't mean I don't do some things mentioned in the Holy Bible. The Holy Bible mentions eating. I eat nearly every day. Does that make me a Christian?

No, what makes you a Christian is that you're born again and quote the bible but then deny it 

> You resorted to name-calling.

I didn't I've called you a liar and I've proved it , you even thanked me for it 

 >You didn't quote an alleged lie, despite the fact that I invited you to.

I did as did Dee Im not responsible for your lack of comprehension skills

> It's fine
iI know 

> I didn't expect you to.

I know but yet I did 

> I knew you wouldn't

Yet I did

> because I know you can't,
proving you wrong yet again

>because I know I don't.

which you did several times lie 

> Perhaps if you'd get your GED

Dont know what they are buddy but if their tests to prove intellect thank you no as I don't need advice from an idiot like you who voted for Trump

>you'd be better able to interpret the meaning of simple English sentences.

Thank you for the advise but yet  again I didn't really ask for advice from a bible thumping born again rabid Trump supporter 

Zombieguy1987

sear said:

[quote] "The idea of a gods or gods to me is absurd and just the unfortunate consequences of indoctrination, why do theists assume a good god is more likely than an evil god?" D #Lead [/quote]

"The fact that somebody over-sells an idea doesn't make it a bad idea. It makes them a bad salesman." Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA ret)

It is unwise in the extreme to accept the wild if not impossible claims ignorant religionists make for god.

 BUT !!

We KNOW god exists. There's no disputing it.

Woah. You don’t get to say on what other people think if the magic sky man is real or not

The PROOF:

There is a CreaTION. If you've forgotten, take a leisurely stroll through the forest, or enjoy a placid moment at ocean's shore.

That's not there due to some hare-brained government program run amok. That's Creation.

 Well ?!

If there is a CreaTION then there MUST be a CreaTOR, by definition.

It's not my fault. I had no role in the matter. Those that preceded me declared the name of this CreaTOR "god".

So be it.

RELIGION however is an entirely separate matter. Probably best to keep several light-years distance between yourself and that.

“Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?” ― Epicurus (341-270BC)

Dee

@Zombieguy1987

The guy is weird he quotes the Bible ,claims there’s a god then says he doesn’t believe in god , that’s a special kind of lunacy different level 

sear

"what makes you a Christian is that you're born again and quote the bible but then deny it" J

"You lie!" Rep. Joe Wilson

You continue to accuse me of lying. Yet no one has posted a single quotation / example of a lie.

"what makes you a Christian is that you're born again and quote the bible but then deny it" J

Have you forgotten the topic?

Why would an all-good god be more likely than an all-evil god?

Did you not notice the word "god" appears in the topic title TWICE ?!

Do you really think it's inappropriate to quote Holy Scripture in a thread with such title?!

" I've called you a liar and I've proved it , you even thanked me for it " J

 I did, even though you still haven't delivered.

I restate my open invitation to ANYone that will please do so: PLEASE QUOTE ONE EXACT LIE I HAVE EVER POSTED.

And as J observes, I thank you IN ADVANCE !!

"you who voted for Trump" J

"You lie!" Rep. Joe Wilson

88888888888888888888888888888

"Woah. You don’t get to say on what other people think if the magic sky man is real or not" Z1

100% CORRECT !!

But I'm not the one that introduced the term "the magic sky man".

"the magic sky man" (YOUR term) is an allusion to a Biblical deity.

I NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER said, implied, or hinted any such thing exists anywhere but in ancient story books.

Your failure to understand the literal meaning of my posted words does not indict me.

Dee

@sear

>Your failure to understand the literal meaning of my posted words does not indict me.

Your continued trolling and denial of what several have pointed out has indicted you , you need to work on your trolling skills , the rest of your nonsense is uncomprehensible gibberish 

sear

"Your continued trolling and..." D

"I’ve no desire to debate with you as your dishonesty is on a different level and your opinions are void of implication, but do carry on trolling" D #132 & #135

Please make up your mind.