a perfect god is disproved with...

Rev0lver
Posts: 171
Joined: 2007-02-24
User is offlineOffline
a perfect god is disproved with...

downs syndrome. any other physical or mental imperfection for that matter.

how can something that is perfect create something imperfect?

think of it like a basketball team, an incredibly skilled point guard makes 90% of his shots. wouldn't a perfect point guard make 100% of his shots? wouldn't a perfect god create people with perfect health?


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I could chase my 5

Quote:
I could chase my 5 year old around all day. I could put her in a box so that she doesn't hurt herself or make bad descicions. I could tell her scary stories to keep her in line. I could mercilessly beat her into submission. HOWEVER, I don't and wouldn't do any of those. I teach her right from wrong. And sometimes i let her hurt herself so she learns a lesson.

I was teaching her to ride a bike the other day. She constantly would look at other people and not where she was going. She would veer into the grass or off the sidewalk and I would catch her before she fell. I did this 20 times and every time I told her "Watch where you are going or you will get hurt." I finally i realized she wasn't going to listen to me, she had to experience what i said. I finally let her go. I let her veer into the grass (not the street) and let her fall.

 She looked at me with this confused look like "why did you let me fall?"

I could have caught her every time that ride, but i knew she needing to experience the fall to really get good at riding. This is super simplistically how God deals with humanity.

Before we could ride the bike of life we have to make a lot of dumb mistakes and if we don't learn from them we'll do it over and over again.

I'm personally sick of this type of argument. Just one quick question, to show you just how idiotic your example sounded: would you have left her fall if on the left and right of her bike were spikes that would disfigure her forever? Because it's a much better comparison to what God did to Adam and Eve.

Quote:
I repeat: If God wanted a being that would love Him, that would choose Him, wouldn’t he give that being a choice?

Of course. He did give humanity a choice: accept and love him or suffer greatly for an eternity. Well, that's some choice, ain't it?

Quote:
If God created a being and did not give that being a choice, then would he really have chosen God, or loved him.

I don't know. Couldn't God simply not have punished Adam and Eve for their choice?

Quote:
I am not perfect. I am selfish, just ask my wife. We all do things we know we shouldn’t. We aren’t perfect.

If any one of us were that first being, we would have chosen wrongly as well.

Why do you think that Adam or Eve chose to symbolically eat the apple? Out of selfishness? Or because of deception?

Quote:
To say that New Orleans and AIDS are God’s judgments is ridiculous as well. AIDS let’s face it, is passed through people having sex with obviously more than one person. This isn’t a judgment merely a consequence of actions. On the other hand you have storms and diseases, and non sexually transmitted AIDS which are of no one’s direct consequence.

No, actually, AIDS is passed through people simply having sex. It matters not whether they are married, whether they were virgins before, etc. If one of the partners has it, the other one will get it as well, regardless of how "righteous" or "pure" he/she may be.

I do agree, however, that they are simply consequences.

Quote:
The prevailing idea is because Adam sinned he f*cked it up for the rest of us. Adam is a real jerk. I believe as stated before every one of us would have made the same bad choice.

In turning from perfection to the imperfect, when Adam chose other than perfect, he threw us into a downward spiral.

This, if nothing else, begs the question of why do we have to suffer now because of Adam's mistake.

Quote:
This is why there is a need for a perfect Adam. We need the one who chose perfect instead of imperfect. He has come to right the wrong. By being a descendent of this new Adam (Christ) we may inherit not a sin nature but a second chance at the choosing of the tree.

I no of no lineage that descends me from Jesus. And as "pure" and "righteous" as I may be, I still have to:

- eat

- drink (water)

- breathe

- wash

- have sex

- defend myself

etc.

So this inheritance that you speak of is worthless from any human perspective.

Also, your logic implies the same big question as before: why do I have to be born a human as they now are because of Adam fucking it up?

Quote:
The other tree mentioned in the garden of eden, it was the tree of life. That’s the tree we can chose. By choosing that tree we aren’t defended against diseases and death on this temporal plane but we can have life after death. This means that we get the consequences of a life lived as if Adam had chosen perfection not imperfection.

Apart from the sermon, for which I really do NOT thank you, this begs the SAME question as before, so I'll repeat and rephrase it: why am I suffering the consequences of Adam's mistake ?

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


crocaduck
Theist
crocaduck's picture
Posts: 43
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Let me think about these

Let me think about these for a day so I can respond with reason and logic and not with a sermon. Sorry about that.


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
dassercha wrote: To theists

dassercha wrote:
To theists on this thread: look into hermaphodites/intersexed issues. same sort of thing. You lose, sorry.

What's wrong with hermaphrodites?


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Theol0gic, you just proved

Theol0gic, you just proved my every point by what you said. How can you know that atheism is false? To claim something to be false, you must first assume  beforehand the existence of truth. Since you are an imperfect and sinful being, how can you know the difference?  Second, if your body/mind is imperfect and sinful, then so also must be the logic that it produces. Therefore, you have no way of ascertaining the validity of anything you say, think or believe. What you are doing is secretly ignoring the physical principles of the universe in order to make sense of your own. You have to, because theism cannot possibly stand on its own. It is a philosophical absurdity.

This is really too fun. I love it when a theist makes such a fool of themself that I can throw their entire writing back in their face with only 3 or 4 words modified. Hurry with your next response please. Smiling

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Theol0gic
Theist
Theol0gic's picture
Posts: 44
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Vastet, like many

Vastet, like many atheists, I think you are so biased, that you are not capable of rational thought, logic or validity of an argument. I think you need to attentively read what I said in my posts.

Banned for lying - was warned twice.


crocaduck
Theist
crocaduck's picture
Posts: 43
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
I concur with Theol0gic.

I concur with Theol0gic. However like many theists, I think you, Theol0gic, are so biased, that you are not capable of rational thought, logic or validity of an argument.


crocaduck
Theist
crocaduck's picture
Posts: 43
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
You see the problem is that

You see the problem is that the atheist sees the glove not fitting on O.J.'s hand and assumes he is innocent.

The theist however watches the white bronco chase fiasco and assumes he is guilty.

By the way, drink apple juice, OJ kills.


Theol0gic
Theist
Theol0gic's picture
Posts: 44
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
 lol everytime I see your

 lol everytime I see your avatar I can't stop laughingLaughing


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Theol0gic wrote: lol

Theol0gic wrote:
lol everytime I see your avatar I can't stop laughingLaughing

I feel the same way about yours! 


BenfromCanada
atheist
BenfromCanada's picture
Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
User is offlineOffline
crocaduck wrote: You see

crocaduck wrote:

You see the problem is that the atheist sees the glove not fitting on O.J.'s hand and assumes he is innocent.

The theist however watches the white bronco chase fiasco and assumes he is guilty.

 

There's only one atheist and one theist? Wow. Who are they? I'd like
to meet them.


weirdochris
weirdochris's picture
Posts: 25
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Theol0gic wrote:  Lastly,

Theol0gic wrote:

 Lastly, we're talking about Christianity. Jesus never once authorized His followers to kill peopel You will not find that in the New Testament.

 

Luke 19:27


crocaduck
Theist
crocaduck's picture
Posts: 43
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Oh wow, That terrible

Oh wow,

That terrible prooftext is part of a parable.  A parable, specifically, is a usually short fictitious story that illustrates a moral attitude or a religious principle.

Christ of the Gospel never killed and never promoted the killing of anyone. Several times he could have promoted killing and been seen righteous, but spared the intended victim.

I don't prooftext your piltdown man gospel so don't do the same with the theist's text. 

 


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
JHenson wrote: MattShizzle

JHenson wrote:

MattShizzle wrote:
Well, it would certainly disprove a perfect benevolent god.

I think this is the implication the OP had in mind. I refute the notion that pain must necessarily be antithetical to benevolence.

Did you mean to say that you reject the notion? 

 

Quote:

At least in my life's experience, comfort and betterment are rarely connected.

This begs the question that an omnipotent, benevolent creator would need to rely on pain to serve a purpose. But this contradicts the concept of omnipotence.

Pain is a rather primitive means of communication. Why a 'god' would create it, and rely on it, in order to communicate is perplexing.

In addition, pain is not always an accurate means of communication: we often suffer pain for medical problems without cure. We also suffer from curable illnesses that go undetected because we don't experience any pain (i.e. Parkinson's creates a great deal of neuro damage before it is detected.)

So the idea that a 'god' would create pain, and rely on it, is problematic. In fact, I'd call this Panglossian thinking.... you start out with our world, and attempt to work back from it to a god....

But nothing in nature could point to something beyond nature, nothing about our world demands an omnipotent, omniscient creator. 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Theol0gic wrote: Since

Theol0gic wrote:
Since atheists admit the machine of the body is imperfect, then their logic and reasoning must by necessity also be imperfect because it comes from a broken machine/body.

Non sequitur.

Deductive logic is based on tautologies, necessary truths. Nothing about the 'imperfection' of a body would change how logic works.

 

Quote:
 

 Therefore, atheism is the product of imperfection and must be false.

You commit a second error here: you presume that imperfection equates with "always wrong"

All your 'imperfection' argument could ever demonstrate is that inductive methodology is not perfect, ergo, no inductive claim could be held with certainty.

 

 

Quote:

And the atheist cannot even argue against this statement without first assuming the perfection of the body machine and the logic that flows from it.

 That's simply untrue. Your argument implies that one cannot have any truth at all unless one is perfect.  But this claim is a non sequitur. All imperfection would point to is a lack of 100% reliability.  But no one ever holds to inductive claims are certain truths to begin with, they are probable truths.

By the way, if we were to accept your hidden premise: that imperfection necessarily leads to falsehood, then all a person would need to do is deny the outcome of any induction, and they'd have certain truth!

 Review:

Deductive logic deals in necessary truth, whether or not the mind gleaning it is perfect would not change the nature of necessary truth.

Inductive logic is imperfect, - it is probable, not certain, but its imperfection does not mean that all inductive logic is necessarily false.

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
crocaduck wrote: . The

crocaduck wrote:

.

The prevailing idea is because Adam sinned he f*cked it up for the rest of us. Adam is a real jerk. I believe as stated before every one of us would have made the same bad choice.

In turning from perfection to the imperfect, when Adam chose other than perfect, he threw us into a downward spiral.

Once the imperfect (sin) entered a perfect state, all hell broke loose.

 You're missing a fatal internal contradiction in the story.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/the_fall_commits_an_internal_contradiction 

 

And seeing as you are a parent, you might appreciate this:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/loving_parents

 

Your "god' doesn't just "allow people to learn from painful events", he creates their very conceptualization... he also would have invented the very need to 'learn from mistakes', and finally, he would have also invented any 'reason' you might try to respond with as to why you prefer the world the way it is.

Quote:
 

This is why there is a need for a perfect Adam. 

No, what we need to do is discard this myth. The idea of damnation is detestable, the idea of one man damning a species is idiotic.  I simply can't fathom why reasonable people want to imagine that the most intelligent, loving being in the universe would be responsible for such an abject evil.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
I'll just post the second

I'll just post the second essay here:

 

Loving parents seek to do whatever they can to keep their baby safe. If they could, they'd wish away any dangers of disease or disaster that might befall their child

 

No theist ever asks why a loving god creates a world where such things are possible in the first place..... I like to ask theists: If you were 'god', would you create a world where any of these things could even potentially happen to your own children? ?

Before you answer, consider this: Take a look at how parents actually care for their children: We do everything we can to create a safe haven, a safe world for our children. We spend hours, days searching for ways to create a safe place, free from the dangers of electricity or poison or sharp objects or even swallowable objects that could cause choking.

We devote time to finding the right foods, the right clothing, the right diapers (even something as minor as a rash is defended against) the right blankets, crib, pillow..... we purchase baby monitors, or make frequent examinations of the baby for safety.

We defend our child against disease, against crib death, against any possible danger that we can imagine.

Now a theist wants to tell me that someone who loves me infinitely more than I love my own child, is willing to place me, and the world's children in the midst of every single solitary imaginable harm in existence: shattered glass, poison, illness, violent preditation....

The mistake theists usually make here is that they believe that these things are all 'givens', that there must be things like poison or disease, (so that we can learn to deal with poison and disease!)  but if there is a loving, omnipotent god this is not the case. An omnipotent, omniscient creator must be perfectly responsible not only for putting our children in harm's way, but for creating the very dangers in the first place, both the dangers and our susceptability to them. Any or all of these entites would be completely contingent upon an omnipotent 'being'.

So I ask you: why is it that while no caring parent would go so far as to put their child in danger of getting a diaper rash, that an infinite loving god not only creates diaper rash, but disease and death?

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Theol0gic, like many

Theol0gic, like many theists, you are so biased, that you are not capable of rational thought, logic or validity of an argument. I think you need to attentively read what I said in my posts. You need to see just how easily your words apply to yourself, and not a single atheist on this board. You are the definition of the fly landing in the spider web.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
JHenson

JHenson wrote:

BenfromCanada wrote:
No, it doesn't "beg the question" as that would mean it would be a "begging the question falalcy". Regardless, perfect is without flaws. Simple.

That's a negative definition, defining something by what it is not. What is perfection?

Well then, seeing as omni-traits are negative categories, and seeing as 'supernatural' is defined negatively, I trust that you follow the apophatic tradition?

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.