GOD IS DEAD

Instead of revealing your young and immature age, why didn't you comment the above post? Instead of telling us what a theist you were, why didn't you put a little effort in explaining how an OMNI-HIGH God could be lower than "Balance" to the religious folks? Out of arguments? Or was it just a fresh wave of teen energy rushing into your head? Answer this.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

Nobody cares if you agree what is higher - love or God. That's not the topic here and it never was. I know you being an atheist will have different views of life and purposes than the theists. That's why your coming here and forcing your opinion on theists about what should be important in THEIR (religious) lives, brings nothing but dismay. You know they will continue to believe in God but you continue to require that they(the religious) don't view God as a higher purpose of life. I am amazed. Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

Your whole argument boils down to "Lots of people genuinely believe in my God. This demonstartes that it is more "true" than your made up Gods"But this has several problems.1) Every God was at one time the "new God on the block". Apollo was once more worshipped than the Christian God. By your argument this was at that time "justified true belief" for all the reasons that you attribute to your God now. Thus "justified true belief" is negated unless we are to give equal credence to Apollo and all the other Gods that preceded, or are contemporary (e.g. Hindu Gods), to your God.2) Your use of believers in terms of numbers and strength of belief is an attempt to sneak in objective verifiable evidence as some sort of "evidence" for God's existence. But this in itself is an admission that subjective belief is unreliable. Why does it matter how many people believe if the personal, subjective evidence for God is in itself reliable?3) When you say that many people have given their lives (or whatever) for God is it really the same God? How do you know? If I ask a million Christians "Does your God damn homosexuals to eternal damnation" (for example) then would the resulting two groups defineitely be considering the same God? If you ask enough questions I think you will find that each theist has a God whose perecived attributes are unique to the attitudes of each believer. More evidence that God only exists in the mind of the believer and not in any osrt of even remotely objective reality.Your argument sounds superficially philosophically valid but at root you are saying nothing more than the tired old assertion that belief (in enough numbers) is somehow in itself evidence for the existence of God. Take away the pseudo-philosophical mumbo jumbo and all that is left is this well trodden and repeatedly refuted argument.

So, what content did you provide in this response, aside to attacking my age and repeating yourself?Despite my...heated tone...in my previous post, I explained myself. You angered me by insisting that I, who used to be a theist, do not understand how theists think.That's like saying a physicist doesn't understand basic physics.It's like saying an AIDS patient doesn't know what it's like to have AIDS.It is, almost literally, telling a Christian they don't know what it's like to beleive in God.It's stupid, and offensive.I know exactly how theists think of God - and it's not as uniform as you imply. Some sects view morality as "higher" than God (God does things because they are good), and others think God is higher than morality (things are good because God does them). It's just further evidence that any value assigned to a purpose is purely subjective. It's opinion. It's neither right nor wrong. It's not objective.I understand that to some theists the pospect of God not existing actually means there is no reason to be ethical, there are no values, nothing matters, and all is lost. To these people God is apparently the only thing standing between them and hedonism or nihilism.Not all theists are like that, of course. Those who believe God does things because they are good as opposed to believing thigns are good becasue God does them already accept that morality exists independantly of any deity, and these people realize that the absence of a deity is no reason to suddenly conclude that nothing matters any more.When actually losing their faith, my own experiences show me that most people from either camp eventually wind up finding a moral code relatively similar to that which they followed while being religious, minus the authority figure. I've never known of a newly-deconverted Atheist who suddenly lost all concept of morality, even if that had been a fear while believing in God. Like I said when describing my own deconversion, it's not as bad to lose faith in the ways that theists think it would be. There is no gaping wound or empty spot in my life, simply acceptence of objective reality. I still have a moral code, and its value (to me, because obviously my own moral code can have no value to anyone else) is no less than it was before I lost my faith. I explained myself in that post, Agobot. You simply seem to not see it. Stile has explained it many times, as well.The definition of a God as "higher" than everything else is a subjective one. Not all those who believe in deities agree that God is the supreme dictator of morality. Most agree that he is good, but as I said, there is disagreement over whether God is good because he behaves in a moral fashion, or if anything is good if God says so. There's a pretty big difference. In the first case, God wouldn't commit murder because murder is wrong. In the second case, committing murder could be good or bad depending on whether you had God's sanction. Biblical literalists, particularly those who focus on the Old Testament, tend to be in the latter group (there are many examples of God ordering actions that are immoral even by his own standards, so morality has to be based on the authority of God, or else God cannot be good when he contradicts his own commandments).If one person beleives that there is no higher calling than love, and another beleives that there is no higher calling than the dictates of their deity, there is no objective difference between the two. They are subjective values. Each has their own opinion, and different ways of justifiying their personal, subjective opinions on the value of ideals that wouldn't be valid for the other.You keep saying that I'm expecting theists to accept that a purpose dictated by God is "lower" than other ideals, but that's not what I've been saying at any point in this thread. It isn't what Stile has been saying, either.I'm saying that it's silly to argue about what particular ideal is "highest" (God, love, peace, whatever) because each individual will have a different subjective opinion of which of those ideals is higher than the others. If you made a list of 1000 ideals and asked 10,000 people to rank each one by the relative value of each ideal, you'd receive different responses on each. To me, obviously "God" is of a low value because I don't think he exists. To Theist A, God may be number 1 on the list. To Theist B, God may be number 2 or even 3, following whatever Theist B thuinks is more important than God.It's all subjective and defined by personal opinion, Agobot. To insist otherwise is to delude yourself. I don't require anything of them. Why are you insisting that theists must value God higher than love or peace? I guarantee you, there are theists who value other things above God, just as there are theists who value God above all else.It's subjective, Agobot. This entire argument over what ideals are "higher" than others is pointless becasue ultimately all such values are subjective and based on personal values and opinions.

No Rahvin, here lies your fault- you failed to look at the link i gave you on Wikipedia about God(the one that prompted me to say you need to read up on religion). It say that God is considered omni-potent, omnipowerful, omni-benevolent, omni-anything, which means that the religious view God as being higher than anything.OMNI > anythingAnd there is no difference in any religion - God is considered omni-perfect(although this word doesn't make sense) by all religions. He is not omni-... only to atheists and that's quite normal.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

(sigh)Wrong. So wholly, compeltely wrong as to be astounding.The ancient Greeks had an entire pantheon full of gods that were not omnianything. In fact, they were frequently regarded as amoral bastards. They weren't all-powerful, they weren't considered "higher" than mortals in any way beyond their power.There are many religions that don't define God the way you are defining God.Not even all Christians define God in the same way you do. As I said in my response, there are two groups of Christians with regard to God and morality - Group A thinks that God defines morality, so anything GOd says and does is good even if it's self-contradictory. The second group believes that God obeys morality.Group A would think that it's perfectly okay to murder a child if God orders you to.Group B would say that God would never ever order so monstrously immoral.You seem to agree with Group A, that God is by definition the highest authority possible.But Group B disagrees, and thinks that while God may be the highest authority, he is not higher than the ideals he values. Group B would say that love or peace, etc are in fact the highest ideals, and that humanity should strive to meet them to the degree that God does.You can't group "the religious" as a single unit in very many things, Agobot. I'm rather surprised you would think you can - they can't agree on how many gods exist, or the identity of god, or the values and characteristics of a given god, or even the gods exist at all (you can't forget those new-agey types who are "spiritual" and have religion despite not having an actual deity). How can you possibly say that "all religious people define god as x?"You're concluding that God is always considered "above" any other ideal by all religious people when that is demonstrably false. The flaw in your argument is your insistence on sweeping generalizations that simply are not accurate.Your argument is along the lines of "all white people are Republicans, so of course they favor personal responsibility over socialist policies," when obviously not all white people are actually Republican, and neither do all Republicans adhere to the same values.I can even use examples from here at EvC. We have many theists here, ranging from hardcore Biblical literalists like Buzsaw, NJ, ICANT, and Iano, to more liberal theists like Bluejay, Percy, and otehrs I'm sure I'm forgetting (and I would have been int he camp with Percy and Bluejay when I was a theist). I can't really speak for them, but by their posts I would posit that the literalists would believe that nothing is higher than God, and that he defines morality. Whatever he says is good, is good, even if that changes over time. If God says to kill someone, then that murder would be good by definition becasue it was on the orders of God. The non-literalists like Bluejay or Percy (or my a couple of years ago) would say that God would never order a person to be killed because God follows the ideals of morality and obeys his own commandments. Clearly non-literalists would value morality higher than God and the literalists the opposite. Obviously "the religious" do not all agree, as you claim they do.Let's analyze your argument further, Agobot: Does Omni-benevolent mean that benevolent actions are defined as "anything God does," or does God simply only perform benevolent acts?If God commands us to spread love (love thy neighbor and all that), then is spreading love benevolent because God commands it, or does God command it becasue it is benevolent?Your "omni-" argument doesn't really make an argument at all, Agobot. We're still left with the same questions as before.And the answer is the same one Stile and I have given you: value is subjective. Some people, religious or not, will value things above God. Some will not. It's all based on subjective, personal opinions and values.

Let me again quote myself froma few post above:

So why have you been trying with Stile for several days continuously to force your opinion that a religious person should view God as less important than peace and balance? Why are you hijacking this thread? Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

Why I think the purpose my owner considers relevant for me, is relevant for me?Because it would be illogical to think otherwise - and I like logic. Logically speaking, if designed for a purpose then we can no more re-assign purpose that we can pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps. Purpose isn't ours to assign.To be in a position to assign our own purpose would require that we were free agents, beings who are in a position to determine these things. But we're not free agents - we belong to him (whether we believe in him or not). Any sense of defining own purpose is illusionary. Granted, God permits us to operate in the illusion - but that doesn't alter it being as it is.Saying you define own purpose is like saying you can print your own money.- It doesn't have to be acknowledged (this side of the grave) - although not acknowledging it doesn't alter things. Nor do you have to care, nor are you prevented from striving for a "better" purpose. It wouldn't be better of course: good and bad are defined in relation to whether or not x action lies within the boundary of activity approved of by God. Your "better" would be his "worse" in fact.The reason why it would be logical and reasonable to acknowledge and care (you are still assuming the model of God I'm using is accurate, I take it) is that God "owns" you. You don't belong to yourself and are not a free agent. The apparent freedom you have to go your own way is due to your being in rebellion against God. Your free in a sense but always constrained by the sovereign in whose realm you reside.- As you might agree, our "higher" and "better" are relative terms. It's when you come face to face with The Absolute that an end of the relative line is reached. Best will be what brings about Gods intended kingdom; it involves love, joy, peace, satisfaction, wonder, patience, fun, hope, rest, kindness etc. If that's what you bring about (under his auspices) and that's what you experience in return then no other purpose could hope to compete.No other one ... except the one that is prepared to forego the above in order to retain a key ingredient missing from the above list.Self-determination.Self-determination is a drug and if a drug you refuse to give up then "better" will indeed appear the purpose containing it.The tragic thing is Stile; the lie that set the sin of self-determination in motion ("you can be like God") hasn't changed in the interim. It's still a lie from the father of lies. Self-determination is an illusion that will disappear on ones last breath. Your rebellion will have been brought to it's knees by your death. Then..Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Some, me included, will do so gladly. Others will do so whilst wailing and gnashing their teeth.It just doesn't make sense to insist on rebellion when all is lost. Not one iota of sense.- As stated, it would the logical conclusion to draw - if you believed in God. If you don't then clearly there is no reason to care.This area is like so many others; the day you find out that God exists is the day when you will have surrendered your rebellion. Having done so there is no barrier (in principal) to God being the one to set purpose for you. You'd be glad to know you are heading in the right direction in fact. Glad that you no longer have to pretend that a purpose you set yourself is a real purpose - let's face it; no one can suppress all of the truth all of the time.- The person who is born again "has eternal life". That is to say, eternal life starts at the point of being born again and Gods purpose for your life commences. Being thrown onto the rubbish heap happens after your life ends (assuming you've refused Gods offer of salvation)As to the stuff you do in the meantime?Well, the reason why you do "good" things, such as saving lives and delighting a child, is down to your being made in his image and likeness. That of him which reflects from you is the driving force behind the good that you do. For example: you have a conscience and it commends you for doing good and condemns you for doing evil. That is the power driving you unto good and preventing you doing evil. That power belongs to God because conscience is Gods truth revealed to you. Naturally, the credit for "your" good goes to him: he's the hammer, you're the nail (if I may be permitted to mix analogies for a minute). You did nothing in fact. Which is why "all your righteousness are as filthy rags" - you have no righteousness acts that belong to you.Your evil, on the other hand, does belong to you. Evil occurs after truth is suppressed and it is an act of your will that achieves this suppression.A self-defined purpose can't possibly trump a God-defined one - for the simple reason that the only thing you can manage to achieve out of your own wills expression is evil.Now if evil is your purpose you might be on to something...The rubbish heap is the only option for those who die in rebellion. God leaves a persons presence - there is no image and likeness of God left remaining in them; their own mother wouldn't recognise them.A more hell-ish existance I couldn't possibly imagine.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

As I've said multiple times now, I have required nothing of religious people in this thread. Not once. If you beleive I'm "forcing my opinion," quote where I do so.I have never made any statement regarding what a religious person should or should not believe. I have simply made statements regarding what some religious people do believe.For someone who instantly jumps to telling people they lack reading comprehension skills, Agobot, you really need to pick some up for yourself.So once again: Not all religious people view god in the same way. Some do value God above any concept of morality and believe that God's dictates constitute morality. Other religious people believe that God holds himself perfectly to the standard of good and we should strive to duplicate his efforts. In the first, God would be valued higher than "love" or whatever. In the second group, "love" and other ideals could be considered "higher" and separate from God.It's all subjective, and arguing about how God is or is not objectively higher is foolhardy when nothing in this discussion has been objective at all. I don't know how many times I have to say this before you'll get it:

quote:

---

And the answer is the same one Stile and I have given you: value is subjective. Some people, religious or not, will value things above God. Some will not. It's all based on subjective, personal opinions and values.

---

It's not just me, either - Stile has been saying the same thing the entire time. You have been the only one forcing your opinions on the religious be claiming that all religious people must believe that God is higher than any other ideal. I'm not even sure how you came up with that argument in a world with so many thousands of religions that obviously don't agree on much of anything.

Okay, I agree if we add in all your ideas about God, then your ideas make sense. It's just, well, too many unsupported, eccentric assertions for me to take seriously. All without any evidence whatsoever, all without anything more than "iano says it's like this" and "iano says the Bible should be interpreted this way".I do not subscribe to what iano says, though.First you need to show God exists.
Then you need to show God dictates what's good as opposed to things being good on their own.
Then you need to show that I am, in fact, rebelling against God (which I'm not).
Then you need to show that I'm actively choosing self-determination (like a drug) rather than choosing it simply because I have no other choice.
Then you need to show that God does actually "own" people, and wants people to respect such bully-like power over them.
Then you need to show that God actually does not give credit to people for their good deeds.
Then you need to show that God does indeed blame evil deeds on those same people.You need to show all these things using reality, not "because iano says so" and not "because iano says the Bible says so", before I even begin to consider that your idea may have validity.And that is just waaaaay too many "what if's" for me to start banking anything on. If you'd like to believe in this world you've created for yourself, that's just fine. I'm still sticking with reality, though, until you can provide even an inkling that what you say is actually true.

It had nothing to do with the Bible or Religion or Philosophy. Rather it was through reading a little book called "The Easyway to Stop Smoking" by a guy called Allen Carr ..that I got to understand something of the nature of truth. Long before I heard the truth of Jesus Christ and him crucified.Allens method differed from other methods for quitting in that he simply told the truth about cigarette smoking. What it involved, why people smoke, why they find it hard to quit, how nicotine works, what withdrawal is, why we think we enjoy smoking, how and why it's actually very easy to quit etc.Probably millions have quit using his method.What I learned of truth was that ita) is self evident when you're primed to receive itb) frees you from lies clutches (in that case: addiction to nicotine)It's Gods job to present the truth in a way that it becomes self-evident. He'll use whatever means he can to prime you to receive it.
You are wise not to take anything I say on trust - such a view will keep you clear of the cults. When and if it all becomes self evident then you won't want to steer clear and you won't need anyone to convince you. The truth itself will do that:"and you shall know the truth and the truth will set you free."

1. My argument isn't superficial. Everything I have said is based on sound logic. Composition, and the undistributed middle are not "pseudo" insights, they are objective impartially derived support for my argument.2. My claim isn't that enough belief is evidence for the existence of God. (Argumentum ad populum)My claim is still that nobody knows whether God exists or not. Everything provided thereafter was to support that claim.You partake in audiatur et altera pars. i.e. You jump to conclusions, or insert too many assumptions about what I am saying.The popular argument of the IPU is a vacuous statement under logical terminology.This means that the stated "IPU" is ONLY unprovable to not exist BECAUSE it is made up. Google "vacuous truth", or "vacuous statements in logic".It's the same as if I said;If I were superman, I would fly to the moon.It is true that I would fly to the moon, BUT ONLY BECAUSE superman is false.Likewise, you can only not prove the IPU BECAUSE IT IS FALSE.This is why genuine logic requires that you FIRST SHOW GOD IS MADE-UP LIKE AN IPU IS OTHERWISE YOU CAN'T PRESENT THEM AS EQUIVALENTS.Guess what? Nobody can do that.I have brought you full circle, back to the main problem which is argumentum ad ignorantium. Nobody knows for pete's sake!!You NOW propose other gods. Automatically you are in a much stronger position that using the IPU, and I concede that it is far harder to prove the Creator, as more possible that other gods.At the moment I can only think that the other gods are usually just idols, known to be none-organic, none-living matter, whereas "God" is not defined as a piece of rock, or wood, or whatever.Also, I don't know enough about gods such as Apollo Creed, so I have to refrain. I.e. I would need to compare them after reasearch, BUT - even if I am ignorant, you still have the problem of composition. Unless Apollos is identical to "God", and all the claims about him are identical, and what he is made of is identical, then we can't truly compare him to God. This is the fallacy of argumentum ad logicam.Infact, any popular arguments are not exactly the same as mine, therefore my conclusion can be sound, if my inference is from different premisses.Infact, my very specific argument in this thread bares no resemblance or part in any [external] argument.Your problem is that I am not a pseuodo-claimant. Your problem is that I am a genuine claimant.If I have shown false philosophy, show it, and we can talk, but don't just say I speak speudo-philosophy.I put up with a lot, even with insults - but do not state I am a false prophet, as it will mean I will give you zero respect.
As far as I know, I speak honestly and truthfully, otherwise I would not try to follow Christ.You can search these OBJECTIVE subjects. As you can see, they are not pseudo. I invite you to search any and all.Ad logicam
Vacuous struth/statement
Undistributed middle term.
Composition in logicEdited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

I agree with "b)".The "a)", however, sounds like something that is also from "the cults". That's exactly the stuff illusions, delusions and fantasy worlds are created from.I agree that truth can be "self-evident", but illusions, delusions and fantasy worlds can also be "self-evident" in the exact same way.Therefore, when you accept something is real because it is "self-evident", then you cannot be sure it is a "self-evident" truth, or a "self-evident" fantasy. And the vast majority of things accepted because they are "self-evident" turn out to be false.However, if you can convince all other rational people (generally with, but not restricted to, empirical evidence), then you are assured to the highest degree that it really is truth. And you are assured to the highest degree that it is not an illusion, delusion or fantasy world.Taking the time to verify a claim to make sure it is truth can be time-consuming and sometimes very difficult. Generally it's much easier to not bother, but then you risk not being sure that the claim actually is truth.It's up to each one of us to judge the importance of each claim we come across. Important claims should be validated to our highest possible degree. But most unimportant claims don't really affect us if they turn out to be false anyway. In those cases, we generally don't take the time to check for validity.Sometime we come across information that cannot be verified by any means we know of. It is again up to the individual how much they would like to base aspects of their lives on things that we cannot verify to be any more true than illusions or delusions.

Objective? Impartially derived? Please.........
Every argument you have made could be twisted to apply to any god. Historical, Hindu, "made up" etc. etc. But you apply it only to your God on the baseless assumption that we must somehow give your God and your God alone some sort of benefit of the doubt. Why must we assume that God is any less made up than the IPU? In terms of objective evidence the two are entirely equal. Well change this sentance to read:"This means that God is ONLY unprovable to not exist BECAUSE it is made up. Google "vacuous truth", or "vacuous statements in logic"And you have the same problem with God except for the fact that you have previously implied that numbers and strength of belief make some sort of difference to God's status as compared to the IPU. They do not for all of the reason pointed out previously. They are entirely equivelent unless you can show that God is not made up!!! That is the point.
For your argument to hold any water at all we must first assume that God is not made up and that all other gods necessarily are. This is a false, illogical and unjustified starting point for any honest debate. By the same logic we are equally uncertain whether Apollo, Vishnu or the IPU exist.
The only difference between your God and any of these that you have suggested are as a result of you assuming that your God is not made up as well. Otherwise everything that you are saying can equally be applied to any other gods or god. Including the IPU.How do you know that IPU or Zig Zog or any other god anyone cares to name or create are actually made up and not the product of misinterpreted or misplaced divine revelation? You cannot "know" any more than I can "know" that your relationship with God is wholly delusional. It was not my intention to slip these in unfairly. My point was a historical one. From my point of view ALL gods are made-up gods and as history progresses one made-up god supercedes another in terms of predominant belief. Your God is just another made up God in a long line of made up Gods. Apollo, Thor et al came before. The IPU or an equivelent "made up" god could well be next. The arguments you made in favour of your God previously would have applied to other gods from times gone past and could just as readily be applied to different "made-up" gods at some point in the future. That was the point. I don't think that you need to know anything beyond the fact that they had large numbers of believers of very strong conviction. But the comparisons you choose to make are selectively derived to support your argument.
The key thing that is irrefutably identical about all of these deities and gods, whether they be historical, from other contemporary cultures or "made up" is that their existence or otherwise is unprovable and therefore, strictly speaking, unknown. The same argument that you are applying to your God could ultimately be made for any other god.Implying that we must assume that your God exists until we can disprove this whilst assuming that all other gods do not exist unless we can prove that they do is a blatantly baseless position.The obvious conclusion, and one that is entirely consistent with all of the objective evidence is that ALL gods are equally unevidenced and are thus all equally "made up".