This is a logical proof against god's existance rehashed to counter pascals theodicy. Here goes.

1. God is omnipotent, omniscient and desires that I believe in him

2. I would believe in god If I had heat vision

3. God would be able to grant me heat vision as he is omnipotent

4. God would know that I would believe in him if I had heat vision as he is omniscient

5. God would grant me heat vision as he desires that I believe in him

6 I do not have heat vision

7 There is no omnipotent, omniscient god that desires I believe in him.

I'd rather be able to turn into other people, like Mystique.

A possible counter-argument is that God doing that would somehow limit your free will; however, that's just plain idiocy. That I know a light will turn on when I flip a switch in no way limits my free will or my decision to flip the switch; it just provides me with the knowledge needed to make the best decision possible. (If I need light - as I possibly need salvation - it would be nice to know that the switch works!) Nor does it prevent me from having faith in the light; every day I have faith that electricity still works, and that my lightbulbs haven't blown.

quote:Originally posted by Fundokiller:

and desires that I believe in him



That's a presumtion. I doubt it makes any difference to god either way.

You can keep your heat vision.

I want a foot-long cock.

I prefer to be able to posses people.

Pascal's wager is pretty much completely stupid.

One of his premises in his wording being that God is infinitely complex and is beyond human comprehension. This left him completely open to the fact that God could therefore have an infinite number of different natures. He might be the Biblical God, but he equally likely might be a God that rewards paedophiles. So it's impossible to choose which God to believe in with any conviction - God might favour atheists.

Which of course brings me to the next problem of Pascal's wager: you cannot choose your beliefs. You can acquire them, you can alter them, but you cannot choose them.

Pick up any coloured object that isn't green. Decide to believe that it's green. Nope. Can't do it.

You cannot simply choose to believe in God. Someone must provide reason - even if it's false reason - to make you believe something.

And that's why I hate Pascal.

quote:Originally posted by PerpetualBurn:

Pascal's wager is pretty much completely stupid.

Yes. Pascal -

"God is, or He is not. But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here...

If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is."

Originally posted by Fundokiller:

This is a logical proof against god's existance rehashed to counter pascals theodicy. Here goes.

1. God is omnipotent, omniscient and desires that I believe in him

(Rather, God seems to Warn about himself and leaves the choice up to people, If God had so willed he could've made everyone believe and bow down, according to God)

2. I would believe in god If I had heat vision

(That is if you weren't born with heat vision and it wasn't commonplace? Also it has to be natural heat vision? Or else by the will of God you could simply go out and buy some heat vision goggles.)

3. God would be able to grant me heat vision as he is omnipotent

(Omnipotent doesn't really mean ALL CAPABLE, but rather it means ALL CONTROLLING, All powerful in the sense of total control. om·nip·o·tent (m-np-tnt) Pronunciation Key

adj.

Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful. See Usage Note at infinite.

n.

One having unlimited power or authority: the bureaucratic omnipotents.)

4. God would know that I would believe in him if I had heat vision as he is omniscient

(Perhaps the confidence in your belief that you would believe in God if you were granted heat vision isn't entirely accurate, maybe this God knows better and knows even if you were given heat vision you wouldn't believe. Perhaps God might feel that people shouldn't have a problem believing in God thus doesn't feel it a requirement to grant everyone their miraculous wishes.)

5. God would grant me heat vision as he desires that I believe in him

(God desires that you believe in him, perhaps without granting you any extra miracles. Perhaps God knows that your choice is disbelief no matter what you may be granted, that you'll explain it away using whatever methods you can to continue to ignore God, just as one who disbelieves does in every matter concerning the nature of things.

056.057

We created you. Will ye then admit the truth?

056.058

Have ye seen that which ye emit?



056.059

Do ye create it or are We the Creator?

056.060

We have ordained death among you and We are not to be overcome,

056.061

That We may evolve you and make you what ye know not.

056.062

And verily ye know the first creation. Why, then, do ye not reflect?

056.063

Have ye seen that which ye cultivate?

056.064

Is it ye that cause it to grow, or are We the Cause?

056.065

If We pleased, We should have certainly made it broken down into pieces, then would you begin tb lament:

056.066

"We are laden with debt!"

056.067

"Nay, but we are deprived!"

056.068

See ye the water which ye drink?

056.069

Do ye bring it down from the cloud or do We?

056.070

Were it Our Will, We could make it salt: then why do ye not give thanks?

056.071

See ye the Fire which ye kindle?

056.072

Is it ye who grow the tree which feeds the fire, or do We grow it?

056.073

We, even We, appointed it a memorial and a comfort for the dwellers in the wilderness.

056.074

Therefor, praise the name of thy Lord, the Tremendous.

056.075

Furthermore I call to witness the setting of the Stars,-

056.076

And lo! that verily is a tremendous oath, if ye but knew -

056.077

Most surely it is an honored Quran,

056.078

In a book that is protected

056.079

None shall touch it save the purified ones.

056.080

A Revelation from the Lord of the Worlds.

056.081

Do you then hold this announcement in contempt?

056.082

And have ye made it your livelihood that ye should declare it false?

056.083

Why is it not then that when it comes up to the throat,

056.084

And ye are at that moment looking

056.085

And We are nearer to it than you, but you do not see--

056.086

Then why is it not-- if you are not held under authority--

056.087

Do ye not force it back, if ye are truthful?

(The ending is most likely talking about death and forcing back death))

6 I do not have heat vision

(You could go buy some.)

7 There is no omnipotent, omniscient god that desires I believe in him.

(True, there is no God that desires that you should believe in him, because you have turned away, one without faith! (I don't mean that directly to you but in general lol))

The Qur'an says a little more about this here:

006.109

They swear their strongest oaths by God, that if a sign came to them, by it they would believe. Say: "Certainly signs are in the power of Allah: but what will make you realise that if signs came, they will not believe."?

006.110

We confound their hearts and their eyes. As they believed not therein at the first, We let them wander blindly on in their contumacy.

006.111

Even if We did send unto them angels, and the dead did speak unto them, and We gathered together all things before their very eyes, they are not the ones to believe, unless God so willed. But most of them are ignorant.

006.112

Thus did We make for every Messenger an enemy,- evil ones among men and jinns, inspiring each other with flowery discourses by way of deception. If thy Lord had so willed, they would not have done it: so leave them and their inventions alone.

006.113

To such let the hearts of those incline, who have no faith in the hereafter: let them delight in it, and let them earn from it what they may.

006.114

Say: "Shall I seek for judge other than God? - when He it is Who hath sent unto you the Book, explained in detail." They know full well, to whom We have given the Book, that it hath been sent down from thy Lord in truth. Never be then of those who doubt.

006.115

And the word of your Lord has been accomplished truly and justly; there is none who can change His words, and He is the Hearing, the Knowing.

006.116

If thou obeyedst most of those on earth they would mislead thee far from Allah's way. They follow naught but an opinion, and they do but guess.

006.117

Surely your Lord-- He best knows who goes astray from His way, and He best knows those who follow the right course.

__________________________________________

010.094

And if thou art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee, then question those who read the Scripture before thee. Verily the Truth from thy Lord hath come unto thee. So be not thou of the waverers.

010.095

And you should not be of those who reject the communications of Allah, then you should be one of the losers.

010.096

Surely those against whom the word of your Lord has proved true will not believe,

010.097

Even if every Sign was brought unto them,- until they see the penalty grievous.

010.098

If only there had been a community that believed and profited by its belief as did the folk of Jonah! When they believed We drew off from them the torment of disgrace in the life of the world and gave them comfort for a while.

010.099

If it had been thy Lord's will, they would all have believed,- all who are on earth! wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will, to believe!

010.100

And it is not for a soul to believe except by Allah's permission; and He casts uncleanness on those who will not understand.

010.101

Say: Behold what is in the heavens and the earth! But revelations and warnings avail not folk who will not believe.

010.102

What do they wait for then but the like of the days of those who passed away before them? Say: Wait then; surely I too am with you of those who wait.

010.103

Then We deliver Our messengers and those who believe-- even so, it is binding on Us We deliver the believers.

010.104

Say: O people! If ye are in doubt of my religion, then I worship not those whom ye worship instead of Allah, but I worship Allah Who causeth you to die, and I have been commanded to be of the believers.

010.105

And, set thy purpose resolutely for religion, as a man by nature upright, and be not of those who ascribe partners.

010.106

And cry not, besides God, unto that which cannot profit thee nor hurt thee, for if thou didst so then wert thou of the wrong-doers.

010.107

And if God should afflict you with harm, then there is none to remove it but He; and if He intends good to you there is none to repel His grace; He brings it to whom He pleases of His servants; and He is the Forgiving, the Merciful.

010.108

Say: O people! indeed there has come to you the truth from your Lord, therefore whoever goes aright, he goes aright only for the good of his own soul, and whoever goes astray, he goes astray only to the detriment of it, and I am not a custodian over you.

010.109

And (O Muhammad) follow that which is inspired in thee, and forbear until Allah give judgment. And He is the Best of Judges.

____________________________________________

013.027

The Unbelievers say: "Why is not a sign sent down to him from his Lord?" Say: "Truly Allah leaveth, to stray, whom He will; But He guideth to Himself those who turn to Him in penitence,-

013.028

Who have believed and whose hearts have rest in the remembrance of Allah. Verily in the remembrance of Allah do hearts find rest!

013.029

those who believe and do good, a good final state shall be theirs and a goodly return.

____________________________________________

036.046

Not a Sign comes to them from among the Signs of their Lord, but they turn away therefrom.

036.047

And when it is said to them: Spend (in charity) out of what Allah has given you, those who disbelieve say to those who believe: "Shall we feed those whom, if Allah had willed, He could feed? You are in naught but clear error."

036.048

And they say: When will this threat come to pass, if you are truthful?

036.049

They wait not for aught but a single blast which will overtake them while they yet contend with one another.



[This message has been edited by Abrahim (edited 09-04-2006).]

quote:6 I do not have heat vision

(You could go buy some.)

Only an idiot could think this was a flaw in the logic. The fact that the heat vision needs to be natural is implicit, and so your attempted rebuttal is a fallacy of irrelevance.

quote:Originally posted by Fundokiller:

This is a logical proof against god's existance rehashed to counter pascals theodicy. Here goes.

1. God is omnipotent, omniscient and desires that I believe in him

2. I would believe in god If I had heat vision

3. God would be able to grant me heat vision as he is omnipotent

4. God would know that I would believe in him if I had heat vision as he is omniscient

5. God would grant me heat vision as he desires that I believe in him

6 I do not have heat vision

7 There is no omnipotent, omniscient god that desires I believe in him.

What in the hell? There are much better ways to prove the absence of a god. This is a very minor, petty observation, and even if God did exist, he would not be inclined to prove himself by granting "heat vision". Do you really think an omniscient being would be so direct in his examples?

You have not proven anything.

So what you're saying is that god has been offered a way to demonstrate his existance to me, and doesn't want to because he's omniscient? That makes sense... Besides god has been very direct in his examples, ever heard of the great flood? the seven plauges? he even raised the dead! Next to them, granting me heat vision should be easy.

[This message has been edited by Fundokiller (edited 09-04-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by IDontLoveYou:

What in the hell? There are much better ways to prove the absence of a god. This is a very minor, petty observation, and even if God did exist, he would not be inclined to prove himself by granting "heat vision". Do you really think an omniscient being would be so direct in his examples?

You have not proven anything.

We are talking of the Judeo-Christian God, or at least I would assume. The Bible states that He wants everyone to believe in him; Fundokiller would believe in Him if he had heat vision; thus, if God were omniscient and knew this, and omnipotent and able to do it, He would.

I know what god he was talking about.

quote:Originally posted by IDontLoveYou:

I know what god he was talking about.

Then your reply is doubly stupid. Please explain why God wouldn't be inclined to prove His existance when He specifically states that He desires that all souls should come to salvation; that is, that all souls should believe in Him and accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour. Proving His existance is a valid method of bringing said souls to said salvation; I'm not sure what, exactly, your objection actually is.

Edit: And it would also be helpful if you were to explain why an omniscient being wouldn't want to be "so direct" (i.e., effective) in its "examples". As far as I'm aware, omniscience doesn't preclude directness. Perhaps you've got your words mixed up...?



[This message has been edited by Twisted_Ferret (edited 09-05-2006).]

The Bible also states that you must not attempt to test God.

The Bible is always full of such wonderful get out clauses and cop outs.

God.

The energy wave of the entire universe.

OR.

Your higher self.

Things aren't "dreamt" up here.

Do you ever go.

"I want to buy that car."

And then POOF, the cars next to you and you've already paid for it?

No.

Things take time. You can get anything you want, if you were only smart enough to realize you're not dreaming, this is the real-time world, things must be gained, progression is key. So. Therefore you want something, you work for it, and you get it.

Therefore according to the all powerful being that wants you to believe in it, theory that you have created, if you get it, then it exists, and you always get what you strive for. So.......you lose.

1) That's nothing like god.

2) You seem to related reality to some type of wierd mind game or a trip or something. This is real life, things don't work like that.

maybe god doesnt give a shit about your tactical ops nonsense

I think he gives a shit about me believing in him though, after all he's threatening me with eternal torment if I don't



[This message has been edited by Fundokiller (edited 09-05-2006).]

I like Epicurus' argument against god better:

If god is willing to stop evil and is unable to stop it, then he isn't omnipotent.

If god isn't willing to stop evil and is able to stop it, then he is malevolent.

If god is both willing to stop evil and able to stop it, then there would be no evil.

If god is neither willing to stop evil nor able to stop it, then why call him god?

[This message has been edited by Elephantitis Man (edited 09-05-2006).]

^ That's a presumtion that evil exists. And even if it does exist, without evil you don't have good. You need one to appreciate the other. I believe it's all just the universe at play anyway.

^You seem to be taking the abstract meanings of good and evil, when in fact, we are dealing with the real world. You do not need [insert example of evil here] to have [insert example of good here].

You could also replace in Epicurus' argument evil with suffering and get a similar logical conclusion. That's an easy way around the absract pseudointellectual semantics of good vs evil.

[This message has been edited by Real.PUA (edited 09-05-2006).]

Can we keep it on topic? The argument from evil has been done sooooo much.

quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:

^You seem to be taking the abstract meanings of good and evil, when in fact, we are dealing with the real world. You do not need [insert example of evil here] to have [insert example of good here].



You can't have one the out the other. It's as simple as that. Yin Yang.

quote:Originally posted by ---Beany---:

You can't have one the out the other. It's as simple as that. Yin Yang.

But if you're the all powerful creator of the universe and the laws that govern it, why wouldn't you be able to defy the whole "yin yang" deal and make a universe with just good? Is god bound by the yin yang? Did he sit in heaven saying "Hmmm...I'd like to make a universe that has some good shit in it, which means it's gong to have alot of bad shit in it. Fuckin' yin yang. http://www.totse.com/bbs/mad.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/mad.gif)"

If god is bound to create evil in order to have any good, he's not omnipotent. Simple as that.

It depends on if good is objective, or relative. If objective, then God can make everything objectively good.

If good and bad are relative terms, then they require each other.

Of course if anyone would like to argue that good is objective then I can go and fetch my good friend Euthyphro...

quote:Originally posted by PerpetualBurn:

It depends on if good is objective, or relative. If objective, then God can make everything objectively good.

If good and bad are relative terms, then they require each other.

Of course if anyone would like to argue that good is objective then I can go and fetch my good friend Euthyphro...

You don't get it, even if you need one without the other, God doesn't, and he could make it so if he was truly omnipotent.

quote:Originally posted by ---Beany---:

^ That's a presumtion that evil exists. And even if it does exist, without evil you don't have good. You need one to appreciate the other. I believe it's all just the universe at play anyway.

1.) According to the Bible, evil does indeed exist; this objection is null unless you're referring to some other conception of God. I'm pretty sure the OP was referring to the Judeo-Christian God, though.

2.) The Bible also asserts that there is an objective good and evil, meaning (as PB said) that one doesn't require the other. Besides, God is omnipotent and can surely circumvent the rules of the universe He created.

quote:Originally posted by Aseren:

You don't get it, even if you need one without the other, God doesn't, and he could make it so if he was truly omnipotent.

No. I get it fine. I'm probably just too clever for you.

If you the existence of good necessitates the existence of evil then God can't have just one. It would imply that without the Universe to have evil in it, God would not be good.

If good is objective, then as I stated, God could have one without the other, and God would never create evil.

quote:Originally posted by PerpetualBurn:

No. I get it fine. I'm probably just too clever for you.

lol you really don't make yourself seem like a nice person.

If I came to an internet forum to show the world how nice I was then I'd be a pretty depressing person.

quote:Originally posted by Elephantitis Man:

But if you're the all powerful creator of the universe and the laws that govern it, why wouldn't you be able to defy the whole "yin yang" deal and make a universe with just good? Is god bound by the yin yang? Did he sit in heaven saying "Hmmm...I'd like to make a universe that has some good shit in it, which means it's gong to have alot of bad shit in it. Fuckin' yin yang. http://www.totse.com/bbs/mad.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/mad.gif)"

If god is bound to create evil in order to have any good, he's not omnipotent. Simple as that.

Perhaps you should be thankful that evil does exist. The existance of evil of a gift from god that allows you to experience the wonders of good. If all you had was good you simply wouldn't notice it was there. You would never experience grattitude.

So called "Evil" has a beauty of it's own. If people could appreciate the implications of evils existence maybe they wouldn't judge evil so negatively. It's just another facet of the whole. It's just another illusion for us to play with.

What people call "Evil" is just something that is there and it's your free will which decides how to judge evil and how to experience it.

It isn't something that can cause you eternal damage. Nothing can cause you eternal damage. Evil is just something that adds to the richness of life.

Cops and robbers is a fun game to play. Without the robber you have no game.

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:

1.) According to the Bible, evil does indeed exist; this objection is null unless you're referring to some other conception of God. I'm pretty sure the OP was referring to the Judeo-Christian God, though.

2.) The Bible also asserts that there is an objective good and evil, meaning (as PB said) that one doesn't require the other. Besides, God is omnipotent and can surely circumvent the rules of the universe He created.

1: He didn't mention xian God. Why can't this forum be about our musing of life rather than xianity? I mean Jesus Christ!!!

2: It still stands that you cannot have one without the other. If you take away good, how would you possibly be able to know what evil was? It's such an easy concept to understand.

You can't comprehend what is without having what is not.

[This message has been edited by ---Beany--- (edited 09-05-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by ---Beany---:

Perhaps you should be thankful that evil does exist. The existance of evil of a gift from god that allows you to experience the wonders of good. If all you had was good you simply wouldn't notice it was there. You would never experience grattitude.

I like to beat my children. Doing so makes them charish the days I'm nice to them that much more.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Elephantitis Man:



I like to beat my children. Doing so makes them charish the days I'm nice to them that much more.



Not a very mature father huh?

That's a hilarious comeback given what you had written before (you know, before you deleted it). Thanks for that, I love irony.

It's called sarcasm ---Beany---. It's used to show one how ridiculous his last statement was. Calling evil a "gift" from God, seems like a desperate attempt to protect the "goodness" of his God at all costs. If we can't enjoy good without evil, what will heaven be like?

Okay, so maybe I should retire from this thread.

So looong assholes!!

quote:Originally posted by ---Beany---:

Okay, so maybe I should retire from this thread.

So looong assholes!!

Thanks for that, it really makes me appreciate the times when you have been nice!

quote:Originally posted by ---Beany---:

Okay, so maybe I should retire from this thread.

So looong assholes!!

Why? Could it possibly be because your arguement has been blown out of the water and you are left speachless?

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:

Originally posted by IDontLoveYou:

I know what god he was talking about.

Then your reply is doubly stupid. Please explain why God wouldn't be inclined to prove His existance when He specifically states that He desires that all souls should come to salvation; that is, that all souls should believe in Him and accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour. Proving His existance is a valid method of bringing said souls to said salvation; I'm not sure what, exactly, your objection actually is.

Edit: And it would also be helpful if you were to explain why an omniscient being wouldn't want to be "so direct" (i.e., effective) in its "examples". As far as I'm aware, omniscience doesn't preclude directness. Perhaps you've got your words mixed up...?



Okay, I've read quite a bit of the bible. I do recall it saying that God no longer grants these signs simply because man demans it as proof.

I remember one time in the bible He did that, by telling a man to lay down a piece of material on the ground, and the next morning the ground was damp, yet the material was kept dry, or something equally stupid. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

When he was done, he commanded that he not demand proof from God again, and let faith take hold. This is back in a time, according to the bible of course, when God interacted with his creations. But he doesn't do that anymore, so why would he be inclined to grant this heat vision? I really don't understand how to make it clear for you, that this was simply a dumb proposition from the beginning.



Edit:Yeah, the God of the Bible wants us to believe in him, that's easy to take from the text, but the text also says he made us creatures of choice, and it should be through our own choice that we accept God into our lives. Rather than putting the burden of proof on our creator. The Bible says God leaves that decision up to us. Not to a one-time thing for every soul on the planet, in which he proves himself through such superficial means.

And look at that, I gave you a reply without personally insulting you, maybe you can try it.

[This message has been edited by IDontLoveYou (edited 09-05-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

Why? Could it possibly be because your arguement has been blown out of the water and you are left speachless?



It wasn't blown out of the water. I just realised that it's pointless talking to you guys.

Can you understand that?

Why is it pointless?

quote:Originally posted by IDontLoveYou:

Yeah, the God of the Bible wants us to believe in him, that's easy to take from the text, but the text also says he made us creatures of choice, and it should be through our own choice that we accept God into our lives. Rather than putting the burden of proof on our creator.

There are plenty of religions to pick from based on faith. How are we expected to choose the correct religion without evidence?

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

There are plenty of religions to pick from based on faith. How are we expected to choose the correct religion without evidence?

And how, exactly, is providing evidence taking away our ability to choose? The decision would still be left to us. http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif)

quote: But he doesn't do that anymore, so why would he be inclined to grant this heat vision?

That's my point: why doesn't He do it any more? It doesn't fit with the description of Him the Bible gives; if He doesn't try to save us, then He obviously doesn't really care if we're saved!

quote:And look at that, I gave you a reply without personally insulting you, maybe you can try it.

Point taken. Apologies. http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

quote:Originally posted by PerpetualBurn:

Only an idiot could think this was a flaw in the logic. The fact that the heat vision needs to be natural is implicit, and so your attempted rebuttal is a fallacy of irrelevance.

Only an idiot would refute a lengthy, intellectual, encompassing rebuttal like his due to his want of natural heat vision.

Which, if granted, I hope would involve a very painful and most likely fatal transition from human eyes to heat vision human eyes.

quote:Originally posted by One Kill Wonder:

Only an idiot would refute a lengthy, intellectual, encompassing rebuttal like his due to his want of natural heat vision.

If a rebuttal is based on false premises, it doesn't matter how lengthy, intellectual, or encompassing it is. I could spew out a page of wild rhetoric with ease, but it wouldn't make me right; length has nothing to do with truth.

[This message has been edited by Twisted_Ferret (edited 09-05-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

Why is it pointless?

Because you look down on other peoples ideas. You belittle them, which is why I lost interest after elephantmans sarcasm.

I haven't got time for that.

[This message has been edited by ---Beany--- (edited 09-05-2006).]

I wasn't being sarcastic; I was making a point, dumbass. A god administering a universe with evil to humans == a father administering occasional beatings to his kids. Both equally malevolent, and unnecessary to provide a good, happy environment.

And you know what? It's ok to look down on other peoples' ideas when they're illogical and/or scientifically unfounded. An omnibenevolent, omniscient, benevolent god is illogical, and sadly, is the view you support.

Arguing with someone who doesn't know what a "logical fallacy" is; that's something I haven't got time for.

quote:Originally posted by ---Beany---:

Because you look down on other peoples ideas. You belittle them, which is why I lost interest after elephantmans sarcasm.

I haven't got time for that.



By saying that you don't have time for his argument, you are belittling his! More importantly, it's hardly his fault if your point is unreasonable.

1. You don't apply your very own concept to your everyday life, because if you were doing so, you would be grateful for his posts! You obviously aren't.

2. We're talking about a god that is omnipotent, which makes your argument ultimately void. If the god in question is omnipotent, then presumably he has the power to make it so that we appreciate the good without the existence of the bad, thus making your point a non-issue.

This has nothing to do with not considering your ideas, this has to do with considering your ideas and then concluding that they fail.

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:

And how, exactly, is providing evidence taking away our ability to choose? The decision would still be left to us. http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif)

I never implied that evidence would take away our implied our ability to choose.

IDontLoveYou wrote:

Yeah, the God of the Bible wants us to believe in him, that's easy to take from the text, but the text also says he made us creatures of choice, and it should be through our own choice that we accept God into our lives. Rather than putting the burden of proof on our creator.

I'd like to know, with so many religions to pick from based on faith. How are we expected to choose the correct religion without evidence? What do we base our choice on?

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

I'd like to know, with so many religions to pick from based on faith. How are we expected to choose the correct religion without evidence? What do we base our choice on?

I'm not religious, so I don't know. I would say that the correct religion would simply feel right, and would make the most sense to you as a person.

Throughout this thread I've been arguing against the OP's logic, but I was only arguing because I didn't believe it to be a satisfactory way to judge whether or not God exists, not because I myself believe in God. Sorry if I confused you.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

I never implied that evidence would take away our implied our ability to choose.

I am aware of this. I was adding my objection to your own.