Well LexFontayne, I've never been one to pass-up a challange .

So your question is how could any kind of benevolent God allow horrible
things to happen?

Well, consider the alternative. What would it be like if everything was
wonderful all of the time, if Good ALWAYS triumphed over evil, etc.,
etc., etc...

You see it right? Life would be boring. Worse, we wouldn't know the
difference, because we would have no idea what good and bad were,
because we wouldn't have the opposites it takes to define them.

That is essentially the reason, as sentient beings, existence is defined
by opposites. Go ahead, show me something which doesn't have an
opposite. Even a unique object is defined by it's previous lack of
existence. Try to find something, please.

So, at our lowest, most depraved, most evil; this is the ultimate
opposite to the happiness we can achieve. All of that misery is there so
we have the capability of knowing "wonderful" when we have it. That way
we can appreciate the happy times, because we know what it's like when
it's bad.

Your friend with the broken arm, he was right.

You see, he was experiencing that "mysterious" design, he really
appreciated being alive because he was faced with the truth of his own
mortality.

Probably the only interesting belief I have is this:

I believe that evolution is a scientifically untenable theory (you can't
believe that science is right and also believe that evolution is right)

Further, I think atheism is illogical (meaning mathematical logic)

I also think most religious (atheists included) people are too
intolerant of other beliefs. I also feel that one should have a
rationale behind every belief they propose to have.

ely - I have a set path of beliefs. Did you not read them?

You state that you believe all religions, including atheists are
illogical. So do you have some basic beliefs that you live by with
some consistancy? What logic do YOU use, have you used in summoning
these beliefs?

ely, this thread was created for people to talk about their beliefs
without bashing the beliefs of others. Some of your comments however did
just that. But since you have made them anyway, I'd like to know how you
got to where you are now in your beliefs.
Red, I'm sorry about that

Tomo: So your question is how could any kind of benevolent God allow
horrible things to happen?

That's only the surface question. Because I don't see any pre-existing
requirement that a god, per se, be benevolent or malevolent or of any
particular anthropocentrically-defined disposition at all. The idea of
a god who sets things in motion, and then walks away, leaving "creation"
to its own devices, has a sort of maudlin appeal to me. Not that I
believe that's what happened, but it could offer a sort of explanation.

Tomo: Well, consider the alternative. What would it be like if
everything was wonderful all of the time, if Good ALWAYS triumphed over
evil, etc., etc., etc...

Well, I don't believe in good and evil, actually. There's a sort of a
human-based concept here, something along the general lines of "good =
whatever promotes or enhances the perpetuation of the human species,"
and evil being the opposite. There are exceptions (although one must
reduce the focus to a smaller perspective in order to identify them),
but it all boils down to the idea that there is something "good" or
"noble" or inherently "worthy of being saved" in humanity, and I don't
think thast's necessarily the case at all.

I don't try to quantify these things because I don't think they really
exist at all, outside of a biased human perspective.

I ask people if they think that the planet would be better off if humans
never existed; almost invariably, they say yes. What they miss, is the
point that, without humans, there would be nothing on the planet to
understand that concept of "better off." By the same token, in having
the ability to consider that scenario, humans also bring a bias into the
argument. While acknowledging that humans have done some bad things to
the planet, they are unable to place themselves in the mindset of
accepting individual responsibility.

Tomo: You see it right? Life would be boring. Worse, we wouldn't know
the difference, because we would have no idea what good and bad were,
because we wouldn't have the opposites it takes to define them.

Is "god" obligated somehow to provide us with a non-boring life? As an
atheist, I think that issue is left entirely up to me!

Tomo: That is essentially the reason, as sentient beings, existence is
defined by opposites. Go ahead, show me something which doesn't have an
opposite. Even a unique object is defined by it's previous lack of
existence. Try to find something, please.

That doesn't make any sense to me. What is the opposite of the sun?
The non-sun that didn't exist before the sun initially flared up? Then,
if you assume temporal physics has any validity at all, everything can
be broken down into pre-existent and post-existent. But these don't
even qualify as "opposites" in the semantic sense, because prior to
existing, one doesn't know precisely what WILL exist later, therefore,
one can make no determination of opposites from the "pre-existent"
position.

What is the opposite of my car? Another car? A fish? A ladder? The
parts of my car before they were processed and refined and formed into a
car? That doesn't make any sense either. How can the parts of
something be the opposite of what that thing will later become?

I don't see it in terms of opposites at all. The sun exists, my car
exists, a dog in the park exists. These are not degrees of things, or
degrees of opposition. They just are.

Tomo: So, at our lowest, most depraved, most evil; this is the ultimate
opposite to the happiness we can achieve. All of that misery is there so
we have the capability of knowing "wonderful" when we have it. That way
we can appreciate the happy times, because we know what it's like when
it's bad.

I studied psychology for seven years, and I can tell you there are many,
many people who find their happiness in inflicting what you might call
"evil" on others. Depravity works for some people; or, at least, they
believe so enough to live their lives that way. I don't think you can
pigeonhole human behavior into such neat little "good" and "evil" boxes,
though.

Tomo: Your friend with the broken arm, he was right.
You see, he was experiencing that "mysterious" design, he really
appreciated being alive because he was faced with the truth of his own
mortality.

As are we all. And yet, I have come to the realization (right or wrong)
that there is no compelling reason for me to accept the idea that
anything resembling "god" exists.

It's no mystery that we must necessarily find ourselves living on an
inhabitable planet, in an inhabitable universe. Were it in any way
otherwise, we would not be here to realize that we are here in the first
place.

There could be a god, yes, I acknowledge the possibility. There could
also be an invisible 90-foot-tall orangutan following me around all day
without my knowledge. I think both propositions are equally likely (or
unlikely) inasmuch as I have yet to see a single shred of evidence that
either could be true.

In the absence of any such indicators, I believe my time is best spent
dealing with the realities of life, as opposed to what could be and
endless series of hypotheticals, which -- ultimately -- can have no
bearing whatsoever on my existence as an individual.

I will be the first to admit that I could be wrong.

I don't know anything for certain.

So I have to go with what I can see, what I can read, and try to
understand, and make some sort of coherent and cohesive world-view in
which I can function.

That world-view has changed several times in my life, and may very well
change again.

Fair enough, although I think you might have misunderstood where I was
coming from. I'm not religious myself, have no faith in any "supreme
being", and so would never try to "convert" anyone.

I was just trying to point out that if there is a "why" to the bad that
happens (even if you don't acknowledge "good" and "evil", judging from
your previous posts, you do acknowledge positive and negative
situations-based off each individuals perception.)

So yes, the opposite of a car is a "not-car", because we need and have
that frame work for our perceptions. For example, there is a joke that
explains men's sexual development: In the beginning, the wonder what it
is, then they wonder when they're going to get it; after that they
wonder when they are going to get it again, till finally, they wonder IF
they'll ever get it again-all the while remembering when they got it
before.

Also, think about this, a car is considered

Tomo, it looks like you got cut off in the middle of a sentence there!
Please come back and finish your thought!

Hey, I want to raise a semantics issue with you, though. I'm not sure
you can say the opposite of car is not-car. Because there are all kinds
of things that are "not-car" -- a duck, a mountain, a bowl of spaghetti,
a cloud, a saxophone -- and I don't really see how you can qualitatively
assime that all of these are equally "opposite." Maybe a better way to
put it would be that a duck and a bicycle are both "not-car" but the
bicycle is thematically more consistent with the car (i.e., non-living
object designed for purposes of transportation), therefore less
"not-car" but still "not-car."

Otherwise you have a situation where everything has an infinite number
of "opposites" -- which completely defeats the purpose of the term
"opposite" in the first place, insofar as being antithetical.

OK, that's a nitpick (!) but I would like to have the terminology all
settled and comprehensible on this thing!

And thank you for replying -- I have read a number of your other posts
and find them clear, well-thought-out, and fun to read....!

(Which I don't see nearly enough of those on this here forum!)

Redykeulous and invisible:

The initial post says that we are to post replies outlining our beliefs.
One of my personal beliefs is that atheism is illogical. No one is
required to accept the validity of logic. I do not try to demean those
who choose to reject the usual sense of logic. All I am saying is that
atheism is not self-consistent. Perhaps many atheists do not care about
being self-consistent... whatever. That's immaterial to me. I was merely
outlining my belief that the rules of classical and mathematical logic
preclude atheism from being true. You're welcome to disagree with me and
I do not fault you or criticize you for doing so. I was merely trying to
expose my particular set of beliefs to the JSH readers, which was the
purpose of the thread.

Since you brought it up, however, I would like to provide a very brief
explanation of my point of view. I probably won't reply to any posts you
make in response to this one, merely because I don't like using forum
space for arguments. You're welcome to instant message me if you'd like
to take up the discussion further, but arguing about religion over IM is
rarely effective... the simple transmission of ideas just isn't able to
take place. Anyway, here's my claim:

If strict naturalism is true, meaning that the entire material universe
has always existed (perhaps in different states) and no God or external
force exists which can act upon it positively, then I claim that atheism
has no basis for being believed.

If the strict brand of naturalism that I just described is true, then it
must be the case that every physical event is the byproduct of random
interactions bewteen particles. Thus, the existence of solar systems,
nebulae, star formations, planets, etc, are all merely the random
byproducts of particle interactions. Logically, then, our own solar
system is the product of random particle interactions, hence the planet
Earth is the product of random particle interactions.

Then surely life on earth is (ultimately) the product of random particle
interactions, and hence human beings are also random products of
particles. If that's the case, then every human thought is the byproduct
of particle interactions (brain chemistry).

The grand result: every thought is ultimately the accidental byproduct
of accidental particle interactions. Or else it is the necessary by
product of particle interactions progressing according to an unalterable
course governed solely by the laws of physics which force the particle
interactions.

In case one, every human thought is an accident. Thus, this very post is
an accident and every category of human religious thought has been an
accident. Since there is no reason to believe one accident can give a
correct account of all the other accidents, this case effectively says
that human knowledge is such that it cannot differentiate between what
is true and what is the subjective result of random particle
interactions. Hence, you cannot claim that your thoughts about atheism
are themselves valid (because they, like every other thought, are mere
accidental byproducts).

In case two, one is claiming that every thought is a required thought.
Essentially this says that if one were given enough data about the
universe, one could calculate every single thing that is about to happen
(including every thought). This obviously precludes free will from
existing. Now, it might be the case that free will does not exist, but I
think most thinking people realize that it's absurd to claim that free
will does not exist. But, this does not supply any evidence that it does
exist.

The problem with case two is that it also makes arguing for or against
atheism (or any set of beliefs for that matter) ridiculously irrelevant.
Case two is saying that people who believe abortion is wrong, for
example, only do so because their brain chemistry requires them to. And
if ever they were to change their mind about it, that would also be due
solely to brain chemistry. Case two says that all atheists are atheists
because they have no free will to be non-atheists... and all
non-atheists cannot help but to be non-atheists. If that is the case
(which it may be) then it is still absurd to argue that atheism is true,
because the arguing process is a compelled process, the listening
process is also compelled and therefore you can't fault anyone for
believing as they do.

To summarize,

a belief in atheism requires one of the following two cases:

1. everything is the random byproduct of particle reactions
2. everything is the required byproduct of particle reactions.

Case one makes all human thought untrustworthy (which it clearly is not
untrustworthy, or else we would not use science).

Case two makes all arguments irrelevant. If they are irrelevant, that's
fine, but no atheist has ever made an argument that all arguments are
irrelevant (nor could they).

This is why I feel that atheism is illogical... but again, no one is
forced to accept logic in the traditional sense. That's an axiom that I
(along with every scientist alive) am taking for granted. If you want to
argue about logic, go ahead, but since I am taking it as an axiom you'll
have to find someone else to argue with about it.

Thanks for your post, though. I always want to be clear that I'm not
trying to qualify others' beliefs as 'right' or 'wrong.' I am just
making observations about them and how they interplay with mathematical
logic.

And now I am getting some chinese food.

elyspears wrote:
“In case one, every human thought is an accident.

In case two, one is claiming that every thought is a required thought.”

Ely, I have no desire to argue with your philosophy but I would like to
offer the following comments for whatever they’re worth.

I would agree with your logical conclusions if I agreed with your
premises. However, I think your premises are overly simplistic.

In case one, you presume that all human thought is an accident. In case
two, you presume that every possible thought is required.

It seems to me that you are neglecting the observed nature of the
universe. On the quantum scale there is genuine randomness. However,
on the macro scale there genuinely exists cause & effect.

So it is quite logical to assume that both of these (randomness and
cause & effect) can come into play simultaneously. This would
especially be true with something like the human brain and thought
processes which can be driven by both the macro and micro processes
simultaneously.

This would require you to at lease consider a third case, where both
random and required thoughts are interacting. Personally, I think that
would toss a serious wrench in your logic right there.

However, I would even argue that a forth case would be necessary (and
possible more), and that fourth case would include the fact that in
addition to having spontaneously occurring thoughts, you would also need
to consider thoughts stored in memory that could potentially be called
up by either the micro quantum randomness or by the macro cause &
effect. I mean, even if a purely atheistic world you’d to be reading
and responding to other posts, etc. So there is a cause & effect going
on. Plus there would be quantum randomness not only in your brain, but
in all of the other individuals whom you are interacting with.

In short, I think your logic is far too over-simplified to produce a
compelling argument to any educated physicist. It certainly hasn’t
convinced me. But once again I remind you that it’s not in your logic,
but rather because of you extremely overly-simplified premises.

The world just isn’t that simple.

Just my thoughts, and certainly not meant to engage in a discussion over
this. If you disagree with me that’s perfectly fine. I’ll just accept
that and leave it as such.

It's interesting that you bring up quantum mechanics, because that is
actually what I am studying in school.

I would encourage you to read the paper "Randomness by Design" by the
Baylor mathematician William Dembski. It outlines a lot of my own
thoughts on randomness.

The state of quantum mechanics is in a mild degree of disarray right now
over just these exact issues. Think about Roger Penrose's book "The
Emporer's New Mind" vs. the writings of Max Weber and Heisenburg.
There's not a clear cut viewing of this stuff and I think the main
problem is that people seem to think that "chance" is a tangible
external force that causes action to take place.

The nature of chance is not a causal nature, and thus quantum mechanics
cannot produce conclusions to its own problems. Logic requires that
every effect have a cause, whether it is observable or not. Quantum
mechanics merely explains that we cannot always see the cause. Logic
still demands that there is one. I find that this does not cause much
trouble for religious people because they have been saying there are
unseen causes all along.

But for atheism this presents exactly the logical problems I was
mentioning earlier. Either everything has a determinable cause or the
first thing had no such cause and thus nothing (ultimately) has a cause.
Therefore, I still think my premises are valid. If the way we observe
the macroscale today doesn't seem to be totally random or totally
deterministic, that is completely irrelevant. Logic, which is
pre-emptive to even physics or observation, demands that such
deterministic causes do exist. Naturalism says that they do exist as
well. Which leads to the contradiction I was speaking of before.

So again, even from a quantum mechanical point of view, everything is
either (in principle) deterministic, or it is totally random. Just
because we can't observe its cause does not mean it is random. I think
the above mentioned article by Dembski provides a much more rigorous
response, so again I really encourage you to look into it (I found it
for free online about 2 months ago... it's about 30 pages, not too
long).

Thanks for you post. Most people I talk with cannot even begin to
discuss this subject at this level. I really appreciate having someone
to try my ideas out on.

This I beleive...


My views are whacked. I beleive in the literal interpretation of the
Bible. I beleive that its content is reasonably accurate. Thats right, I
beleive in a "young earth", but literalism runs both ways. I beleive
Adam wasnt the 1st man.

I beleive The Law applied to Jews only, and for a limited time - until
the time of the Messiah. That messiah is Jesus. I beleive Jesus was man,
not divine. I beleive he died, and did resurrect.

I reject the idea of a 'hell'. I reject the idea of a 'heaven' [at least
in the way most ppl beleive it]. I reject the idea that "innocent
non-christians" rot in 'hell'.

My mission in life is to make people's lives around me better. Make them
better by my actions, not necessarily my words. In doing this, I am
making "heaven on earth" a literal reality.

Feel free to email me if you violently disagree, or would like o know
how-on-earth did I come to these conclusions.

-Mike