Why do I need god?: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » Why do I need god? » Why do I need god?

Why do I need god?
A final challenge to you theists

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Why do I need god?

Lex
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 173

Posted 04/23/08 - 06:25 AM:	#176
Techeth wrote: I apologies again I didn't think it was that difficult to understand, let me explain. I said you must have been abused by "dogs" because you refer to people as pet dogs (please my read previous post). As I said I don't know why I used the word "abused" it was a while ago, I can't remember but I imagine it had something to do with the hostility that seemed present in your post, but I'm not sure so I apologised. It wasn't a question there was no question mark. Can I assume you are too tired to continue? Since you said "I do not know how 'abused' figures into this", rather than "I do not remember why I even used 'abused' anymore", I logically assumed you were referring to my use of the word. Of course not too tired to continue, I am simply tired of sifting through comments so lacking in content that even you do not know what you were talking about in a few days. If you have an argument to make, please do. But this time, make it an actual argument about the topic. Thank you.

DarkHorse
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 14, 2008
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 44

Posted 04/23/08 - 11:26 AM:	#177
Lex wrote: Sounds like a cowardly submission to a mysterious tyrant. You would consider it cowardly to submit to an omnipotent being? I can understand fighting against a tyrant if there is even the smallest, most miniscule chance of defeating it, in fact, I would happily do so. If, however, there is absolutely no chance of defeating the tyrant (if, for example, the tyrant is omnipotent) then I would suggest that it is cowardice TO fight. It is the easy way out to be squashed by an undefeatable tyrant. What would require true courage would be to serve the tyrant in an attempt to temper its tyranny. Regardless, I must call into question the label'tyrant.' I know of no circumstances in which the Christian God has engaged in acts of tyranny. All the commandments in the OT were for the benefit fo His people, and all the commands in the NT were for the benefit of All people. It could even be argued that it was for the greater good of mankind that various peoples were destroyed by the Isrealites. Most of them were, after all, quite 'dark side' in character, practicing child sacrifice, invading others, and generally being greedy and malicious. I think it is important to note that ultimate power does not necessarily make God tyrannical. Hoka Hey!
History is the only laboratory we have in which to test the consequences of thought.--Etienne Gilson

DarkHorse
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 14, 2008
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 44

Posted 04/23/08 - 12:18 PM:	#178
Makarismos wrote: This is only true providing that real life people will be able to exercise the control your approach (and that of the catholic church) requires. *You assume by this that people do not have* to have sex at all, that they simply chose to. I suggest that this is entirely false: people have sex because that is one thing that people do. They do not do it to be "naughty", or because they want to be "sinful", it is because they are human. Modern psychological theory would have you believe this, yes, but historic evidence greatly contradicts this idea. I will agree that humans are supposed to have sex. I do not agree that it is appropriate outside the bounds of marriage. The evidence of millions, if not billions of monks, nuns, pious fools, many Jews depending on their time period, and other generally decent people (yes, I know there were many that failed at this, but surely many also stayed the course) suggests that sex is not an innate drive such as hunger, but rather something that grows in people, and can also be starved in people. It has been rather successfully throughout history on several occasions. Basically, you are wrong, humanity is not by nature required to have sex outside of marriage. Makarismos wrote: You posit an "ideal" reality, where humans were different than they are, and consequently had happier lives. I deny your alternative, because it does not match the facts of what humans are. Yes, If no one ever had extra marital sex, aids progress would slow down: however we would need a population composed of saints, or angles, and not humans. My friend, you are very much a product of modern culture. If ideal realities were never pursued, the majority of the good things in this world, with a special emphasis on the democratic form of government and the natural rights of man, would not exist. Having said that, perhaps it is not within the morality of the current culture to prevent extra marital sex, perhaps it is even, by your standards at least, idealistic. But it was not always. Such abstinence was once the norm, meaning that it is not impossible, nor is it solely the realm of saints and angels. Is it so wrong for the church to call for a return of those circumstances? People may contract AIDS for not following it, but faced with the spread of AIDS on an epidemic scale, and the relative difficulty to treat this disease by conventional means, perhaps some unorthodox approaches are required. Makarismos wrote: The continent you were speaking of - Africa - is different than the USA or the UK. If you lived there, It would not be possible (for the average person) to get yourself or your partner tested for aids. It would not be possible to be treated for aids if you happened to have it. Contracting aids would mean, does mean, a death sentance. If we further consider that areas of Africa consists of a majoraty of HIV sufferers - you can see the implications of your view: Strict abstinence would mean that the majority of some areas "should" lie down and die, should not reproduce, should not have sex. For humanity this would be a good thing - but it is unrealistic to expect this kind of behaviour from human beings.** I am not saying that Africans sufferering from AIDS should not reproduce. I am saying that the frequent exchange of partners contributes to the spread of AIDS, and this is the case whether you are in UK, US, or Sub-Saharan Africa. A single partner for life would greatly diminish the rampant spread. Makarismos wrote: If you read carefully I offered a choice - either AIDS was meant as a punishment, or else it wasnt. This was in an attempt to understand what you meant: I do not know anything about you or your opinion other than what you type, so if we are to discuss things I realy do need to offer you some choices, wouldnt you agree? Fine then, if AIDS is not a punishment, then what are you saying?:- I am saying that the spread of AIDS could be better prevented by abstaining from sex outside of marriage. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't know from where you got the idea that I think AIDS is a punishment from God, but I think that such an occurence is quite unlikely. Makarismos wrote: Notice how if asked if you had arguments - I did not ask if you had an opinion (I had worked this out already from what you have been saying). You did reply, but mainly with an opinion:- And this I cannot fault. If you believe in god, then far be it from me to attempt to reason you one way or another. I myself am not sure what is meant by the term “god” - but do know that whatever is being referred to is way beyond what can be logically proven or disproven. This leaves only faith, and that cannot be argued with. Perhaps can never be argued with, unless we transcend what it is to be human. The original post asked why God was needed, not if He existed. If you want proof of God, I would suggest reading Lee Strobel's The Case for A Creator, and if you want a definition of God, I would suggest Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis.(Mere Christianity is in somewhat old fashioned language, but it is quite accurate and concise in my opinion). Both are pretty easy and quick reads. Makarismos wrote: I agree that an individual is clever, thoughtful, and will react in surprising ways: people as a group are predictable, stupid, and thoughtless. As a collective humanity is unlikely to become virtuous overnight, however if we were to spread a few hundred thousand condoms around, and show people how to use them, there would be less people in the world to mess it up, and less AIDS, and less orphans. Cheers I too agree that, a person is smart, but people are dumb, panicky, and thoughtless. However, it has been said that faith must be personal. Therefore, while birth control might provide a short term solution, it will not fix the problem. Faith, short of a miracle, will not either, but it does have a better chance of preventing the spread of AIDS than giving a few thousand condoms to the masses and hoping that they are not too thoughtless to forget to use them, or too stupid to ignore the need for some solution to the problem. I'm just saying that abstinence from extra marital sex certainly won't hurt, and will be better in the long run. And just because its idealistic doesn't mean it can't happen, just that everybody Thinks it can't happen. Hoka Hey!
History is the only laboratory we have in which to test the consequences of thought.--Etienne Gilson

Makarismos
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 558

Posted 04/23/08 - 02:00 PM:	#179
DarkHorse wrote: I too agree that, a person is smart, but people are dumb, panicky, and thoughtless. However, it has been said that faith must be personal. Therefore, while birth control might provide a short term solution, it will not fix the problem. Faith, short of a miracle, will not either, but it does have a better chance of preventing the spread of AIDS than giving a few thousand condoms to the masses and hoping that they are not too thoughtless to forget to use them, or too stupid to ignore the need for some solution to the problem. I'm just saying that abstinence from extra marital sex certainly won't hurt, and will be better in the long run. And just because its idealistic doesn't mean it can't happen, just that everybody Thinks it can't happen. Hoka Hey! Well I guess at this stage we are at an impasse: with no empirical research to refer to neither of us can claim we are correct. I could point to historical extramarital sex, bastards who ascended to the throne - you could easily claim these to be the rare exceptions to the general law. Neither of us would have any kind of proof, and the discussion would no doubt become rather tedious. I guess what we do agree on, is a couple of conditionals:- If people were monogamous in the majority, then the spread of aids would be greatly diminished. If this is not possible, then another method might be necessary, such as protected sex. It strikes me that timeframes are important: It might take some time to embed either thing within a society: It would take time to change social habits so that safe sex was considered right and proper, and was exercised upon a scale sufficient to help the epidemic. It might take some time to change social habits so that monogamy was considered right and proper, and was exercised upon a scale sufficient to help the epidemic. I will read your books and their definitions of god at some point in the future, but would maintain that many varied definitions exist for god, gods, God, Allah, et al. I myself am rather fond of god as the entire complexity of the universe, as I believe complexity can be well understood anthropomorphically.. Still none of this says why anyone needs god - so I declare this line of thought a bit off topic if were being strict. To be honest, the question as to a need for god cannot be answered objectively, surely any kind of need is personal? Cheers for the chat. M

Techeth
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2008
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 247

Posted 04/23/08 - 03:12 PM:	#180
Lex wrote: Since you said "I do not know how 'abused' figures into this", rather than "I do not remember why I even used 'abused' anymore", I logically assumed you were referring to my use of the word. I actually said "I don't know where abused came from I apologise". How logical you assumtion was I am not so sure, but I am glad we can move on. Lex wrote: Of course not too tired to continue, I am simply tired of sifting through comments so lacking in content that even you do not know what you were talking about in a few days. If you have an argument to make, please do. But this time, make it an actual argument about the topic. Thank you. Oh seems we can not. The only comment I was unsure about was one I made about you, you must be able to understand why I considered it so insignificant. Clearly you do not want to address my point so, I will leave you to your thoughts.
Studying is like rowing against the current, if you are not moving forward, you are moving backward. - Chinese proverb Life's a bitch but God forbid the bitch divorce me! - Anon Silence makes the soul feel sick - Timid Timothy

Lex
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 173

Posted 04/23/08 - 05:18 PM:	#181
DarkHorse wrote: You would consider it cowardly to submit to an omnipotent being? I can understand fighting against a tyrant if there is even the smallest, most miniscule chance of defeating it, in fact, I would happily do so. If, however, there is absolutely no chance of defeating the tyrant (if, for example, the tyrant is omnipotent) then I would suggest that it is cowardice TO fight. It is the easy way out to be squashed by an undefeatable tyrant. What would require true courage would be to serve the tyrant in an attempt to temper its tyranny. Regardless, I must call into question the label'tyrant.' I know of no circumstances in which the Christian God has engaged in acts of tyranny. All the commandments in the OT were for the benefit fo His people, and all the commands in the NT were for the benefit of All people. It could even be argued that it was for the greater good of mankind that various peoples were destroyed by the Isrealites. Most of them were, after all, quite 'dark side' in character, practicing child sacrifice, invading others, and generally being greedy and malicious. I think it is important to note that ultimate power does not necessarily make God tyrannical. Hoka Hey! Well if he is not a tyrant he is certainly not omnipotent, and in fact quite stupid for making people idiotic enough to misuse HIS commandments and actually let them create evil in HIS name. It makes no sense no matter how I look at it, and if it makes no sense, then I will not believe it. Why in the world should I believe in nonsense just because someone wrote it in a book 2000 years ago? Besides, there cannot be such a thing as an omnipotent tyrant. We make our own choices, the tyrant is in your head.

DarkHorse
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 14, 2008
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 44

Posted 04/24/08 - 06:11 PM:	#182
Makarismos wrote: Well I guess at this stage we are at an impasse: with no empirical research to refer to neither of us can claim we are correct. I could point to historical extramarital sex, bastards who ascended to the throne - you could easily claim these to be the rare exceptions to the general law. Neither of us would have any kind of proof, and the discussion would no doubt become rather tedious. I guess what we do agree on, is a couple of conditionals:- If people were monogamous in the majority, then the spread of aids would be greatly diminished. If this is not possible, then another method might be necessary, such as protected sex. It strikes me that timeframes are important: It might take some time to embed either thing within a society: It would take time to change social habits so that safe sex was considered right and proper, and was exercised upon a scale sufficient to help the epidemic. It might take some time to change social habits so that monogamy was considered right and proper, and was exercised upon a scale sufficient to help the epidemic. I will read your books and their definitions of god at some point in the future, but would maintain that many varied definitions exist for god, gods, God, Allah, et al. I myself am rather fond of god as the entire complexity of the universe, as I believe complexity can be well understood anthropomorphically.. Still none of this says why anyone needs god - so I declare this line of thought a bit off topic if were being strict. To be honest, the question as to a need for god cannot be answered objectively, surely any kind of need is personal? Cheers for the chat. M The great wit anonymous once said, "a good compromise leaves everyone angry." Fortunately, we have not compromised as much as agreed to disagree, but you're right in that both solutions will take time. What we really need to do is to just cure AIDS completely (of course, that has always been the best solution, so never mind). I agree that any need of god is personal, but I also believe that is universal in that all humans, need him. You would disagree. Still, good chat. And do read those books, they might give a some insight. They also might not. Au revoir mon general! D
History is the only laboratory we have in which to test the consequences of thought.--Etienne Gilson

DarkHorse
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 14, 2008
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 44

Posted 04/24/08 - 06:43 PM:	#183
Lex wrote: Well if he is not a tyrant he is certainly not omnipotent, and in fact quite stupid for making people idiotic enough to misuse HIS commandments and actually let them create evil in HIS name. It makes no sense no matter how I look at it, and if it makes no sense, then I will not believe it. Why in the world should I believe in nonsense just because someone wrote it in a book 2000 years ago? God's omnipotence does not preclude Him from benevolence. He is omnipotent, therefore can do anything, therefore can be benevolent if He wants to. He is not necessarily stupid for making people idiots. He could be just naive, or, more likely, believed in a concept known as free will. Humans have to be able to disobey, misuse His commandments, and create evil in His or anyone else's name, otherwise their faith, devotion, or whatever else you want to call it would be meaningless. If I can't disobey, obeying has no meaning. So that's why He allows evil. As to why you should believe a book written by a bunch of fishermen 2000ish years ago, one argument, among others, is that its too absurd Not to be true. Lex wrote: Besides, there cannot be such a thing as an omnipotent tyrant. We make our own choices, the tyrant is in your head. Wait, above you said that there cannot be a non omnipotent tyrant, now you say that there cannot be an omnipotent tyrant? Anyway, this tyrant, as you insist on calling Him, does not stop us from making choices. One of the basics is that we DO make our own choices. As to Him being all in my head, well, I suppose its possible that God is one mass hallucination, but many have seen evidence of His existence. Of course, this will sound like religious mumbo jumbo to you, and in that area, I can't really help you. We could debate the truth and authenticity of the bible for another hundred pages. I'm confident of it, but the fact of the matter is all we will ever really have is evidence, not absolutes. All reality is brought through my head, my job is to sift fact from fiction. I don't think this particular bit of information is false. Hoka Hey!
History is the only laboratory we have in which to test the consequences of thought.--Etienne Gilson

Lex
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 173

Posted 04/26/08 - 01:24 PM:	#184
I don't see why an omnipotent being creates a petri dish experiment just to see "little people" suffer. If he is omnipotent, he should already know and have everything and anything he needs without directing this comedy. "but many have seen evidence of His existence": give it to me. That evidence. If you don't have it, stop saying that. None of what you say is an argument for why religion is valid. You simply said that you like to believe it.

DarkHorse
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 14, 2008
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 44

Posted 04/26/08 - 07:09 PM:	#185
Lex wrote: I don't see why an omnipotent being creates a petri dish experiment just to see "little people" suffer. If he is omnipotent, he should already know and have everything and anything he needs without directing this comedy. I do not claim to know the reasoning behind God's actions, for all I know he might have just been bored, and we are all an audience looking at His world and too afraid to laugh. It may be immortal whimsy that we are here on this planet, or may be we are just here to be battlefield for the metaphysical and supernatural. I don't know. If you really want to know, why don't you ask God? There are a couple of plausible explanations, the best is that, He felt like it, and it pleased Him to do it. That goes along with some pretty intricate theology about creating mankind as an avenue to get rid of sin. You have to have suffering on earth in order to know that suffering exists and know that we would much prefer it if it would go away. Thus, basically, we suffer so that God can send Christ, as a human, to suffer, and thus stop suffering for all creation (animals, angels, whatever else there is, etc.) Lex wrote: "but many have seen evidence of His existence": give it to me. That evidence. If you don't have it, stop saying that. None of what you say is an argument for why religion is valid. You simply said that you like to believe it. I still maintain that one of the best arguments is that its too outlandish Not to be true. Other than that, there is pretty good evidence that Christ existed, did miracles, and rose from the dead, even Josephus talked about Jesus. That seems to indicate that at least Christ existed. There are basically four options with Jesus, that he was a Liar, Lunatic, Legend, or Lord. The frequency and nature of His miracles, especially the resurrection, seem to indicate that he was not a liar. The historical evidence and prevalence of accounts about Jesus seems to indicate that he was, in fact, a real person, and was generally within the bounds of what is told about Him. None of His actions reveal the symptoms of mental illness. The best you could do is declare that He was a Narcissistic Schizophrenic, but he does not have any of the symptoms of such. He is just too grounded in reality. Plus, there's the miracles again. That only leaves one option. If there is a Christ, there is probably a God, but even without that assumption, there is geological and astronomical evidence that a creator has put the Earth where it is, in the way it is, and designed everything on it in such a way that works too well to be an accident. If you want more on this, and in greater detail, try Lee Strobel's The Case for a Creator. That, or calculate the odds of a world capable of sustaining intelligent life existing. I believe you will find that it is next to impossible. And if that doesn't convince you, I put it to you to answer how the universe began without a creator. (And please don't give me the Big Bang, or at least if you do, tell me what made the bang.) Hoka Hey!
History is the only laboratory we have in which to test the consequences of thought.--Etienne Gilson

Lex
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 173

Posted 04/27/08 - 06:08 PM:	#186
DarkHorse wrote: I do not claim to know the reasoning behind God's actions, for all I know he might have just been bored, and we are all an audience looking at His world and too afraid to laugh. It may be immortal whimsy that we are here on this planet, or may be we are just here to be battlefield for the metaphysical and supernatural. Well the church would beg to differ if you say that god was just bored. And THEY are the ones who represent religion. DarkHorse wrote: I don't know. If you really want to know, why don't you ask God? Did. No response. DarkHorse wrote: Thus, basically, we suffer so that God can send Christ, as a human, to suffer, and thus stop suffering for all creation (animals, angels, whatever else there is, etc.) Ridiculous. Humans should take responsibility for their own suffering, hoping for a savior is for sheep. In fact, Nazis were just following a savior. DarkHorse wrote: there is pretty good evidence that Christ existed, did miracles, and rose from the dead, even Josephus talked about Jesus. That seems to indicate that at least Christ existed The historical evidence and prevalence of accounts about Jesus seems to indicate that he was, in fact, a real person Plus, there's the miracles again. That only leaves one option. gib mir. Give me. The proof, rather than repeating for the zillionth time that you have it. Give me one text written by Jesus. Wait, there are none. The world's most important man, and the wisest, and he did not leave as much as a poem behind. You gave no evidence. There is no good evidence (as you state) besides what the bible says, and taking that as evidence defeats the purpose of critical analysis. DarkHorse wrote: calculate the odds of a world capable of sustaining intelligent life existing. I believe you will find that it is next to impossible. And if that doesn't convince you, I put it to you to answer how the universe began without a creator. (And please don't give me the Big Bang, or at least if you do, tell me what made the bang.) Hoka Hey! I'm sorry but we have science. Ten thousand years ago, humans attributed rain to deities. To them the water cycle was beyond what quantum physics is to you. Obviously, right now it seems foolish. Just because science is not advanced enough to explain all your fantasies, you can't dismiss it. I am quite certain that with time we will have the computational capacity to understand the universe around us better, assuming religious freaks do not blow all of us up in the name of peace.

DarkHorse
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 14, 2008
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 44

Posted 04/28/08 - 12:08 PM:	#187
Lex wrote: Ridiculous. Humans should take responsibility for their own suffering, hoping for a savior is for sheep. In fact, Nazis were just following a savior. The surest way to win an argument is to compare your opponent/oponent's opinion to the Nazis. Sorry, I don't buy it. Anything can go too far. In any case, I didn't say that it was humanity solely that needed the savior, I said that Christ became human to become a savior for all creation. That means it was angels, etc. who needed the savior, not just humanity. So actually, humans are taking responsibility for someone else's actions. Lex wrote: gib mir. Give me. The proof, rather than repeating for the zillionth time that you have it. Give me one text written by Jesus. Wait, there are none. The world's most important man, and the wisest, and he did not leave as much as a poem behind. You gave no evidence. There is no good evidence (as you state) besides what the bible says, and taking that as evidence defeats the purpose of critical analysis. The Bible is a legitimate primary source, despite, or rather regardless of, its religious content. It could even be counted as several primary sources, because it is just a compilation of a number of oral histories and letters. I do, however, understand why you might be hesitant to believe it after it has been in the hands of the religious institution that it expounds for so long. But what about the histories of Josephus? What about the fact that the Bible is one of the best documented and supported sources we have before the 19th century, especially with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. [quote=Lex] I'm sorry but we have science. Ten thousand years ago, humans attributed rain to deities. To them the water cycle was beyond what quantum physics is to you. Obviously, right now it seems foolish. Just because science is not advanced enough to explain all your fantasies, you can't dismiss it. I am quite certain that with time we will have the computational capacity to understand the universe around us better, assuming religious freaks do not blow all of us up in the name of peace. And that very same science, along with its partner, logic, is exactly what tells us that the universe has to have been created. Hoka Hey!
History is the only laboratory we have in which to test the consequences of thought.--Etienne Gilson

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.