EnviroLink Forum

Alright, I just wanted to establish that you do indeed believe things based in none other than personal experience. This is perfectly reasonable and the criteria for what you do and don't is, of course, up to the one beleiving.

_________________
TANG SOO!

It's evidence that gets replicated and can be, and sometimes is, documented.
Here's are pictures of a quite nice food served up by the missus:





I have good reason to believe, based on such evidence, that the very good food that gets routinely presented might continue.

To my knowledge, there is no such comparable evidence or images of deities that can be proven to exist.

Thousands a day starve to death. If an omnipotent god could cook like my missus and, if omnipotent would be able to, those thousands would not starve to death.
But they do.

The only logical conclusion is that no such god exists.

I believe I see Christ at the Resurrection and Ascent into Heaven in the top picture. Save the food and sell it to some fool on ebay for thousands!!!
PS: and worship your wife!!

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”
― Chief Seattle

I fully understand how the pistol works.

If you don't like the idea that the force of stopping the bulet in the barrel could have pushed the barrel forward a tiny bit making the firing pin be slightly too far back from the round to activate it when the trigger was pulled next time, how about the idea that the slide had a more than the usual kick pushing it back as the brass cartridge was ejected by most of the energy of the charge because the explosion was confined by the bullet being jammed in a barrel clogged by residue?

Don't use the dangerous thing again!

Yes to all the above!
:)

Dinner's existence isn't in question. You claimed that it would be excellent. There is no evidence of this other than your word.



So you say. What reason have we to believe you or that your assumptions are correct?

There is currently enough food in the world to feed every living human. Now, who's fault is it someone isn't eating?

_________________
TANG SOO!

Since I ate it and enjoyed it, that's all the evidence I needed.





Thousands of people a DAY die of starvation. That isn't an assumption.
http://www.bread.org/hunger/global/

Okay. Next time someone tells me that they prayed and that the prayer was answered, I'll take their word for it.



Yet, your belief that an omnipotent God would take care of such things if s/he existed, is an assumption.

_________________
TANG SOO!

You must admit her food looks good and presentation is a significant part of making food enjoyable.




That's puting it back to front.
An omnipotent god, if such exists, could take care of such things.
Yet, an omnipotent god, if such exists, clearly does not.
If you saw someone starving or otherwise in harm's way wouldn't you do something about it if you could?
I would.

An omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenovelent entity yet all the starvation, murder, victims of Tsunamis (20,000 in Japan last time) just isn't logical.
I thus do not have any belief that such an entity exists or even can exist.
So, back to your comment.
It is neither my belief nor my assumption that an omnipotent God would take care of such things.

[/quote]

Even if I did, even if I tasted it and agreed wholeheartedly with you, it wouldn't prove your point.

But yes, it looks great.

[/quote]Free-will and choice introduce the possibility of evil. If there was no evil, there would be no good, no compassion, no righting wrongs. Everything would be amoral and yet, it isn't. You're suggesting that the existence of evil precludes the existence of an all-powerful, benevolent God. I can just as well counter that existence of good supports just that.



Starvation and murder are man's doing. Natural disasters, well, folks eventually die. Stuff happens. We don't look upon such favorably because we lose loved ones. It's an opportunity for one to grow stronger, to leverage themselves as one who can help others down the line when it happens again. We become better through suffering…or just remain raw.



I understand the first part, but the second? You don’t think it’s possible at all?



Clearly your expectations are that a benevolent God would. Perhaps in a perfect world…

_________________
TANG SOO!

My point was that I expected it to be good and for me it was.
So yes, I think it proved my point.



Thank you kindly. I'll pass that on if you don't mind.


Yes, stuff happens. Some of not good and some very bad. An omnipotent entity could prevent it. But it happens. And some people are bad people. Either by nature or nurture. Now, if we were made in god's image.....I'm sure you get the drift.
The explanation that fits with all this is that there is no omnipotent entity. That then removes any need to explain or understand what appears to be contradictory or conflicting information.
Occam's razor, if you like.




I don't. I can't state that such an entity doesn't exist. No more than I can the FSM


You're still not with me on this and I don't mean that unkindly.
I have no expectations that any god would do anything.

Your assumption is that you know what's good and what's bad. Would you have been better off as an adult who endured no suffering, no pain at all, in their younger years?



Yes, for reasons you or I may never understand. As good, benevolent, and well-meaning as God may be, I don't recall anyone, anytime, suggesting that s/he provided us all the answers up front.



That's right, free will came with that image. In part, we chose evil.



Or that there is.



The only way we have contradiction is if we blindly accept that your assumptions are true—that suffering is bad, natural disasters are bad, etc. Evolutionary biology itself demonstrates that this isn’t necessarily true, especially for humans.



Actually, you can, but with less than a desirable amount of confidence. You’re confident that dinner will be excellent based on experience that, while unproven, is good enough for you. The same can be said of the faithful and their experiences.



No, I’m not, and I say that as a trained and experienced scientist.

_________________
TANG SOO!

As a race we are gregarious. We depend on others and others depend on us. Early humans had to co-operate as a team in order to hunt. To make that work, there have to be certain rules and social norms.
Murder isn't one of them. It's wrong.


If I was a child who'd been beaten by rotten parents it might have scarred me for life. Would that have made me a better person? Who know?




Or because no such entity exists? Then we wouldn't need reasons.




Free will is an interesting point. An omniscient being would know what you are going to do before you did it. In fact, with the omniscience, that being would know what you are going to do before you even existed. So you can't surprise god. That doesn't sit comfortable with the notion of free will.
Some people are just bad.



That there isn't fits better.




I see no up side to 16,000 children dying every day from starvation no matter how it is painted.
Better that they weren't born in the first place.




OK. I should have said that I can't state with certainty.....


I did say that either of my expectations could be wrong. I wasn't claiming proof.
And we do have some things aren't always as good as others. The battered and fried aubergine slices didn't get a hugely great review.
Would an omnipotent being, if such existed, get it wrong now and again.
Do you see that it isn't a like for like parallel?



Yet you make assumptions about my assumptions?

That's the consensus. Are you willing to accept that we could be wrong on that?




Not quite what I meant. Even children with the best of parents experience pain, physical and emotional. I ask again, are you better for it or not?



You're assuming that an all-powerful, benevolent diety would be inclined to stop bad things from happening. Like I said, good can come from bad, depending on the choices we make in response to it. As a parent, would you always step in to protect your child from failing or would you, at times, allow it to happen?



One needn't be a god to know that human beings fail. This doesn't detract a whit from their free will.

[/quote]
If that’s what you choose to believe, so be it.



Really? I’d like to see you say that to their faces. The question is, what are we doing about it and more importantly, is it even working?



You said it was proof enough for you.



I don't presume to know what an omnipotent being wants. I'll leave that to you.


I do notice that you’ve made them, yes, in support of or as a result of your beliefs. I make assumptions at times too.

_________________
TANG SOO!

That murder might be OK?
No way.

I don't know and I don't think there's a simple general take on this. No one size fits all. Different circumstances, different backgrounds.

I'm assuming nothing about any deity.



If what a person is going to do is long known before they exist what part of that decision is theirs rather than predetermined?


If that’s what you choose to believe, so be it.




Misses the point.
Bearing children into a society where starvation is a fairly likely fate for many really isn't really a very good outcome. Better that contraception measures are put in place to avoid this in the first place. But sometimes religion and beliefs get in the way of that.


Suggesting abstinence. That clearly isn't working.



I don't think I did. Evidence, experience, but not proof.
That said, my expectation was proved to be correct in that instance.
It isn't proof in the sense that it is an enduring fact that will always be replicated.
As a scientist, I'm sure you understand the distinction.




Nor do I.