CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Theism is Inherently Self-Contradictory
As a few may remember, my previous posts were often in defense of Theism, specifically Christianity. After these recent weeks, however, in which I've had copious time to question my beliefs from a rational perspective, I've come to the following conclusion: belief in an omniscient, moral God is inherently self-contradictory. Not only is there no evidence of an active Deity working in the Universe (indeed, the lack of the profound evidence one would expect from such an entity's presence does itself substantiate the nonexistence of said entity), but even from a theological perspective, which this discussion is focused on, it simply doesn't correlate to reality. My line of thought is as follows:
Theists (specifically Monotheists) usually assume both the morality, omniscience, and omnipotence of God. With these in mind, that such a being would be aware of the objectively "best" (here meaning morally correct for all involved) course of events that could take place, and how to cause this chain of happenings to manifest. As this being is also moral and omnipotent, it possesses both the will and the means to do so. With these starting assumptions (and the assumed existence of God itself) in mind, it follows that all the events of history have been the objectively "best" possible for all involved. Sounds great, except for the fact that this doesn't correspond to reality in the slightest; anyone with any knowledge of history whatsoever will know that the world has been, and still is, a place wrought with immorality and misfortune. I believe my reasoning based on the aforementioned assumptions to be without flaw (if you believe one to exist, I'd be quite pleased to hear about it; I'm attempting to deduce the truth with reason, not defend a faith or ideology), it follows that one or more of the assumptions (or the existence of God itself; but that's irrelevant to the theological issue presented here) is false. Best-case scenario, "God" either does not possess the will or the means to set in motion the "best" set of events. In the former case, this entity is apathetic at best and sadistic at worst, and in the latter, why call such a being "God"?
Sure as I am that the above has been more or less stated word for word by a prominent Atheist, this is my particular line of reasoning, which has been inspired by innumerable thought-provoking points of others, from both those that agreed with me and those who didn't. I'm thoroughly curious to hear your collective opinions on the matter; what better place to test a proof than a platform of persons well-versed in dissent?
You have been attacked by the brontoraptor! There is NO rational defense! You MUST become a Christian (of a certain set of beliefs, of course), or be destroyed by the magic entity that guides HIM! Be afraid ... be VERY afraid! ;-)
I must say, I find it quite amusing that all of my rebuttals to your statements in this debate magically received exactly five downvotes. That you're abusing this platform's features to decrease the apparent intellectual value of your opponent's position belies the invalidity of yours.
Or, given the specificity and regularity of these downvotes (near-simultaneous, exactly the same in number, and all targeting exclusively my posts that contradict yours), the only rational conclusion is that you abused multiple accounts to downvote my posts, presumably to compensate for your arguments' inability to hold water.
But I only have one bronto account, and your arguments weren't any good. This explains the downvotes. Simply put, your rebuttals were bad, and apparently multiple people took notice.
The best way/arguments to get down votes in a "Does God exist" debate are:
"I think God is mean. He must not exist."
"If God is omnipotent and omniscient, then why didn't He do it the way I think He should have done it?"
"I believe in a singularity, but where did God come from?"
to compensate for your arguments' inability to hold water
My arguments are actually rather simple, to the point a child could understand them. They are the same basic arguments that theologians have been using to stump Atheists for years in professional debates.
With these in mind, that such a being would be aware of the objectively "best" (here meaning morally correct for all involved) course of events that could take place, and how to cause this chain of happenings to manifest
1)Morally correct is a subjective terminology. It's meaningless because it is different to each individual.
2)God isn't bound to anything that you deem to be "the best". He'll most likely do what He deems is best according to whatever ends he desires. I wouldn't do what you "deem best", so why would God...
We're talking about an omnipotent, omniscient, supernatural entity here. Are you claiming God to be less than all-knowing?
You are an idiot incapable of thinking anything through before you write it. How can God be both omnipotent and omniscient? If God knows the future then he is no longer omnipotent because it means he can't change his mind about what happens in the future. If he can change his mind about what happens in the future then he no longer knows the future.
If the results of its actions aren't moral, how can it be so?
Have you considered that it is because God decides on what is moral, not some random narcissistic idiot on the internet who is too stupid to debate people without lying and/or distorting the facts?
Are you aware that you are stupid? I ask this seriously. If you are aware and are just having a little bit of fun then that's fine. But if you actually think rambling pure gibberish at people is a sign if intellect then, with respect, I think you belong in a psychiatric institution.
"If God knows the future then he is no longer omnipotent because it means he can't change his mind about what happens in the future. If he can change his mind about what happens in the future then he no longer knows the future."
To start off, these assumptions are made by Theists, not myself. Your insults are therefore meaningless.
Further, your statement assumes the future to be immutable, which itself necessitates the lack of omnipotence of God. In simpler terms, your argument comes to the conclusion that God cannot be omnipotent because it cannot be omnipotent. With this clear lack of knowledge regarding simple logical fallacies (in this case, circular reasoning), I think a debate platform may not be the best venue for one of your ilk.
"Have you considered that it is because God decides on what is moral, not some random narcissistic idiot on the internet who is too stupid to debate people without lying and/or distorting the facts?"
Moral values based on Monotheistic holy books (excepting certain acts encouraged by the Quran) are contradictory with historical reality. Who said I was determining the meaning of the term "moral"?
"Are you aware that you are stupid? I ask this seriously. If you are aware and are just having a little bit of fun then that's fine. But if you actually think rambling pure gibberish at people is a sign if intellect then, with respect, I think you belong in a psychiatric institution."
Once again, you demonstrate your clear disinterest in civil, rational discussion. As those virtues are necessary prerequisites to meaningful debate, it follows that no interaction with you will result in such, and it is therefore pointless. This, combined with your obnoxious, thoroughly unnecessary personal attacks is justifiable grounds for banning you from this discussion. I repeat: I'm banning you for y ou e inappropriate behavior, not your position.
To start off, these assumptions are made by Theists, not myself.
They were your words, not the words of "theists". If you don't understand the contradictions in the things you write then how is that the fault of "theists"?
You are trying to pass the buck for your own use of language, which alludes to the fact that Spartacus is right: you are intellectually dishonest and stupid.
Your insults are therefore meaningless.
Fantastic abuse of logic. Mimicking it, I am going to murder you and everyone in your entire extended family. But it's OK. That isn't a threat. Those threats are made by psychopaths, not myself.
Further, your statement assumes the future to be immutable
If you learned to properly read things and think them through before you replied, you would offend people much less often with your utterly brazen stupidity. If the future is not known by God, then God cannot be omniscient, can he?
In simpler terms, your argument comes to the conclusion that God cannot be omnipotent because it cannot be omnipotent
Thanks for the utterly bizarre straw man argument, but I think it's fairly clear to the readers I said no such thing. It must be really pathetic to be so bad at debating that you have to change what the other person said before you feel qualified to criticise it.
With this clear lack of knowledge regarding simple logical fallacies
I will not dignify your argument with a response. Your use of multiple accounts to bypass a ban for atrocious behavior to continue said behavior is only further indicative of your disinterest in civil, rational discussion.
We're talking about an omnipotent, omniscient, supernatural entity here. Are you claiming God to be less than all-knowing
I can tell you every phrase and scene in the movie Tombstone, yet I didn't write a line of it, make them say anything, or manipulate anything. Yet I know all and know everything concerning its events. Being all knowing doesn't mean you pick the scenario that is an "absolute zero". Absolute zero results may not be the result desired. If this reality is the only one available that yields the desired result, then this reality is the only option.
"Being all knowing doesn't mean you pick the scenario that is an "absolute zero". Absolute zero results may not be the result desired. If this reality is the only one available that yields the desired result, then this reality is the only option."
What do you mean by this reality being the "only one available"? That statement itself implies God is forced to compromise on the integrity of a reality it created to achieve some unspecified goal. Are you claiming God to be less than omnipotent?
The word "moral" is never used in the Bible. What you, me, and God deem as "moral" are 3 different definitions. I can find you 10 more people and get you 10 more definitions.
In today's Western society, "tolerance" is some kind of moral virtue. In reality, "tolerance" can mean you are in bed with evil.
Sounds great, except for the fact that this doesn't correspond to reality in the slightest
Exactly. The Bible depicts a reality that is hard and doesn't end well for most. He opened his arms to all. Most didn't open their arms back. That's what makes those who do a prized possession to God Himself. The Bible depicts an army of the enemies of God who are simply allowed to exist at all to prove, try, and refine HIS children. The devil's children are the devil's concern and by their own choice.
and still is, a place wrought with immorality and misfortune
Satan is the God of this world and this age. God is actually an invader and so are His children into a godless world, and for one purpose, to prove His children's love for him, which is His eternal reward, and refine said children by the blood of Jesus Christ...
"The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."
Best-case scenario, "God" either does not possess the will or the means to set in motion the "best" set of events
Best set of events to who? You? And best set of events for which outcome? If the outcome desired is to teach you what a swift kick in the groin feels like, the best set of events is for you to get? Kicked in the groin... Maybe I think THIS is the best set of events. Put your children into the darkness to teach them just how beautiful the light is. Give the devil's children their chance. If they reject you, and you are fair, you don't force yourself upon them. You let them go down their own dark path. To me that is fair. To you it may not be. In the end, only God's opinion will matter at all. There is nothing more beautiful than someone clinging to the one they love when crap hits the fan. Utopia has a plethera of things that it alone can never reveal without darkness, choice, and pain.
"For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him."
Well that was a deep and profound argument as usual. Of course we both remember when you didn't know Jesus was a Jew which would mean your Bible knowledge and reading of the Bible would be? None.
In the former case, this entity is apathetic at best and sadistic at worst, and in the latter, why call such a being "God"?
Some people call porn their god. Some people drugs. Others alcohol. To others it's a sports figure, etc etc. Calling something "God" in this case, means loving the creator more than anything else freely. That cannot be emulated in Utopia. It can only be emulated in a reality that looks a lot like this one.
Apathy and Sadistic are more semantical words. What's sadistic to you isn't to me. Some people think disciplining your kids is sadistic. If the crucifixion of Jesus Christ is correct, apathy is an extremely poor word choice, wouldn't you say?
"But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed."
Nope. You simply need to make logical assessments and claims that make sense.
"An omnipotent god must choose a 'moral path' according to me" is as bad of an argument as is possible, so much so that I wonder if you purposefully planned out its fallacies.
"You simply need to make logical assessments and claims that make sense."
Do you have any specific examples, or are you going to follow along the lines of Dermot-style argumentation, and simply claim my fallaciousness with no basis?
""An omnipotent god must choose a 'moral path' according to me" is as bad of an argument as is possible"
Fortunately, I've not made that argument, as I've explicitly and repeatedly stated.
Downvoted to balance your Negligentt and BellaSmella upvote.
And also an argument:
If God is not "good" by our definition then it is impossible for us to live a "good" life because we are incapable of understanding the word - in fact our own judgement of the Bible would show moral behaviour to often be the exact opposite of what we perceive to be good. Therefore, trying to be a good person is pointless.
With these starting assumptions (and the assumed existence of God itself) in mind, it follows that all the events of history have been the objectively "best" possible for all involved.
This logic is mindless and absurd. These "events" are not what is "best" for all involved. It is not the best possible scenario for Satan, his children, and his demons. They are what is best as is aligned with the will of God and what is it is that HE wished to obtain, and what HE alone wishes to obtain.
Yes please. You stated God must choose the result that is best for ALL. No He doesn't. He's not bound to any said result simply because He knows all and can do all. He can do what He wants. You aren't omnipotent, if you have no choice. Being omnipotent means you have complete power and authority and that no one can oppose it.
Your argument is the equivalent of saying that I can't possibly be a painter because my painting isn't up to your code of what a painting "should" be like per some tortured definition of "should".
"You stated God must choose the result that is best for ALL."
Did you even read the initial post? I never claimed God to be forced towards any particular action; what I said was that if God were moral, it would possess the will to enact the aforementioned course of events.
"No He doesn't"
Then it's not a moral entity.
"Your argument is the equivalent of saying that I can't possibly be a painter because my painting isn't up to your code of what a painting "should" be like per some tortured definition of "should"."
A more accurate analogy would be pointing out that you are not a painter by your own definition of the term as stated in your autobiography.
Your position is flawed in that your criteria for what is best may not be relevant from an objective, omniscient standpoint.
It is also somewhat problematic to assume there is a code of conduct (morality) for the being who is the standard for all codes of conduct. If God has morality, then God is beholden to concepts that are derived from some other standard. God is arguably supra-moral, in which case your position doesn't hold.
"Your position is flawed in that your criteria for what is best may not be relevant from an objective, omniscient standpoint."
This statement is only valid if one simultaneously claims the entirety of historical reality to be capable of being considered the "best" possible course of events to take place, a position I doubt you, or anyone, holds.
"It is also somewhat problematic to assume there is a code of conduct (morality) for the being who is the standard for all codes of conduct. If God has morality, then God is beholden to concepts that are derived from some other standard."
The morality in question (as I implied in my original post; perhaps I should have explicitly stated it) is, in regards to this debate, derived from the "holy books" held as either the explicit or inspired word of God. My overarching claim being that a Theistic God is a self-contradictory concept, it's only natural that the moral standards in question are claimed to be derived from God.
"God is arguably supra-moral, in which case your position doesn't hold."
For the sake of clarification, as the term is somewhat vague, will you please clarify the definition of "supra-moral"? Further, can you present evidence from the aforementioned "holy books" that this term, rather than it's conventional counterpart, applies to the Theistic concept of God?
This statement is only valid if one simultaneously claims the entirety of historical reality to be capable of being considered the "best" possible course of events to take place, a position I doubt you, or anyone, holds
Pretend I'm God. I want to see if you love me and are loyal to me if the world falls apart. Now tell me what the "best possible set of events" would be to get me the desired outcome.
You would need to prove them in your mind. As far as I know this is all simply Him running through the scenario in His head, looking at all possibilities from multiple perspectives, and it's all just passing thoughts in His mind at something that "could be", and in this case He might just let it be.
This statement is only valid if one simultaneously claims the entirety of historical reality to be capable of being considered the "best" possible course of events to take place, a position I doubt you, or anyone, holds.
Doubt if you like, but you cannot claim the best or worst of anything on an objective omniscient level. Perhaps the dynamic universe and free will that lead to immorality and calamity are goods that far outweigh the evils that concern you. Perhaps the greatest good of an unknowable after-life requires the trials of this physical universe. There is no way to know if you aren't omniscient. Since you aren't, you very easily could be concerned with the wrong things, or have the wrong criteria.
Leibniz thought we live in the best of all possible worlds. The argument for it isn't trumped by your incredulity at the prospect.
The morality in question (as I implied in my original post; perhaps I should have explicitly stated it) is, in regards to this debate, derived from the "holy books" held as either the explicit or inspired word of God
One need not refer to holy texts in order to be a Theist, even a monotheist. While I'm sure there are contradictions in holy texts, this would not matter as a moral issue for God. God would be the standard so that any contradiction is made moral by the fact that the standard is the one doing it. The supra-moral nature of God I referred to means that God is above morality and cannot be judged according to any moral sense. This is because he is the creator of moral sense.
can you present evidence from the aforementioned "holy books" that this term, rather than it's conventional counterpart, applies to the Theistic concept of God?
A theistic God, being the creator of all things, would naturally be the creator of good and evil as well. I don't have biblical evidence, but as I said, one need not refer to texts to be a theist. Though I don't consider holy texts to be evidence, Isaiah 45-7 may apply here.
(I should take a moment to clarify that these are not my beliefs, these are just the holes I see in your position)
"in mind, it follows that all the events of history have been the objectively "best" possible for all involved. Sounds great, except for the fact that this doesn't correspond to reality in the slightest; anyone with any knowledge of history whatsoever will know that the world has been, and still is, a place wrought with immorality and misfortune."
First of all, I have no idea how any human with such a small amount of information and such limited ability to process said information is making such a claim. (Please note I'd describe myself as such too) How would you know what the "best" reality would look like? It's like how a child only wants to eat sweets and ice cream for every meal: they don't know what's best for them and neither do we.
Evil, immorality and misfortune are all necessary phenomena. Since what makes these phenomena negative in valence is suffering I shall address suffering directly. Without suffering pleasure would have no significance. In other words if one only ever had positive experiences then positive experience would cease to have meaning and life would be boring. The contrast between the negative experiences and the positive ones is what makes life a thrilling roller-coaster ride. Think about movies and TV-shows. There is always some conflict, some problem to overcome, even in happy comedies. If there was no problem and no conflict it wouldn't be entertaining. The same is true for life. In addition, one can give their life meaning by alleviating their own suffering and the suffering of others and replacing it with positive experience.
Finally, one must realize that if life has free-will then things can never be perfect. There would always be deviations from perfection because humans can act freely to sabotage perfection. This is particularly true since humans aren't aware of what perfection even is in this context. Therefore even when we strive for perfection failures are inevitable.
It is my estimation then that this reasoning does not hold up on any level. Your worldview is clearly changing to assimilate new information and this is great: everybody needs to evolve in this manner or they stagnate. However I think when you realized your worldview was incomplete you latched onto another incorrect worldview simply because it incorporated the dissonant piece of information: the existence of suffering.
"First of all, I have no idea how any human with such a small amount of information and such limited ability to process said information is making such a claim. (Please note I'd describe myself as such too) How would you know what the "best" reality would look like? It's like how a child only wants to eat sweets and ice cream for every meal: they don't know what's best for them and neither do we."
I don't possess this information, and I didn't claim to. I can, however, logically extrapolate from given information; the "best" possible course of events, being set up by an omnipotent, omniscient Deity must be universally perfect, and therefore homogeneous in terms of morality and fortune of outcome. As history does not follow along these lines, it follows that these assumptions are inaccurate.
"Evil, immorality and misfortune are all necessary phenomena."
We're talking about an omnipotent, omniscient entity here. If suffering is an immutably necessary prerequisite to our existence, it follows that God is not, in fact, omnipotent. If it was, it would, by definition be capable of creating reality in a manner that did not require suffering, in which case its existence is deliberate, thus tying into my original point.
"Finally, one must realize that if life has free-will then things can never be perfect."
This follows along the lines of the prior argument. Further, "free will" does not abdicate God of responsibility for the effects of its actions; our actions are dictated by our genetic predispositions, coupled with environmental circumstances, both of which God orchestrated with full knowledge of their implications. Denying this is intellectually analogous to abdicating a murderer of responsibility for their actions because the firearm they used to commit the act didn't refuse to fire, despite having ample opportunity to do so. Sure, it could, but that course of action would be contrary to its inherent nature (in this case, being an inanimate object, rather than thought based on the aforementioned parameters). It's simply asinine.
"However I think when you realized your worldview was incomplete you latched onto another incorrect worldview simply because it incorporated the dissonant piece of information: the existence of suffering."
Atheism (when using the term accurately, as is so often not the case nowadays) is, by definition, a lack of a worldview. To what are you referring, then?
the "best" possible course of events, being set up by an omnipotent, omniscient Deity
I notice that, not only are you capitalising random words, but you are also using the precise same fallacy which was pulled apart earlier this afternoon. God cannot be both omnipotent and omniscient. Your failure to acknowledge this, after it was explained to you very precisely, lends strong support to the notion that you are a pseudo-intellectual nincompoop, unaware that part of having debates is acknowledging when your argument is wrong.
A man who cannot admit error is a man who cannot learn. This probably explains why all your posts are thin on reason and thick with synonyms. You can find synonyms easily through Google. Reason however is a bit more difficult to come by. You can't fake that.
"I notice that, not only are you capitalising random words"
I'm not sure that proper nouns and indications of Monotheism over Polytheism (as is the case with "Deity") constitute "random words".
"after it was explained to you very precisely,"
That you say that both as if it's true and that it wasn't you engaging in said "explanation" is, I must admit, quite amusing.
"unaware that part of having debates is acknowledging when your argument is wrong."
I'd be happy to do so, if you could prove it in a rational, rather than baseless, manner.
"A man who cannot admit error is a man who cannot learn."
I'm sure you know all about that.
"This probably explains why all your posts are thin on reason"
Other than the fact that my accusations are pointed, you have yet to make any specific accusation against my reasoning, and the majority of my original post consisted of categorical extrapolations?
"You can find synonyms easily through Google."
Or through reading for years, as I have. Call me an elitist, but I'm of the opinion that eloquence derived solely from third-party resources is meaningless.
"Reason however is a bit more difficult to come by. You can't fake that."
That certainly doesn't stop you from attempting to do so, does it?
I'm not sure that proper nouns and indications of Monotheism over Polytheism (as is the case with "Deity") constitute "random words".
Deity is not a proper noun and hence it does not need to be capitalised. Monotheism and polytheism are also not proper nouns and do not need to be capitalised. Once again you seem to have become lost in your own pseudo-intellectual bullshit.
That you say that both as if it's true and that it wasn't you engaging in said "explanation" is, I must admit, quite amusing.
Oh, then I'll explain it again for you, seeing as you seem to have developed selective amnesia. If God is omniscient then he must know the future, but if the future is already known to God then he must lack the power to change it, otherwise he would already know about the change in advance.
I'd be happy to do so, if you could prove it in a rational, rather than baseless, manner.
Yeah, but you see the problem is you define "baseless" as "disproving something I say". You are an intellectually dishonest little twat who is incapable of admitting when he is wrong. Everytime someone demonstrates that you are a pseudo-intellectual, you ban them and write a dishonest reply where you pretend the opposite happened. Your particular breed of idiot is the absolute worst on this planet.
"Everytime someone demonstrates that you are a pseudo-intellectual, you ban"
If that we're the case, everyone taking the "I disagree" position in this debate would be banned. As you are the only person banned from this discussion, it follows that your statement is wholly false, like your other statements, but this one is by far the most blatantly inconsistent with reality, and as such is worth responding to.
"I don't possess this information, and I didn't claim to. I can, however, logically extrapolate from given information; the "best" possible course of events, being set up by an omnipotent, omniscient Deity must be universally perfect, and therefore homogeneous in terms of morality and fortune of outcome. As history does not follow along these lines, it follows that these assumptions are inaccurate."
You acknowledge your inability to know the best course of events and yet stipulate what the best course of events would be? That's completely paradoxical. Further, my view of a creator is not that of an overbearing tyrant that feels the need to control everything. I imagine that a God, if/when taking any action on his creation at all, would merely gently guide people.
"We're talking about an omnipotent, omniscient entity here. If suffering is an immutably necessary prerequisite to our existence, it follows that God is not, in fact, omnipotent. If it was, it would, by definition be capable of creating reality in a manner that did not require suffering, in which case its existence is deliberate, thus tying into my original point."
Firstly, you assume that omnipotence makes impossible events possible. This may not be the case, one cannot even countenance a triangle with three right angles, for example. However, let's assume it is the case that to be omnipotent requires the ability to do impossible things. How, in your estimation, does a world where pleasure has no significance measure up to our current reality? In addition, if suffering didn't exist but pleasure still had significance, we cannot even imagine such a reality. Since we cannot even imagine such a reality how are we to compare and contrast it with our current reality? How can we, lacking in the ability to compare these potentialities, make the assertion that one is better than the other?
"Further, "free will" does not abdicate God of responsibility for the effects of its actions; our actions are dictated by our genetic predispositions, coupled with environmental circumstances, both of which God orchestrated with full knowledge of their implications."
Dictated? So you don't believe in free will at all? Obviously as a psychologist I am aware that there are environmental, genetic, social etc. influences on behavior but taking a stance of pure determinism requires belief. There is no proof of pure determinism, moreover it isn't even possible to prove. If one accepts free will (admittedly also unprovable), however, one can see that God has no responsibility for the actions of his creations. Are you suddenly a true believer in pure determinism or are you holding to it simply because it aids your nascent worldview?
"Atheism (when using the term accurately, as is so often not the case nowadays) is, by definition, a lack of a worldview. To what are you referring, then?"
When confronted with dissonant information that doesn't fit one's worldview, and the incongruity is recognized, one's old belief system shatters. A new belief system which can accommodate the dissonant information then emerges. This is exactly what you have went through: your old worldview was destroyed and a new one emerged. Atheism certainly isn't a lack of a worldview, everybody has a worldview. One could be an agnostic atheist and not hold any belief on the existence or non-existence of God, however they would still hold a worldview.
Moreover, in your statement that "theism is inherently self-contradictory", you are demonstrating atheism in a non-agnostic manner. In other words, your assertion implies you don't believe a God is even possible, rather than simply lacking a belief that one exists.
I completely respect your right to believe or not believe anything you wish, however the seemingly dissonant information which caused your worldview change isn't actually dissonant at all. Just so you know, I used to be a Christian, then became a militant atheist, then an agnostic atheist and now I'm theistic.
"You acknowledge your inability to know the best course of events and yet stipulate what the best course of events would be?"
Perhaps I should have been more clear: I cannot conceive of the specific timeline of a "perfect" Universe, but I can broadly describe its nature (as above) by extrapolating from moral concepts. It's similar, if I may present an analogy, to extrapolating the characteristics of the concept of infinity; one can do it, in extremely general terms, but it, as a concept, is inherently alien to our reality, and is thus incapable of comprehension.
"Further, my view of a creator is not that of an overbearing tyrant that feels the need to control everything."
As previously stated, this discussion specifically concerns Monotheistic theology, which does indeed present the concept of God as being an active agent in the world.
"I imagine that a God, if/when taking any action on his creation at all, would merely gently guide people."
Sounds like a derivative of Deism, and, if God does indeed exist, that would be the belief set most consistent with observable reality.
"Firstly, you assume that omnipotence makes impossible events possible."
It does, by the very definition of the term.
"In addition, if suffering didn't exist but pleasure still had significance, we cannot even imagine such a reality. Since we cannot even imagine such a reality how are we to compare and contrast it with our current reality?"
To reiterate, I'm not discussing specific possible events; the only comparison I'm making between the two is in terms of morality, and even then the only relevance this possesses to my argument is which one's greater in terms of morality and fortune.
"Dictated? So you don't believe in free will at all? Obviously as a psychologist I am aware that there are environmental, genetic, social etc. influences on behavior but taking a stance of pure determinism requires belief."
I'm simply referring to the physical nature of the human psyche. Obviously people act of their own volition, but their will, which is not random in nature, is continually formed and influenced by a variety of factors, the nature of which I'm sure you're far more familiar with than I am. Of course, that means anyone could theoretically do anything, but that doesn't follow along the lines of reality; for example, I could theoretically attempt to execute a bank heist right now, rather than writing this post, but I possess no will to do so (in this case, my moral nature prohibits it), so I won't.
"If one accepts free will (admittedly also unprovable), however, one can see that God has no responsibility for the actions of his creations."
Assuming that reality is fundamentally regular in nature, which it must be (for reasons I'd be quite happy to elaborate on in another post), it follows that God created the Universe with exact knowledge of the repercussions of its actions. Rejecting God's responsibility for the outcome of these actions is, to reiterate from my previous post, morally analogous to blaming the firearm for the murder, since it didn't stop the murderer from firing it.
"Atheism certainly isn't a lack of a worldview, everybody has a worldview. One could be an agnostic atheist and not hold any belief on the existence or non-existence of God, however they would still hold a worldview."
In what context? I must admit, I'm somewhat confused as to your meaning of the term "worldview".
"Moreover, in your statement that "theism is inherently self-contradictory", you are demonstrating atheism in a non-agnostic manner. In other words, your assertion implies you don't believe a God is even possible, rather than simply lacking a belief that one exists."
My original post specifically condemned the idea of a Theistic God. If Theism were the only belief set in which God could exist, then yes, that would be the case.
"Just so you know, I used to be a Christian, then became a militant atheist, then an agnostic atheist and now I'm theistic."
"Perhaps I should have been more clear: I cannot conceive of the specific timeline of a "perfect" Universe, but I can broadly describe its nature (as above) by extrapolating from moral concepts. It's similar, if I may present an analogy, to extrapolating the characteristics of the concept of infinity; one can do it, in extremely general terms, but it, as a concept, is inherently alien to our reality, and is thus incapable of comprehension."
I'm stating that you cannot broadly describe it's nature. If we were to outline it's nature as "The best outcome for all conscious entities in general" we still have no idea what that looks like. In the recipe for an ideal reality how many parts suffering do we add to how many parts pleasure? We humans are profound in our ignorance, we have no idea, much like the child in my analogy with a sweet tooth, what is actually best for us. Since suffering serves multiple purposes, however, it is clear that it is necessary.
"As previously stated, this discussion specifically concerns Monotheistic theology, which does indeed present the concept of God as being an active agent in the world. Sounds like a derivative of Deism, and, if God does indeed exist, that would be the belief set most consistent with observable reality."
Actually, that isn't at all incompatible with Christianity. I didn't present God as necessarily entirely inactive. As far as I am aware, Christians believe that the modern interventions that their God enacts on this world are exactly as I've stated: the gentle guidance of individuals.
"It does, by the very definition of the term. "
No, by your definition it does. It can be defined as only being able to do things which are actually possible. I addressed the point made under your definition though.
"To reiterate, I'm not discussing specific possible events; the only comparison I'm making between the two is in terms of morality, and even then the only relevance this possesses to my argument is which one's greater in terms of morality and fortune."
Surely if we are to state that this reality is not the best one possible, one must be able to compare it to other potential realities which lack the problems you personally see with this reality. If we cannot do this then we cannot assert that this reality is not the best one possible.
"I'm simply referring to the physical nature of the human psyche. Obviously people act of their own volition, but their will, which is not random in nature, is continually formed and influenced by a variety of factors, the nature of which I'm sure you're far more familiar with than I am. Of course, that means anyone could theoretically do anything, but that doesn't follow along the lines of reality; for example, I could theoretically attempt to execute a bank heist right now, rather than writing this post, but I possess no will to do so (in this case, my moral nature prohibits it), so I won't."
Basically what you're saying is that you accept free will. As such, regardless of whatever influences exist on one's behavior, one still can choose what to do. There are obviously limits (which change by the way) on what one can and cannot choose to do. One reason you wouldn't rob a bank is that you know you don't have the ability to pull it off. Further, you probably don't have sufficient need of the money to make the desire outweigh the risk. If you found a wallet on the floor containing $1000 and the person's contact details, however, you'd actually have the ability to execute the deed and it'd lack risk. In this case (provided $1000 is significant to you) you would actually have a choice to make. As for stating your moral nature prohibits some action, one must remember that one always has the potential for evil. Nazi concentration camp guards were regular people and while you may not believe it everybody has the potential to become a monster.
"Assuming that reality is fundamentally regular in nature, which it must be (for reasons I'd be quite happy to elaborate on in another post)"
I'm unsure what you mean by "reality is fundamentally regular in nature".
"it follows that God created the Universe with exact knowledge of the repercussions of its actions. Rejecting God's responsibility for the outcome of these actions is, to reiterate from my previous post, morally analogous to blaming the firearm for the murder, since it didn't stop the murderer from firing it."
A God would presumably know all the possible sequences of events, but a God couldn't know which sequence of events would actually take place due to the existence of free will.
"In what context? I must admit, I'm somewhat confused as to your meaning of the term "worldview"."
People use their worldview to ascertain where they are in relation to the world and where they are going (what they are aiming for). In this case we are talking about the spiritual aspect of your worldview or belief system. Your worldview used to include Christianity which would (presumably) have you on earth engaged in a test against Satan. This worldview would have you attempting to pass the test and reach heaven. Obviously this is only the spiritual aspect of your worldview, you also would have other aspects for where you are and where you are headed in other domains too.
"My original post specifically condemned the idea of a Theistic God. If Theism were the only belief set in which God could exist, then yes, that would be the case."
Theism is actually an umbrella term that extends to polytheism, pantheism, deism etc.: any belief in a God so perhaps you're using the term incorrectly.
"I'm sure there's quite a story there."
I'm not so sure about that, merely years of personal learning and growth. I think that the reason I started down that path was resentment towards existence: a subjective feeling that the bad outweighed the good.
Atheism (when using the term accurately, as is so often not the case nowadays) is, by definition, a lack of a worldview.
As previously discussed, your claims are almost always false because you are a pseudo-intellectual who does not understand the topics he writes about. Unfortunately, one has to wade through a smorgasbord of unnecessary synonyms to elicit just what the fuck you are saying first, since part of your pseudo-intellectual belief system is the idea that abuse of the online thesaurus is a good substitute for knowing what the fuck you are talking about.
"By definition", atheism is:-
Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Neither disbelief or lack of belief in God fit the profile of a "lack of worldview". Disbelief in God is the same thing as belief in no God, and "lack of belief" in God is the same thing as disbelief in God. If someone says they lack belief in something, they are saying they don't believe it. If the question is God or no God then there is no answer you can possibly give which makes you neutral, other than: "I don't believe I can answer that question". Which is of course, by definition, agnosticism.
Failing to hold a particular position on a given issue does not imply one takes the opposite stance on said issue. Atheism, the term literally meaning "lack of Theism", is a failure to take a position on the existence of God. Disbelief in God's existence (a definite claim that shares the burden of proof) is properly called "Antitheism", being the direct opposite to Theism.
This is something of a long-winded manner of describing a simple set of two dichotomies: regarding a given issue, one either takes a position on that issue, or doesn't. In the former case (this dichotomy is a subset of that option), one either takes a positive stance on the issue in question, or takes a negative stance. But a prerequisite to the latter dichotomy is that one takes a position on a given issue to begin with, which Atheism explicitly denies.
Theists (specifically Monotheists) usually assume both the morality, omniscience, and omnipotence of God. With these in mind, that such a being would be aware of the objectively "best" (here meaning morally correct for all involved) course of events that could take place, and how to cause this chain of happenings to manifest. As this being is also moral and omnipotent, it possesses both the will and the means to do so. With these starting assumptions (and the assumed existence of God itself) in mind, it follows that all the events of history have been the objectively "best" possible for all involved.
Interesting thought. I had come to a similar conclusion, but my only problem is that we cannot know what God deems as "best". What if God believes that the existence of free will and the ability to exercise that will is "best"? This would mean that the "best" possible outcome for his creation is for them to make their own decisions regardless if they are against his commands and beliefs.
Also, following up with the ways people see God, what if God is not omniscient or omnipotent? What cannot test God's abilities or measure them (another reason why I question the faith sometimes). My reasoning above may be flawed and if it is do not be afraid to point it out or give your own thoughts about it. This is certainly an interesting topic.
Perhaps I should have been more clear; the initial assumptions and context of the terms used (specifically "Morality" and "God") were derived from Monotheistic theology. Of course, without a "holy book" to go by, the concept of "God" becomes far less concrete, and therefore more inclusive of characteristics like the absence of omniscience or omnipotence.
It's a very well put together piece and you make your points fairly and rationally, I dislike the unfairness of the way all your perfectly reasonable points and commentary are down-voted which seems to be a norm on CD to well presented arguments .
You state in your piece .......Best-case scenario, "God" either does not possess the will or the means to set in motion the "best" set of events. In the former case, this entity is apathetic at best and sadistic at worst, and in the latter, why call such a being "God"?
The classic argument used against your argument is how can you as a mere mortal judge what is " best " when it comes to gods standards ?
How can you know the will of god ?
Christians defend the most appalling atrocities carried out by their god and see them as perfectly " moral " as it's god carrying out the actions and god knows best .
If god suddenly appeared to humans and said killing was corrrect would it be so because he said so ?
Regarding moral law Calvin put it this way: "Deus legibus solutus est, sed non exlex." "God is free from laws, but He is not immoral." Somehow moral laws, also in eternity, will be the reflection of His will and personality.
Incidentally your line of argumentation is good and perfectly rational, the believer constantly shifts the goal posts to re -define what his /her god is or isn't to combat all arguments .
