Technical Ben wrote: DSenette wrote:
bobjoesmith wrote:If God came to my front door right now knocking, I'd invite him in and be stupendously relieved. Its comforting to have a higher power who is omniscient and omnipotent and omnibenevolent: even if life sucks, there's a guy who has your back.
And so what if certain dogma's become incontrovertible laws? After we realized asbestos was bad for our health, we banned it. The thing with omniscience + omnibenevolence in tandem is that any rules imposed probably won't suck: in fact its guaranteed to be good for you.
And if the God was evil, then I'd do everything I could to stay away from his bad side- it's ok, I'll forgo cream pies to avoid being hit by lightning.
So if there were incontrovertible proof of God, all it would do is set to peace so many questions.
yeah, because the omniscient and omnibenevolent god of leviticus was a GREAT guy and all those rules were freakin AWESOME!
DSenette. Why get offended at an objective look at those descriptions? Did bobjoesmith mention a Christian or Jewish god in that post? You have mentioned before how you disagree with the actions in that book, but they were not under discussion here. Can you answer the question about asbestos? Asbestos is even inanimate, yet it effects our life. Would it be moral to let someone suffer from asbestos poisoning?
he did mention the christian or jewish god...he said God...big G. he also, you know gave the christian description of the guy.
the rules of "that book" are totally up for discussion if someone wants to claim that the laws of the christian god are going to be freakin awesome. the christian "history book" (you know....the bible) is as far as you have to look to see that won't be the case.
for asbestos, if you ACTUALLY want to equate that to omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then you've got a HUGE issue. if God was omniscient, then he knew, with 100% certainty that asbestos would kill us, but he let us use it for eons anyway. If God is omnipotent, then he had the power to make asbestos serve the same purpose without all the cancer, but he let it keep killing us anyway. and if God was omnibenevolent, well then he wouldn't have let the first to conditions remain true because he would be looking out for us completely. so, yeah, there's taht.
and no, it wouldn't be moral to knowingly and intentionally let someone suffer from asbestos poisoning if you had the ability to prevent asbestos poisoning. so, i guess your point is that god isn't moral?
Technical Ben wrote:OT is your disagreement with the God of Leviticus that he killed off other nations? Were those nations not deserving of the death penalty considering they were engaged in child sacrifice and murder? What would be the omnibenevolent* reaction to those nations? They all received an opportunity to stop or change, see Jonah's warning to the Ninevites for an example of those who did.
*I don't use that word myself, so I'm uncertain of it's usage, sorry if I've got it wrong.
i don't know, the shit where it was perfectly cool to institute a genocide. or beat your wife, or stone your children, or eat other people...you know...the shit that's in the book
Technical Ben wrote:Glass Fractal. One reason for elasto using that argument is that Omnipotence as a word is not used in the bible. So can we judge it by a modernly defined word? If the bible gives that description, then all well and fine. But if the description is "No one can stop God doing what he wills" then does omnipotence match that, or should we use a different word? (this onyl applies to describing the Christian God. Not to any other theoretical one of cause.)
look up the definitions of the words in use....look up omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolant....please actually use a dictionary. now go back to YOUR DESCRIPTIONS of YOUR god, and ANY description of the christian god and compare.....the word not being in the bible is a STUPID argument. it's ridiculous and pointless.
the almost universal description of the christian god is that he can do ANYTHING and EVERYTHING (you know, like create reality, shape it to his will....do whatever the fuck he wants). that's omnipotent (universally potent....able to do all)
the almost universal description of the christian god is that he KNOWS everythign (he knows when you are sleeping, he knows when you're awake, he knows when you've been bad or good....wait...wrong guy?), that would be omniscient
the almost universal description of the christian god is that he is love, that he is perfect love, and that he is perfectly moral....which would be omnibenevolant (universally benevolent)
so your argument is garbage
Technical Ben wrote:If there was proof of a "God" (personal) would that not be a reason to look for it's qualities or attributes? If there is proof of a "first cause" (non-personal) would that not be reason to look for the process that was present in the beginning? If the proof was that the universe it's self was eternal, would that not be reason to look for a circular or continuous system?
Science needs not stop with any of those discoveries. However, there would be some people who would have to change their current theories, as not all theories in science currently support all models. Even current discoveries in science can meet oppositions. People get stubborn. They don't like their area of expertise having to change, or get less funding. See Einstein for someone who, despite all his ability, refused to accept certain parts of QM. There needs to be no religious implications for people to have reasons to resist the new information or findings.
it's perfectly possible for anyone to get stubborn and let their bias cloud their rationality. but at that point they've been influenced by their bias. HOWEVER, it is quite relevant to note that it's a lot easier to recognize and avoid those biases when you operate within certain systems as opposed to others.
unfortunately for your point, the certain systems that make reason and rationality easier are science, and the ones that have been shown to make it more difficult are religion.
Technical Ben wrote:It's not that there is any problem with scientific process, but that people are still the same people, if using science or religion to back wrong ideas. If they are willing to correct themselves they are likely to do so whether religious or atheistic in view points. Although, I'd happily lump a large part of religion, if not nearly all of it, as teaching plain old lies from it's inception. But not all religions are the same, so they in no way can all be judged the same.
Technical Ben wrote:Sadly though, I see a greater number of people using "science" as an excuse to make the exact same mistakes religion has made all these centuries. Instead of sticking to myths they stick to incomplete or wrong theories. This is why I would consider it just as much of a shock to people who do not believe in a God, to those who do, to be told they were wrong. Could science have become the new religion?
no matter how many times you ask that last question the answer is still no, fuck no, absolutely no. science is a method. people who stop doing science and start doing biased proselytizing are no longer doing science. the minute that you stubbornly lock yourself onto a demonstrably falsified theory, in the face of factual testable evidence, you're not doing science. at that point, you're doing religion, but it's not "the religion of science", it's EXACTLY the same as any other religion.
Technical Ben wrote:
You say that Charlie, yet is this not what many people are doing? Homoeopathy for instance. They say they did the science, but did not. So they have nothing to support their claims. If religion is saying it has inspiration from a god or God, but does not, are they not the same? If both had supporting evidence (they did do the science, or they did have inspiration or effect from a deity) then there would be no problem.
If people have been so insistent on following Religion for the last few centuries, even when it fails to provide evidence or support, why do you think they will not make the same mistake with scientific theories which fail to provide or support the evidence?
I don't think the science will fail, just that people, humans, have a track record of failing.
here's the deal with this. humans have a track record of failing when it comes to science because they've been taught from birth, and for thousands of years that accepting things on faith is the right thing to do, and that questioning things that are to be accepted on faith is evil and will send you to hell. it's highly unfortunate that we as a species have done this to ourselves.