Is God an Unnecessary Hypothesis?

[thomas t]

Which is quite enough for me to consider such a being a monster.

I don't think he's a monster.
Look, I recently saw a good video. Know what? It ended after 10 minutes. Was its creator a monster?

 

[thomas t]

Moving the goal post does not help you

didn't do that

 

[McBell]

didn't do that

Yes you did.
You moved it to humans doing the "damage" and then went on to beat that strawman.

But you did not fool anyone except maybe yourself

 

[ppp]

God is responsible for billions of deaths. It's my belief that he limited human life time.

You said...

in my opinion there is evidence for a creative force that is loving.
Look at nature that can be this beautiful:

When I asked if the things that are terrible are evidence that God is hateful, you tried to avoid acknowledging God's responsibility for the existence of those horrors. Now that we have established that God did create them, I ask again, are horrific things evidence that the creative force is hateful.

 

[thomas t]

You said...


When I asked if the things that are terrible are evidence that God is hateful, you tried to avoid acknowledging God's responsibility for the existence of those horrors. Now that we have established that God did create them, I ask again, are horrific things evidence that the creative force is hateful.

To you the end of life is a horror, but I say the end of a movie does not make it a horror in total, as a comparison. You can't blame God for putting an end to his arts (human life).

 

[thomas t]

You moved it to humans doing the "damage" and then went on to beat that strawman.

no I didn't. I never said humans did that specific damage to children's eyes.
So I didn't fool neither myself nor someone else.
I am aware of the fact that humans didn' tcreate that specific illness. But the cure for that illness does also exist, as far as I know. So why not go ahead and think of parents trying to do what is necessary to get the worm out.

 

[ppp]

To you the end of life is a horror, but I say the end of a movie does not make it a horror in total, as a comparison. You can't blame God for putting an end to his arts (human life).

I did not say tat the end of life is a horror. I didn't even imply that. The example I gave was eyeball eating parasites. But I will expand that to any natural phenomenon that we find to be horrific.

If our finding something beautiful is evidence that God is loving, then our finding something hideous must be evidence that God is hateful.

 

[thomas t]

did not say tat the end of life is a horror. I didn't even imply that. The example I gave was eyeball eating parasites.

you also talked about humans poisoning other people. Go back to post #113.

If our finding something beautiful is evidence that God is loving, then our finding something hideous must be evidence that God is hateful.

why? A moviemaker setting an end to his film is no evidence for him or her being cruel.

 

[joe1776]

Seldom are situations so clear as in the pool table. But even there, more than one cause is involved. For example, the felt on the table, if different, would have produced a different trajectory, so is validly included in the list of causes. The fact that the table is inside and not in a rain storm is also a relevant cause. Whatever brought the person to the pool table is also a cause.

You are looking for a single cause, when usually there are many causes that conspire to produce the effect. Any one being slightly different could produce a very different scenario.

And, the cue ball can be detected and tested for. It may take several pool games to find it, but there is no doubt that it can be detected. The God Hypothesis amounts to assuming an ultimate cue ball while ignoring the other causes and with no evidence for such a cue ball.

If scientists were concerned about all the contributing causes such as those you describe, science would never happen. You can't test for multiple causes.

I offered the pool game comparison for one purpose only: to show you that knowledge of the cue ball (God) wasn't necessary to conduct science but that the fact that it isn't necessary to science doesn't logically argue for non-existence.

Max Planck, the Nobel physicist who discovered the quantum of action, known as Planck's constant and laid the foundation for quantum theory, wrote:

“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind.

I don't know if Max was right, but I'm not going to be convinced he was wrong by labeling the God Hypothesis as unnecessary.

 

[ppp]

you also talked about humans poisoning other people. Go back to post #113.

That was a discussion of where responsibility lay for actions, not about the nature of death, Thomas. Where I illustrated that the actions of a secondary party do not absolve the primary party of responsibilities for his own actions. Try to keep up. Or if you are keeping up, try to be a little less obvious in your duplicity.


f our finding something beautiful is evidence that God is loving, then our finding something hideous must be evidence that God is hateful.

 

[thomas t]

Try to keep up.

Humans poisoning other people IS a horror. I referred to that part of your quote.*

f our finding something beautiful is evidence that God is loving, then our finding something hideous must be evidence that God is hateful.

I answered this in post #128

* keeping up:
in #113 you set up the example of humans poisoning someone.

I answered this in #117.

You quoted #117 in your post #124.

In #125 I said the end of life shouldn't be seen as a horror in general inasmuch as the end of a movie isn't seen as a horror.

Later, you said in #127 that you did not imply that end of life is a horror.

I referred to that.

 

[McBell]

no I didn't. I never said humans did that specific damage to children's eyes.
So I didn't fool neither myself nor someone else.
I am aware of the fact that humans didn' tcreate that specific illness. But the cure for that illness does also exist, as far as I know. So why not go ahead and think of parents trying to do what is necessary to get the worm out.

Moving the goal posts from god to parents is still moving the goal posts.

 

[McBell]

I answered this in post #128

If that is what you consider an "answer" you would have failed every single one of my English classes.

 

[ppp]

The obvious implications of your claim that finding a part of the world to be beautiful is evidence that God is loving is that finding a part of the world to be hideous is evidence that God is hateful.

 

[thomas t]

The obvious implications of your claim that finding a part of the world to be beautiful is evidence that God is loving is that finding a part of the world to be hideous is evidence that God is hateful.

Actually it isn't, I think.
I answered this in #128.
A moviemaker that makes a film having many aspects of beauty shouldn't be criticised solely because his movie ends.

 

[thomas t]

Moving the goal posts from god to parents is still moving the goal posts.

Actually, I referred to God who I see giving parents the opportunity to end the illness of their child.
Could have made this clearar though... yeah that's true

 

[QuestioningMind]

in my opinion there is evidence for a creative force that is loving.
Look at nature that can be this beautiful:

this is my evidence. There is no evolutionary need for the sand to look beautiful besides the blue water.
And it could be different: it could be muddy and ugly always.

I understand that's your position... but in my opinion you have very weak evidence. After all, someone could use the same reasoning to conclude that your god is a wicked evil being, since your god made things in nature that are muddy and ugly, and a truly loving god would make EVERYTHING in nature beautiful. Then of course, there are people who would consider the picture you provided as proof of nature's beauty to be a very ugly picture. Had a sister-in-law who suffered from a seasonal disorder in which she found bright colors and sunshine to not just be ugly, but actually painful to look at. In her opinion a dreary cloud covered day that many would call ugly was absolutely beautiful to her.

So in my opinion all you have evidence of is that human beings can find things in nature that are beautiful, but not everyone agrees on what beauty is.

 

[McBell]

Actually, I referred to God who I see giving parents the opportunity to end the illness of their child.
Could have made this clearar though... yeah that's true

You need to work on your back peddling skills.

 

[thomas t]

I understand that's your position... but in my opinion you have very weak evidence. After all, someone could use the same reasoning to conclude that your god is a wicked evil being, since your god made things in nature that are muddy and ugly, and a truly loving god would make EVERYTHING in nature beautiful.

Here we disagree. The muddy things can be beautiful, too. German Northsee seaside always has muddy water. Yet it is beautiful.
But if you find an ugly countryside... it may serve as a frame for the more beautiful ones.

 

[ppp]

Actually it isn't, I think.
I answered this in #128.
A moviemaker that makes a film having many aspects of beauty shouldn't be criticised solely because his movie ends.

Then he should not be praised solely because it starts.