EDITED TO REMOVE UNNECESSARY INSULT.

Quote from: RPGPundit... when you get to the core of your logical argument, as I have, you can't seem to offer any better defense to the claim that you are essentially arguing that God doesn't exist because you dislike the idea that God would be more intelligent than you, and therefore beyond your comprehension than "um, no".

That is NOT my argument.

[EDITED to remove unnecessary snarky insults.]

Quote from: RPGPunditThis, as an answer, only seems to highlight your inability to actually defend your position.

I've defended my position many times, mate.

(EDITED to remove gratuitious insults.)

See here now, does a person have to make a point?

As I see it any view (lets say) on what happens after we die is going to be pulled straight out of our asses. Because no one discussing it has died. Am I correct? So long as we're talking out of our asses, can we at least acknowledge it?

And fuck, doesn't M-theory hinge on a single ineffable* force providing the impetus and substance of all things in the universe?

Mind you, M-theory is about as disprovable as God, but as long as we're there... why not, right? The only real difference between the membranes and God is some kind of sentience, right?

Or, as long as we're making uninformed claims about one another's respective faiths, let's see you defend the mechanistic universe. Let's see you toss aside free will. Or will you defend free will with shaky science the same way the religious will defend evil with shaky religion?

See? Isn't it so much more fun to "disprove" someone else than to make any point of your own and have to defend it?

*By ineffable, I largely mean that it can't be directly percieved or interacted with, only deduced by complicated and obscure numerology. Hooray for the fucking cabalists soaking up the funding that could be alloted to more productive and tangible science.

Quote from: AkrasiaUmmm ... how?

Yes, I already addresed the whole 'through a glass darkly' objection.

SNORE.

Why must I repeat myself endlessly?  

No, you haven't. You have failed over and over to address the answer in any way. Your answers vary predictably between "umm, no" and "i already answered that previously", with the occasional "the proof is that I don't like the idea of God being too intelligent for me to get him".

I think its also blatantly obvious to everyone here but you that you are failing to address this argument in any way.

RPGPundit

Quote from: AkrasiaI've defended my position many times, mate.

Let's hear your defence!

My defense for what? What the fuck are you even talking about? Are you drunk while you're posting??

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit... Are you drunk while you're posting?...

Only mildly so!

(EDITED to remove insults and meaningless comments)

I made this point much earlier in this discussion:

Quote from: AkrasiaPremise 2 of my original argument ... the sticking point.... Of course ...
 
Obviously, traditional Christians, Jews, and Muslims want to believe that it is false.  The best explanation that they can give is something similar to the point that you and others have made about the ‘unknowability of God’s master plan’ (we perceive his actions “through a glass darkly”, as St. Paul says).  

I’ll happily concede that this is a possible reply available to a religious person to this argument.  But it is only convincing if you are already committed to the existence of (something like the traditional conception of) God!  

In other words, this reply to the “problem of evil” argument requires faith, namely, faith that somehow, someway, God’s “master plan” will ultimately be justified.

(EDITED for clarity.)

Quote from: RPGPundit...
I think its also blatantly obvious to everyone here but you that you are failing to address this argument in any way....

Yes, yes, I've addressed it (see above!).  :pundit:

(Comment removed -- I have no idea what I was trying to say here!)

Quote from: AkrasiaThe Catholic Church does not even believe in 'Hell' anymore!

Um, yes they do

Quote from: AkrasiaObviously, traditional Christians, Jews, and Muslims want to believe that it is false.

If you'd like to know what Jews believe, or want to believe, you could always ask one. Hastur already pointed out that you don't know the most basic thing about Catholicism - that hell still exists in that faith. Now, about Judaism...

Judaism does not require that you believe in God.

Just hold onto that thought for a moment.

Got it? Haven't lost it in prejudice or nonsense? No? Okay, keep hold of it.

Judaism proposes a set of laws which must be followed. Some of those laws (like kosher) are for just for Jews, and some of those laws (like not murdering people) are for eveveryone.

Follow the Law, says the Law, and you'll be off to Heaven; exactly what Heaven is, is left pretty vague. Don't follow the Law, and you're off to Hell. Hell's even vaguer, but is usually understood to be simply the absence of the presence of God. Anyway, it's thought that following the Law will make life better, whether or not it makes the afterlife better. See, Judaism focuses on now. That's why we have a whole shitload of sayings like, "break one law, so as to fulfill many others" - eg, eat a pork sausage so you can not starve, and live on to eat kosher in future, rather than just starving now. Or, "pray as though everything depends on God, act as though everything depends on you." Or "he who takes one life, it as if he has killed the whole world; he who saves one life, it is as if he has saved the whole world" (because each person saved may become a parent, and their children will have children, and so on; or if beyond child-bearing age, they may at least protect the lives of others).

God doesn't require our belief, just that we follow the Law. This isn't so hard to make sense of, really. If I say to a cop, "I don't believe Parliament exists!" the cop might reply, "um... will you obey the laws passed by Parliament?" If I say, "yes," the cop will say, "good enough." My belief or disbelief in the existence of Parliament has no effect on whether their laws are good, and on whether I follow those laws.

Likewise, with God and his Law.

Judaism requires no belief. It requires action. Good actions are good actions, whatever the belief or motivation behind them, and bad actions are bad actions. The laws are good or bad, harmless or harmful, give us fulfilment or emptiness, in and of themselves; whether they come from God or humanity makes no difference.

Faith makes more sense when you ask the people who hold that faith about it, rather than vague half-remembered musings from some website somewhere. I imagine that's where you got your "Catholics don't believe in Hell anymore" from, from the recent abolition of the ideas of Limbo, etc. It's ironic that one of the criticisms of atheists of those with faith is that their faith leads to muddled thought; atheists are entirely capable of muddled thought. Catholicism still has Hell, and Judaism does not require belief, only action.

Quote from: Akrasiaad hominem crap. When you have to resort to this, you should know that your position is weak  

Quote from: AkrasiaJesus Christ, you are a moron, aren't you?

Quote from: AkrasiaCan't say the same for you, sad git.

Hmmmm....

Quote from: AkrasiaYou have 60 percent certainty, etc.

Probabilities, nothing more.

What part of "proof" don't you understand? Probabilities are not proof.

Quote from: AkrasiaLet's see it!

Let's see what? You quoted my statement about water = H2O requiring faith and said let's see it. It don't make no sense, yo.

Quote from: AkrasiaUm, yeah.

You personally have seen that water = H2O? Or are you taking it on faith that the scientific community is correct?

Have you personally seen all the other things that science tells us are true?

Quote from: AkrasiaI’ll happily concede that this is a possible reply available to a religious person to this argument. But it is only convincing if you are already committed to the existence of (something like the traditional conception of) God!

Say what? You mean I have to believe in God to accept the idea that if God does exist I can't be sure that I can comprehend his motives?

Quote from: AkrasiaIn other words, this reply to the “problem of evil” argument requires faith, namely, faith that somehow, someway, God’s “master plan” will ultimately be justified.

No, belief in a God that defies the problem of evil requires faith in a master plan. Realizing that the problem of evil is not proof only requires admittance that a God with a plan is a possibility.

Quote from: AkrasiaHere is a machine's ... no my ... official reply.

Snorseville.

Oh goodness gracious, could it be that GOD is very cunning -- so desperately cunning -- that He's made exact replicants of everyone?

Are we all 'ready'?

Please put down the bottle. You're spouting gibberish now.

Quote from: AkrasiaBut honestly, your 'challenge' is pathetic.

Yes, yes, God might 'beyond our comprehension. '   So what?

That leaves two possibilities:

(1.) God is evil and incomprehensible, and running around.   In which case you're fucked.

(2.) God is a machine and under control.  (In which case ... )

In what possible way would those be the only two options? Why do you have such trouble with the idea that god could in fact be a benevolent Supreme Being that is active in the universe and that is acting in ways that are too infinite for you to be able to fully understand?

RPGPundit

Quote from: AkrasiaObviously, traditional Christians, Jews, and Muslims want to believe that it is false.  The best explanation that they can give is something similar to the point that you and others have made about the ‘unknowability of God’s master plan’ (we perceive his actions “through a glass darkly”, as St. Paul says).  

I’ll happily concede that this is a possible reply available to a religious person to this argument.  But it is only convincing if you are already committed to the existence of (something like the traditional conception of) God!  

In other words, this reply to the “problem of evil” argument requires faith, namely, faith that somehow, someway, God’s “master plan” will ultimately be justified.

And your argument is only convincing if you are already committed to the non-existence of God.

Shit, I don't believe in the Judeo-Christian god, and yet you've failed utterly to convince me. By any possible interpretation of the situation, I should be biased in your favour, and yet you've only managed to show me that you seem to suffer from as much tunnel-vision and pigheaded dogmatism as any of the christians.

RPGPundit