This is what atheist believe? Atheist believe that nothing created everything

[ding]

Solve the Riddle.

I don't see a riddle. I see confusion on your part.

The Riddle that you either did not see, or perhaps suggest is not a riddle, was at Post# 589.

Yes, I confess to a certain amount of confusion, unlike yourself and many religious people who profess to have all the answers.

You are making assumptions that just aren't true. I've addressed this a number of times. God created existence. All existence is good. You are blaming God for man's failure.

Sorry, but you are running in circles.

If God created existence, then he also created the flawed species that is man. Answer each of the questions provided by the paradox that is the Riddle of Epicurus.

Specifically, what assumptions did I make that aren't true?

And have already been addressed by MLK, Maimonides and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. That you do not accept those answers makes further conversation illogical. Unless of course you need for me to repeat their answers.

I don't need your reading list anymore than you want mine.

From what I've seen of your tripping over absolutes and drawing conclusions based on conclusions, logic is not your strong point.

My 37 years as an engineer says otherwise.

I would imagine that a really good engineer requires a fair amount abstract intelligence... the ability to make sense of spatial relations and forces. However, I wasn't aware that courses in logic were part of the curriculum. Logic isn't levers and gears, but rather a mode of exploration that is grammar based.

My line of work has me in contact with a fair number of bright and well educated people. It often surprises me to how many of them have poor communication skills. This seems particularly true when it comes to organizing the written word.

I've never met an engineer who wasn't logical. It's sort of a requirement for the job.

Writing is a talent but like almost all talents, it can be developed. Same for communication skills.

In other words, you didn't go to school to develop your engineering skills?

Surely, most talents can be taught... so what? You don't seem to appreciate that aptitudes vary. Neither do you appear to even understand what logic is.

College isn't job training. I see it more as developing core skills while learning underlying fundamental principles on specific subjects.

Of course aptitudes vary but they aren't set in stone. Skills and talents can be developed depending upon one's willingness to put in the work.

Saying I don't understand logic and showing how my logic is flawed are two different things.

Brain damage is set in stone.... at least until medical science overcomes it by which time it will be too late for some.

Contrary to conservative excuses for greed, not everyone can be taught to fish.

What does that have to do with anything?

 

[Colin norris]

Technically anyone who believes that "all things are predetermined" would be a fatalist.

Technically, no. A fatalist would believe that two or three different actions would all result in the same outcome. That is not the same as what it's meant by Free Will being an illusion. And human behavior being subject to the same determinism as any other physical system.

Free will is an illusion?
Where would you get that ridiculous thought? You must be kidding.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Solve the Riddle.

I don't see a riddle. I see confusion on your part.

The Riddle that you either did not see, or perhaps suggest is not a riddle, was at Post# 589.

Yes, I confess to a certain amount of confusion, unlike yourself and many religious people who profess to have all the answers.

You are making assumptions that just aren't true. I've addressed this a number of times. God created existence. All existence is good. You are blaming God for man's failure.

Solve the Riddle.

I don't see a riddle. I see confusion on your part.

The Riddle that you either did not see, or perhaps suggest is not a riddle, was at Post# 589.

Yes, I confess to a certain amount of confusion, unlike yourself and many religious people who profess to have all the answers.

You are making assumptions that just aren't true. I've addressed this a number of times. God created existence. All existence is good. You are blaming God for man's failure.

So, God created existence. I assume that God also created man as it'd be pretty hard that there be much of anything without existence.

Why does God not wish to take responsibility for man's flawed design?

It may be more technically accurate to say God is existence. But be that as it may be, He created our existence; the material world.

He doesn't. That's you blaming God for it. Thinking you would have done a better job. I guess in your world there would be no death, no illness, only good things. In fact, bad wouldn't even have meaning. Not sure you have thought that through but to each his own as they say.

Oh, I've thought about it and concede that the description of boring comes to mind.

But then, I'm not an omnipotent who should be able to design the thrill of a a roller coaster without subjecting small children to cancer, or a lifetime with two heads and one set of shoulders? Wow, does your God also pull the wings from flies?

Again, I point to the riddle... If God is unable to overcome evil and suffering why call him God?

I'm not sure how one designs the thrill of victory without the agony of defeat. Whatever will you do with all of those people who don't die in your world?

Let me help. We play a round of golf, I sink a hole in one and your ball lands in the water. You're disappointed but still alive and anxious for another day, another challenge.

As for all of those dead people, that's God's problem. He made the rules. He let them die.

I see it a little different. Your ball lands in the water and you curse why God didn't make it so you would never have to suffer adversity. My ball lands in the water and I ask myself what it was I was supposed to learn. Down the road you hit a hole in one and feel nothing because you expect God to have made a world where all of your shots go in the hole. I make a hole in one and am elated because I know that not all shots go in the hole and it's because not all shots go in the hole that I feel so much joy over the ones that do.

There's a very large difference between simple adversity and the real ugly that exist in the world.

What possible purpose is there to a child born with a twisted agonized body only to die at a tender age? Would you dismiss that with, "It's okay, there will be other children"? And what was the gain to the dead infant? What lesson and wisdom do you assign to the extermination of six million Jews and how do you justify it to the six million? When religious people lawfully owned, beat and raped other people in this country, what GODLY purpose did that serve?

You treat the victims of all the suffering as if they are unthinking, unfeeling golf balls.

There is no way around the wisdom reflected by the Epicurean Paradox. God created existence, he created man, he created all, and hence, is responsible for the product. It's that fucking simple.

No, I wouldn't dismiss it. Would you dismiss the overwhelmingly number of children who are born perfectly healthy?

Do you think the parents of children born with a twisted agonized body only to die at a tender age love them less? Or do they love them more because of it? Do you think that children born with a twisted agonized body only to die at a tender age don't have a positive affect upon the world? I think they do. I think the same would apply to the stillborn infant too.

What lesson and wisdom do I assign to the extermination of six million Jews? That's it's a bad idea to dehumanize human life and that when one does predictable consequences will ensue. How do I justify it to the six million? I don't. Life is not a value transaction. But some may argue that the establishment of Israel would not have occurred without it? How many lives did that end up saving in your cold hard value assessment? The question is will you only see the bad that comes from things or will you take a more balanced view.

When religious people (who were Democrats) lawfully owned, beat and raped other people in this country, what GODLY purpose did that serve? That human life is precious and that we have inalienable rights for no other reason than we are God's creatures and that humans are not property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. When religious people (who were Republicans) fought to end that injustice did you give them credit or learn anything from their efforts?

There is a away around the Epicurean Paradox. God created existence. Existence is good. Good is extant. Evil is not extant. It only exists as the absence of good.

The means by which you dismiss my questions suggest that Hitler really wasn't a bad fellow. God sent him to teach us about humanity, and Adolph obliged. Each of your attempts to excuse evil and suffering ignores victims as if they were mere currency in the purchase of God's Not-so-intelligent Design. Not a single thing you said of the agonized-twisted infant addressed the plight and suffering of that little PERSON. The child was disposable in a warped proof of God's Greater Good.

Apparently, God deems that the end justifies the means so long as good exceeds evil.

Your way around the Paradox is just another bogus effort to ignore God's inability to provide good without the use/presence of evil. As the riddle ask, "whence comes evil".

I'm not sure why you brought political parties into the conversation, but would remind you that somewhere in the middle or the prior century a contingent of Dems changed sides.
Hey, as I use to say in a different time and place... shit happens (unless you're a rabid reactionary).

 

[ding]

Solve the Riddle.

I don't see a riddle. I see confusion on your part.

The Riddle that you either did not see, or perhaps suggest is not a riddle, was at Post# 589.

Yes, I confess to a certain amount of confusion, unlike yourself and many religious people who profess to have all the answers.

You are making assumptions that just aren't true. I've addressed this a number of times. God created existence. All existence is good. You are blaming God for man's failure.

Solve the Riddle.

I don't see a riddle. I see confusion on your part.

The Riddle that you either did not see, or perhaps suggest is not a riddle, was at Post# 589.

Yes, I confess to a certain amount of confusion, unlike yourself and many religious people who profess to have all the answers.

You are making assumptions that just aren't true. I've addressed this a number of times. God created existence. All existence is good. You are blaming God for man's failure.

So, God created existence. I assume that God also created man as it'd be pretty hard that there be much of anything without existence.

Why does God not wish to take responsibility for man's flawed design?

It may be more technically accurate to say God is existence. But be that as it may be, He created our existence; the material world.

He doesn't. That's you blaming God for it. Thinking you would have done a better job. I guess in your world there would be no death, no illness, only good things. In fact, bad wouldn't even have meaning. Not sure you have thought that through but to each his own as they say.

Oh, I've thought about it and concede that the description of boring comes to mind.

But then, I'm not an omnipotent who should be able to design the thrill of a a roller coaster without subjecting small children to cancer, or a lifetime with two heads and one set of shoulders? Wow, does your God also pull the wings from flies?

Again, I point to the riddle... If God is unable to overcome evil and suffering why call him God?

I'm not sure how one designs the thrill of victory without the agony of defeat. Whatever will you do with all of those people who don't die in your world?

Let me help. We play a round of golf, I sink a hole in one and your ball lands in the water. You're disappointed but still alive and anxious for another day, another challenge.

As for all of those dead people, that's God's problem. He made the rules. He let them die.

I see it a little different. Your ball lands in the water and you curse why God didn't make it so you would never have to suffer adversity. My ball lands in the water and I ask myself what it was I was supposed to learn. Down the road you hit a hole in one and feel nothing because you expect God to have made a world where all of your shots go in the hole. I make a hole in one and am elated because I know that not all shots go in the hole and it's because not all shots go in the hole that I feel so much joy over the ones that do.

There's a very large difference between simple adversity and the real ugly that exist in the world.

What possible purpose is there to a child born with a twisted agonized body only to die at a tender age? Would you dismiss that with, "It's okay, there will be other children"? And what was the gain to the dead infant? What lesson and wisdom do you assign to the extermination of six million Jews and how do you justify it to the six million? When religious people lawfully owned, beat and raped other people in this country, what GODLY purpose did that serve?

You treat the victims of all the suffering as if they are unthinking, unfeeling golf balls.

There is no way around the wisdom reflected by the Epicurean Paradox. God created existence, he created man, he created all, and hence, is responsible for the product. It's that fucking simple.

No, I wouldn't dismiss it. Would you dismiss the overwhelmingly number of children who are born perfectly healthy?

Do you think the parents of children born with a twisted agonized body only to die at a tender age love them less? Or do they love them more because of it? Do you think that children born with a twisted agonized body only to die at a tender age don't have a positive affect upon the world? I think they do. I think the same would apply to the stillborn infant too.

What lesson and wisdom do I assign to the extermination of six million Jews? That's it's a bad idea to dehumanize human life and that when one does predictable consequences will ensue. How do I justify it to the six million? I don't. Life is not a value transaction. But some may argue that the establishment of Israel would not have occurred without it? How many lives did that end up saving in your cold hard value assessment? The question is will you only see the bad that comes from things or will you take a more balanced view.

When religious people (who were Democrats) lawfully owned, beat and raped other people in this country, what GODLY purpose did that serve? That human life is precious and that we have inalienable rights for no other reason than we are God's creatures and that humans are not property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. When religious people (who were Republicans) fought to end that injustice did you give them credit or learn anything from their efforts?

There is a away around the Epicurean Paradox. God created existence. Existence is good. Good is extant. Evil is not extant. It only exists as the absence of good.

The means by which you dismiss my questions suggest that Hitler really wasn't a bad fellow. God sent him to teach us about humanity, and Adolph obliged. Each of your attempts to excuse evil and suffering ignores victims as if they were mere currency in the purchase of God's Not-so-intelligent Design. Not a single thing you said of the agonized-twisted infant addressed the plight and suffering of that little PERSON. The child was disposable in a warped proof of God's Greater Good.

Apparently, God deems that the end justifies the means so long as good exceeds evil.

Your way around the Paradox is just another bogus effort to ignore God's inability to provide good without the use/presence of evil. As the riddle ask, "whence comes evil".

I'm not sure why you brought political parties into the conversation, but would remind you that somewhere in the middle or the prior century a contingent of Dems changed sides.
Hey, as I use to say in a different time and place... shit happens (unless you're a rabid reactionary).

I didn't dismiss your questions. I answered your questions. What question do you think I dismissed?

What does a bad fellow mean exactly? I don't believe anyone is all bad or all good. Do you? Do you think you are a good fellow? Do you do all good at all times? So to correct your assumption, I believe Hitler did some very bad things. It would be super nice if you stopped putting words in my mouth and then trying to bash me for the words you put there. That's not nice.

Who said God sent Hitler to teach us about humanity? You keep making false assumptions. You could just ask me and you could avoid having to hear my corrections. I believe it must be you who thinks God is turning knobs and controlling events on earth because it sure isn't me who believes that. God created existence. He imparted His attributes upon man. Man must choose to do good or bad. There is a self compensating feature of existence. Error eventually fails and truth is eventually discovered. Many times that discovery is a result of something bad that happened.

I never excused evil. Can you show me where I excused evil? Evil is not extant. Evil is the absence of good. That's not me excusing men who choose to do evil. That's stating reality. It is also reality that good comes from evil. That's not excusing evil either.

I didn't ignore the victims or the suffering of victims. In no way is my saying that good comes from bad a justification for evil or suffering. That's just stating reality. A reality you would most likely have no problem accepting if we weren't discussing God as the creator of existence. It's your bias that is clouding your judgement and results in your inability to take balanced positions an anything related to God.

It is a logical fallacy to say that unless everything is perfect there can be no creator.

 

[ding]

I'm not sure why you brought political parties into the conversation, but would remind you that somewhere in the middle or the prior century a contingent of Dems changed sides.

No. They didn't. The south kept electing Democrats well into the 80's. I'd be happy to debate this in the bull ring with you. Because that's where I will take it if you reply.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Still grasping at straws?

Correct, yes you are. It was especially cringey when you thought that screaming "scientists don't know how everything works!" was an actual rebuttal to "science deals with the how, not the why". Eek.

Yeah, that never happened. Perhaps cut down on the drugs?

Of course it did, as anyone can go back and read for themselves.

Science deals with the how, not the why. Get used to it.

Of course they can read it for themselves. It never happened. Get used to it.

It was especially cringey when you thought that screaming "scientists don't know how everything works!"

Creepy is assigning straw motivations to your interlocutors while completely misrepresenting what occurred.

Cry it all out. Done? Good.

Seems you've done "screamed" your fill of nonsense at me today
Good.

Funny, you managed to throw a fit for 3 pages without ever actually disputing my claim. Science deals in the how, not the why. Unless you want to put all the magical "spiritual" nonsense aside and just agree the how IS the why.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Free will is an illusion?

As we have come to think we understood it for so many years? yep.

Where did I get this thought? theoretical knowledge that our brains are just physical systems that follow all the same, deterministic laws as any other physical system..

... and literally every observation made on the topic in a lab. Your choices are made before you are aware they are made. Go check.

 

[Colin norris]

Free will is an illusion?

As we have come to think we understood it for so many years? yep.

Where did I get this thought? theoretical knowledge that our brains are just physical systems that follow all the same, deterministic laws as any other physical system..

... and literally every observation made on the topic in a lab. Your choices are made before you are aware they are made. Go check.

So what I think at anytime is not my free will to think it.
Do you believe it was some God who organised it? You have to be kidding.
You can't be that dumb.

 

[otto105]

Nothing Created Everything

Richard Dawkins is arguably the modern poster boy for Charles Darwin. However, a key difference radically separates the two men. Darwin b...

www.goodreads.com

It's really that simple, everything that is, came to be what it is, because nothing decided to write genetic code

The Big Bang was not created out of nothing.


Life evolves and your a product of it.

 

[BreezeWood]

Free will is an illusion?

As we have come to think we understood it for so many years? yep.

Where did I get this thought? theoretical knowledge that our brains are just physical systems that follow all the same, deterministic laws as any other physical system..

... and literally every observation made on the topic in a lab. Your choices are made before you are aware they are made. Go check.

.

Where did I get this thought? theoretical knowledge that our brains are just physical systems that follow all the same, deterministic laws as any other physical system..

Your choices are made before you are aware they are made. Go check.

.
not a chance holy oak - physiology is boundless without standards to preclude any possibilities for change.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So what I think at anytime is not my free will to think it.

So much gray area there. Would need more clarification.

What appears to be the case is that we are not the conscious agent of our choices. Nothing more, nothing less. The evidence shows this.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

physiology is boundless without standards to preclude any possibilities for change.

Those boundaries are set by selection.

 

[BreezeWood]

physiology is boundless without standards to preclude any possibilities for change.

Those boundaries are set by selection.

.

Those boundaries are set by selection.

.
selection is a choice, rather a metaphysical transmission from parent to offspring for a decided course of events after fruition is attained.

through purity of spirit.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

selection is a choice, rather a metaphysical transmission from parent to offspring for a decided course of events after fruition is attained.

Yes i know. Selection decides which parents are more likely to have offspring. Notice your magical meta stuff adds nothing whatsoever.

 

[Colin norris]

So what I think at anytime is not my free will to think it.

So much gray area there. Would need more clarification.

What appears to be the case is that we are not the conscious agent of our choices. Nothing more, nothing less. The evidence shows this.

What evidence???
Show the evidence and don't quote your biblical crap. Just raw verifiable facts.

 

[BreezeWood]

selection is a choice, rather a metaphysical transmission from parent to offspring for a decided course of events after fruition is attained.

Yes i know. Selection decides which parents are more likely to have offspring. Notice your magical meta stuff adds nothing whatsoever.

.

Yes i know. Selection decides which parents are more likely to have offspring. Notice your magical meta stuff adds nothing whatsoever.

.
you are using a term is such a manner as to conclude your interpretation is one of a metaphysical origin dictating an outcome, what might that be.

not to mention your answer makes little to no sense.

 

[Dusty]

Nothing Created Everything

Richard Dawkins is arguably the modern poster boy for Charles Darwin. However, a key difference radically separates the two men. Darwin b...

www.goodreads.com

It's really that simple, everything that is, came to be what it is, because nothing decided to write genetic code

The Big Bang was not created out of nothing.


Life evolves and your a product of it.

Physicist claim that the big bang happened because nothing decided to create everything

 

[otto105]

Nothing Created Everything

Richard Dawkins is arguably the modern poster boy for Charles Darwin. However, a key difference radically separates the two men. Darwin b...

www.goodreads.com

It's really that simple, everything that is, came to be what it is, because nothing decided to write genetic code

The Big Bang was not created out of nothing.


Life evolves and your a product of it.

Physicist claim that the big bang happened because nothing decided to create everything

Didn’t you god just create something from nothing?

 

[Colin norris]

Nothing Created Everything

Richard Dawkins is arguably the modern poster boy for Charles Darwin. However, a key difference radically separates the two men. Darwin b...

www.goodreads.com

It's really that simple, everything that is, came to be what it is, because nothing decided to write genetic code

The Big Bang was not created out of nothing.


Life evolves and your a product of it.

Physicist claim that the big bang happened because nothing decided to create everything

Really? You certainly have researched the subject. You're brain dead son.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Funny, you managed to throw a fit for 3 pages without ever actually disputing my claim. Science deals in the how, not the why. Unless you want to put all the magical "spiritual" nonsense aside and just agree the how IS the why.

I disputed your claim. Science is just a word. It does nothing but indicate "study", remember? Studying (researching) scientifically (using scientific method) generally helps reveal what, who, how, when, why, etc.. The how is the why. The why is the how, when, who, what-TF-ever. Just because people parrot Feynman's egotistical BS doesn't mean you need to as well.