Is the universe evil?

[guillaumeb]

Some people postulate that because bad things happen, this is proof that God is evil. Some go so far as to say this is incontrovertible proof that God is evil.

Other people postulate that there is no God, that the universe sprang into existence due to a big bang, or some other as yet unknown and unexplained cosmic event.

No matter which belief you wish to support, if the mere existence of evil, or the fact of bad things happening, or natural disasters occurring, if this constitutes proof for you that God is evil, I have one question:

In your universe, the one where there is no God, is it the universe itself that is evil? Because the same disease and the same natural disasters and cosmic occurrences are still occurring.

Either way, according to my understanding of your logic, it seems to me that evil is seen as the default position.

[TreasonousBastard]

1. I'm not sure what "evil" is...

but I am fairly convinced that whatever "good" is, you can't have one without the other.

[guillaumeb]

2. It would be hard to define one without the other.

Darkness/light
good/evil
etc.

[Iggo]

115. The opposite of "good" is "bad".

Not "evil".

[TreasonousBastard]

117. Not exactly-- it's a very common construct...

Just from Wikipedia, to say nothing of more academic sources:

Good and evil

In religion, ethics, philosophy and psychology "good and evil" is a very common dichotomy. In cultures with Manichaean and Abrahamic religious influence, evil is usually perceived as the dualistic antagonistic opposite of good, in which good should prevail and evil should be defeated.More at Wikipedia

Related Topics

Good and evil Meanings

Conflict between good and evil - The conflict between good and evil is one of the precepts of the Zoroastrian faith, first enshrined by Zoroaster over 3000 years ago. It is also one of the most common conventional themes in literature, and is sometimes considered to be a universal part of the human condition.
Beyond Good and Evil - Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy

[Iggo]

118. Religion.

[immoderate]

3. 'Evil' is the default position, if God exists.

The fact that he can't or won't abolish evil, leaves him holding the bag. Otherwise evil is hard to differentiate from 'bad news.' And that would depend on to whom the bad news is given, or the evil being done to.

On balance the universe appears neutral.

--imm

[guillaumeb]

4. But if one does not believe in a deity,

the argument then becomes:
Is the universe evil because evil things happen.

Are parents evil because occasionally a child commits a murder?

[immoderate]

8. People (and deities) can do evil things. Depends on whose ox is gored.

The universe just runs down. Having no sentience, it has no intentions. Evil implies intent.

--imm

[struggle4progress]

119. How could we ever determine whether "the universe is sentient" or not?

[immoderate]

120. Response time?

--imm

[struggle4progress]

121. What would be the appropriate time scale?

Our neuronal response time has order of magnitude 0.1 sec

I don't know what we should look for if we wanted a comparable figure for a "sentient universe"

Should we search for events at the Planck time scale? That's about 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 sec. If the universe could "think" that much faster than we can, it would outsmart us at every turn

On the other hand, the time required for a photo to traverse the diameter of the visible universe has order of magnitude 1000000000000000000 sec. If it took the universe that long to "have a thought" then the universe has not even had one complete thought since the Big Bang

[Bretton Garcia]

14. Since the universe has good things too?

It works out to being closer to neutral. Or slightly better than nothing at all.

[guillaumeb]

21. Whuch argument can then be applied to a deity, a Creator.

Not exactly neutral, but allowing what was created to freely develop.

[Bretton Garcia]

43. Closer to neutral. But leaving a clockwork universe? With

... many predetermined structures. And only some freedom.

[guillaumeb]

50. There is no unlimited freedom for humans.

We are bound by laws of physics, as well as the limitations of our bodies.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. "evil" is normally attributed to a thinking entity

and if it's not your opinion that the universe thinks, then you wouldn't use "evil" for it. If you apply "evil" wider, you might call parts of the universe evil - a smallpox virus, say.

[guillaumeb]

6. Is smallpox sentient?

If we determine or agree that sentience is a necessary prerequisite for making a good/evil determination, the answer is no, smallpox is not evil. Nor are earthquakes, or floods.

A lion does not eat because he hates his prey, he eats because he is a hunter.

And in making a judgement about the actions of a sentient entity, the law suggests that intent is to be considered. If I drop a hammer off a roof and it kills someone my intent is key. If I did not intend the act, and if I am not seen as grossly negligent, did I intend on committing murder?

If the Creator created existence and allowed it to develop, and if sentient creatures have the free will to act, the results of those actions reflect on the actors, not the Creator. So unless one believes in predestination, one must accept that sentient creatures are capable of making decisions and acting on those decisions. The concept of free will.

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. No, it isn't sentient; that's why I talked about it under a wider definition of 'evil'

than "something thinking beings can be".

Yes, intent is key to deciding if a thinking being is "evil". If a 'god' exists in the universe, then we need to consider its intent. If the intent is to allow suffering that it could stop (and a god has huge power, by the common usage of the word 'god'), then we can call it "evil". The god's free will is to allow suffering. As various people have put it, "with great power comes great responsibility".

[guillaumeb]

10. And with great power can include great insight.

The insight to know that sentient beings must be allowed the freedom to grow.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. And what about avoidable suffering from diseases or other causes?

Sentient and non-sentient beings suffer pain from disease, famine and other things. Is it 'great insight' that makes a sentient god indifferent to that?

[guillaumeb]

20. Would you prefer a universe will no sharp objects,

no falling objects, no slipping and tripping hazards also?

That sounds like a Thomas Kincaid painting.

[muriel_volestrangler]

30. Sharp objects are useful. Diseases are not. If you think a god has the power to eliminate

diseases that humanity is now doing itself, but has not bothered to do so, then we can conclude humanity is ethically superior to that god.

Yes, I could design a better universe than the one we have if I had the powers that are attributed to a god. We all could.

[guillaumeb]

33. But your design might have adverse effects built into it.

If the Creator sees human progress as progress toward perfection...........?

[muriel_volestrangler]

41. If there's a "Creator' that can see humans, it's either powerless or evil

If it's powerless, there's no evidence that it exists - it's outside the universe, with no way of changing anything in the universe. If it can change something, then it should, to be considered 'not evil'. I don't really give a toss about what a Creator that just 'sees' feels. Fuck them. No need to bring humans into it - rinderpest is another example.

[Bretton Garcia]

15. "If" we were really entirely free

However, it seems the world is full of constraints on our freedim. I can't grow wings and fly; I have to obey the law of gravity, or die.

Even the structure of my brain is largely, if not entirely, determined.

So God - or Nature - constantly control us, to a fairly high degree.

And yes; our Maker is partly responsible. Even an unconscious nature constantly forces our hand. Even without a conscious will.

But we don't mind building technology that defeats say, nature's diseases.

[guillaumeb]

26. And in imagining and building that technology, we are acting in the image

and likeness of the sentient Creator. No, we will never evolve to be a super being, but our evolution is progress toward our ultimate destination. It is the journey that counts.

[Bretton Garcia]

47. No immortal soul that counts most, as the end?

[guillaumeb]

51. I believe that the soul is immortal.

I cannot prove it yet, being alive and supposedly sentient.

[trotsky]

19. Doesn't matter.

If you assume some intelligent agent created the universe (as you do), then you have to explain why such an agent would create something like smallpox. "Because free will" doesn't answer that, BTW.

[guillaumeb]

27. Your conception of the Creator does not answer that question. eom

[trotsky]

29. Neither does yours, despite all your failed efforts to do so. n/t

[Oneironaut]

9. The universe is not evil or good. It just is.

"Good" and "Evil" describe human actions only. The universe is not alive or conscious, and therefore does not make choices. It would make no more sense to describe the universe as evil than to call a falling brick evil for bopping someone off the head.

The "the universe is good/evil" point of view assumes that the universe somehow controls our lives in any way other than the laws of physics. As there is no evidence of the universe being anything but a chaotic place governed by physics, assigning morality to the universe is a pointless concept.

[guillaumeb]

11. Thank you. This is a point that others, and I, have made here.

People are free to act and the results and consequences of those actions reflect only on the choices of the actors.

[Goblinmonger]

12. But if you believe that god created the universe

(I do not, but you seem to), then it becomes more complicated.

For me, not so much more complicated. The universe is ambivalent and people do shitty things.

For you, God created things like cancer and natural disasters and all sorts of things that do horrible things to innocent people. All on his watch and design. Now it isn't an ambivalent world in which things happen, but one designed to be this way by a being that doesn't want to even tweak his alpha test.

[guillaumeb]

22. I do believe. And so do you. We just believe differnt things.

I believe that the Creator, after creating existence, allowed that creation to develop.

[Goblinmonger]

38. No. I don't believe.

I have no beliefs regarding god. I see no evidence for existence and do not believe in any gods.

To say that I believe there isn't a god or that I disbelieve in a god puts the onus on me to support my claim. I have no claim being made. Those that believe in a god are the ones with the burden of proof.

[guillaumeb]

44. You literally have no beliefs that cannot be proven? eom

[Goblinmonger]

54. Didn't say that.

But as it relates to god, it is very frustrating for believers to tell me that I actually have a "belief" that god doesn't exist. That isn't true. I have no beliefs in a god. I do not take the position that a belief in god is the status quo and I am just choosing not to believe. Those that want to argue for a god are the ones with the burden of proof in this regard.

As it doesn't relate to god, there are plenty of things I believe in for which I have no empirical proof. I believe people are primarily good. I believe Hemingway is an overrated writer. I believe Ulysses is the best book ever written.

[guillaumeb]

58. Believing that there is a god, or non-believing ares till both beliefs.

Both are unprovable.

I tried to wade through Ulysses but failed.

[Goblinmonger]

60. Not how I (and others) see it.

Do you "not believe" in unicorns? Do you "not believe" in leprechauns? Do you "not believe" in the invisible dragon that I think lives in your garage?

I do not believe in a god. There is no evidence for one. If you wish to prove there is? Fine. If you wish to believe in one? Also fine. But don't try to put me in the position of having a belief in the thing you believe in. I am the null hypothesis.

I read Ulysses every summer. Learn more every year. Joyce was a crazy genius.

[guillaumeb]

61. Joyce was unique. Simply not to my taste.

My point on the meaning of the word belief is that belief only applies when there is no provability.

I do not believe in gravity. I know that every time I drop something it falls. Belief is not necessary.

[Goblinmonger]

63. Oh, it's not for everyone.

My wife often gets offended because I obviously love the book and she has talked about reading it and I have told her that she shouldn't. She thinks it's because I think she's stupid. Which isn't the case. You need to have put in your literature chops to read Joyce and she just hasn't done that (an attorney--so her reading is elsewhere).

I've tried explaining this to others without much luck, but I'll give you a shot. The problem I have with that definition of belief is that it assumes--not with malice or even knowing it--that your belief is normal. Specifically in this case because the US and the west is primarily Christian. So people feel comfortable saying things like "well, you just don't believe in god, but that's just a belief you can't prove." No. When we prove things, the burden is on those making the claim. And in this case, a pretty big claim. That I "don't believe" in god does not mean that each is on equal footing. As the null hypothesis, I think my position is the default until proven otherwise.

I'm fine with you believing whatever you want. Really, I am. Your god is no more compelling than Zeus or any other god. And I don't see a lot of people running around saying that they "don't believe in Zeus" and that nobody really knows and that their belief in Jesus as god is no different than their disbelief in Zeus.

[guillaumeb]

65. I tried Joyce. Really, I tried.

But it seemed more ordeal than anything else.

And I say this as a person with degrees in French literature and English literature.

My feeling is that taste in literature is, to a degree, familiarity with the various forms.

As to belief, we all have beliefs. I cannot imagine anyone not having beliefs. I never attempt to say my beliefs are better than any others. They are simply mine.

[Oneironaut]

66. That's a fairly Deist argument.

Edit: To clarify, this is RE: the logic you described that God allows cancer and destruction, not your argument against the logic in the first place. I think we are in agreement.

I'm an Atheist, but many religious people (like Deists) would ignore the "PKG" God concept all together by saying that God didn't create cancer, nor does it intervene in this world. It simply started the clock, so to speak, and has been "hands off" ever since. This is the Alpha test argument you pointed to.

I dislike Deism, because I believe it was created to skirt around many logical paradoxes that arise from believing in God. Its explanations don't disprove atheists - its explanations simply dodge the questions.

First and foremost, if God were all Powerful, Knowing, and Good, why is its creation so "buggy?" A PKG God would not need to modify their work at a later date - it would always exist as perfection.

The rational answer is that humans are a product of evolution, which is imperfect. If the argument becomes "God created evolution," then that's both Deist question-dodging and flirting with changing the definition of God.

I have not found answers from theists as to why imperfections exist satisfactory.

[Bretton Garcia]

16. The universe is probably not willed, or good or evil, in itself

All we can do is determine what is good for humanity, or bad for humanity. From our human point of view.

In that process, we seem largely determined, but partly free.

[guillaumeb]

23. I agree that creation, or the universe(s), is/are not good or evil.

The term does not apply to anything without sentience.

[muriel_volestrangler]

31. OK, you don't believe in a sentient god

The argument is that if a god existed in this universe, it would be uncaring or maybe evil.

[guillaumeb]

35. That is not actually what I said.

I was talking of the universe, of existence. Existence is of and apart from the Creator. Just as if you paint a portrait it is part of you and separate from you.

[muriel_volestrangler]

40. You said 'evil' does not apply to something without sentience

and you have said you don't think 'evil' can be applied to your idea of a 'creator'. So I took that to mean you don't think your creator is sentient. Is there an excuse for why 'evil' doesn't apply to your creator?

[guillaumeb]

46. Evil implies intent.

Unprovable in regards to a deity.

[muriel_volestrangler]

49. If we have no idea what a deity intends, then screw them

It would remove any point in religion, or believing in them.

[guillaumeb]

52. That apparently works for you. eom

[Act_of_Reparation]

56. Uh, no.

If you get drunk and accidentally plow your car into a couple of pedestrians, you've still done evil.

[guillaumeb]

59. If you intended to hurt someone I would say yes, that could be called evil.

Otherwise I would call it poor decision making, or a problem with alcohol.

[Act_of_Reparation]

62. Completely disagree.

If you are aware that by drinking and driving one naturally risks harming someone and yet you choose to do it anyway, your decision is evil in addition to being bad.

[guillaumeb]

64. Is addiction a choice or a consequence of a genetic weakness? eom

[Act_of_Reparation]

74. Irrelevant.

Those who drink and drive are not exclusively alcoholics. Drinking is addictive, drinking and driving is not. And I doubt you'd suggest your deity is addicted or genetically predisposed to creating deathtraps.

[Bretton Garcia]

42. Catholic doctrine some times says creator and creation are distinct

Other times it, with the Bible, uses the Design argument; that the goodness of the created universe proves a good creator.

I'd say that any thing, reflects the character of whatever created it, to a degree. If some one makes bombs, and leaves them ticking all over your town, that's evidence of the creators malicious intent.

And if nature made disease, then nature is not really so good, from our point of view. Which is in many ways the only standard we can know.

We might not call nature "evil." But we could call it often, bad for us. And if nature had a sentient creator? Then being sentient, conscious, then he would be evil. Having consciously created an evil thing.

And in the bible? God creates the devil. And disease. And even directs an "evil spirit." So God if he exists, is partly evil.

[guillaumeb]

48. Is disease a made thing, or is it an accident of evolution? eom

[immoderate]

53. Can the Creator control his creation, or is that 'out of his hands' or 'above his pay grade?'

So who controls the limits on the Creator?

--imm

[guillaumeb]

57. A Creator who created the universe

would, in my opinion, have no limits.

But to ask can the Creator control creation asks about the motivation also.

[immoderate]

69. I feel some "mysterious ways" coming on.

--imm

[guillaumeb]

70. There are many mysteries.

We can try to understand them, but sometimes they surpass our ability.

[immoderate]

71. Right! That's why people make shit up!

They shouldn't venture opinions that what exists beyond reality -- exists in reality.

--imm

[guillaumeb]

72. At one time, reality was a flat earth.

A 5800 year old flat earth.

[immoderate]

73. Sorry, the earth was never flat. Or inhabited by leprechauns.

Perception does not control reality.

--imm

[guillaumeb]

75. But it does.

Witness the Electoral College voters who recently certified the new President. He was elected by people who believed what he said.

[immoderate]

78. My point, exactly!

Believers, even true believers, don't determine truth. And it's doubtful that most people believe any politician these days.

It's interesting that in most of the postmortems I've seen, Trump voters freely admit that they knew he was full of shit.

--imm

[guillaumeb]

79. And that admission is bizarre.

If they suspected he was lying, what were they voting for?

[immoderate]

81. They voted for something different.

They knew that the status quo wasn't working for them. Who would shake things up?

They voted for style. They're Americans! Style beats substance. Who had the trademark?

--imm

[nil desperandum]

17. It depends on how and why the universe is here in an individual's own personal view...

If you are a non-believer I suspect you find the universe is not at all an entity, and thus not capable of good or evil but merely a sandbox where a variety of organisms can achieve life and evolve into whatever version of that organism is best suited to survive in the sandbox of the universe. Consequently survival becomes the defining aspect of life in the universe, and some lifeforms evolve to eating other lifeforms as a means of advancing. The higher up the food chain you ascend the more likely your species is to survive and flourish, in that regard all lifeforms including humans are more like advanced viruses in that they seek to overwhelm the host and grow to the largest population possible, and like viruses once the host is overwhelmed they will also consume themselves and perish. Neither good or evil, just survival. Consequently good and evil can be defined by individual species and groups to suit their survival goals.


If you believe in God as the creator of the heavens and earth you are in a far different position, as in this universe your God created everything, your God created the things that kill other things and your God created the things that destroy the various species through disease and pestilence. If all things come from your God the universe in that scenario is created primarily as an unfeeling and uncaring sandbox of death and disease wherein a chosen few are given the chance to find God and seek a way out of the morass as only the human species is allowed to seek and find God in that universe. That is a grim assessment of a deity...

[guillaumeb]

24. In your response, you have defined God as you need to in order that you can make

your grim and negative argument. And you have that right, but that does not define the Creator. Rather, it defines your individual view.

[nil desperandum]

37. I haven't defined the creator at all

if one assumes that the biblical creator did in fact create the light, the heavens and the earth he would in fact by definition be responsible for everything within his creation.

[trotsky]

18. If you believe in a "creator" or god, then yes, it is, and it's a problem for your belief system.

And it's not simply waved away by declaring "free will" - as your failed efforts have fully demonstrated.

[guillaumeb]

25. "Failed efforts" is your assesment, and one tha,t quite frankly, I expected.

We obviously have a far different view of this matter. You have the free will to believe in a world view what works for you, and so do I.

[trotsky]

28. It's my assessment, and that of the many others who have demolished your talking points.

So you just go on to grab one particular phrase, and start a new thread about it trying to save face.

Hasn't worked yet, but it's fun seeing you fail over and over and over.

[guillaumeb]

32. Your responses reveal much about you.

Perhaps inadvertent, perhaps intentional.

Do you see life so absolutely? Are there no gray areas?

[trotsky]

34. I'm not going to answer any further questions now that you've launched into personal attacks again.

Apologize and I'll happily answer your questions.

But I know you won't. How amazing it would be though for you to prove me wrong for once.

[guillaumeb]

36. Point out any of your responses to me in this thread that do NOT contain

insults.

[trotsky]

39. Pointing out that you've failed to defend your argument is an insult?

That's a new one. I'm very sorry you were hurt by people proving you wrong.

[guillaumeb]

45. Avoidance.

I could copy and highlight your responses, but it would serve nothing.

[trotsky]

55. Avoidance indeed is what you're engaging in.

Glad you recognize it. You could put this all behind you with a simple retraction and apology - but you refuse. Is that Christian behavior?

[ladjf]

67. Only if the laws of physics are evil. nt

[guillaumeb]

68. Exactly. Good an evil are judgements we make about behavior.

Not about natural disasters, or illnesses.

[Warpy]

76. No, it's utterly impersonal

People who think it's all about them find that evil.

[guillaumeb]

77. A giant machine. We are a part of the machine.

The conflict arises when we argue over how the machine came into existence.

[Warpy]

80. I wouldn't go that far

It likely has no creator and no ultimate purpose except to exist.

It is, however, utterly impersonal.

[Humanist_Activist]

82. If there is a creator of the universe who is omnipotent in the universe...

i.e. can and has intervened, then that being is, at the very best, indifferent to the suffering of other sapient beings. You can define that as evil. The universe itself though, that is also indifferent, but is no more morally culpable than a rock.

[guillaumeb]

83. If there is a Creator,

that Creator might prize free will, and the possibility of sentient beings making moral progress, over the idea of being a cosmic director.

[Humanist_Activist]

84. Where does free will enter into accidents, natural disasters, disease?

Its a cop out, generally speaking over all of human history, harmful actions by humans against each other has only been a small fraction of the suffering that befell humanity from natural causes.

[guillaumeb]

85. In a dynamic, evolving universe, where anything can happen,

everything does happen.

[Humanist_Activist]

90. Which points to it being a universe without a consious creative force acting on it at all. n/t

[guillaumeb]

95. It points to a universe where things happen. eom

[Humanist_Activist]

141. Exactly, and apparently without any direction or goals in mind...

hence the reason for no evidence of there being a interventionist deity acting on it.

[guillaumeb]

142. If you cannot see the direction, or understand the goals, does that

mean that they do not exist? A tree does not understand the saw. But that does not mean that the saw and the person using it do not exist.

[Humanist_Activist]

143. Trees lack brains and sensory organs to see the saw or anything else...

for that matter. We don't lack in either.

Not to mention a saw is a man made tool with a specific purpose.

Can you think of a clumsier analogy?

[guillaumeb]

144. I feel the analogy is sufficient to make the point.

A point that I have previously made here. What would make you feel that any human, with a human's limitations, would have the capacity to understand the motivations and abilities of a Creator?

[Humanist_Activist]

145. Does it matter? You are talking about god being a Lovecraftian entity...

a being beyond good or evil, one that, at best, has motivations and/or desires that are completely inhuman. Such a being we couldn't relate to, we certainly wouldn't be made in that being's image, nor would that being show affection for us, if they expressed any emotion at all.

We are talking about the supposed Creator of the universe, of the cosmos itself, the creator of time, space, matter itself, the creator of trillions upon trillions of galaxies, each with billions(at minimum) of stars in them and orbiting those stars are quadrillions upon quadrillions of worlds. A universe in which space expands faster than light, where the true size of the universe is just beyond a horizon we can never cross. A universe where the furthest back in time we can see is the big bang, and we see millions of galaxies in slivers of sky no larger than a thumbnail extended a full arm length, and that isn't even close to being able to see far enough, for we are only seeing a small percentage of that universe in our little bubble of light that is only 93 billion light years in diameter.

Knowing all the facts that we know about the universe now, I find it frankly silly that people try to cram all that down, reduce its scope to something more palatable to human experience, and then claim some local Caananite god was the creator of it all. There may very well be a creator to the universe, but such a being certainly has no relationship with humans, nor would it bear any resemblance to the tribal, brutish and primitive god(s) of the Bible, Torah, Koran, Bhagavad Gita or any number of other legends, myths, and so called holy texts that humans imagined over the many centuries.

[guillaumeb]

148. Made in the image and likeness refers to sentience, not appearance.

Last edited Mon Jan 9, 2017, 04:00 PM - Edit history (1)

Edited to add: If there is confusion about the above statement, it refers to my personal belief.


When you said:

There may very well be a creator to the universe, but such a being certainly has no relationship with humans, nor would it bear any resemblance to the tribal, brutish and primitive god(s) of the Bible, Torah, Koran, Bhagavad Gita or any number of other legends, myths, and so called holy texts that humans imagined over the many centuries.

I would partially agree. Man generally anthropomorphizes his gods. That is understandable because it does allow us to conceive of interaction with that god(s).

As to how the Creator perceives creation, I cannot answer that. I hope one day to be able to answer that but I also hope that day is many years off.

[trotsky]

154. "Made in the image and likeness refers to sentience, not appearance."

How do you know this? Oh wait, this is again just another *belief* of yours, right?

You should preface statements of belief so they don't come off looking like statements of fact. It appears like you're attempting to give your religious beliefs a veneer of legitimacy.

[guillaumeb]

156. Given that we all make statements of belief here, it should be apparent

that, absent any attribution, a statement reflects the poster's views.

But for those who do not make that connection, yes my statement was an expression of my understanding. I will try to clarify to avoid future confusion.

[trotsky]

157. No, "we all" don't.

Saying, for instance, "you haven't provided one speck of evidence for this creator you believe in" is a statement of fact.

[guillaumeb]

159. Yes, it is a statement of fact.

But given that faith does not need proof, why did you feel it was necessary to repeat what has been repeated here many times?

[trotsky]

162. "faith does not need proof" - BZZZT.

That is you attempting to shift the terms of debate to be much more favorable to your position. It's also dishonest.

It would be more accurate to say that proof destroys faith.

[guillaumeb]

163. Faith does not need proof.

It would actually be more accurate of you to say that faith and science are not equivalent.

[trotsky]

169. Faith is destroyed by proof.

You carry on arguing with whatever straw man claimed that faith and science were equivalent. I won't get in your way.

[guillaumeb]

170. Produce the claim that you claim was made that science and faith ARE equivalent.

Otherwise it is actually you who is using straw to build an opponent.

[trotsky]

171. Dude, what?

Read your post #163 again.

It would actually be more accurate of you to say that faith and science are not equivalent.

I know I'm stupid and cannot read well - you've made it perfectly clear you think so, and have steadfastly refused to apologize for the insults hurled at me (in lovely Christian fashion) - but why should I say that faith and science are not equivalent when I never said they were?

[guillaumeb]

172. What I said:

But given that faith does not need proof, why did you feel it was necessary to repeat what has been repeated here many times?

And I have stated my belief that faith and science are not equivalent numerous times. So the straw man to which I was referring is the argument, never actually brought up by me, that faith IS equivalent to science.

Do only Christians use insults?

[trotsky]

173. Well I'm glad you admit it was a straw man position.

That's all I needed you to do.

What does it matter whether non-Christians use insults? That's a red herring. What do you think about the insults you've used? Are they justified? Will you ever apologize?

[guillaumeb]

174. Allow me to be more specific.

Do you ever use insulting language when responding here?

[trotsky]

175. Why? Do you feel that justifies what you do? n/t

[rug]

178. The direct answer is Yes. Or No.

No matter. You've answered it indirectly.

[guillaumeb]

179. Your non-response, coupled with your easily viewable responses here,

provides the answer to any who care to look.

[trotsky]

182. I asked a question first.

Give me an answer, and then I will answer your question. That's how it works.

But it is interesting that you do indicate that yes, you feel justified in flinging whatever insults you want. So much for turning the other cheek or loving your neighbor. Perhaps despite your claims, you aren't really a Christian? Fascinating.

[guillaumeb]

183. You do not appear to be looking for answers so much as looking for trigger words.

And that is my personal interpretation of your behavior, based on your many responses in this group. And your avoidance of the issue is also, in my view, quite typical.

[trotsky]

184. Nope, just asking a question.

That you refuse to answer, and instead return to your tired personal attacks on me, says everything.

[rug]

158. Fourtunately, volumes have been written on this over the centuries.

If you want to know what it's about as opposed to, oh, I don't know, more personal attacks, start here:

Wisdom 2:23

For God formed us to be imperishable;
the image of his own nature he made us.

[guillaumeb]

164. I am used to it by now.

I am trying to respond with politeness. So far I am succeeding, but it IS only January 10.

[rug]

165. It's pointless. You know his posting history well enough to see what he's up to.

It's not discussion.

[guillaumeb]

166. The poster does seem quite secure in the atheistic faith.

And very fond of the atheistic saints.

We can always hope for a Damascus moment of enlightenment.

[rug]

167. If he were, he wouldn't be so compelled to attack religion regardless of the topic.

The same thing happens with the religious right. Every comment to the contrary becomes an attack. As you say, there is no intellectual security that would allow a calm and civil discussion.

[guillaumeb]

168. This is what I feel represents fundamentalist atheism.

The intolerance for different beliefs even as the fundamentalist atheist complains about intolerance directed at atheists.

[AtheistCrusader]

87. He could have done without the eye-eating parasites though.

[guillaumeb]

88. A lot of things could be done away with, but to what consequence?

It seems likely that global warming and related climate change will bring about an extinction event. How that will affect the earth in the long and short term remains to be seen.

[trotsky]

91. Pretty sure the consequences of losing an eye parasite would be negligible.

It evolved to fill a specific niche, and does not care that it steals the vision of a child.

In a godless universe, this is just life trying to find a way. But it negatively impacts our fellow human beings, and since we have the knowledge and technology we should work to eliminate it like we have smallpox. (Another one of your beloved creator's inventions.)

For a universe with an allegedly benevolent creator, this is a fucking huge problem that isn't solved by saying the magic words "free will" or dishonestly trying to change the subject to human-caused global warming. You insult victims and all truly compassionate people with your callousness.

[guillaumeb]

96. Do I win any award for my callousness?

Under the simplistic "God is responsible for anything that makes someone sad" meme that is apparently quite in vogue among non-theists here, the existence of sharp objects, gravity, claws, teeth, the sun and any other thing that can cause pain is proof that God is evil.

The utter silliness of such a contention makes any response somewhat unneeded.

[trotsky]

98. No, you just get to humiliate yourself again.

Which is kind of a prize for the rest of us to watch, I guess.

BTW - you're doing it again. Asserting that the universe has a creator, asserting knowledge about that creator, but insisting that no one can know anything about your creator or how/why it created what it did.

This is indeed silly, but it's your belief system. So everyone else will laugh while you scramble around.

[guillaumeb]

103. Interersting how you love to term everything that you cannot accept

as humiliation, and massive failure, and other terms that reveal how you think of those with whom you disagree.

A very Manichean and judgmental world view.

[trotsky]

106. Uhh, sorry to break this to you...

but it's not just me that "cannot accept" your inability to defend your position. Many others have demolished your attempts at arguments, so much so that you (as I have noted repeatedly) just go on to start another thread under different terms when you are defeated.

It's a pattern and clear as day - just like you then engaging in personal attacks and false accusations.

[guillaumeb]

108. If nothing else, you are consistent.

But consistency is not a virtue when one is consistently intolerant of other views. As you demonstrate here on a regular basis.

[trotsky]

109. You got me. I'm intolerant of views that aren't backed up by facts or solid argumentation.

Guilty as charged.

Perhaps you could actually defend your position. Or at least apologize for your repeated insults and false accusations.

[AtheistCrusader]

93. Interesting burden.

I'm not suggesting things that exist should be done away with.

The burden is 'why does this shit exist at all?' Why create it in the first place.

The rest of your response doesn't seem to have anything to do with an intelligent creator scenario for the universe, and what, if any, moral agency it has over that creation.

[rug]

160. Acanthamoebae are important bacterivores though.

Fry's rhetoric aside, from a purely objective scientific perspective, can you say the small risk of eaten eyes outweighs the benefits of acanthamoebae?

[AtheistCrusader]

86. The universe is an *environment*, not a moral agent.

Any moral implications are viewed strictly through a human moral lens, for those humans that ascribe moral values to 'things'.

(I do not.)

[guillaumeb]

89. I agree.

But as to a creator, any attempt to define a creator who created all of existence through a human lens is destined to fail.

[trotsky]

92. Yet you define one anyway.

Having your cake and eating it too, it seems. You get to make all kinds of claims about your creator, but then back off and say no one can know anything about it. Funny.

[guillaumeb]

97. I state my understanding of what the Creator might be.

And identify it as my opinion.

What is the good of having cake if one cannot eat the cake?

[trotsky]

99. No, you have asserted its existence, and knowledge of its properties.

This is what many dishonest theists do - hold very concrete and definite positions - not just opinions - about their god, but back away from it when forced to confront contradictions into a nebulous "creator" about which no one knows anything. When the scrutiny is avoided, they slide back into all the trappings again.

Difference is, here you're not allowed to get away with that. No wonder you've lashed out with false accusations and insults.

[Act_of_Reparation]

100. A glaring and extremely common example being:

When confronted with a lack of evidence for their deity, many Christians will assert that they do not believe in a God who interferes in the affairs of men. But then, they'll tell you Jesus Christ is God the Son who was made flesh, and who suffered, died, and was resurrected to save us all from our sins.

In other words: "I don't believe God gets involved in the world of man. Except this one time..."

[trotsky]

101. Exactly. n/t

[guillaumeb]

104. I have asserted my belief in the existence of a Creator.

Did that nuance escape you?

[trotsky]

107. Well, you have insinuated many times now that you think I'm stupid.

So yeah, maybe that's it. It certainly couldn't be your constantly shifting positions and statements that have confused many people in addition to me.

[guillaumeb]

110. You might be projecting here.

From your various arguments here, you constantly like to point out examples of intolerance as it relates to people of faith, but in so doing, your own intolerance for opinions that differ from yours is also on display.

As is your penchant for reframing what people actually say.

You have repeatedly accused me of framing what Christianity is, without actually citing any of my posts to support your accusations. So I am left with two options:
1) To assume that you repeatedly misunderstand what I am writing, always in a way that frames my arguments negatively, or
2) To assume that you have an agenda.

I am open to either option.

[trotsky]

111. More personal attacks instead of arguments.

Let me know when you are ready to defend your position that so many here have already obliterated.

You keep trying to attack me, when you should be defending your argument. Go ahead. Give it a try.

Of course I do realize, after having given you multiple opportunities, that you'll never do the "Christian" thing and apologize for your attacks and accusations, so just let 'em fly. It only solidifies for everyone here what you think "Christian" behavior is.

Yeah, fling some more. It only drives home the point that you can't defend your position.

[guillaumeb]

112. More projection.

A veritable mountain of projection.

I am not attacking you, merely pointing out my feelings about how you approach argument. And still waiting for your citations from my posts that support your regular contention that I am attempting to frame what being a Christian is.

[trotsky]

113. You have no idea how I approach argument, because you won't actually offer one.

I challenge your position, and you spew a constant refrain personal attacks and false accusations. I've got an agenda. I'm projecting. I'm stupid. I blame all Catholics for Trump winning. Yada yada yada. All false, all bogus, but it's all you have. And you can't apologize, because then you dismiss everything you've been able to produce as an "argument" (in your mind, I guess).

So here's a crazy idea. Defend your position. Stop insulting me, stop making false accusations, and just defend your position.

But I bet you won't.

[guillaumeb]

114. Still waiting for your citations about what you claim I said.

[trotsky]

116. I win the bet! Yay!

(You could try apologizing and retracting your false accusations against me. What's the worst that could happen?)

[AtheistCrusader]

94. When you claim it cannot be defined by us, you are, in fact, defining it.

That seems an unwise logical path to tread.

Most religions attribute unlimited power, capability, presence, etc to god(s). The Abrahamic god is defined as literally omnipotent.

An omnipotent being by definition, cannot fail to be understood by or known to us, if it wants to be known and understood by us.

[heaven05]

102. it's good and evil

god allegedly created both........ No doubts in my mind and experience(s)

[guillaumeb]

105. If that works for you I understand. eom

[Bretton Garcia]

122. Guil's post here is a landmark one for DU

It allows agnostics and atheists to see the root of their difference: the 1) scientific view of a neutral nature. Vs. 3) the religious assertion of a usually super natural, divine goodwill or providence, behind it all.

[guillaumeb]

123. Do you have a link to the post? eom

[Bretton Garcia]

124. Very useful discussion. More needed.

Probably more is needed. Since this is part of the heart of the agnostic vs. atheistic discussion, I would not assume that the agnostics or liberal Christians always have a leg up on liberal atheists.

Personally, the colder universe looks more like what we actually see out there. Even religion is a little colder, more murderous even, that our idealists assert.

Maybe periodic posts in this subject and related ones, every month or so, would be useful. In the meantime I've bookmarked and DU-approved and Facebook "liked" it, for future reference. And hopefully, future debate.

[guillaumeb]

125. Agreed. I think more discussion of issues as well as incidents is a good thing.

That was my reasoning behind the intolerance post. And the related Boston post. To point out the universality of intolerance.

[Bretton Garcia]

132. For me the issue is the universe

Is it the way religion describes - or not. And if not? Then we should not follow religion. Since for that matter, not only is the universe, real life, important in itself. But finally it relates to moral issues too.

Lots of social scientists are looking into the evolutionary advantages to this vs.that morality or ethics.

[guillaumeb]

133. I can see the obvious advantages of co-operation and anything that promotes the group.

And calling that behavior ethical because it promotes the literal continuation of the group.

Small groups of hunter gatherers need the entire group to survive.

How the universe is described by religion, or by science, is limited. Scientists obviously cannot explore what existed prior to the big bang. And religious thinking is, of course, speculative by nature.

[Bretton Garcia]

135. Well said so far.

[guillaumeb]

138. Likewise. eom

[Bretton Garcia]

146. Switching to the language of a pragmatic ethics,

Looking for and following mostly material proofs, should allow religion-based agnostics to interface more smoothly with science-based atheists.

Between religion and science, among other things, is rational ethical theory.

Beyond non-overlapping magisteria.

Walls of separation should be mostly maintained. But for anyone looking for any possible common ground for temporary use, pragmatic ethics would be part of the Venn overlap.

[guillaumeb]

150. Pragmatic ethics?

If by that you mean that which allows the group to survive I would agree as long as that pragmatism does not entail eliminating another group which poses a possible competition for resources.

[Bretton Garcia]

161. Yes

One of the main quasi-sociological pragmatic attempts to defend parts of religion, says that religions increase the strength of groups. For example Through following one god, the scattered Jewish tribes began marching to the beat of one drummer.

But you are exactly right. The downside of social solidarity, is that this newly, strongly unified group, typically sets out next, to oppose and kill all different, alien, dissenting neighbors. Who oppose the principles they had often rather arbitrarily chosen for themselves.

[pangaia]

126. Where is this Universe? I have never been there.

So I don't know the answer.

[guillaumeb]

127. There could be many.

But one assumes that we are in the same one, unless our internet connections are far better than we know.

[pangaia]

128. My download speed is a measly 5.5 or so.

Therefore I doubt I could reach another 'universe.'

But, what IS this universe?

[guillaumeb]

130. That depends on your perspective, and your beliefs. eom

[Bretton Garcia]

134. I agree the universe is hard to find

So I mostly concentrate on the natural world that I can see. When I say "universe," that's mostly what I mean. Anything beyond the visible and measurable environment, is pure speculation.

[WhiteTara]

129. I think the universe is more impersonal than that.

Things arise from their causes. Or every action has an equal reaction.

[guillaumeb]

131. What action caused creation?

[Bretton Garcia]

136. "No one knows" is probably the better answer.

Or for that matter though? Given the fantastic success and brilliance of science from its concentration on nature, the most reasonable guess is that whatever it is, the universe is probably natural, and can eventually be grasped by science.

This appears to be far more likely than the supernatural ghosts and spirits and feelings of religion.

[guillaumeb]

139. But science, at least in my conception, cannot explore what existed prior to the universe, or the

multiverse.

And I agree that the universe is natural in that it encompasses all that exists. But the why of existence is what religion concerns itself with.

[Bretton Garcia]

147. Religion gave up on what came before God; what made God

As Bertrand Russell partly noted.

So religion ALSO gave up on ultimate causes; and therefore ultimate "why"s.

Finally it's best to admit no one knows our ultimate origins; or ultimate reasons, therefore.

Better to be a liberal atheist than a liberal agnostic. Better to be liberal agnostic, than a liberal Christian.

Better to be a liberal, than a conservative, mostly.

[guillaumeb]

151. LIberal does not equate to open for discussion.

Liberals also generally have a world view.

And Christians believe that the Creator created.

[WhiteTara]

149. Sorry to take so long in getting back with you

but I wanted to ask one of my teachers this question and here is his answer.

Geshe Topgyal: The material cause for the formation of our Universe is no other than the space particles- flying particles left after the destruction of the previous universe or Big Bang. The immaterial cause for the formation of our Universe is no other than the Collective Karma of the limitless beings bound to shared this universe as their natural Home for billions of years or Kalpas. Prayers !!

[guillaumeb]

152. What an interresting answer. Well worth the short wait.

So if I understand the answer, (not a guarantee), your Teacher states that this universe was formed from the debris left over from a previous universe.

And does collective Karma refer to the souls, or the essences, of all sentient and non-sentient beings?

If so, could this Collective Karma be a way to state that all of sentient creation is a part of the Creator?

[WhiteTara]

153. I think (no guarantees that I'm right) that all sentient creation

is the Creator. There can not be anything OUTSIDE the universe (especially if you think of God being the creator) because if god is everything, then god can't be outside of anything.)

Buddhists do not believe in a creator or personal god, but that ALL things come from causes and conditions...when the causes and conditions are right/ripe the event occurs. Because all is empty (can you tell me where you soul is? Or where YOU are?) that essence is a great way to explain the "flow" of karma.

I find Buddhist philosophy fascinating and as I study more, I find it to be more true.

If you are on Facebook and want, you can find Geshe Topgyal and follow him. He is a great teacher and has reached the highest level of Buddhist teachings.

I am a mere humble student and my answer may be incoherent.

[guillaumeb]

155. I would say that all sentience is a part of the Creator

in the sense of sharing in self-awareness.

And yes, in my view Creator and created are linked by the act of creation and that shared sentience.

I must confess that I have never read anything about Buddhism beyond the superficial.

[Goblinmonger]

137. Stephen Crane sums it up in one of my favorite poems

A man said to the universe:
“Sir, I exist!”
“However,” replied the universe,
“The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation.”

[guillaumeb]

140. Very true. eom

[Sanity Claws]

176. After the leak of the report on Trump,

I'm starting to think the Universe /God has a wicked sense of humor.

[guillaumeb]

180. Wicked indeed. Or this is another test for the GOP. eom

[RKP5637]

177. LOL! As if we, the collective we, in our infantile knowledge could know. n/t

[guillaumeb]

181. True. Very true. eom