Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Why did God allow 50 innocent people to get murdered? Watch

    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0to100)
    (was gonna post this without quoting you but you've just responded so):

    And plantagent or whatever his name is just said "the Bible isn't credible as proof so why is anything else?"

    Which proves my point exactly! He doesn't want to discuss this, because nothing about religion is "good enough for him", so he is patronising everyone on here to "prove" something to him whoever he takes himself to be whom we need to prove anything to. And he had the cheek to quote me that it was an insult. No it's clear as day, he's been patronising me to go hunt for a source he more vaguely prefers when all along he's never wanted it, it was rhetorical because "nothing can convince him there is a God" basically. That's fine, but why stick around to wind up believers in this thread when you know good and damn well you don't wanna hear it????

    Bye laddy.
    False. I do want to discuss this. While I don't believe there is any evidence for God (which you have conceded) I am willing to change my mind and thus am open to people providing such apparent evidence if they claim to have it. This however doesn't mean I have to accept that so-called evidence as valid and none of the evidence you have provided is valid: it's circular and biased.

    You have tried to stop me questioning those who say they have evidence and in this endeavour you have failed.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by davidguettafan)
    If he exists, why did he allow the American mass shooting to happen?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    If you had 2 different things in two hands: One with murder, death, sufferings and all the bad things and the other hand with Love, Peace, Joy and all the good things, which qualities would you presume God to have if He was real?

    In the hand with all the good stuff right!?

    Then why hold God accountable for bad things? Because he could've prevented them, and he didn't? In that case, there would be no evil in this world.... That would be great but we forgot that evil also plays a part!

    Satan does something and then God gets the beating for it from people!

    Think about it ^^^

    Love ❤️
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Your post seemed to imply that God would be unable to
    I never said nor implied anything close to being that ridiculous.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kendrik Lamar)
    I never said nor implied anything close to being that ridiculous.
    Don't twist my words by quoting half the sentence. I said "unable to CONVINCINGLY".
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Don't twist my words by quoting half the sentence. I said "unable to CONVINCINGLY".
    You're highlighting and focusing on the wrong part of the sentence. The issue I was addressing in the sentence is in the words 'God is unable to'. Anything else that comes after that doesn't change much.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kendrik Lamar)
    You're highlighting and focusing on the wrong part of the sentence. The issue I was addressing in the sentence is in the words 'God is unable to'. Anything else that comes after that doesn't change much.
    Of course it does, context is everything.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    boats and hoes
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0to100)
    when I posted a quote from the Bible itself about why God doesn't need to appear so long as you have faith...why do you keep refusing to accept it?
    The answer to that is simple. The Bible is a collection of claims and accounts by men, of whom we know little or nothing, who are all concerned with making the case for the existence (and the need to obey and worship) a deity, and encouraging people to behave in ways that suit them.

    We know nothing of their motivations (though we can deduce much that is irrelevant to deities) and much of what they claim to have happened is demonstrably false.

    Why, then, should we believe them? And, in particular, why should their speculation about their god's nature and motivation (and that is all it is, speculation) be believed over anyone else's speculation about the same subjects?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Those arguments have all been provided and they've all been thoroughly debunked which is why no one has received the Nobel Proze for definitively proving one of humanity's oldest questions.

    Atheism, generally speaking is the lack of belief in deity rather than the positive assertion that a deity doesn't exist, so no, it doesn't. Most atheists are agnostic atheists, Richard Dawkins included and most of us are willing to believe in God were convincing evidence put forward. The problem is that none has!
    They certainly have not been thoroughly debunked at all. Some are less convincing than others, sure, but ones like the Kalam argument combine the latest science with ancient philosophy, and this one in particular has never been debunked by any self-respecting philosopher.

    Also, it isn't the purpose of these arguments to 'prove' anything. This is impossible - even science can only say that things will happen with a high degree of probability! A good argument will be enough to convince a reasonable person, only the unreasonable person needs a proof.

    You mentioned Richard Dawkins - I just wanted to say that he is an excellent scientist, but a truly crap philosopher. The God Delusion is an embarrassment (why no serious atheist thinkers ever cite it). Its central argument can genuinely be swept aside by a first year philosophy student (and even if it were a valid argument - which it seriously is not - at most all it would show is that apparent design is not good evidence for God, hardly a revelation).

    Your redefinition of Atheism undermines atheism as an academic view. The 'lack of belief in something' is not an intellectual standpoint, it's a description of your psychological state. Whether or not I 'believe' you are sitting on a wooden chair as you read this means nothing as to whether you actually are or not! What you believe is irrelevant - it's what can be argued for that counts. If atheists can't argue for themselves then, you would agree, atheists have no place in these discussions.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    They certainly have not been thoroughly debunked at all. Some are less convincing than others, sure, but ones like the Kalam argument combine the latest science with ancient philosophy, and this one in particular has never been debunked by any self-respecting philosopher.
    You obviously aren't well read in this area. I presume you mean the Kalam Cosmological Argument by "Kalam", which goes:

    (1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
    (2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
    Therefore:
    (3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
    (4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
    Therefore:
    (5) God exists.


    It is debunked on TSR every week and by many philosophers and scientists elsewhere such as the philosophers J. L. Mackie, Graham Oppy, Michael Martin, and Quentin Smith, as well as physicists Paul Davies, Lawrence Krauss and Victor Stenger,

    The first line ignores quantum physics entirely and is invalid scientifically.

    It then makes an unfounded assumption in its second line - that the universe has not always existed - and therefore is logically and scientifically completely invalid. Unless you can prove otherwise ...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    What you believe is irrelevant - it's what can be argued for that counts.
    Well, that blows theism out of the water, in favour of which there is no credible scientific evidence whatever, just the beliefs and assertions of those who support the vested interests of ancient law-makers and the circular use of superstitious writings and fairy tales..
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    They certainly have not been thoroughly debunked at all. Some are less convincing than others, sure, but ones like the Kalam argument combine the latest science with ancient philosophy, and this one in particular has never been debunked by any self-respecting philosopher.

    Also, it isn't the purpose of these arguments to 'prove' anything. This is impossible - even science can only say that things will happen with a high degree of probability! A good argument will be enough to convince a reasonable person, only the unreasonable person needs a proof.

    You mentioned Richard Dawkins - I just wanted to say that he is an excellent scientist, but a truly crap philosopher. The God Delusion is an embarrassment (why no serious atheist thinkers ever cite it). Its central argument can genuinely be swept aside by a first year philosophy student (and even if it were a valid argument - which it seriously is not - at most all it would show is that apparent design is not good evidence for God, hardly a revelation).

    Your redefinition of Atheism undermines atheism as an academic view. The 'lack of belief in something' is not an intellectual standpoint, it's a description of your psychological state. Whether or not I 'believe' you are sitting on a wooden chair as you read this means nothing as to whether you actually are or not! What you believe is irrelevant - it's what can be argued for that counts. If atheists can't argue for themselves then, you would agree, atheists have no place in these discussions.
    The Kalam argument is based on faulty premises and makes faulty conclusions. It suggests that because the universe had a beginning that it had a cause and then makes the leap that this cause must be a personal creator: a totally arbitrary and baseless assumption based on no evidence whatsoever.

    And none of those arguments are convincing in regards to God's existence, not to mention that you're attempting to conflate science and philosophy. Science gets as close to proof as possible by testable and observable evidence, none of the philosophical arguments for God do which is why most scientists remain unconvinced and why no one has won the Nobel for convincingly proving God's existence.

    Nonsense, it is not a redefinition of atheism, but the view of most atheists which stems from the burden of proof. We don't need to positively assert God doesn't exist, just debunk the claims of those who say he does. Just like most people don't actively believe all manner of imaginary things don't exist, but simply lack a belief in them until evidence is provided.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    You obviously aren't well read in this area. I presume you mean the Kalam Cosmological Argument by "Kalam", which goes:

    (1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
    (2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
    Therefore:
    (3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
    (4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
    Therefore:
    (5) God exists.

    It is debunked on TSR every week and by many philosophers and scientists elsewhere such as the philosophers J. L. Mackie, Graham Oppy, Michael Martin, and Quentin Smith, as well as physicists Paul Davies, Lawrence Krauss and Victor Stenger,

    The first line ignores quantum physics entirely and is invalid scientifically.

    It then makes an unfounded assumption in its second line - that the universe has not always existed - and therefore is logically and scientifically completely invalid. Unless you can prove otherwise ...
    You've both clearly swallowed atheistic pseudo-science refutations. Let me set it straight. Remember, for this argument to be a good one, both the premises should be more convincingly true than their alternative.

    Premise 1:
    Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

    Firstly, it seems logically impossible for something to begin existing out of nothing whatsoever. To claim something can come from nothing is essentially an appeal to magic.
    Secondly, quantum physics has not disproved this at all. You're referring to the so-called 'virtual particles' that come into being from 'nothing'. But what a physicist means by nothing is not what a philosopher means by nothing. A physicist means a vacuum - but that isn't really nothing! It has space, physical laws and fluctuating energy for a start. The nothing used in this argument really does mean nothing: including space itself.
    Thirdly, if something could come from nothing, why wouldn't everything and anything just pop into existence all the time, all around us? If Big Bangs can do it, why not trees, or tables or mud?
    Fourthly, the scientific process constantly reaffirms the premise. Science is always looking for causes and, when confronted with a new discovery without an explanation, doesn't just say - oh, it just popped into existence from nothing!

    Premise 2
    The Universe began to exist.

    Here there are two really mind-boggling philosophical explanations for why the universe's past cannot be infinite, first formed by Ghazali. They're amazing, but take a while to explain and I have Further Maths revision!
    The two scientific arguments are as follows:
    Firstly, the Big Bang theory, which has not been refuted for an incredibly long time given the rate of modern scientific research, points towards a point of singularity at which the universe began to exist.
    Secondly, there are, as of today, no successful models of an infinite universe. Any ideas of an oscillating universe or baby universes have all failed due to problems like the build up of entropy.
    Thirdly, in 2003, three leading astrophysicists, Arvind Borde, Alan Guth and Alexander Vilenkin were able to prove that any universe, such as ours, that has, on average, been expanding throughout its history, cannot be infinite in the past and must have a beginning.
    Fourthly, the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that all the energy in existence, given long enough, will eventually even itself out into one, constant concentration everywhere - rather than being clustered in objects like stars. Since this state has not been reached, it therefore follows that all the energy in existence has not been eternal, and had a beginning.

    Conclusion
    Therefore, the Universe has a cause = God
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    If God exists then being murdered is only a mild inconvenience at most. A few minutes of pain followed by an eternity in paradise.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)

    Here there are two really mind-boggling philosophical explanations for why the universe's past cannot be infinite,
    Fourthly, the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that all the energy in existence, given long enough, will eventually even itself out into one, constant concentration everywhere - rather than being clustered in objects like stars. Since this state has not been reached, it therefore follows that all the energy in existence has not been eternal, and had a beginning.

    Conclusion
    Therefore, the Universe has a cause = God
    The problem with applying philosophy to the real world is that the two do not fit together in any real way. I suggest you come up with scientific reasons why the universe cannot have existed for ever, rather than specious philosophical ones. After all, you have scientific reasons for believing that gods can exist outside it, don't you?

    Before you use the second law of thermodynamics on the universe you will have to provide proof that it is an isolated system, which you most certainly cannot do.

    If you can prove it is isolated you will then have to demonstrate how such a system could have been created by something from which it is isolated. Good luck with that.

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...hermodynamics/
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    Conclusion
    Therefore, the Universe has a cause = God
    Totally arbitrary and random conclusion. It's one thing to postulate a cause, quite another to state that this cause has an intelligence and magical powers. You'd need to provide evidence for these insinuations if you hope to be taken seriously.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    49 innocent people surely?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Totally arbitrary and random conclusion. It's one thing to postulate a cause, quite another to state that this cause has an intelligence and magical powers. You'd need to provide evidence for these insinuations if you hope to be taken seriously.

    Sure thing. Firstly, since the cause has to be outside of everything in existence, it will be spaceless and timeless (since these entities are only present within the universe). Therefore it will transcend all physical material, since it created it. With respect to the universe, the creator must be incredibly powerful and incredibly intelligent; how else would it have been able to create such a complex entity, with so much energy and so many constructs and laws? Is this sounding a little bit like God yet?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    Sure thing. Firstly, since the cause has to be outside of everything in existence, it will be spaceless and timeless (since these entities are only present within the universe). Therefore it will transcend all physical material, since it created it. With respect to the universe, the creator must be incredibly powerful and incredibly intelligent; how else would it have been able to create such a complex entity, with so much energy and so many constructs and laws? Is this sounding a little bit like God yet?
    The flaw you are making is in assuming that whatever created the universe is a being, rather the more plausible theories and hypotheses about our current universe being created from things like branes, multiverses and even previous universes, none of which require powers per se or minds.

    You have no hope of proving God exists by those lazy speculations, only hard evidence will suffice.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    "god" is either sadist or doesn't exist. Pick whichever you prefer.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Have you ever participated in a Secret Santa?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.