Simple question?

Quote: rxwine

Maybe that's the idea some of the Catholic leadership had when they ignored pedophiles. We didn't do it, and it's god-like to allow misery even when you might have prevented it.

I still disagree with the assertion that god didn't afflict any misery on us.

(Within the catholic belief system so you can set aside the explanation that god didn't afflict any misery on us because god doesn't exist)

Quote: Dalex64

I still disagree with the assertion that god didn't afflict any misery on us.

(Within the catholic belief system so you can set aside the explanation that god didn't afflict any misery on us because god doesn't exist)

Since God obviously exists if you look at the philosophical evidence that 1) there cannot be a infinite regress of contingent beings and the universe is a contingent thing not being necessary, 2) This necessary being must be spiritual, eternal, and all-powerful for it to create all that exists. Then there is physical evidence (notice these individually are not proofs, but taken together along with the philosophical evidence make it obvious that God is more probable than not): 1) the orderly universe that follows strict laws that are fine tuned, 2) the 99% of people throughout history who have experienced in some way the presence of the supernatural and divine [please note that this again is NOT a proof that there must be a God only evidence like the witnesses one uses in court to testify to the truth of something], 3) the presence of objective moral truths and our common understanding of what is good and evil, 4) the innate desire in us to want perfect justice, love, health even though we have had no experience of such things. The explanation for this is that we all implicitly know that life is meaningful and has a purpose even when we deny this we cannot live this way. 5) the total absence of any evidence showing that there is no God.

Anyway all that above was a digression and review, the only way the main point of your post can be correct is if you mistake punishment or discipline for misery.

Quote: FrGamble

Anyway all that above was a digression and review, the only way the main point of your post can be correct is if you mistake punishment or discipline for misery.

So, when you have a parent whose child becomes severely ill do you praise god and wonder what horrible sins the parents committed?

What happens when the child dies, do you thank god for that as well?

Sure I can see where no matter what happens it's our fault and god is always right, but it just sounds like sophistry to keep defending the indefensible like that.

Quote: FrGamble

Since God obviously exists if you look at the philosophical evidence that [..]

The next evidence for any deity I see will be the first.

Quote: rxwine

So, when you have a parent whose child becomes severely ill do you praise god and wonder what horrible sins the parents committed?

When a child is born with severe birth defects, should one wonder whether it was the ovum or the sperm who committed an awful sin?

Quote: rxwine

So, when you have a parent whose child becomes severely ill do you praise god and wonder what horrible sins the parents committed?

Whoa there, what you describe is straight up misery but God does not inflict that upon us. Inflict seems to me to be something directly willed and caused by another. God neither wills nor causes the child to be ill or harmed in any way.

Quote: Nareed

The next evidence for any deity I see will be the first.

If you open your mind and eyes you will see it. However, you can open your mind and eyes and search all you want you will never find any evidence or reason as to why God cannot exist.

Quote: FrGamble

you can open your mind and eyes and search all you want you will never find any evidence or reason as to why God cannot exist.

It's odd that you think this is a valid argument.
You cannot prove that Leprechauns do not exist,
or unicorns either. The burden of proof is always,
100% of the time, on the person making claims.
They cannot claim something ridiculous and say
it's your job to prove it's not true.

Knowing that, what science says about god is this:

"this alleged entity has no place in any scientific equations, plays no role in any scientific explanations, cannot be used to predict any events, does not describe any thing or force that has yet been detected, and there are no models of the universe in which its presence is either required, productive, or useful."

It doesn't say there is no god, but it doesn't look
good for the possibility.

Quote: FrGamble

If you open your mind and eyes you will see it.

Just how does a mind open? Brain surgery?

Quote:

However, you can open your mind and eyes and search all you want you will never find any evidence or reason as to why God cannot exist.

Because the physical laws that govern the universe and the universal laws of logic all indicate it's simply not possible?

You'll notice it's easy to argue energy is eternal. We know it predates the Big Bang. Any future scenarios for the ultimate fate of the universe, if any, retain the same amount of energy. But no one will ever claim energy is all powerful, as it's evident it cannot be.

Therefore the next evidence for the existence of a deity that I see will be the first such evidence ever.

Quote: Evenbob

It's odd that you think this is a valid argument.
You cannot prove that Leprechauns do not exist,
or unicorns either. The burden of proof is always,
100% of the time, on the person making claims.

First of all lets not forget that saying, "there is no God" is a claim. You could say, "there is no evidence for God" and then try to show why all the evidence I have provided above is not really evidence. I think in the case of Leprechauns and unicorns you can actually say there is evidence they do not exist. For example no one has really seen a unicorn or a leprechaun. We know that rainbows don't have ends and there could not be pots of gold present at the ends of the various rainbows that show themselves all the time. These are all logical and physical evidence that there are no leprechauns. For you to claim that there is no God you have to provide evidence. If not, then you can only continue to ignore or unsuccessfully try to claim that such things as personal experience or logical arguments and modern cosmology are not evidence of God's existence. Even if you were successful in saying why such things are not evidence (and you haven't) you still cannot then make the claim that there is no God. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.