2010-12-05, 05:12 AM
Fiel Wrote:Kinda funny that you see no proof of God but you clearly know that he doesn't sanction using his name to commit atrocities and start wars. If you've seen no proof of God, as you said, then how can you make such a statement about his wills and wishes?
"I see no proof that a Pink Unicorn exists, but I know for darn sure the Pink Unicorn doesn't sanction his name be used to start wars or atrocities."
Just seems like a very strange statement.
I can see how you would interpret it that would from the syntax, but at the same time, I know you're just trying to be extra clever. The second sentence was supposed to flow from the first - I don't believe in God, but if I were to pretend that he exists, then I know that he wouldn't want anyone to commit all the crimes that have been done in his name.
Of all the things you could have picked apart, I wonder why you chose the one that's against murder and war.
In any case, you're over thinking the entire issue. The quote I posted is the point I wanted to nail home; be in reverence of the splendor of nature and drop all of these arguments. It's like a bunch of children making up a game and then arguing about the rules. You're all embarrassingly ill-equipped to argue most of these topics, anyway. To be quite frank, I've heard better theological arguments from some of the freshmen I TA in philosophy 101.
EDIT: I read some more of the responses and I feel embarrassed for some of you. Had any of you bothered to take even the most of philosophy classes you'd know about the scads of atheist and theological responses to the problems with God's omniscience. I'll cut to the point: people in support of God say that he can know all, but chooses not to, circumventing the issue (supposedly). Other philosophers have said that there can be a dichotomy at the point of incidence (of an event) where there is a binary state of knowing and not knowing that God occupies at the same time. Look it up.