Reply to: Religion

[RasputinDude]

I reckon I am going to set up a god agency and "sell" believers to the highest bidding god.

Thus proving that Agents really will sell their grannies to make a profit.

[DodgyAgent]

I reckon I am going to set up a god agency and "sell" believers to the highest bidding god.

[MyUserName]

Do believers in a god all have complete proofs as to why other gods are not real to not believe in them too?
If not then why should someone have a complete proof that their god is not real to not believe in it?!

[TykeMerc]

Yes, all agents share one soul and operate a system similar to a lending library.

By that you mean they know it's on a shelf somewhere, but they'd rather spend their time in the kids sections browsing areas that provide some intellectual challenge instead?

[SpontaneousOrder]

I'm not implying anything. I know there are flaws with this proof. I merely present it as a proof that some philosophers have come up with for the non-existence of God. SpontaneousOrder said it's not possible to prove God's non-existence because you can't prove a negative. I'm showing him he's wrong.

All you're showing is that *if* there is a God, he certainly didn't make man in his own image. Nothing could be that dense and considered 'divine' at the same time

[GlenW]

Does your twatty clan have one?!

Yes, all agents share one soul and operate a system similar to a lending library.

[FatLazyContractor]

Who does God report to?

Do we have a structure chart to explain the hierarchy of stakeholders responsible for "our souls"?

Does your twatty clan have one?!

[DodgyAgent]

And that it's not illusory. God works in mysterious ways, after all.

Who does God report to?

Do we have a structure chart to explain the hierarchy of stakeholders responsible for "our souls"?

[NickyBoy]

I'm not implying anything. I know there are flaws with this proof. I merely present it as a proof that some philosophers have come up with for the non-existence of God. SpontaneousOrder said it's not possible to prove God's non-existence because you can't prove a negative. I'm showing him he's wrong.

A flawed method of proving a negative, doesn't show you can prove a negative.

You can prove a negative if you apply contextual limitations on the required levels of proof (ie - to the limits of human knowledge, or to the boundaries of reasonable doubt), but absolute proof of a negative can never be provided as humans are not omnipresent.

[NotAllThere]

Seems to me that the God of the Old Testament is anything but benevolent.

Just look what happened to Job.

Some people say "yes, but Job got back even more than he had originally", ignoring the fact that he still was visiting a graveyard full of dead relatives and friends.

[NotAllThere]

You are implying we have agreed a concept of what is evil from god's perspective.

I'm not implying anything. I know there are flaws with this proof. I merely present it as a proof that some philosophers have come up with for the non-existence of God. SpontaneousOrder said it's not possible to prove God's non-existence because you can't prove a negative. I'm showing him he's wrong.

[SpontaneousOrder]

You are implying we have agreed a concept of what is evil from god's perspective.

And that it's not illusory. God works in mysterious ways, after all.

[original PM]

From this we can derive:

1. If an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god exists, then evil does not.
2. There is evil in the world.
3. Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God does not exist.

There you go. It's not impossible to construct a proof that God doesn't exist. Not that this argument is definitive - philosophers and theologians have been arguing over this specific proof for centuries.

You are implying we have agreed a concept of what is evil from god's perspective.

[tractor]

....

Those were actually audited as well...

'Derived from multiple sources'???

That was what I was actually illustrating.

[SpontaneousOrder]

As were Tesco profit forecasts and accounts. It makes them believable but does not make them accurate. It is not inconceivable that such accounts were derived in collusion with one another. The reason (not for the Tesco forecasts of course) may have been honorable and well intentioned but it does not make the subject any more or less real and certainly is not proof of existence.

Although, to be fair to unixman, I don't think he's suggesting that there is proof. Just evidence.