Happy Atheist Forum

Why is it that so many atheists do not firmly commit to a disbelief in God? I guess what I am asking is what is the issue with being a strong atheist? If I just went by the definitions that most people use to describe a god, I have no issue with saying that I know it is false. It is logically impossible for the Jewish/Christian/Muslim God to exist and yet I am led to believe that saying this deity is impossible makes me the asshole. I have been baffled by the idea that it is somehow intellectually dishonest to flatly say there is no god. In the same breath people are willing to disbelief other myths with a firm degree of certainty. Am I more intellectually honest if I assert that there is no evidence for the existence of the Jolly Green Giant or can I just say that the damn thing don't exist?

I understand that we do not have all the answers to life and that some people would like to leave this possibility open just in case. If the universe or multi-verse was banged into existence because of some ultimate source of infinite information it still would not lend credence to the popular myths people believe today. So aren't we really giving such irrational beliefs too much middle ground to work on by not simply calling it what it is? The only time there should be any uncertainty is when we are dealing with some none popular or metaphysical prime mover. As it stands there should be no philosophical seesawing on the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim God. It's a fairy tale. I don't need to reserve my judgment on flying reindeer and I don't need to do so for the current iteration of the god myths. They are not real.

Is your stance proof based or is it a belief?
If it is proof based then please present the proof. I feel the vast majority of people on this site would be happy to finally have some decent proof then they too can become strong atheists, really I feel alot of people want to get to strong atheist position they just haven't learned of the proof necesary for them.

I think Epicurus' argument shows the logical impossibility of the Judeo-Christian god. Since the majority of believers subscribed to some version of that, it is safe to use this argument to discount their claims. Even if your position is not strong atheism, my point is that we lend too much credibility to the idea of god by pretending that we have some responsibility to prove it wrong. I do not need proof that the flying spaghetti monster does not exist. I don't need a special branch of flying spaghetti monster strong atheism to discount the idea with a certainty.

I guess my complaint revolves around the confusing nature of refuting god claims. There can never be proof that something does not exist. But do we really need to have material proof to be certain that the sky god/eternal father figure myths are untrue or do we just need enough common sense?

The Jolly Green Giant actually exists. I can prove it with verifiable, testable evidence and repeatable testing. I'm not joking. There's a man living outside of Stockholm with gigantism who also has a melanin mutation which makes his skin appear to be a shade of green.

Here (http://underthebutton.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/just-kidding.jpg) is an article about him from the Guardian, and here (http://underthebutton.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/just-kidding.jpg) is a link to the study on gigantism of which he was a volunteer.


Did you click on the links? Did you, for one second, realize that there may be evidence for something which you were simply unaware of? That's because you also understand the concept that one cannot disprove a negative.

Quote from: "radicalaggrivation"It is logically impossible for the Jewish/Christian/Muslim God to exist and yet I am led to believe that saying this deity is impossible makes me the asshole.

Neither Jehovah nor Christ the Second Person of the Trinity nor Allah exist.  But those are only three names and three theologies.  I can say those three names designate three non-existants because the theologies advocating them are intuitively ridiculous, in some cases logically self-contradictory, and in all cases run counter to science if their claims about Creation are taken literally.

The God of the Deist has no attributes claimed for it and no actions except the initial creation of the universe, said action being impossible at this time to refute scientifically.  If science ever determines that the universe was always here, that it didn't have a beginning, Deism will become untenable.

Most atheists claim agnosticism toward Deism only, not toward the Abrahamist faiths, which most atheists flat-out reject.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"

Quote from: "radicalaggrivation"It is logically impossible for the Jewish/Christian/Muslim God to exist and yet I am led to believe that saying this deity is impossible makes me the asshole.

Neither Jehovah nor Christ the Second Person of the Trinity nor Allah exist.  But those are only three names and three theologies.  I can say those three names designate three non-existants because the theologies advocating them are intuitively ridiculous, in some cases logically self-contradictory, and in all cases run counter to science if their claims about Creation are taken literally.

The God of the Deist has no attributes claimed for it and no actions except the initial creation of the universe, said action being impossible at this time to refute scientifically.  If science ever determines that the universe was always here, that it didn't have a beginning, Deism will become untenable.

Most atheists claim agnosticism toward Deism only, not toward the Abrahamist faiths, which most atheists flat-out reject.

Nicely put and well said.

"But if you say, "Show me thy God," I would reply, "Show me yourself, and I will show you my God." Show, then, that the eyes of your soul are capable of seeing, and the ears of your heart able to hear; for as those who look with the eyes of the body perceive earthly objects and what concerns this life, and discriminate at the same time between things that differ, whether light or darkness, white or black, deformed or beautiful, well-proportioned and symmetrical or disproportioned and awkward, or monstrous or mutilated; and as in like manner also, by the sense of hearing, we discriminate either sharp, or deep, or sweet sounds; so the same holds good regarding the eyes of the soul and the ears of the heart, that it is by them we are able to behold God. For God is seen by those who are enabled to see Him when they have the eyes of their soul opened: for all have eyes; but in some they are overspread, and do not see the light of the sun. Yet it does not follow, because the blind do not see, that the light of the sun does not shine; but let the blind blame themselves and their own eyes. So also thou, O man, hast the eyes of thy soul overspread by thy sins and evil deeds. As a burnished mirror, so ought man to have his soul pure. When there is rust on the mirror, it is not possible that a man's face be seen in the mirror; so also when there is sin in a man, such a man cannot behold God. Do you, therefore, show me yourself, whether you are not an adulterer, or a fornicator, or a thief, or a robber, or a purloiner; whether you do not corrupt boys; whether you are not insolent, or a slanderer, or passionate, or envious, or proud, or supercilious; whether you are not a brawler, or covetous, or disobedient to parents; and whether you do not sell your children; for to those who do these things God is not manifest, unless they have first cleansed themselves from all impurity. All these things, then, involve you in darkness, as when a filmy defluxion on the eyes prevents one from beholding the light of the sun: thus also do iniquities, 0 man, involve you in darkness, so that you cannot see God. "-St.Theophilus of Antioch

Quote from: "Achronos""But if you say, "Show me thy God," I would reply, "Show me yourself, and I will show you my God." Show, then, that the eyes of your soul are capable of seeing, and the ears of your heart able to hear; for as those who look with the eyes of the body perceive earthly objects and what concerns this life, and discriminate at the same time between things that differ, whether light or darkness, white or black, deformed or beautiful, well-proportioned and symmetrical or disproportioned and awkward, or monstrous or mutilated; and as in like manner also, by the sense of hearing, we discriminate either sharp, or deep, or sweet sounds; so the same holds good regarding the eyes of the soul and the ears of the heart, that it is by them we are able to behold God. For God is seen by those who are enabled to see Him when they have the eyes of their soul opened: for all have eyes; but in some they are overspread, and do not see the light of the sun. Yet it does not follow, because the blind do not see, that the light of the sun does not shine; but let the blind blame themselves and their own eyes. So also thou, O man, hast the eyes of thy soul overspread by thy sins and evil deeds. As a burnished mirror, so ought man to have his soul pure. When there is rust on the mirror, it is not possible that a man's face be seen in the mirror; so also when there is sin in a man, such a man cannot behold God. Do you, therefore, show me yourself, whether you are not an adulterer, or a fornicator, or a thief, or a robber, or a purloiner; whether you do not corrupt boys; whether you are not insolent, or a slanderer, or passionate, or envious, or proud, or supercilious; whether you are not a brawler, or covetous, or disobedient to parents; and whether you do not sell your children; for to those who do these things God is not manifest, unless they have first cleansed themselves from all impurity. All these things, then, involve you in darkness, as when a filmy defluxion on the eyes prevents one from beholding the light of the sun: thus also do iniquities, 0 man, involve you in darkness, so that you cannot see God. "-St.Theophilus of Antioch

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this looks like a combination of "You can't see god because you don't want to" and "You can't see god because you are evil."

I think the first is refuted by the fact that most atheist are quite open to evidence that such a thing exists - we just don't accept a self-contradictory text that shows little understanding of how the real world works.  The second should be refuted by your own holy book - isn't that why Jesus supposedly came to earth in the first place?

Quote from: "Theophilus of Antioch in "To Autolycus""But if you say... you cannot see God.

From the same work of polemic (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02041.htm):

Quote from: "Theophilus of Antioch in "To Autolycus""A fluent tongue and an elegant style afford pleasure and such praise as vainglory delights in, to wretched men who have been corrupted in mind; the lover of truth does not give heed to ornamented speeches, but examines the real matter of the speech, what it is, and what kind it is.

In examining what "the real matter" of the quote supplied by Achronos is, it's hard to escape the conclusion that it's nothing more than preaching, but let's go ahead and look at it anyway.

The obvious absurdity of "eyes of your soul" and "ears of your heart" can be most charitably overlooked as poetic language, though it's possible that writing in the second century of the common era as he was, Theophilus might have thought he was speaking of real parts of the human anatomy.

This passage seems to be describing a type of Catch-22 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch-22_(logic)).  One cannot see the Christian god "unless they have first cleansed themselves from all impurity."  However, according to Christian doctrine, the only way to be cleansed of impurity is to be "washed in the blood of the Lamb" (accept Jesus as your personal savior and ask forgiveness from him).  If you haven't accepted Christianity, you can't see their god, but if you can't see their god then why accept Christianity rather than any number of other religions, or none?

Quote from: "Recusant"However, according to Christian doctrine, the only way to be cleansed of impurity is to be "washed in the blood of the Lamb" (accept Jesus as your personal savior and ask forgiveness from him).  If you haven't accepted Christianity, you can't see their god, but if you can't see their god then why accept Christianity rather than any number of other religions, or none?

It seems to me that a great deal of effort in the bible and in the preachings of Christians (such as Achronos) are with regards to training the audience to accept the bible, the Christian god and Jesus and not to expect or look for proof. The audience will be rewarded for their conviction to their belief without needing the burdon of proof. A huge amount of effort is to get the audience to make a giant leap of faith and then of course the book becomes the word of truth and once that becomes the centre point of logic anything contrary can never make sense.

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "Recusant"However, according to Christian doctrine, the only way to be cleansed of impurity is to be "washed in the blood of the Lamb" (accept Jesus as your personal savior and ask forgiveness from him).  If you haven't accepted Christianity, you can't see their god, but if you can't see their god then why accept Christianity rather than any number of other religions, or none?

It seems to me that a great deal of effort in the bible and in the preachings of Christians (such as Achronos) are with regards to training the audience to accept the bible, the Christian god and Jesus and not to expect or look for proof. The audience will be rewarded for their conviction to their belief without needing the burdon of proof. A huge amount of effort is to get the audience to make a giant leap of faith and then of course the book becomes the word of truth and once that becomes the centre point of logic anything contrary can never make sense.

Well said - both of you.

Enter the mouth of the dragon, breathe his exhale, and you will know his scent.  And then he will close his mouth, and you will know his belly.

On another thread I accidentally misspelled denomination as, demonination.  I corrected it via the edit function, but not before noticing the irony of it, and contemplating the insightfulness of it.

More crack pottery:

Quote from: "Theophilus of Antioch"You will say, then, to me, "Do you, who see God, explain to me the appearance of God." Hear, O man. The appearance of God is ineffable and indescribable, and cannot be seen by eyes of flesh. For in glory He is incomprehensible, in greatness unfathomable, in height inconceivable, in power incomparable, in wisdom unrivalled, in goodness inimitable, in kindness unutterable.

Quote from: "same crackpot a little farther down"Therefore, do not be sceptical, but believe; for I myself also used to disbelieve..., but now, having taken these things into consideration, I believe.

I think what radicalaggrivation wrote was well done.

Quote from: "Gawen"I think what radicalaggrivation wrote was well done.

To some extent I agree, which is why I've changed my worldview designation to Anticreed.  With regard to the Deist's God I remain agnostic and apathetic, but with regard to theistic creeds I am neither of those things, as I declare theistic creeds to be false and I declare them to be dangerous.  I've decided that what I'm adamantly against matters more than what I'm apathetic toward.

Quote from: "radicalaggrivation"But do we really need to have material proof to be certain that the sky god/eternal father figure myths are untrue or do we just need enough common sense?

I think the majority of atheists put the burdon of proof onto the theory side of the equation, we are not really in search for proof that there is no god although if this proof comes along we will embrace it, just as some of us will embrace proof of god if some should come along instead.

In the realities of life, what is the real difference between being strong atheist and weak atheist? It is not like there is a book of morals and how tos that strong atheists live by but weak atheists don't. The only difference I can see is a personal declaration of a label. Yes, strong atheists do have a belief where as weak atheists don't. Yes it would be hypocritical for strong atheists to ask theists for proof behind their beliefs. But ultimately beliefs can and do change. If all of a sudden there was some irrefutable proof that a particular god or group of gods exist then the weak atheists will become theists and say, here is the proof we have been waiting for. Strong atheists will become theists and say their previous beliefs were misguided.

Really I don't see any differing consequence between people taking strong and weak atheistic stances. Theists would deem us all as immoral.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"

Quote from: "radicalaggrivation"It is logically impossible for the Jewish/Christian/Muslim God to exist and yet I am led to believe that saying this deity is impossible makes me the asshole.

Neither Jehovah nor Christ the Second Person of the Trinity nor Allah exist.  But those are only three names and three theologies.  I can say those three names designate three non-existants because the theologies advocating them are intuitively ridiculous, in some cases logically self-contradictory, and in all cases run counter to science if their claims about Creation are taken literally.

The God of the Deist has no attributes claimed for it and no actions except the initial creation of the universe, said action being impossible at this time to refute scientifically.  If science ever determines that the universe was always here, that it didn't have a beginning, Deism will become untenable.

Most atheists claim agnosticism toward Deism only, not toward the Abrahamist faiths, which most atheists flat-out reject.

Even with the minimalist approach that Deists take I believe there is still no need to treat it with an agnostic point of view. We do not know what began the universe but even if we say that a god did it, there is no logical way to say a god did it knowingly or with purpose. If the prime mover is just an initial spark to set things off then why call it god? The term god refers to a deity that is in control of the universe or directly invested in the universe. If that is the case a Deistic view of our origin is irrelevant to the question of a god. If they posit anymore attributes to this entity then we can talk, otherwise we could just call this idea the "source".

Quote from: "Achronos""But if you say, "Show me thy God," I would reply, "Show me yourself, and I will show you my God." Show, then, that the eyes of your soul are capable of seeing, and the ears of your heart able to hear; for as those who look with the eyes of the body perceive earthly objects and what concerns this life, and discriminate at the same time between things that differ, whether light or darkness, white or black, deformed or beautiful, well-proportioned and symmetrical or disproportioned and awkward, or monstrous or mutilated; and as in like manner also, by the sense of hearing, we discriminate either sharp, or deep, or sweet sounds; so the same holds good regarding the eyes of the soul and the ears of the heart, that it is by them we are able to behold God. For God is seen by those who are enabled to see Him when they have the eyes of their soul opened: for all have eyes; but in some they are overspread, and do not see the light of the sun. Yet it does not follow, because the blind do not see, that the light of the sun does not shine; but let the blind blame themselves and their own eyes. So also thou, O man, hast the eyes of thy soul overspread by thy sins and evil deeds. As a burnished mirror, so ought man to have his soul pure. When there is rust on the mirror, it is not possible that a man's face be seen in the mirror; so also when there is sin in a man, such a man cannot behold God. Do you, therefore, show me yourself, whether you are not an adulterer, or a fornicator, or a thief, or a robber, or a purloiner; whether you do not corrupt boys; whether you are not insolent, or a slanderer, or passionate, or envious, or proud, or supercilious; whether you are not a brawler, or covetous, or disobedient to parents; and whether you do not sell your children; for to those who do these things God is not manifest, unless they have first cleansed themselves from all impurity. All these things, then, involve you in darkness, as when a filmy defluxion on the eyes prevents one from beholding the light of the sun: thus also do iniquities, 0 man, involve you in darkness, so that you cannot see God. "-St.Theophilus of Antioch

It's a shame that we cannot get more interesting or appropriate discourse from Christians instead of this nonsensical drivel. First off this whole, overly long, quote is not appropriate to the conversation at hand and secondly, you have just insulted the majority of the people in this forum. We come to this forum to get away from the preaching madness and sweaty sermons, by charletens veiled as conduits of the Lord. It truly baffles me that Christians are convinced that everyone should buy their snake oil with no proof of its effects. Here is a news flash for you- THE MAJORITY OF NON-BELIEVERS WERE ONCE BELIEVERS! Now there is some shocking revelation for you. We did look sincerely and we did seek with open minds. Looking deeply into your false religion is what converts people. It certainly played a huge role in my renunciation of faith. So to be blunt, please take your self serving arrogance and ignorance of atheists and shove it were God won't see.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"

Quote from: "radicalaggrivation"It is logically impossible for the Jewish/Christian/Muslim God to exist and yet I am led to believe that saying this deity is impossible makes me the asshole.

Neither Jehovah nor Christ the Second Person of the Trinity nor Allah exist.  But those are only three names and three theologies.  I can say those three names designate three non-existants because the theologies advocating them are intuitively ridiculous, in some cases logically self-contradictory, and in all cases run counter to science if their claims about Creation are taken literally.

The God of the Deist has no attributes claimed for it and no actions except the initial creation of the universe, said action being impossible at this time to refute scientifically.  If science ever determines that the universe was always here, that it didn't have a beginning, Deism will become untenable.

Most atheists claim agnosticism toward Deism only, not toward the Abrahamist faiths, which most atheists flat-out reject.

Agreed.

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "radicalaggrivation"But do we really need to have material proof to be certain that the sky god/eternal father figure myths are untrue or do we just need enough common sense?

I think the majority of atheists put the burdon of proof onto the theory side of the equation, we are not really in search for proof that there is no god although if this proof comes along we will embrace it, just as some of us will embrace proof of god if some should come along instead.

In the realities of life, what is the real difference between being strong atheist and weak atheist? It is not like there is a book of morals and how tos that strong atheists live by but weak atheists don't. The only difference I can see is a personal declaration of a label. Yes, strong atheists do have a belief where as weak atheists don't. Yes it would be hypocritical for strong atheists to ask theists for proof behind their beliefs. But ultimately beliefs can and do change. If all of a sudden there was some irrefutable proof that a particular god or group of gods exist then the weak atheists will become theists and say, here is the proof we have been waiting for. Strong atheists will become theists and say their previous beliefs were misguided.

Really I don't see any differing consequence between people taking strong and weak atheistic stances. Theists would deem us all as immoral.

Well said and I agree that we lend too much credence to these labels. That is a great point to bring up. Atheists have as many outward beliefs about philosophical and social problems as any other group. My issue is with this shying away from a definitive answer on the most prevalent god myths. I personally don't care if I am labeled a strong or weak atheist. I stand with my assessment that a god or gods do not exist to the highest degree of certainty I can have. I know some would ask for evidence to this assertion. Why is logic and the nonexistent track record of the contrary not enough? Should we hold off on any possible claim made just because we cannot provide the evidence to dismiss it? Hell no. We should treat all unsubstantiated claims for what they are. I say this without absolute certainty. I am not absolutely sure that evolution is correct and that creationism is incorrect. Thus we see the uselessness of arguing in absolutes; which seems to be the only reason to ask a person for evidence when dismissing an unprovable claim.

And that is what gods or God or Allah boils down to. They are allowed the luxury to exist outside of space and time. They are allowed the convenience of being knowable unknowns (whatever the hell that means). They are supernatural. Because of this they cannot be measured or quantified. Since we can never prove these entities do not exist we should be afforded the luxury of disbelieving them to the highest degree of certainty possible. If I later find out I am wrong, my feelings won't be hurt at all. I'm an atheist and most of us have to realize that we are really really wrong to make it that far.

Quote from: "Stevil"Really I don't see any differing consequence between people taking strong and weak atheistic stances.

Toward the Deist's God, I agree, there is no practical difference between strong and weak atheism - and that's why, toward the Deist's God, I remain not only agnostic but apathetic.  The Deist's God is a concept designed from the outset to be irrelevant.  No attributes and no actions subsequent to the initial creation.  Hence, utterly irrelevant to my life here and now.  Toward the irrelevant I am always apathetic.

But toward the Abrahamist creeds, I disagree with your statement above, as there is very much a practical difference between strong and weak atheism.  The Abrahamist creeds are (1) too illogical to be true; and (2) dangerous.  Because they're too illogical to be true, anyone who holds up logic as a value to be championed, as I do, must at least occasionally refute the claims of the Abrahamist creeds.  It would be insincere not to.  But beyond all that, the Abrahamist creeds are dangerous, because the Abrahamists seek global hegemony.  They are the enemies of the freedoms our Western culture holds dear, and which I personally hold dear.  Individual Abrahamists, and invidivual demoninations, may be more or less conscious of, or committed to, the quest for global hegemony, but taken in the aggregate, Abrahamism has, as a premise, world conquest.  They must be opposed.

Quote from: "radicalaggrivation"Even with the minimalist approach that Deists take I believe there is still no need to treat it with an agnostic point of view. We do not know what began the universe but even if we say that a god did it, there is no logical way to say a god did it knowingly or with purpose.

Deism in its purest form ascribes no attributes to God, not even knowledge or purpose.  I say that only to be clear that once I comment regarding knowledge or purpose, I've moved beyond Deism as a topic.  The Deist God could conceivably have created the universe accidentally, or could even have perspired the universe, our galaxies its beads of sweat.  I am apathetic toward the Deist's God because the Deist's God is presumed to be apathetic toward me.

But if we take a step beyond purest Deism, and speak of an Intelligent Designer, we are faced yet again with no reasonable position but agnosticism.  The universe could certainly be intelligently designed.  It is easy to look at organisms, see design, and see intelligence in that design.  In order to dispense with intelligent design as an unnecessary hypothesis, we have to posit a theory of mutation and natural selection over billions of years, and even when we do that, there are still mysteries, since even billions of years seems too short for some discovered marvels to have evolved without intelligent prodding, given our current level of knowledge.  But I, and you too, presumably, embrace a certain motto.  In the face of mystery, do science, not theology.

QuoteIf the prime mover is just an initial spark to set things off then why call it god? The term god refers to a deity that is in control of the universe or directly invested in the universe.

Unless we're talking about the Deist's God.

QuoteIf that is the case a Deistic view of our origin is irrelevant to the question of a god. If they posit anymore attributes to this entity then we can talk, otherwise we could just call this idea the "source".

The Deist's God is irrelevant to life, irrelevant to me as a person, but it isn't irrelevant to the question of a god.  Deism is a theology.  We can be apathetic toward it but we can't just set it aside as not being a theology.  It is one.

Intelligent Design is also a theology.  But in its purest form, it doesn't posit any particular reasons why the Intelligent Designer did what it did.  Absent the reasons, the Intelligent Designer is just as irrelevant as the Deist's God.  The Intelligent Designer might have designed Homo sapiens for its entertainment, or as a scientific experiment, or out of malice, or out of benevolence.  Absent any knowledge of the reasons, I have no way to form an emotional response, and I also have no way to form a calculated strategy for exploiting any logical implications.  Hence apathy.

It is only when we take one more step, to the Abrahamist creeds, that I lose my apathy.  The Abrahamist creeds are (1) too illogical to be true; and (2) dangerous.  As I deem logic something to be championed, I must at least occasionally refute Abrahamist claims.  But more importantly, as I deem Abrahamism dangerous, I am compelled by common sense to oppose it.  Toward Abrahamism of any flavor I take a strong atheistic stance, in that I assert definite falsehood.  I go beyond even that, however.  Not only false but dangerous.  That is my response to all flavors of Abrahamism.  I am Anticreed.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"I am Anticreed.

You do explain what you mean by this well enough, but doesn't the first of these definitions of creed open the way for misunderstanding?
1) Any system of principles or beliefs
2) The written body of teachings of a religious group that are generally accepted by that group

If someone saw Anti tacked onto creed they might think nihilist.
I'm not trying to be picky, I suppose any term than summarises an idea requires some clarification/investigation, not assumption.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"I am Anticreed.

You do explain what you mean by this well enough, but doesn't the first of these definitions of creed open the way for misunderstanding?
1) Any system of principles or beliefs
2) The written body of teachings of a religious group that are generally accepted by that group

Maybe, but the connotation of creed is generally religious, and in the context of posting on this message board, will be understood, I think.  You're right that it's imperfect.  But the worldview field only permits a small number of characters.  I didn't see a good way to improve on Anticreed within the parameters imposed.  I could have gone with AntiAbrahamist but that seemed too narrow.  Although, come to think of it, I don't see any great need to oppose Hinduism, nor Asatru, since neither seeks global hegemony, nor does either suffer from logical inconsistency once you grant its founding premises.  Hmm.  Maybe AntiAbrahamist is more precisely my position.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"Maybe, but the connotation of creed is generally religious, and in the context of posting on this message board, will be understood, I think.

I think you are understood OK, any way Cecilie already blames me for wrecking her signature.
Attacking someone's world view could be considered even worse.

Quote from: "radicalaggrivation"It's a shame that we cannot get more interesting or appropriate discourse from Christians instead of this nonsensical drivel.[Achronos's post]

Is Achronos representative of all Christianity? If not then one should really not direct one's comments at all Christians but at the member responsible for the post in question. As long as people feel they are being stereotyped and pigeon-holed they are less likely to take part in a conversation. Animateddirt is not Achronos yet by couching the comment in group terms you include Animateddirt in your criticism which is patently unfair on Animateddirt. I don't know about you but I dislike the comment 'all atheists blah, blah, blah,'.

From the forum mission statement:-

"It is our goal to help dissolve negative stereotypes currently held towards atheists and facilitate productive dialogue with those of differing viewpoints."

Group generalisations that demean Christians are counter-productive with regard to this aim.

...

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "radicalaggrivation"It's a shame that we cannot get more interesting or appropriate discourse from Christians instead of this nonsensical drivel.[Achronos's post]

Is Achronos representative of all Christianity? If not then one should really not direct one's comments at all Christians but at the member responsible for the post in question. As long as people feel they are being stereotyped and pigeon-holed they are less likely to take part in a conversation. Animateddirt is not Achronos yet by couching the comment in group terms you include Animateddirt in your criticism which is patently unfair on Animateddirt. I don't know about you but I dislike the comment 'all atheists blah, blah, blah,'.

From the forum mission statement:-

"It is our goal to help dissolve negative stereotypes currently held towards atheists and facilitate productive dialogue with those of differing viewpoints."

Group generalisations that demean Christians are counter-productive with regard to this aim.

I'm sorry if I offended your sensabilities but I never implied or intended to lump all Christians into one group. I simply stated that I would like to see more Christians in the forum with interesting view points that aren't preachy or insulting. I believe I am justified in saying that and I won't apologize for it. Whether a Christian likes it or not, when they venture into an atheist forum they are representatives of their beliefs. If they take an approach that is repsectful and open (like many of my Christian friends), I return that repspect in kind. Instead I get a response that is off topic, preachy, and condesending. Instead of jumping down my throat to prove how much of an egalitarian you are maybe you should review the quote that I found insulting and comment on that. And if you don't like how I worded it thats your personal issue, not mine.

Quote from: "Will"The Jolly Green Giant actually exists. I can prove it with verifiable, testable evidence and repeatable testing. I'm not joking. There's a man living outside of Stockholm with gigantism who also has a melanin mutation which makes his skin appear to be a shade of green.

Here (http://underthebutton.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/just-kidding.jpg) is an article about him from the Guardian, and here (http://underthebutton.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/just-kidding.jpg) is a link to the study on gigantism of which he was a volunteer.


Did you click on the links? Did you, for one second, realize that there may be evidence for something which you were simply unaware of? That's because you also understand the concept that one cannot disprove a negative.

I think negatives can be disproved. To use a favorite of Stenger's examples, there are no elephants in Yellowstone Park. Because even if there were you would see the traces they leave behind (footprints, dung, etc.) This is also why I think the monotheistic God has been disproved. He simply did not show up where we would expect him to. Admittedly, Deism is a different story.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"Deism in its purest form ascribes no attributes to God, not even knowledge or purpose. I say that only to be clear that once I comment regarding knowledge or purpose, I've moved beyond Deism as a topic. The Deist God could conceivably have created the universe accidentally, or could even have perspired the universe, our galaxies its beads of sweat. I am apathetic toward the Deist's God because the Deist's God is presumed to be apathetic toward me.

I think this just waters down the definition of what a god is. An unpurposeful or accidental initiation of our universe by any entity summarily disqualifies that entity as a god, if we go by the definition of a god.

QuoteBut if we take a step beyond purest Deism, and speak of an Intelligent Designer, we are faced yet again with no reasonable position but agnosticism. The universe could certainly be intelligently designed. It is easy to look at organisms, see design, and see intelligence in that design. In order to dispense with intelligent design as an unnecessary hypothesis, we have to posit a theory of mutation and natural selection over billions of years, and even when we do that, there are still mysteries, since even billions of years seems too short for some discovered marvels to have evolved without intelligent prodding, given our current level of knowledge. But I, and you too, presumably, embrace a certain motto. In the face of mystery, do science, not theology.

I can't totally follow this. Intelligent design creates an infinitely more difficult problem for the theist or scientist to resolve. Even if we had no theory of evolution it would still be impossible to conclude that it was by design, when we consider how poorly designed much of life is. It would be even more impossible to say that we knew anything about the thoughts of that designers mind (which I would presume to be your conclusion as well).

QuoteThe Deist's God is irrelevant to life, irrelevant to me as a person, but it isn't irrelevant to the question of a god. Deism is a theology. We can be apathetic toward it but we can't just set it aside as not being a theology. It is one.

I will not argue that some people use deism as a theology but many simply see it as a philosophical standpoint to try and identify God. There is a strong distinction. I would go even further by saying that Deism is only a religion if we refuse to define what a god is. I personally see that the theologically minded deists refusal to define any attributes of their god as an abdication of their ability to do so. I mean really, they expect people to believe that there is a God but we don't know any definable qualities or purpose. This is the ultimate form of theological fence sitting. It is simultaneously admitting that you know nothing of a God and still having the audacity to posit one anyway.

A deist would claim to know this god is real based off of what? Reason? What reason? There is no good reason or evidence to go from, there is a source to the universe, therefore that source is a god. That is a non sequitur and the basis of the belief. Because of this fallacious reasoning I will reject a deist "god" as well.

I would go even further to say that Deism is only a theology in title. I say this because when I talk about a god (as well as every dictionary that I check) there is a very general but clearly stated definition to be used. If deists want to worship something that does not fit this definition and call it God that is their prerogative but why should we all change the accepted definition of a god just because Deists want to move the goalpost to fit their tastes? If the Deists are correct in using the word God to describe something that we simply do not know isn't that just another God of the gaps?

And one last thing. If deists can call this unknown initiation god then all arguments for or against a god are useless, since there is no standard to hold this god to. Changing the definition of a god is a bogus tactic, I think, to legitimize deism as a religion. If all it takes to legitimize a god claim is to continually make God more and more ill defined then we are forced to either refute these claims due to poor reasoning or be agnostic to all hazy gods.That may be acceptable for some but I see no intellectual reason to fence sit about this issue, until evidence is presented otherwise.

Quote from: "radicalaggrivation"

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "radicalaggrivation"It's a shame that we cannot get more interesting or appropriate discourse from Christians instead of this nonsensical drivel.[Achronos's post]

Is Achronos representative of all Christianity? If not then one should really not direct one's comments at all Christians but at the member responsible for the post in question. As long as people feel they are being stereotyped and pigeon-holed they are less likely to take part in a conversation. Animateddirt is not Achronos yet by couching the comment in group terms you include Animateddirt in your criticism which is patently unfair on Animateddirt. I don't know about you but I dislike the comment 'all atheists blah, blah, blah,'.

From the forum mission statement:-

"It is our goal to help dissolve negative stereotypes currently held towards atheists and facilitate productive dialogue with those of differing viewpoints."

Group generalisations that demean Christians are counter-productive with regard to this aim.

I'm sorry if I offended your sensabilities but I never implied or intended to lump all Christians into one group.

After slugging it out in forums for the last 4 years I don't think I have any sensibilities left    What you wrote could be read as a collective comment about Christianity and that is what I took you to task about. Obviously that was not your intent.

Quote from: "radicalaggrivation"I simply stated that I would like to see more Christians in the forum with interesting view points that aren't preachy or insulting.

I agree with this completely, but that wasn't blindingly obvious from what you wrote

Quote from: "radicalaggrivation"I believe I am justified in saying that and I won't apologize for it.

You are responsible for what you write, so am I. What you chose to apologise for and is up to you. In general terms I never expect apologies on forums as people often leave their manners at the door with their real names.

Quote from: "radicalaggrivation"Whether a Christian likes it or not, when they venture into an atheist forum they are representatives of their beliefs.

If you mean 'their' as in them as an individual with specific interpretation of Christian teachings I agree with you. However if you mean 'their' as in a collective responsibility for the teachings and beliefs of all other Christians then I don't agree because any one Christian has no control on any other random person who also happens to stick the label 'Christian' on themselves. One person can only ever be responsible for their own actions. You have no responsibility for my actions or I yours whatever world view we share or not.

Also if a person joins in here, whatever their personal world view they are a person first and foremost not a caricature or stereotype of their world view. Just because you and I share an atheist world view does not make either of us responsible for the others actions.

Quote from: "radicalaggrivation"If they take an approach that is repsectful and open (like many of my Christian friends), I return that repspect in kind. Instead I get a response that is off topic, preachy, and condesending. Instead of jumping down my throat to prove how much of an egalitarian you are maybe you should review the quote that I found insulting and comment on that. And if you don't like how I worded it thats your personal issue, not mine.

I have dealt with Archonos. I have formed my opinion of him as an individual a little while ago. I don't like his attitude. But he would probably have the same attitude if he were an atheist, Christian, Jew, Muslim etc etc.  So by all means take him to task on his preachy and condescending attitude, he deserves it 100%. But inadvertently phrasing that criticism so it becomes a collective comment about Christianity isn't fair on some of the other Christians here is it? This issue has been dealt with in this thread Should one Christian be responsible for Christianity? (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=75579#p75579) so rather than derailing this thread you may wish to contribute to that thread. EDIT: Beg pardon, I see you did contribute to that thread. But I'll leave the link so others following this thread are aware of it.

Now regarding this comment you made "Instead of jumping down my throat to prove how much of an egalitarian you are maybe you should review the quote that I found insulting and comment on that." Am I to assume that any critical comment I make of you would be 'jumping down my throat'?  

Lastly, this is not my forum, it's not your forum, it's Whitney's forum. You and I post here under her rules and guidelines. That is why I made my comment to you about what you wrote. This place is valuable for the simple reason that it succeeds in creating an environment where people of all world views have a place to interact as individuals where each person can explore their particular world view with other individuals without fear of being stereotyped.

Regards
Chris

Quote from: "radicalaggrivation"I think this just waters down the definition of what a god is. An unpurposeful or accidental initiation of our universe by any entity summarily disqualifies that entity as a god, if we go by the definition of a god.

Creator but not Ruler, yes.  I agree that most want God to be Ruler of something, but to me, Creator is enough.  I have always deemed the question of whether there is a God to be the question of whether the universe was created.  If the universe was always here, then it wasn't created, so there's no God.  But I appreciate your point.  Certainly the usages in my Random House Webster's College Dictionary all imply some sort of Rulership.

QuoteIntelligent design creates an infinitely more difficult problem for the theist or scientist to resolve. Even if we had no theory of evolution it would still be impossible to conclude that it was by design, when we consider how poorly designed much of life is.

Imperfect design would still be design.  Many people find intelligent design hard to swallow due to their assumption of specific perfections the intelligent designer would have to have.  None of these perfections are logically necessary.  Wisdom, power, benevolence, all could be imperfect, and indeed the last could be lacking entirely.  No, the valid reason for dispensing with the intelligent design premise is that we don't need it.  All unnecessary premises should be discarded on principle.  But to really put the nail in the coffin, we need to show that even the most astonishing complex order could be plausible given the time allotted.  We aren't there yet but we're getting there.  Along the way we may discover that complex order is far more likely than we ever imagined, due to natural laws we haven't yet identified.  Natural laws, of course, are simply a way of describing attributes of energy.  If the universe was always here, then energy was always here, and its attributes have defined the parameters of all history in all places.  We might as well call energy, God, for we are ruled by energy's attributes.

QuoteIt would be even more impossible to say that we knew anything about the thoughts of that designers mind (which I would presume to be your conclusion as well).

Yes.  Not just yes but hell yes.  As soon as we assign attributes, attitudes or aspirations to the intelligent designer, we enter the realm of myth.  

QuoteI will not argue that some people use deism as a theology but many simply see it as a philosophical standpoint to try and identify God. There is a strong distinction. I would go even further by saying that Deism is only a religion if we refuse to define what a god is.

Deism isn't a religion.  As for theology, it counts as that, because it makes two statements about God: (1) it exists; (2) it created the universe.  That's theology of the barest bones variety, admittedly.

QuoteI personally see that the theologically minded deists refusal to define any attributes of their god as an abdication of their ability to do so.

Or, better, an admission on their part of their inability to do so.  This is nothing other than simple honesty.

QuoteI mean really, they expect people to believe that there is a God but we don't know any definable qualities or purpose.

Deists typically don't care what anyone believes.  That's why I can tolerate them, and even welcome them as allies in the culture war against Abrahamists.

QuoteThis is the ultimate form of theological fence sitting. It is simultaneously admitting that you know nothing of a God and still having the audacity to posit one anyway.

What it amounts to is the refusal to accept an uncreated universe.  Astonishing complex order compels some to be Deists.  Most of them move on from there to very happily leave advancement of our knowledge of the universe to science.  In fact many Deists become scientists themselves.  

QuoteThere is no good reason or evidence to go from, there is a source to the universe, therefore that source is a god. That is a non sequitur and the basis of the belief. Because of this fallacious reasoning I will reject a deist "god" as well.

Fair enough.  Do you think there's a source to the universe?  I actually don't.  But I can't prove it.  It's just intuition and an untestable one at present.
 

QuoteIf deists want to worship something that does not fit this definition and call it God that is their prerogative but why should we all change the accepted definition of a god just because Deists want to move the goalpost to fit their tastes?

Deists typically don't worship anything.

QuoteIf the Deists are correct in using the word God to describe something that we simply do not know isn't that just another God of the gaps?

It is precisely God of the gaps.  Entertained because the gaps are intuitively bothersome to a certain kind of brain.  Although to some extent we're merging the Deist's God with an Intelligent Designer, which, strictly speaking, the Deist's God doesn't have to be.

Was the universe created?  The Deist says yes.  I say no.  Both of us have nothing but intution to go on, at present.  One day science may prove that the universe had no beginning.  On that day, Deism becomes untenable.

QuoteIf deists can call this unknown initiation god then all arguments for or against a god are useless, since there is no standard to hold this god to.

Exactly correct unless/until we finally learn from science that the universe had no beginning.  I really don't think it had one.  But for now it's a mystery.

Thanks Tank, those who stand up to their fellows and say we can do better than this deserve...

A Koala stamp

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fattachments.emergencyoffice.com.au%2Fproducts%2Fimages_small%2F7027.png&hash=dd575f7747b84b7a6097781fc0a6e05658f985b5)

How can an "entity" not have attributes? That just seems completely incoherent to me. Or do we mean to say "no known attributes"?  

If the definition of "entity" is "a thing that exists", then obviously the universe was brought about by some kind of entity or entities; but calling that a god is no more meaningful than calling it an orange.

Less, actually; at least it's possible to express, without contradiction or redundancy, some meaningful idea of what an orange is.

The more I look at deism, or any form of theism, the more of a "hard atheist" I become.

Quote from: "elliebean"How can an "entity" not have attributes? That just seems completely incoherent to me. Or do we mean to say "no known attributes"?  

No known attributes.

QuoteIf the definition of "entity" is "a thing that exists", then obviously the universe was brought about by some kind of entity or entities;

Unless it was always here.

Quotebut calling that a god is no more meaningful than calling it an orange.

Less, actually; at least it's possible to express, without contradiction, some meaningful idea of what an orange is.

But since the thing that made our universe, if something did, would have to exist in some other universe than ours, it would have to be unknowable to us, and its attributes likewise would have to be unknowable.  Unknowable or non-existent, those are the choices.  Either way, irrelevant, so yawns of apathy ensue.

QuoteThe more I look at deism, or any form of theism, the more of a "hard atheist" I become.

Thinking about what I wrote above, I now have another way Deism could be disproved.  That which made our universe would have to exist in some other universe, since it couldn't exist in ours, since its existence had to precede ours.  Therefore, if there is no multiverse, there is no God.  Physics has posited a multiverse but not all physicists support the notion.  Disprove the multiverse and we disprove God.

The other way to disprove God is to prove our universe was always here, which would mean it wasn't created.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"Unless it was always here.

Or that, yes. Lol.

As for multiverses, even if there was another universe outside of our own, which contained a thing that makes universes, and we discovered it, wouldn't the god label still be something we hung on it out of convenience? As in... "Well, I suppose that's close enough. There ya go."

I was assuming a single universe that had not always been there, because the usual definitions of the word "god" posit one creator of everything (whatever number of universes), existing before everything else, or something like that, which has its own obvious problems; ie, where did it come from; why is this thing necessary to explain existence, when it's existence is yet unexplained; how can something exist prior to existence itself; etc.

Quote from: "elliebean"how can something exist prior to existence itself; etc.

Also, how can that something know everything about everything when nothing exists yet?

It's simply one of those mystery questions like existence itself.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"Creator but not Ruler, yes. I agree that most want God to be Ruler of something, but to me, Creator is enough. I have always deemed the question of whether there is a God to be the question of whether the universe was created. If the universe was always here, then it wasn't created, so there's no God. But I appreciate your point. Certainly the usages in my Random House Webster's College Dictionary all imply some sort of Rulership.

I hear you on this. I went through a few definitions and the more ambiguous ones still lend some quality of dictation to a god. That is what I am attacking- the widely held and accepted definition is the one the one that should pose no doubt to one who disbelieves.

QuoteImperfect design would still be design. Many people find intelligent design hard to swallow due to their assumption of specific perfections the intelligent designer would have to have. None of these perfections are logically necessary. Wisdom, power, benevolence, all could be imperfect, and indeed the last could be lacking entirely. No, the valid reason for dispensing with the intelligent design premise is that we don't need it. All unnecessary premises should be discarded on principle. But to really put the nail in the coffin, we need to show that even the most astonishing complex order could be plausible given the time allotted. We aren't there yet but we're getting there. Along the way we may discover that complex order is far more likely than we ever imagined, due to natural laws we haven't yet identified. Natural laws, of course, are simply a way of describing attributes of energy. If the universe was always here, then energy was always here, and its attributes have defined the parameters of all history in all places. We might as well call energy, God, for we are ruled by energy's attributes.

Great point. I am sure once scientists have completed most or all of the animal genomes on the planet and can show specifically where each living organism branches off and from what organism we all branch, it will leave little doubt as to the origin of life's complexity. The universes complexity, as it stands now, is also coming along well. I just hope that our creator is not a guy named Jeb, who drinks beer in a lawn chair, watching Sienfeld reruns in his underwear. If we judged by our perfection though, its probably as good a bet as any.

QuoteDeism isn't a religion. As for theology, it counts as that, because it makes two statements about God: (1) it exists; (2) it created the universe. That's theology of the barest bones variety, admittedly.

Some deists certainly participate in their beliefs as if it were a religion. Praying and going to a deist church may not qualify you as a religion legally but it certainly borders that territory.For the sake of an honest argument, however, I will give you that since there is no central doctrine or tenets saying to do so.

QuoteDeists typically don't care what anyone believes. That's why I can tolerate them, and even welcome them as allies in the culture war against Abrahamists.

I hope that, in my lifetime, I will see things come to a head between the popular religious cults and secularists. I do not doubt that they would make great allies. That is only if someone does not come along to posit some tenable/zealous doctrine and attempt to make it an official religion.

QuoteWhat it amounts to is the refusal to accept an uncreated universe. Astonishing complex order compels some to be Deists. Most of them move on from there to very happily leave advancement of our knowledge of the universe to science. In fact many Deists become scientists themselves.

While this may be true what would deist beliefs have to contribute to our observations of complexity. If they attribute the complexity to a god then they are lending some formative quality to god aside from just being the prime mover. I am not extensively familiar with deists beliefs; is that what a deist would be taught from their handful of tenets? If so then they are certainly a fair target.

QuoteFair enough.  Do you think there's a source to the universe?  I actually don't.  But I can't prove it.  It's just intuition and an untestable one at present.

If by source you mean something outside of the universe that created it: possibly. I have to wait until around 2012 to decide. There has been some interesting findings in the cosmic microwave background radiation this year. Check the story out here: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... nce-space/ (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/12/101227-universes-circles-cosmic-background-radiation-big-bang-science-space/)
If this is indeed proof of other universes, then we will all have to consider some very interesting things about how this came to be. Our particular universe could very well be the evolutionary offspring of other universes that continue to optimize conditions for life. It is clear that our universe is, as a whole, not conducive to life as we know it, which would explain the Fermi Paradox. Perhaps we are just an intermediate step in a process to evolve the perfect universe for life. This is all speculative of course but the possibilities are so interesting. One thing is certain in my eyes - if we live long enough as a species we will discover the answer.

QuoteExactly correct unless/until we finally learn from science that the universe had no beginning. I really don't think it had one. But for now it's a mystery.

That is the big question, isn't it? I hope I live long enough to see the answer.

Very interesting post. I wish I was here sooner but since I wasn't I just going to slightly mess up you guys flow.

radicalaggrivation Please correct me if I am wrong but this is Epicurus's argument.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?  Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?  Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

This is what I believe. God is both Willing and able to remove evil. So the question is were did evil come from? Evil is disobedience of the rules God setup. I would say that it is started with Love. Love is a choice and God wanted man to love Him to choose Him. God could have made everyone obey Him but since Love requires a decision then we have to actively choose Him. So if we have to choose Him that means that we have an option to not choose Him.

Now lets move on to what I spoke of earlier, the disobedience of God. God requires justice but He is also merciful. So in His mercy He used Jesus as a stand in for all acts of evil committed by anyone. So if you make the decision to choose to give your life to God then He will begin to make you like Him. (No you will not become gods but you will be exactly what you were meant to be...holy)This is not religion this actually allowing God to rule in your life and change who you are. This is a process of learning and growing. This is God's mercy . Once everyone who will accept His offer has then He will enact His justice by removing evil. He will even destroy this earth and remake a new one.

The prevention of evil can not just rest upon God's shoulders but also on those who do evil. God have given us the ability to choose to choose to obey Him or disobey Him. To be evil or allow Him to make us like Him. He is willing to equip us with the ability to not be evil but it must be on His terms and since He made it all who are we to tell Him anything different?

Quote from: "gsaint"Very interesting post. I wish I was here sooner but since I wasn't I just going to slightly mess up you guys flow.

radicalaggrivation Please correct me if I am wrong but this is Epicurus's argument.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?  Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?  Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

This is what I believe. God is both Willing and able to remove evil. So the question is were did evil come from? Evil is disobedience of the rules God setup. I would say that it is started with Love. Love is a choice and God wanted man to love Him to choose Him. God could have made everyone obey Him but since Love requires a decision then we have to actively choose Him. So if we have to choose Him that means that we have an option to not choose Him.

Now lets move on to what I spoke of earlier, the disobedience of God. God requires justice but He is also merciful. So in His mercy He used Jesus as a stand in for all acts of evil committed by anyone. So if you make the decision to choose to give your life to God then He will begin to make you like Him. (No you will not become gods but you will be exactly what you were meant to be...holy)This is not religion this actually allowing God to rule in your life and change who you are. This is a process of learning and growing. This is God's mercy . Once everyone who will accept His offer has then He will enact His justice by removing evil. He will even destroy this earth and remake a new one.

The prevention of evil can not just rest upon God's shoulders but also on those who do evil. God have given us the ability to choose to choose to obey Him or disobey Him. To be evil or allow Him to make us like Him. He is willing to equip us with the ability to not be evil but it must be on His terms and since He made it all who are we to tell Him anything different?

God gave us free will, the ability of rational thought, and a significant amount of intelligence, yet he punishes us if we use traits and come to a conclusion he doesn't like. Sounds like a great guy, that Jesus.

Quote from: "radicalaggrivation"Some deists certainly participate in their beliefs as if it were a religion. Praying and going to a deist church may not qualify you as a religion legally but it certainly borders that territory.For the sake of an honest argument, however, I will give you that since there is no central doctrine or tenets saying to do so.

Hmm.  As much as it pains me to do so, I guess I'll have to start talking about strong Deism, which I'll have to define as, "the belief in a Supreme Being who created the universe and then left it to its own devices, not governing, not intervening,  not observing, not listening to prayers, and not revealing truths."

QuoteI hope that, in my lifetime, I will see things come to a head between the popular religious cults and secularists. I do not doubt that they would make great allies. That is only if someone does not come along to posit some tenable/zealous doctrine and attempt to make it an official religion.

I'll take this opportunity to clarify my perspective on Abrahamism versus Deism by listing the various Abrahamist doctrines and commenting.

1. God infinite - ridiculous, as nothing infinite can be one thing, but must be everything, as anything it isn't would limit its infinity.

2. God incarnated - ridiculous, as Creator and creature are different in kind, and if the first becomes the second it will cease to be the first.

3. God judgmental - ridiculous, as everything we do is the result of genes and history, which any Creator is ultimately responsible for.

4. God merciful - ridiculous, as the universe is without mercy, so its Creator must be too.

5. God governing - ridiculous, as I detect no force governing my actions contrary to my own decisions, and to simply equate my decisions with those of some other entity is to erase any distinction between that entity and myself, and I am confident I didn't create the universe.

6. God revelatory - ridiculous, because revelation from a single source would be consistent, and such isn't the case from any perspective we choose to explore, with a deceitful God the only conceivable explanation, and claiming deceit so as to defend revelation's truth is an insurmountable Catch-22.

7. God responsive - ridiculous, because a responsive God would have to be governing or revelatory, and both are ridiculous.
 
8. God creative - possible, and this minus all of the preceding is strong Deism, the only theology that can't be refuted as ridiculous unless/until we disprove a beginning to our universe (hence no creation) or we disprove the concept of a multiverse (hence no other universe for God to exist in).

QuoteWhile this may be true what would deist beliefs have to contribute to our observations of complexity?

All strong Deism does is relieve the mental pressure exerted by an intuitive problem, that of order too complex to have arisen without some external impetus.  The stress relieved, our strong Deist can move on with life, even going so far as to personally respond to nature's mysteries by scientific inquiry as a professional practitioner of science's methods.  Add intelligent design to strong Deism and the mental pressure goes away completely and forever, yet science can still be exercised to learn more about how the design works and unfolds.  

QuoteIf by source you mean something outside of the universe that created it: possibly. I have to wait until around 2012 to decide. There has been some interesting findings in the cosmic microwave background radiation this year. Check the story out here: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... nce-space/ (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/12/101227-universes-circles-cosmic-background-radiation-big-bang-science-space/)

Ah, we're getting closer, perhaps, to the universe I personally suspect to be real, which is symbolized in Hinduism as Brahma exhaling and inhaling, again and again, forever.

QuoteOne thing is certain in my eyes - if we live long enough as a species we will discover the answer.

I tend to agree.

QuoteI hope I live long enough to see the answer.

Me too.  And therein lies much of my frustration with death.

Quote from: "gsaint"Very interesting post. I wish I was here sooner but since I wasn't I just going to slightly mess up you guys flow.

radicalaggrivation Please correct me if I am wrong but this is Epicurus's argument.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?  Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?  Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Yes, and it is still a valid argument that Christians cannot reconcile, try as they might.

QuoteThis is what I believe. God is both Willing and able to remove evil. So the question is were did evil come from? Evil is disobedience of the rules God setup.

No, evil comes from God.

Isaiah 45:7: "I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things."
Lamentations 3:38: "Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?"
Jeremiah 18:11: "Thus saith the Lord; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you."
Ezekiel 20:25,26: "I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live. And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the Lord."

The rest of your post was an attempt at futility when compared to the scripture above.

Quote from: "radicalaggrivation"Why is it that so many atheists do not firmly commit to a disbelief in God? I guess what I am asking is what is the issue with being a strong atheist?

For myself there is no issue.  I am a strong atheist, a 7 on the Dawkins scale.  I admit to there being no possibility of the biblical God and I have no reason to believe in any of the others.  To answer your question, however, I think there are basically two reasons:

i) Dawkins himself is of the view that the probability of God is likely somewhat less than 99.9%.  He thinks he must be fair and acknowledge a minimal uncertainty, which he only admits to because of his penchant for appearing logical, and few scientists want to admit 100% certainty in anything.  He therefore labels himself a 6 on his own scale.  I think many atheists take this view and many may take it because of Dawkins himself.  I think he is that influential.

ii) On the other hand there are many atheists who are uncertain.  They fear the possibility they might be wrong and worry that Hell might await them.  Giving-up God they have no problem in doing, but fear of that old Serpent hangs on.  Peter Hitchens gives this as his primary reason for returning to belief in God (see: The Rage Against God).  It once contributed to my own uncertainty and has sniped at a few atheists with whom I have chatted.  These two points are the major reasons I would give for the seeming uncertainty of many atheists.  Only this last one, however, counts for anything.

I am a strong atheist towards the Abrahamic gods, but absence of evidence is not proof of absence, so I remain a weak atheist towards the rest of the concepts of gods.

Quote from: "radicalaggrivation"Why is it that so many atheists do not firmly commit to a disbelief in God? I guess what I am asking is what is the issue with being a strong atheist?

Well, while particular conceptions of deity are pretty comprehensively falsified by the attributes given them by their believers, those attributes do not necessarily apply to all conceptions of deity. I think that the likelihood of anything we would recognise as even remotely fulfilling the broader attributes of a deity is so unlikely as to be laughable, but it would still constitute a categorical statement, and those are to be avoided except where supporting evidence can be provided.

QuoteIf I just went by the definitions that most people use to describe a god, I have no issue with saying that I know it is false. It is logically impossible for the Jewish/Christian/Muslim God to exist and yet I am led to believe that saying this deity is impossible makes me the asshole.

Not at all. I agree completely. The Judeo-Christian deity categorically does not exist, because he has been given logically absurd and impossible attributes, but they don't cover all possible conceptions of deity.

QuoteI have been baffled by the idea that it is somehow intellectually dishonest to flatly say there is no god. In the same breath people are willing to disbelief other myths with a firm degree of certainty. Am I more intellectually honest if I assert that there is no evidence for the existence of the Jolly Green Giant or can I just say that the damn thing don't exist?

Again, it constitutes a categorical assertion for which there is no supporting evidence, so honesty demands that we say we don't know.

QuoteI understand that we do not have all the answers to life and that some people would like to leave this possibility open just in case. If the universe or multi-verse was banged into existence because of some ultimate source of infinite information it still would not lend credence to the popular myths people believe today. So aren't we really giving such irrational beliefs too much middle ground to work on by not simply calling it what it is? The only time there should be any uncertainty is when we are dealing with some none popular or metaphysical prime mover. As it stands there should be no philosophical seesawing on the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim God. It's a fairy tale. I don't need to reserve my judgment on flying reindeer and I don't need to do so for the current iteration of the god myths. They are not real.

Indeed, but the Judeo-Christian conception is not even a representative conception of deity in reality. It is only one of many, many conceptions of deity. Not all of them are logically absurd, although every single one I ever came across failed the test of parsimony. That's not to say, though, that a conception doesn't exist that is logical and parsimonious. This is another of those things that falls under the rubric of Hume's problem of induction.

Still, you at least have the weight of evidence on your side, in that, contrary to popular belief, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. In that light, I would say that you are entirely justified in taking the position you do. I'm not comfortable with it, however. Just because evidence hasn't yet been discovered to support any possible conception of deity does not mean that no such evidence exists.

Quote from: "hackenslash"Still, you at least have the weight of evidence on your side, in that, contrary to popular belief, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

I'm glad someone else agrees with me on this. It's not proof of absence, just evidence, but pretty damn good evidence.

Not just me, but Albert Michelson and Edward Morley would also agree.

Quote from: "hackenslash"Still, you at least have the weight of evidence on your side, in that, contrary to popular belief, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Awesome logical fallacy bro.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_f ... of_absence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Distinguishing_absence_of_evidence_from_evidence_of_absence)

Quote from: "Gawen"

Quote from: "gsaint"Very interesting post. I wish I was here sooner but since I wasn't I just going to slightly mess up you guys flow.

radicalaggrivation Please correct me if I am wrong but this is Epicurus's argument.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?  Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?  Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Yes, and it is still a valid argument that Christians cannot reconcile, try as they might.

God is willing that man should have free will. This creates the possibility for evil. Man can choose either God, and by choosing God do good, or man can choose to do evil. As God is Good, and the created order is good, by definition preventing evil is limiting the choice for man to just good, and thus just God. God is All-powerful, but God is also humble.  Indeed, we have the example of God the Word, begotten of the Father before all creation, who counted equality with the Father as His right; He emptied Himself, taking on the form and likeness of a man, condescending to be born of a Virgin, and chose service to His father over His birthright. He humbled Himself even further, so that He who could not know death knew Death, His humiliation going so far as being cursed by hanging on a cross.

Was He willing to prevent evil, and thus negate any choice man would make?  No, for that would not have been Love.  Instead He chose to overcome evil with Good.  He does not fit in any little a=b boxes we try to place Him in, rather He tells us He is neither a, nor b, nor even c, that a only equals b from our limited perception, and that c is greater than we could imagine.

QuoteNo, evil comes from God.

Isaiah 45:7: "I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things."
Lamentations 3:38: "Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?"
Jeremiah 18:11: "Thus saith the Lord; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you."
Ezekiel 20:25,26: "I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live. And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the Lord."

The rest of your post was an attempt at futility when compared to the scripture above.

The first three verses you provide are old translations, from the Masoretic text no less. The Isaiah passage means something like "calamity", "storm", or "war"; the Lamentations quote should read: "For evil and good shall not proceed from the mouth of the Most High." (declarative, not interrogative); and Jeremiah should read as well "Calamities", "plagues", etc.  You might as well cite the 9 plagues on the house of Pharoah as some faith shattering proof.

Ezekiel 20:25,26 is no less than what the Lord told Israel would happen if they did not obey His commands all the way back in Exodus.  It's like having a dog that refuses to be trained against rolling in his crap but wants to be an inside dog.  After a while you just leave him outside to roll in his crap, if he likes it bad enough.

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "Gawen"

Quote from: "gsaint"Very interesting post. I wish I was here sooner but since I wasn't I just going to slightly mess up you guys flow.

radicalaggrivation Please correct me if I am wrong but this is Epicurus's argument.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?  Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?  Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Yes, and it is still a valid argument that Christians cannot reconcile, try as they might.

God is willing that man should have free will. This creates the possibility for evil. Man can choose either God, and by choosing God do good, or man can choose to do evil.

And who made this how it is? God did. He created logic, physics, etc. etc. Everything. He could have made things differently if he wanted to.

Christians never seem to take this into account. They always seem to assume that things would have to be relatively similar. They don't. God can do anything. He could have made anything. Things don't have to be the way they are.

QuoteAnd who made this how it is? God did. He created logic, physics, etc. etc. Everything. He could have made things differently if he wanted to.

Christians never seem to take this into account. They always seem to assume that things would have to be relatively similar. They don't. God can do anything. He could have made anything. Things don't have to be the way they are.

God can and will make things differently. Still God knows all and He made a way so that we don't have to suffer the consequences of our actions.

QuoteNo, evil comes from God.

Isaiah 45:7: "I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things."
Lamentations 3:38: "Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?"
Jeremiah 18:11: "Thus saith the Lord; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you."
Ezekiel 20:25,26: "I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live. And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the Lord."

My first question is do you even know what is going on in these chapters you took some sentences from? Do you know who wrote it and to whom and why? Are you quoting from something you don't understand and if you are do you think that is wise?

I don't really want to sit here and explain the meaning of every verse but I will explain just a little more about the word evil in these translations. The meaning of words in the Hebrew language are dependent on the words around it. So translating from ancient Hebrew to English is imperfect. Strong's Hebrew dictionary says ra' means-adversity, affliction, bad, calamity, displeasure, distress (that is the simple definition)

QuoteGod gave us free will, the ability of rational thought, and a significant amount of intelligence, yet he punishes us if we use traits and come to a conclusion he doesn't like. Sounds like a great guy, that Jesus.

Jesus suffered, died, and rose from the dead so that you don't have to suffer for your own actions. I think that sound like a really great guy. Like you said He gave you rational thought and intelligence to choose the right way so if you don't choose the right way who's fault is that.

Quote from: "gsaint"

QuoteAnd who made this how it is? God did. He created logic, physics, etc. etc. Everything. He could have made things differently if he wanted to.

Christians never seem to take this into account. They always seem to assume that things would have to be relatively similar. They don't. God can do anything. He could have made anything. Things don't have to be the way they are.

God can and will make things differently. Still God knows all and He made a way so that we don't have to suffer the consequences of our actions.

Wow, that's really moral. "Hey, guess what! Murdered a little kid? It's okay! You don't have to suffer the consequences of your actions. Isn't that great? Isn't that just?"

QuoteNo, evil comes from God.

Isaiah 45:7: "I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things."
Lamentations 3:38: "Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?"
Jeremiah 18:11: "Thus saith the Lord; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you."
Ezekiel 20:25,26: "I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live. And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the Lord."

My first question is do you even know what is going on in these chapters you took some sentences from? Do you know who wrote it and to whom and why? Are you quoting from something you don't understand and if you are do you think that is wise?

I don't really want to sit here and explain the meaning of every verse but I will explain just a little more about the word evil in these translations. The meaning of words in the Hebrew language are dependent on the words around it. So translating from ancient Hebrew to English is imperfect. Strong's Hebrew dictionary says ra' means-adversity, affliction, bad, calamity, displeasure, distress (that is the simple definition)

Quote

QuoteGod gave us free will, the ability of rational thought, and a significant amount of intelligence, yet he punishes us if we use traits and come to a conclusion he doesn't like. Sounds like a great guy, that Jesus.

Jesus suffered, died, and rose from the dead so that you don't have to suffer for your own actions. I think that sound like a really great guy. Like you said He gave you rational thought and intelligence to choose the right way so if you don't choose the right way who's fault is that.

God sent his son, who was also himself, into a virgin's womb so he could be born as half-man, half-god, so that after doing some pretty tame stuff he could sacrifice and kill himself in a way that even thieves did at that time, to pay for mankind's sin of being human because our first ancestors ate some fruit off a tree god forbade them from eating, even though he placed that tree there knowing full well what the consequences he would give them would be. Yeah. Great guy.

So, god gave us gifts, and when we use these gifts, he punishes us. Uh huh.

Those are just a few of the problems with your line of thinking, and I didn't even go into much depth.

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "hackenslash"Still, you at least have the weight of evidence on your side, in that, contrary to popular belief, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Awesome logical fallacy bro.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_f ... of_absence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Distinguishing_absence_of_evidence_from_evidence_of_absence)

What logical fallacy? Drawing a categorical conclusion would constitute a fallacy, which is precisely why I warned against it further up the thread. The Wiki article is wrong, though, because absence of evidence is a data point in support of the hypothesis that the postulated entity is not there. Indeed, it was precisely this kind of evidence that led to the dropping of the luminiferous ether from our models of the universe, because if it existed, it would have left specific evidence which, when sought, was not found. In any case where the entity is properly defined, it is absolutely valid to infer absence from lack of evidence.

What absence of evidence is not is 'proof' of absence, but it is evidence. If you read the Wiki article fully, it actually makes a distinction and describes circumstances in which such inductive reasoning is important. Again, I would warn against drawing any categorical conclusions, and I gave a lengthy and detailed exposition of why this was so, which you chose to remove from the bit you actually reproduced of the post you quoted. What you have just done, then, is to quote mine me. Such dishonesty is a familiar part of the aetiology of the supernaturalist, and I applaud you for it.

Well done.

Quote from: "gsaint"Very interesting post. I wish I was here sooner but since I wasn't I just going to slightly mess up you guys flow.

This is the exact kind of input I hoped for, so you are not late to the party at all.

Quoteradicalaggrivation Please correct me if I am wrong but this is Epicurus's argument.

 

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

 

This is what I believe. God is both Willing and able to remove evil. So the question is were did evil come from? Evil is disobedience of the rules God setup.

If God created everything and is able to remove evil, then logically we can posit that God is also the author of evil. If you make the claim that we are the originators of evil and that God would wish to remove evil, that means that God is not able to remove evil (since, if he desired to do so, he would have just created us without evil tendencies or he could have just removed it when he realized we had evil tendencies). This brings up two issues. First, if God knows everything, then it is impossible that he could not have known we would be evil from the start (which would make him the author of evil). If God knew the suffering we would endure because of this, he cares little for human suffering and thus he is malevolent.

Secondly, we have to address free will. Free will means that we make choices. If God knows what we are going to choose beforehand it is not a choice, it is Gods plan.  If we do have free will, are capable of evil, and God wants to remove evil, God is not omnipotent. If there is anything God cannot do he is not all powerful. So pick your poison: Do we have free will that God cannot control or is God the malevolent author of all the worlds ills?  

QuoteI would say that it is started with Love. Love is a choice and God wanted man to love Him to choose Him. God could have made everyone obey Him but since Love requires a decision then we have to actively choose Him. So if we have to choose Him that means that we have an option to not choose Him.

I will just let alone the fact that we either have no choices or God is malevolent for now. Consider the "choice" that is being presented if I accept that everything up to this point is not contradictory. We can either choose to love God or go to hell. We can choose to dedicate our entire lives without a shred of tangible evidence or we can be tortured forever. Thats the so called choice. So God created us, gave us a world filled with observable phenomenon, but left no traces of himself that would eliminate the need for blind faith. God also made it impossible for everyone in the world to even have his word available to them. He also made it impossible for those who do believe to have a single correct interpretation. We don't just have to hear of God. We have to have be in the right place, have the correct upbringing, and have the correct interpretation. If we don't have all of these things we are tortured eternally.

God made it impossible for everyone to get a fair shot at believing him but you have to endure eternal torture for that. God had to know this would happen. Since he knew ahead of time then he understood that a lot of people never really had a choice. Therefore free will is irrelevant and God is evil. Even if there was really a choice to be had it is at the very least coerced. This is the equivalent of someone pulling a gun on you and yelling, "Give me your wallet or die over and over again forever." It is a choice where there is only one right answer, thus defeating the purpose of calling it a valid choice in the first place.

QuoteNow lets move on to what I spoke of earlier, the disobedience of God. God requires justice but He is also merciful. So in His mercy He used Jesus as a stand in for all acts of evil committed by anyone. So if you make the decision to choose to give your life to God then He will begin to make you like Him. (No you will not become gods but you will be exactly what you were meant to be...holy)This is not religion this actually allowing God to rule in your life and change who you are. This is a process of learning and growing. This is God's mercy . Once everyone who will accept His offer has then He will enact His justice by removing evil. He will even destroy this earth and remake a new one.

Even if I ignore all of my previous points we still have a very serious problem with Jesus. Jesus is necessary in this story because of original sin. Jesus is the idea that since we are all born with this mark of evil against us we must be given a vehicle to remove it. The biggest problem is that we are given absolutely no choice in this at all. The whole concept negates choice. Whether we like it or not, Jesus died for us so we owe him. We owe Jesus because of something someone else did. Our choices do not affect this outcome at all. But not only do we owe Jesus our devotion, we also owe Jesus our lives. This is an intrinsically wicked concept at its core. It is a very clever way of forcing an albatross around everyone's neck at birth. This is another evil act by God.

 

QuoteThe prevention of evil can not just rest upon God's shoulders but also on those who do evil. God have given us the ability to choose to choose to obey Him or disobey Him. To be evil or allow Him to make us like Him. He is willing to equip us with the ability to not be evil but it must be on His terms and since He made it all who are we to tell Him anything different?

How can the prevention of evil not rest on God? If you believe God is willing and able then why did God just never allow evil to come about? Either he wanted there to be evil so that he could have an excuse to condemn us to eternal torture or he was not able to stop it and therefore, is not God (since the christian God is omniscient).

Quote from: "Achronos"Was He willing to prevent evil, and thus negate any choice man would make?  No, for that would not have been Love.  Instead He chose to overcome evil with Good.

So let me get this straight. God loves us because he would not prevent evil. How does this concept work? Even if I accept that this really enabled free will somehow, how can you say God loves anyone when he allowed so many good, God fearing people to suffer because of evil? Why not prevent these peoples suffering by the hands of the evil? Because of Gods allowance of a choice many people suffer greatly. This is malevolent. There is no real choice to be made however. I explain that in my response to gsaint above.

QuoteHe does not fit in any little a=b boxes we try to place Him in, rather He tells us He is neither a, nor b, nor even c, that a only equals b from our limited perception, and that c is greater than we could imagine.

This is a very telling argument. This, to me, is almost an admission of your own lack of knowledge (don't worry, there is none to be had). God is always something real and tangible until we review him closely. When we get to the details he gets more and more fuzzy and more and more contradictory. What you really seem to be saying here is, "There are some things that may be contradictory about God but we are only seeing a small part of a bigger picture." I completely reject this notion. God is always greater than we can imagine when we ask questions. There is always suppose to be some much greater meaning that we simply do not get. If you believe that, then what makes you so sure that you know anything about God? If the revealed words of God are not enough for us to understand him how can we be held accountable for disbelieving him? More importantly, what esoteric knowledge do you posses that allows you to know what is in Gods mind, if he fits into no boxes we can place around him? If our ways of observing the world cannot detect or understand him there is no reason to assume he exists.

I raised two kids; a son and daughter. When they were still young enough not to know right from wrong, and not to even know what death is because they hadn't seen anything die, just Adam and Eve, I put a plate of cookies in front of them and told them that they'd die if they ate it, and then I left and stayed away for a while.

Well, they told me that a dog came along and ate one of the cookies. And the daughter (the oldest) claimed that the dog told her that it was OK, that I hadn't poisoned the cookies. (I'm not that kind of parent, you know.) So she ate it, and then talked her brother into eating one as well.

Now, what parent likes being disobeyed? When I walked inside the door and saw the missing cookies, I kicked them out into the woods, naked except for their underwear (because I couldn’t find leaves large enough to hide their private parts) where they could have incest with each other, and posted a guard to shoot them if they came back.
 
The dog? I cut off his legs.
 
The above is not a true story, but...

My fundy neighbors would tell me I showed Godly love.

Quote from: "Gawen"My fundy neighbors would tell me I showed Godly love.

The problem with you is that you are not god, your godly love has mortal limitations.

God of course would know if your children can resist cookies, because god knows everything and can see the future as if it has already happened. god would know if cookies would be irresistable or not, so instead, if cookies wouldn't do the trick god would use chocolates, if those wouldn't work god would invent something that would, if that wouldn't work then god would create another child lets call her "Eve", god would make her irresistable and influential to your children. If that wouldn't work then god would send another creature, as you say, your talking pet dog, to put a word in your childrens ear and the creation Eve's ear. If your children still don't take then Eve will take, she will wave the item under your children's noses, she will taunt them until they finally crack, then all of a sudden god will show up and impose god's justice. You showed too much mercy. God would also deny them any personal contact with itself for ever, would punish the female child with pain, would punish any female children of god's children with pain, would punish any female children of god's childrens children with pain, actually for all decendants for whom are female pain would be coming their way curtousy of god.
And of course god takes no accountability what so ever for not having taught the children proper values i.e. do as I say because I am your parent, you must obey.

Personaly I am all for the naughty corner, get them to say sorry, give them a kiss and a hug and forget the whole incident. Lucky for my children I look to the super nanny for inspiration rather than god.

BTW I am surprised that Christians continue to eat apples, I am also surprised that Christians do not look to their god for inspiration on how to raise children and how to appropriately deal with disobediance. I would have thought for them god's way would have been seen as the perfect approach.

Quote from: "Achronos""But if you say, "Show me thy God," I would reply, "Show me yourself, and I will show you my God." Show, then, that the eyes of your soul are capable of seeing, and the ears of your heart able to hear; for as those who look with the eyes of the body perceive earthly objects and what concerns this life, and discriminate at the same time between things that differ, whether light or darkness, white or black, deformed or beautiful, well-proportioned and symmetrical or disproportioned and awkward, or monstrous or mutilated; and as in like manner also, by the sense of hearing, we discriminate either sharp, or deep, or sweet sounds; so the same holds good regarding the eyes of the soul and the ears of the heart, that it is by them we are able to behold God. For God is seen by those who are enabled to see Him when they have the eyes of their soul opened: for all have eyes; but in some they are overspread, and do not see the light of the sun. Yet it does not follow, because the blind do not see, that the light of the sun does not shine; but let the blind blame themselves and their own eyes. So also thou, O man, hast the eyes of thy soul overspread by thy sins and evil deeds. As a burnished mirror, so ought man to have his soul pure. When there is rust on the mirror, it is not possible that a man's face be seen in the mirror; so also when there is sin in a man, such a man cannot behold God. Do you, therefore, show me yourself, whether you are not an adulterer, or a fornicator, or a thief, or a robber, or a purloiner; whether you do not corrupt boys; whether you are not insolent, or a slanderer, or passionate, or envious, or proud, or supercilious; whether you are not a brawler, or covetous, or disobedient to parents; and whether you do not sell your children; for to those who do these things God is not manifest, unless they have first cleansed themselves from all impurity. All these things, then, involve you in darkness, as when a filmy defluxion on the eyes prevents one from beholding the light of the sun: thus also do iniquities, 0 man, involve you in darkness, so that you cannot see God. "-St.Theophilus of Antioch

seriously bro,

just one big faceraping headache paragragh eh?

i feel it.

Quote from: "radicalaggrivation"So let me get this straight. God loves us because he would not prevent evil. How does this concept work? Even if I accept that this really enabled free will somehow, how can you say God loves anyone when he allowed so many good, God fearing people to suffer because of evil? Why not prevent these peoples suffering by the hands of the evil? Because of Gods allowance of a choice many people suffer greatly. This is malevolent. There is no real choice to be made however. I explain that in my response to gsaint above.

If we accept the Biblical narrative about the Fall, we find that evil only exists because of man.  In fact, evil is an action, not something that happens.  There are things that happen that are tragic, such as calamities, plagues, and famines and such, but in a good vs evil debate these don't rise to the level of evil.  In fact, if it weren't for our fear of death (whether it's the fear of damnation, or the fear of total non-existence) events would have no sense of tragedy to them at all.  If everyone knew for certain that after you die you go to a place even better than the one you know now (I hear there's pie) death would not be mourned, but celebrated.

Evil requires an action.  It takes a rather twisted humanity to turn tragic circumstances into evil circumstances.  A hurricane might kill a few, a disease might cause some suffering.  It takes humanity to force people to live under deprived conditions, to ensure that death involves as much suffering as possible, to send people off to gulags to wait in fear of execution.  Animals might kill for food, or to protect territory and mating rights, it takes a human to kill for an I-pod.

It exists because man is given the freedom to choose, he can choose God and the good and life, or he can choose evil and death.  There is no other way that would allow for choice.  God is good, to reject Him is evil.  It couldn't be a choice between God and ice-cream, for the opposite of God is not ice-cream.

The only way for God to not allow evil would be if God were to not allow humans.  We could perhaps argue if it were better for God to not have created humans, but if the answer is that God is evil because He created humanity, then the only answer is mass genocide of the species.  That'll show Him.

QuoteThis is a very telling argument. This, to me, is almost an admission of your own lack of knowledge (don't worry, there is none to be had). God is always something real and tangible until we review him closely. When we get to the details he gets more and more fuzzy and more and more contradictory. What you really seem to be saying here is, "There are some things that may be contradictory about God but we are only seeing a small part of a bigger picture." I completely reject this notion. God is always greater than we can imagine when we ask questions. There is always suppose to be some much greater meaning that we simply do not get. If you believe that, then what makes you so sure that you know anything about God? If the revealed words of God are not enough for us to understand him how can we be held accountable for disbelieving him? More importantly, what esoteric knowledge do you posses that allows you to know what is in Gods mind, if he fits into no boxes we can place around him? If our ways of observing the world cannot detect or understand him there is no reason to assume he exists.

I don't think you really have comprehended yet what Orthodox teaching is. God is in essence unknowable. We can know He exists, we can know certain things about His existence by His revelation, and in conjunction with that revelation we can determine certain things about Him from creation.  

But, don't misunderstand, it's not that when we get to the details He gets more fuzzy.  It's that when we get to the details He gets more complex.  And this is so with anything.  Anything seems simple enough when you take it on face value, it's when you start asking questions, delving into answers, that more questions are bred.  

Take anything in the natural world.  A human being seems simple enough at first, then you start examining each part.  You go underneath the skin and find a host of bones, connected by ligament and powered by muscles.  Behind those bones is a brain and heart.  Delve further under a microscope and you find all sorts of cells. Then you reach DNA. And even DNA is constructed of even tinier pieces. But you don't find these things out until you accept that a thing called a man can exist.  

We could have never realized the complexity of bacteria and virii until we stopped questioning that tiny invisible particles can cause diseases, and we started looking for them instead.

Even better, take that dizzying world of Quantum Physics. The more questions we answer, the more questions pop up.  We have more questions about the nature of reality with all of our answers than the Greek philosophers could have dreamed of.

It is even more so with God. The more I know God the more I realize just how unknowable He is. Knowing He is Good is a good starting point, then I find there is more to goodness than I ever imagined.  Right did Milton tell us that "How Awful goodness is."  

Fortunately, we don't have to understand Him.  But even this is not surprising.  I cannot even begin to understand a fellow human being, the second I think I do they do something so shockingly surprising (good, bad, or just unusual) that I am left puzzled.  When you get right down to it, I don't even understand myself all the time, I am constantly doing things (good, bad, or unusual) that I never would have thought myself capable of.  Know what's in God's mind?  My good fellow, if I could just know what's in your mind it would be a miracle!  But you don't need to understand someone to have a relationship with them.  You can understand some things about them, the rest you take on faith. I understand that my friend is occasionally grouchy because his father abused him, I have faith that if I'm in a pickle he'll be the first one to get my back (faith within reason, he's had my back since day one).  I understand that God is terribly good, I have faith (within reason because of the Incarnation) that He will make me good as well.

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "radicalaggrivation"So let me get this straight. God loves us because he would not prevent evil. How does this concept work? Even if I accept that this really enabled free will somehow, how can you say God loves anyone when he allowed so many good, God fearing people to suffer because of evil? Why not prevent these peoples suffering by the hands of the evil? Because of Gods allowance of a choice many people suffer greatly. This is malevolent. There is no real choice to be made however. I explain that in my response to gsaint above.

If we accept the Biblical narrative about the Fall, we find that evil only exists because of man.

And God let evil exist because of man.

QuoteIn fact, evil is an action, not something that happens.

Uh, an action is something that happens...

QuoteThere are things that happen that are tragic, such as calamities, plagues, and famines and such, but in a good vs evil debate these don't rise to the level of evil.

Yes, natural disasters that take potentially thousands, maybe even millions, of lives aren't evil. Not at all.

QuoteIn fact, if it weren't for our fear of death (whether it's the fear of damnation, or the fear of total non-existence) events would have no sense of tragedy to them at all.

Who gave us our fear of death?

QuoteIf everyone knew for certain that after you die you go to a place even better than the one you know now (I hear there's pie) death would not be mourned, but celebrated.

This is demonstrably false. Christians and other theists who sincerely believe they are going to heaven when they die are just as afraid and saddened at death as anyone else.

QuoteEvil requires an action.

True.

QuoteIt takes a rather twisted humanity to turn tragic circumstances into evil circumstances.  A hurricane might kill a few, a disease might cause some suffering.  It takes humanity to force people to live under deprived conditions, to ensure that death involves as much suffering as possible, to send people off to gulags to wait in fear of execution.  Animals might kill for food, or to protect territory and mating rights, it takes a human to kill for an I-pod.

And God made humans. What does this say about him?

QuoteIt exists because man is given the freedom to choose, he can choose God and the good and life, or he can choose evil and death.

Why must he choose between these two things? Why can't he still be good without God? Why does he have the ability to reject God? Why does he have abilities that, when utilized, point towards no God?

QuoteThere is no other way that would allow for choice.

Why is choice good?

QuoteGod is good, to reject Him is evil.

Why?

QuoteIt couldn't be a choice between God and ice-cream, for the opposite of God is not ice-cream.

Why not?

QuoteThe only way for God to not allow evil would be if God were to not allow humans.

Why?

QuoteWe could perhaps argue if it were better for God to not have created humans, but if the answer is that God is evil because He created humanity, then the only answer is mass genocide of the species.  That'll show Him.

Why did God have to create humans the way they are?

QuoteI don't think you really have comprehended yet what Orthodox teaching is. God is in essence unknowable.

Why?

QuoteWe can know He exists, we can know certain things about His existence by His revelation, and in conjunction with that revelation we can determine certain things about Him from creation.

Why can't we know more?

QuoteBut, don't misunderstand, it's not that when we get to the details He gets more fuzzy.  It's that when we get to the details He gets more complex.  And this is so with anything.  Anything seems simple enough when you take it on face value, it's when you start asking questions, delving into answers, that more questions are bred.

Why couldn't he have made us able to understand him?

QuoteIt is even more so with God. The more I know God the more I realize just how unknowable He is. Knowing He is Good is a good starting point, then I find there is more to goodness than I ever imagined.  Right did Milton tell us that "How Awful goodness is."

If you accept that God is good from the start, then anything he does is good automatically, making the word "good" useless when talking about God.

QuoteFortunately, we don't have to understand Him.  But even this is not surprising.  I cannot even begin to understand a fellow human being, the second I think I do they do something so shockingly surprising (good, bad, or just unusual) that I am left puzzled.  When you get right down to it, I don't even understand myself all the time, I am constantly doing things (good, bad, or unusual) that I never would have thought myself capable of.  Know what's in God's mind?  My good fellow, if I could just know what's in your mind it would be a miracle!  But you don't need to understand someone to have a relationship with them.  You can understand some things about them, the rest you take on faith. I understand that my friend is occasionally grouchy because his father abused him, I have faith that if I'm in a pickle he'll be the first one to get my back (faith within reason, he's had my back since day one).  I understand that God is terribly good, I have faith (within reason because of the Incarnation) that He will make me good as well.

Why is faith good? Why wouldn't God prize intelligence and rationality more? Why aren't all humans equal?

I want to 1st apologize to all of you I have been sugar coating some things and I have been convicted by God last night and today to stop that. So I first want to say God is offensive. He isn't your Santa Clause and He didn't create us so that we  can be happy but so that man could be a reflection of His Glory. Yes it is all about God. Although, He does care for us and knows what is best for us. We as humans don't define God and we don't live in a democracy where we can vote out God.

QuoteWow, that's really moral. "Hey, guess what! Murdered a little kid? It's okay! You don't have to suffer the consequences of your actions. Isn't that great? Isn't that just?"

Like I said I sugar coated it. If a murdered realized that what he did was wrong that he sinned against that child's family, that child, himself, humans, and God. Asked God to forgive him of all of his sins not just the sin of murder then God is faithful to forgive him. If this man is in jail that doesn't mean he will be released. If this man is on death row that doesn't mean this man will not face the executioner. If that man was not in jail then that man should confess his and give himself up for his crimes. What it means is this man does not have to spend eternity in hell.  The difference between the murderer and the guy who never broke any human law, but died without acknowledging God, is that the man who was good in other man's eyes commented other sins that were still punishable of death to God. Since God is perfect He will not tolerate any sin or evil.

The question is what is evil? (feel free to tell me your definition)

QuoteIf God created everything and is able to remove evil, then logically we can posit that God is also the author of evil

God does allow evil to exist for the moment in certain circumstances to help man understand his need for God and help to grow in his knowledge of God (like in the book of Job). God also wanted us to have free will so if we don't have a choice of not choosing Him then there is no choice. This doesn't mean the He made it but that it  occurred becasue it was the cause of not choosing Good (or God). All through out the Bible there are times when God tells man what not to do but man chooses his own way and then man finds himself in a painful situation. It would be evil of God to not tell you what to do and then judge you for it. God will judge every man individually and based on that persons knowledge. I will not be judged the same way  the pope will be judged or the same way you will be judged.

QuoteDo we have free will that God cannot control or is God the malevolent author of all the worlds ills?

You must also understand that God is all knowing so it not the same as me allowing a bad thing to happen because I don't know the outcome of the situation. Since God knows the outcome of the situation He will do as He pleases. God also has rule for Himself He will not break. Since He has given man free will to choose Him or to not choose him He will not infringe on that boundary. That doesn't make Him not all powerful becasue He can end your life when He wants to.

QuoteWe can choose to dedicate our entire lives without a shred of tangible evidence or we can be tortured forever.

I do not live my life without a shred of evidence that God does not exist. The Holy Spirit lives in me and directs me. I know who God is not just out of the Bible or from what people have told me. I know God before I ever read the Bible. I get direction from God not from man. Just becasue you choose to not see the evidence of a God doesn't mean that it isn't there.

QuoteSo God created us, gave us a world filled with observable phenomenon, but left no traces of himself that would eliminate the need for blind faith.

I am proof that there is a God because I know Him. There are people on this earth today who know God and live by His word and direction. The Bible is evidence of His existence. Prove to me that it isn't the word of God. I know it is the word of God becasue it has proven to be true and the fact that no one has successfully be able to destroy it. I don't want to get into it too heavily but I will if you want me to.

QuoteGod also made it impossible for everyone in the world to even have his word available to them. He also made it impossible for those who do believe to have a single correct interpretation. We don't just have to hear of God. We have to have be in the right place, have the correct upbringing, and have the correct interpretation. If we don't have all of these things we are tortured eternally.

God uses people to tell other people about Him and then He moves in that person, that doesn't know Him, to help them understand who He is. You can reject His moving or not. I don't know all of how God makes it happen becasue I am not God. There are people all over the world traveling to remote places to teach others about God. Also God can just inform man who He is by himself. He likes to use other people but that not going to stop Him. Like I said before I don't believe in God becasue of my parents. When I meet God I wasn't going to church and was too young to read a bible. God can and will make himself known to man in one way or another but everyone has a chance to accept Him or not. Again like I said before If there is a man in the jungle with no Bible God is only going to judge Him on what He knows.

QuoteGod made it impossible for everyone to get a fair shot at believing him but you have to endure eternal torture for that.

The only thing you need to know God is be human and trust in God, that is it. No right up bringing no right status. God want a relationship with every person but He will not force Himself on anyone. So anyone who wants to know Him will know Him.

QuoteJesus died for us so we owe him. We owe Jesus because of something someone else did. Our choices do not affect this outcome at all. But not only do we owe Jesus our devotion, we also owe Jesus our lives. This is an intrinsically wicked concept at its core. It is a very clever way of forcing an albatross around everyone's neck at birth. This is another evil act by God.

This again is where God gets offensive becasue you owe God your life even if Jesus didn't die on the cross. Since God gave you life He owns you.  It would be just for God to judge us the way we are without the provision of Jesus. He made us for one thing you choose not to do that thing so then He judges you accordingly. If you made something that didn't work you would either fix it or throw it away. The thing doesn't get to choose the way it is fixed nor does it get to choose what it is made for. The reason Jesus had to die the way he died is to show us the cost of God's love and provision. The sin we commit is not a simple act it is the rejection of the Holy God. So therefor you are judged for what you have done

QuoteHow can the prevention of evil not rest on God?

Man is responsible for every act he does so if he commits evil he can either pay for it himself or allow it to be paid for by God. Both are costly chooses one is far better and has greater benefits than the other.

Hell is not being with God. If you don't choose God then you choose not to be with God so you choose to be in Hell.

Quote from: "gsaint"I want to 1st apologize to all of you I have been sugar coating some things and I have been convicted by God last night and today to stop that. So I first want to say God is offensive. He isn't your Santa Clause and He didn't create us so that we  can be happy but so that man could be a reflection of His Glory. Yes it is all about God. Although, He does care for us and knows what is best for us. We as humans don't define God and we don't live in a democracy where we can vote out God.

God sounds like petty asshole to me. He created us just for his amusement and self-confidence. He wants us to worship him, and if we don't, we get to suffer infinitely for all eternity. And if we do, we get to live with him for all eternity doing...that's right, you guessed it -- worshiping him! Doesn't that sound fun?

Quote

QuoteWow, that's really moral. "Hey, guess what! Murdered a little kid? It's okay! You don't have to suffer the consequences of your actions. Isn't that great? Isn't that just?"

Like I said I sugar coated it. If a murdered realized that what he did was wrong that he sinned against that child's family, that child, himself, humans, and God. Asked God to forgive him of all of his sins not just the sin of murder then God is faithful to forgive him. If this man is in jail that doesn't mean he will be released. If this man is on death row that doesn't mean this man will not face the executioner. If that man was not in jail then that man should confess his and give himself up for his crimes. What it means is this man does not have to spend eternity in hell.  The difference between the murderer and the guy who never broke any human law, but died without acknowledging God, is that the man who was good in other man's eyes commented other sins that were still punishable of death to God. Since God is perfect He will not tolerate any sin or evil.

And good people that have looked at the evidence (or lack therefore of) for God and concluded he doesn't exist using the gifts (logic, intellect, reason) God gave them will spend eternity in Hell. And good people that were indoctrinated into another religion and saw no reason to convert to Christianity get to go to Hell. But, guess what? A child rapist that was lucky enough to be indoctrinated into Christianity gets to say a few magic words and feel it in his heart and, yay! He gets to go to Heaven!

QuoteThe question is what is evil? (feel free to tell me your definition)

Evil is anything that I don't like or approve of. Good is anything that I like and approve of.

QuoteIf God created everything and is able to remove evil, then logically we can posit that God is also the author of evil

God does allow evil to exist for the moment in certain circumstances to help man understand his need for God and help to grow in his knowledge of God (like in the book of Job). God also wanted us to have free will so if we don't have a choice of not choosing Him then there is no choice. This doesn't mean the He made it but that it  occurred becasue it was the cause of not choosing Good (or God).[/quote]
Wait, what? The way you wrote this is confusing.

QuoteAll through out the Bible there are times when God tells man what not to do but man chooses his own way and then man finds himself in a painful situation. It would be evil of God to not tell you what to do and then judge you for it.

So, it would be evil for God not to judge his creations for using the free will and intellect he gave them and arrived at "wrong" conclusions.

QuoteGod will judge every man individually and based on that persons knowledge. I will not be judged the same way  the pope will be judged or the same way you will be judged."

So, God judges on intellect, then, not faith?

Quote

QuoteDo we have free will that God cannot control or is God the malevolent author of all the worlds ills?

You must also understand that God is all knowing so it not the same as me allowing a bad thing to happen because I don't know the outcome of the situation.

God is omnipotent, which means he can do anything. He doesn't have to let evil continue, but he does. This means he's malevolent.

QuoteSince God knows the outcome of the situation He will do as He pleases. God also has rule for Himself He will not break. Since He has given man free will to choose Him or to not choose him He will not infringe on that boundary. That doesn't make Him not all powerful becasue He can end your life when He wants to.

Why is not having free will bad?

Quote

QuoteWe can choose to dedicate our entire lives without a shred of tangible evidence or we can be tortured forever.

I do not live my life without a shred of evidence that God does not exist. The Holy Spirit lives in me and directs me. I know who God is not just out of the Bible or from what people have told me. I know God before I ever read the Bible. I get direction from God not from man. Just becasue you choose to not see the evidence of a God doesn't mean that it isn't there.

I ignore religious arguments that would be equally valid if you substituted another religion in its place. The exact same argument could be used towards Islam, or Scientology.

Quote

QuoteSo God created us, gave us a world filled with observable phenomenon, but left no traces of himself that would eliminate the need for blind faith.

I am proof that there is a God because I know Him.

I am proof there is a Santa Clause because I know him. I talk with him everyday and see his effects on my life, especially at Christmas.

QuoteThere are people on this earth today who know God and live by His word and direction. The Bible is evidence of His existence.

Your religion has one book. Santa Clause has thousands of books, movies, songs, and other items proving his existence. Statistically speaking, Santa Clause is thousands more times likely to exist than God.

QuoteProve to me that it isn't the word of God.

My proof is that I know in my heart it isn't the word of God. I have faith it isn't, and you can't disprove my faith.

QuoteI know it is the word of God becasue it has proven to be true and the fact that no one has successfully be able to destroy it.

If I got out a lighter and burned a copy of the Bible, will I prove that it isn't the word of God?

QuoteI don't want to get into it too heavily but I will if you want me to.

Go ahead. I want to see what you have to say.

Quote

QuoteGod also made it impossible for everyone in the world to even have his word available to them. He also made it impossible for those who do believe to have a single correct interpretation. We don't just have to hear of God. We have to have be in the right place, have the correct upbringing, and have the correct interpretation. If we don't have all of these things we are tortured eternally.

God uses people to tell other people about Him and then He moves in that person, that doesn't know Him, to help them understand who He is.

So, if a Christian on Earth fails to tell someone about the correct version of Christianity, then that person will be infinitely tortured for infinity.

QuoteYou can reject His moving or not.

You can reject Santa Claus's moving or not. The choice is yours.

QuoteI don't know all of how God makes it happen becasue I am not God.

"I don't know how it happens, but I have faith", right?

QuoteThere are people all over the world traveling to remote places to teach others about God.

And hey, if those Hindus refuse to believe in the Christian god, they deserve to be infinitely tortured for all infinity, right?

QuoteAlso God can just inform man who He is by himself.

But yet, he doesn't. Strange.

QuoteHe likes to use other people but that not going to stop Him. Like I said before I don't believe in God becasue of my parents. When I meet God I wasn't going to church and was too young to read a bible. God can and will make himself known to man in one way or another but everyone has a chance to accept Him or not. Again like I said before If there is a man in the jungle with no Bible God is only going to judge Him on what He knows.

Strange that you had Christian religious experiences and you were brought up in a Christian home. Go figure.

Quote

QuoteGod made it impossible for everyone to get a fair shot at believing him but you have to endure eternal torture for that.

The only thing you need to know God is be human and trust in God, that is it. No right up bringing no right status. God want a relationship with every person but He will not force Himself on anyone. So anyone who wants to know Him will know Him.

I want to know him.

...

...

When do I get to know him?

Quote

QuoteJesus died for us so we owe him. We owe Jesus because of something someone else did. Our choices do not affect this outcome at all. But not only do we owe Jesus our devotion, we also owe Jesus our lives. This is an intrinsically wicked concept at its core. It is a very clever way of forcing an albatross around everyone's neck at birth. This is another evil act by God.

This again is where God gets offensive becasue you owe God your life even if Jesus didn't die on the cross. Since God gave you life He owns you.  It would be just for God to judge us the way we are without the provision of Jesus. He made us for one thing you choose not to do that thing so then He judges you accordingly. If you made something that didn't work you would either fix it or throw it away. The thing doesn't get to choose the way it is fixed nor does it get to choose what it is made for. The reason Jesus had to die the way he died is to show us the cost of God's love and provision. The sin we commit is not a simple act it is the rejection of the Holy God. So therefor you are judged for what you have done

Once again, God shows that he is a petty asshole. Which contradicts his supposed omnibenevolence. Which means he doesn't exist.

Oh well.

Quote

QuoteHow can the prevention of evil not rest on God?

Man is responsible for every act he does so if he commits evil he can either pay for it himself or allow it to be paid for by God. Both are costly chooses one is far better and has greater benefits than the other.

God created man, and he created evil, with full knowledge of everything he was going to do.

QuoteHell is not being with God. If you don't choose God then you choose not to be with God so you choose to be in Hell.

Just like you choose not to believe in Santa Claus, so you won't get any presents next Christmas. It's your fault for not choosing to believe in him.

Quote from: "gsaint"The difference between the murderer and the guy who never broke any human law, but died without acknowledging God, is that the man who was good in other man's eyes commented other sins that were still punishable of death to God

This is one of the most disgusting things about the Christian god. When we get down to it, being a good person is optional so long as you repent. Being a good person is not necessary because you can always make a death bed repentance and have all of your sins washed away. What a dangerous and vile concept. That is not perfection. That is nonsense.

QuoteSince God is perfect He will not tolerate any sin or evil.

Clearly God does tolerate it because he allowed it to exist. Why not just rid the Garden of Eden of the snake, if it held such ill intent towards God’s precious creation?

QuoteThe question is what is evil? (feel free to tell me your definition)

While I certainly use the word evil in a colloquial sense, I reject the notion of evil. Good and evil is a matter of social and personal perspective and what is viewed as good or evil changes with the people you ask. There is no definition because it means something different to everyone. What is meant by this in an everyday sense is how much harm versus good are peoples actions having?

QuoteGod does allow evil to exist for the moment in certain circumstances to help man understand his need for God and help to grow in his knowledge of God (like in the book of Job).

No, no, no. God does not “allow” evil to exist, God is the originator of evil. If evil is a real tangible force and it manifests in our world, it has to have its origins in the creator of everything. Let’s make our language clear. You can’t have it both ways. Either God created evil or he did not. If he did then you still need to address my previous argument. If he did not, then you need to explain why we have evil (especially since you believe that God is all powerful and does not desire evil).

QuoteGod also wanted us to have free will so if we don't have a choice of not choosing Him then there is no choice.

There is no choice to be made. We either cave in to this eternal dictator or we burn in hell forever. As I already demonstrated, this is coercion and does not reflect a true choice.

QuoteThis doesn't mean the He made it but that it occurred becasue it was the cause of not choosing Good (or God).

Wrong again. God created all existence and the circumstances in which we exist. Unless a force outside of God created evil he is responsible. You can open that can of worms if you want. Even if I assume that that is true, you have still contradicted the Christian god. By your words God wants to rid the world of evil. If he desires that and it has not happened he cant be all powerful.

QuoteAll through out the Bible there are times when God tells man what not to do but man chooses his own way and then man finds himself in a painful situation. It would be evil of God to not tell you what to do and then judge you for it.

I think it is evil of God to know ahead of time that humans would make the wrong choice (since he created us that way) and then torture us forever for doing what is in his plan. Or is it not his plan? If God does not know what we are going to choose he is not all knowing and your point is valid. If God knows then he is evil and we are not accountable for our actions, since it is all just a part of his plan. Again, pick your poison.
 

QuoteGod will judge every man individually and based on that persons knowledge. I will not be judged the same way the pope will be judged or the same way you will be judged.

God also clearly judges people based off of what other people do. The fact that we are born of sin because of the choices of Eve is a judgment that we cannot avoid. We start off in the hole and owing God. Then we have to try and work ourselves out. But even if a person lived a totally perfect life, they still have to bear the burden of original sin and would be judged as unworthy by God.

QuoteYou must also understand that God is all knowing so it not the same as me allowing a bad thing to happen because I don't know the outcome of the situation. Since God knows the outcome of the situation He will do as He pleases.

Right, God is always all knowing when a contradiction pops up. This does not make it go away. Saying God is all knowing does not change the fact that God either knows everything beforehand and we don’t have a choice or God does not know our choices and is not omniscient. You have yet to actually address this contradiction in his nature and a straight answer would be nice.
 

QuoteGod also has rule for Himself He will not break.

Like what? And how did you come by this knowledge?

QuoteSince He has given man free will to choose Him or to not choose him He will not infringe on that boundary.

This still makes no sense, unless you can address my previous argument with new information.

QuoteThat doesn't make Him not all powerful becasue He can end your life when He wants to.

Lol. So what? I can end my life when I want to. Does that make me all powerful?

QuoteI do not live my life without a shred of evidence that God does not exist. The Holy Spirit lives in me and directs me. I know who God is not just out of the Bible or from what people have told me. I know God before I ever read the Bible. I get direction from God not from man. Just becasue you choose to not see the evidence of a God doesn't mean that it isn't there.

You may feel that your personal experience is enough evidence to prove Gods existence but it isn’t. You know why? Because there are hundreds of other religions, with millions of other followers that are incompatible with your beliefs and you all feel the same way. You all think that your gut feeling is enough evidence. You telling me what God or the Holy Spirit does for you proves nothing and is not comparable to evidence. The fact is that everything testable or demonstrable about your religion has either been proven false or is too intangible to make a determination one way or the other. Either way, it isn’t evidence. Sorry.

QuoteI am proof that there is a God because I know Him. There are people on this earth today who know God and live by His word and direction. The Bible is evidence of His existence. Prove to me that it isn't the word of God. I know it is the word of God becasue it has proven to be true and the fact that no one has successfully be able to destroy it. I don't want to get into it too heavily but I will if you want me to.

Again, your word alone is proof of nothing. And when you say you know him, do you mean you speak to God directly? The Bible is also evidence of nothing. The Bible actually works against you and your assertions. If you would like to get into that I would be more than happy to oblige you. I would not mind hearing how the Bible aids your argument. What version of the Bible are you using?

QuoteGod uses people to tell other people about Him and then He moves in that person, that doesn't know Him, to help them understand who He is. You can reject His moving or not. I don't know all of how God makes it happen becasue I am not God. There are people all over the world traveling to remote places to teach others about God. Also God can just inform man who He is by himself. He likes to use other people but that not going to stop Him. Like I said before I don't believe in God becasue of my parents. When I meet God I wasn't going to church and was too young to read a bible. God can and will make himself known to man in one way or another but everyone has a chance to accept Him or not. Again like I said before If there is a man in the jungle with no Bible God is only going to judge Him on what He knows.

You take for granted that there are people across the world that say you are going to hell for the same reason. What’s the difference? That your god is right and theirs is wrong? Okay. That still tells me nothing. And where in the Bible does it say that God judges based off of knowledge? As I recall there is an ultimatum. You either accept the Christian god or upon death you are separated from him by being sent to be tortured eternally. And God has not made himself known to me and I searched with sincerity. I truly wanted to believe. So it isn’t that everyone who does not believe just rejects the evidence. It’s that the evidence presented does not support the conclusion we are suppose to reach. That is by any count. I would argue that it is you who is ignoring the evidence that points to the much more plausible conclusion that your god is a fairy tale.

QuoteThe only thing you need to know God is be human and trust in God, that is it.

It’s truly sad for any human being to be coerced into believing such nonsense. This is the exact form of limited thinking that led to the rise of the Inquisition and the Crusades. This led to the suppression of Copernicus’ heliocentric theory by charge of blasphemy. Our minds evolved from lower creatures and it allows us to view the world consciously (or do you accept the biblical account?) and with a desire to understand the world around us. I have actually met very few Christians that truly feel that way and the sooner we are rid of this mode of thinking we won’t have so many brainwashed teenagers blowing themselves up at weddings. If we all only took that view of life we would still be dying of the black plague or burning witches.

QuoteGod want a relationship with every person but He will not force Himself on anyone.
God does nothing but force his holiness on us. Not just by threat of death but by threat of eternal torments. You have reminded me several times already how much we owe God. Despite us having no choice at all in this arrangement, we have to accept that we are owned by God like his pets. He does all this so that we can obey his every command thoughtlessly and die, just so we can start worshiping his glory again after we have died. That is the worst description of a loving relationship ever recorded.

QuoteSo anyone who wants to know Him will know Him.

So if I say that I really wanted to know him and I didn’t find what you found in it, you would just say I wasn’t trying hard enough right? You would just assume I wasn’t sincere enough or living out of sin enough, wouldn’t you? Or am I making too many assumptions?

QuoteThis again is where God gets offensive because you owe God your life even if Jesus didn't die on the cross. Since God gave you life He owns you. It would be just for God to judge us the way we are without the provision of Jesus. He made us for one thing you choose not to do that thing so then He judges you accordingly. If you made something that didn't work you would either fix it or throw it away. The thing doesn't get to choose the way it is fixed nor does it get to choose what it is made for. The reason Jesus had to die the way he died is to show us the cost of God's love and provision. The sin we commit is not a simple act it is the rejection of the Holy God. So therefore you are judged for what you have done

It doesn’t offend me one bit. Guess what? I don’t owe God a damn thing. You don’t either but that is aside from the point. If God is real and he gave me free will, I exercise it to disbelieve he exists due to lack of evidence. But I would gladly live my life now and endure the hell under the ground (as opposed to the one in the sky), than to give up my freedom to an ill defined eternal dictator.

QuoteMan is responsible for every act he does so if he commits evil he can either pay for it himself or allow it to be paid for by God. Both are costly chooses one is far better and has greater benefits than the other.

You totally ignored my arguments and the argument by Epicurus that you yourself posted in this thread. If God created everything, how could he not have created evil? A straight answer would be nice. If you conform to the Genesis account of the world’s creation then you will see that evil existed prior to Adam and Eve’s repulsion form the Garden of Eden and into sin. The serpent is the devil and the devil is evil before Adam and Eve are. So your argument that evil originates in people is wrong if we believe your holy book.

QuoteHell is not being with God. If you don't choose God then you choose not to be with God so you choose to be in Hell.

Wrong again. You can just say that I am choosing this but none of this was anyone’s choice. I have no reason to believe God is real. From what I can discern of the world no God is needed to explain the things around me or that compose me. I am not choosing to go to hell. If I disbelieve God that is the only choice I made. My view on God and his actions against me for this thought are not equivocal. God is also making a choice to send me to Hell. Unless your saying that God has no choice but to send me to hell, which would mean he wasn’t omnipotent or merciful.

Quote from: "gsaint"God does allow evil to exist for the moment in certain circumstances to help man understand his need for God.

So god uses evil to make people appreciate him, what a charmer.
I think some kidnappers do stuff like that, Stockholm syndrome some people call it, and then of course there is your run of the mill abusive husband.
But I'm sure all these guys have have our best interests at heart.
What sort of insecurity does this god suffer from that he wastes half his commandments securing his own position?
Oh ye there was a lot of godly competition back then, before followers of false gods got righteously murdered.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"Oh ye there was a lot of godly competition back then, before followers of false gods got righteously murdered.

Not just "back then"...

Xenu, Cthulhu, Luke Skywalker, whatever-it-is-the-Mormons-worship... Poor Yahweh has his work cut out for him...  

Quote from: "Achronos"If we accept the Biblical narrative about the Fall, we find that evil only exists because of man.

The serpent represents the devil. He makes suggestions against Gods will before the fall. He is evil before Adam and Eve, so you are incorrect.

QuoteIn fact, evil is an action, not something that happens.

If we are to believe correctly evil is more like a force. And it was already pointed out to you that an action is something that happens.

 

QuoteThere are things that happen that are tragic, such as calamities, plagues, and famines and such, but in a good vs evil debate these don't rise to the level of evil.  

I never equated acts of evil with tragedies from nature. I don't know why this is necessary to comment on.

QuoteIn fact, if it weren't for our fear of death (whether it's the fear of damnation, or the fear of total non-existence) events would have no sense of tragedy to them at all.

I don't agree with you. Even if we did not fear death we could still feel pain for the loss of life. I don't fear death at all but if a family member of mine died I would still feel an incredible amount of loss. You are equating the fear of death with the pain of loss and they are not the same thing.

QuoteIf everyone knew for certain that after you die you go to a place even better than the one you know now (I hear there's pie) death would not be mourned, but celebrated.

This is not true but even if it was, it does not justify the harm done by believing there is another, much better, life after you die. It truly makes living the life we have meaningless and worthless when you believe you are meant to die and live a perfect life afterward. This thinking led to the extension of the Dark Ages and leads to people blowing themselves up for 42 virgins.

QuoteEvil requires an action. It takes a rather twisted humanity to turn tragic circumstances into evil circumstances.

Again, I am not really sure why you feel this necessary to say. I agree with you.

QuoteA hurricane might kill a few, a disease might cause some suffering. It takes humanity to force people to live under deprived conditions, to ensure that death involves as much suffering as possible, to send people off to gulags to wait in fear of execution.

But of course God shares none of the responsibility for this correct? Did he know it would happen before hand and still let so many innocent people suffer? Oh, I forgot. No one is innocent to your God because of original sin. That is true evil.

QuoteAnimals might kill for food, or to protect territory and mating rights, it takes a human to kill for an I-pod.

If that IPod was stolen to feed a man’s family what’s the difference? We live in a world were some people own IPods and other people don't own shoes. Resources are disproportionately distributed so that a few people have so much and most people have very little. Why did God not start everyone on the same footing to be fair? Oh, that’s right, God is not a fair god and he doesn’t give a shit.

QuoteIt exists because man is given the freedom to choose, he can choose God and the good and life, or he can choose evil and death. There is no other way that would allow for choice. God is good, to reject Him is evil. It couldn't be a choice between God and ice-cream, for the opposite of God is not ice-cream.

You have ignored my previous argument. You need to address the contradictions in Gods nature. Either God gave us free will to choose and does not know what our choices will be - giving up his omniscience or God knows everything and it is part of his plan, meaning that choices are illusionary and not based off of free will. Please give a direct answer for this.

QuoteThe only way for God to not allow evil would be if God were to not allow humans. We could perhaps argue if it were better for God to not have created humans

Who are you to say what God is or is not capable of allowing? How do you know? If God is all powerful what would prevent him from making a world free of evil with humans? If he has the ability then why doesn't he? Does he not want to? Or can be but he refuses?

Quoteif the answer is that God is evil because He created humanity, then the only answer is mass genocide of the species. That'll show Him.

God is indeed evil and he is conducting mass genocide already. We are all forced to die because of someone elses crime against God. That is the greatest form of genocide possible. That won't show him anything but his own nature.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"And God let evil exist because of man.

Well, yes, otherwise there wouldn't have been any point in the whole free will exercise.  "You can choose me or something else.  Go ahead, it's your choice.  Wait, you chose something else?  Okay, show's over

QuoteUh, an action is something that happens...

That would have probably been better stated as "Evil is an action of will, not an occurrence.

QuoteYes, natural disasters that take potentially thousands, maybe even millions, of lives aren't evil. Not at all.

Not in the same sense.  There is no malevolent intent behind a natural disaster.  Hurricanes and earthquakes happen because that is the way the world works, pressure builds and releases.  The only reason they kill thousands or even millions is because we were dumb enough to say "You know, I know that earthquakes are common in this region, but I want to live here.  This fault line looks like an excellent place for a high-rise."  Or my personal favorite: "I know this region is prone to storms with high winds and lots of water.  Let's push some water into a levy, and complain when the levy breaks."

QuoteWho gave us our fear of death?

We did.

QuoteThis is demonstrably false. Christians and other theists who sincerely believe they are going to heaven when they die are just as afraid and saddened at death as anyone else.

I'm not entirely sure that's true, at least the fear part.  In our current society, where a large majority of people who call themselves Christian have separated themselves from the Church, it might seem that way.  But there's nothing like a good round of persecution to demonstrate the fearlessness of Christians in the face of death.  As far as sadness, that is only natural.  I am saddened when a friend or loved one moves far away so that I am unable to see them every days or weeks or months.

QuoteAnd God made humans. What does this say about him?

One of two things, which assuming a belief in the existence of God you are going to have to decide for yourself: God is good, yet humble, that His love for man drove Him to create man; basically that He chose to love man, and extends this same choice to man in regards to Him.  Or that God is neutral at best, evil at worst.

QuoteWhy must he choose between these two things? Why can't he still be good without God? Why does he have the ability to reject God? Why does he have abilities that, when utilized, point towards no God?

Because trying to be good without God is like trying to fly without an airplane.  Because without the ability to reject God our love for God would mean nothing:  Some people would love nothing more than the object of their affection MUST love them.  These are never good people.  As for why our abilities allow us to believe there is no God, the human being is capable of great amounts of self deception.

QuoteWhy is choice good?

I can't answer that.  I can't tell you why anything is good.  What I can tell you is that nothing but the most evil people in our world would deny choice (even, or perhaps most especially those who would deny choice in the name of good).

QuoteWhy?

For the same reason that breathing needs oxygen, to reject oxygen is suffocation.

QuoteWhy not?

Because God is not a warm puddle of lactates mixed with the flavoring of your choice.

QuoteWhy?

Because free will is one of the defining characteristics of humanity.  Why do whales live in the ocean?  Why are cats the most annoying creatures on the planet?

QuoteWhy did God have to create humans the way they are?

Why does an author write a book that, while excellent to read, has nothing resembling a happy ending?

QuoteWhy?

Because we only have a finite capacity for knowing.  We can never completely know God just like we can never completely know pi.

QuoteWhy can't we know more?

You can always know more.  You can know as much as a lifetime of human experience can teach you.  A saint knows more about God than he could ever hope to explain to me, the same as a biologist knows more about organic functions than I ever will.

QuoteIf you accept that God is good from the start, then anything he does is good automatically, making the word "good" useless when talking about God.

From a purely etymological perspective, the word "good" is useless unless you're talking about God.  But, more to address the situation, what you just said makes no sense.  I know an airplane flies, that doesn't make flight useless when talking about an airplane.  In fact, talking about an airplane would be useless if the airplane didn't fly.

QuoteWhy is faith good? Why wouldn't God prize intelligence and rationality more? Why aren't all humans equal?

First, you have to stop thinking of faith as some sort of opposite to intelligence and rationality.  You have to break out of your 20th century mindset (I say 20th century because your arguments are very modern and we are moving into the post-modern, whatever that means) that thinks it knows what a word means just because a small percentage of the population (the one with Ivy League degrees) defines it that way.  Faith is not blindly believing in something despite all rational objections.  Faith is continuing to believe despite all irrational objections.  We have faith in science, that it will explain things within the realm of the natural, not because science has never done so before, but because it has.  We demonstrate this faith in science every time we set foot on an airplane: All our irrational objections tell us that something so large was never meant to fly, that the sheer weight of it must send it hurling back to earth.  The irrational objections seem logical enough, but we know this not to be so.  Now, this faith in science is demonstrated most soundly whenever an experiment fails: those who have no faith or a weak faith in science will loudly declaim the failed experiment as an example of why those scientists never should have been trusted to begin with, those with faith in science will calmly explain that the experiment failed not because science is wrong, but because the hypothesis was faulty.  

Without faith nothing would ever get done, without faith in other people no cooperation or friendship would ever be accomplished, without faith in our observations nothing would ever be recorded.  Without faith no one would ever leave the house and the human race would have been still-born.

The faith of a Christian is similar.  We don't believe in God because there is no reason, but because we are fairly sure that there is every reason.  Our faith in God is based of off observation, we observe God because we use the proper tools for the observation of God.  It's all well and good for me to dismiss the existence of the microbe if I refuse to ever look into the microscope, tales abound of the Roman Cardinal who refused to glance through Galileo's telescope.  Without prayer and listening in the stillness one will never observe God.  Without the reading of Scripture and the Church Fathers I will never be able to compare my observations with others.  I would be like a staunch Luddite, looking through neither microscope nor telescope, poring through scientific journals going "Aha!  This scientist two hundred years ago tells me the atom is the smallest particle in existence.  This scientist a hundred years ago says atoms are composed of neutrons, protons, and electrons.  And now some scientist tells me that there are even smaller particles than that!  Utter nonsense!  Why, look at this biologist who tells me all life is composed of cells, now you tell me that virii are alive and composed of mere protein strands!  I bid you good day!"  This same Luddite grabs a book on quantum physics and jumps up triumphantly in the air, citing one contradiction and paradox after another, and thinks himself smart for being able to do so.

As to your question about all men being equal:  All men are equal, but all men are also different.  Take any element on the periodical table and assemble it so that each is exactly the same mass.  One will be denser and more compact, another is gaseous, and still another is a liquid.  So it is with man, everyone is brilliant, but in a different way.  For every Hawking or Einstein there's a van Gogh or Picasso or someone who is absolutely the best sheep-herder hands down.  Einstein can't paint worth squat (although I hear he was a very good violinist), Picasso could never write a theory of relativity, and neither one could convince a herd of sheep to get in it's pen.

Quote

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"And God let evil exist because of man.

Well, yes, otherwise there wouldn't have been any point in the whole free will exercise.  "You can choose me or something else.  Go ahead, it's your choice.  Wait, you chose something else?  Okay, show's over

QuoteUh, an action is something that happens...

That would have probably been better stated as "Evil is an action of will, not an occurrence.

QuoteYes, natural disasters that take potentially thousands, maybe even millions, of lives aren't evil. Not at all.

Not in the same sense.  There is no malevolent intent behind a natural disaster.  Hurricanes and earthquakes happen because that is the way the world works, pressure builds and releases.  The only reason they kill thousands or even millions is because we were dumb enough to say "You know, I know that earthquakes are common in this region, but I want to live here.  This fault line looks like an excellent place for a high-rise."  Or my personal favorite: "I know this region is prone to storms with high winds and lots of water.  Let's push some water into a levy, and complain when the levy breaks."

QuoteWho gave us our fear of death?

We did.

QuoteThis is demonstrably false. Christians and other theists who sincerely believe they are going to heaven when they die are just as afraid and saddened at death as anyone else.

I'm not entirely sure that's true, at least the fear part.  In our current society, where a large majority of people who call themselves Christian have separated themselves from the Church, it might seem that way.  But there's nothing like a good round of persecution to demonstrate the fearlessness of Christians in the face of death.  As far as sadness, that is only natural.  I am saddened when a friend or loved one moves far away so that I am unable to see them every days or weeks or months.

QuoteAnd God made humans. What does this say about him?

One of two things, which assuming a belief in the existence of God you are going to have to decide for yourself: God is good, yet humble, that His love for man drove Him to create man; basically that He chose to love man, and extends this same choice to man in regards to Him.  Or that God is neutral at best, evil at worst.

QuoteWhy must he choose between these two things? Why can't he still be good without God? Why does he have the ability to reject God? Why does he have abilities that, when utilized, point towards no God?

Because trying to be good without God is like trying to fly without an airplane.  Because without the ability to reject God our love for God would mean nothing:  Some people would love nothing more than the object of their affection MUST love them.  These are never good people.  As for why our abilities allow us to believe there is no God, the human being is capable of great amounts of self deception.

QuoteWhy is choice good?

I can't answer that.  I can't tell you why anything is good.  What I can tell you is that nothing but the most evil people in our world would deny choice (even, or perhaps most especially those who would deny choice in the name of good).

QuoteWhy?

For the same reason that breathing needs oxygen, to reject oxygen is suffocation.

QuoteWhy not?

Because God is not a warm puddle of lactates mixed with the flavoring of your choice.

QuoteWhy?

Because free will is one of the defining characteristics of humanity.  Why do whales live in the ocean?  Why are cats the most annoying creatures on the planet?

QuoteWhy did God have to create humans the way they are?

Why does an author write a book that, while excellent to read, has nothing resembling a happy ending?

QuoteWhy?

Because we only have a finite capacity for knowing.  We can never completely know God just like we can never completely know pi.

QuoteWhy can't we know more?

You can always know more.  You can know as much as a lifetime of human experience can teach you.  A saint knows more about God than he could ever hope to explain to me, the same as a biologist knows more about organic functions than I ever will.

QuoteIf you accept that God is good from the start, then anything he does is good automatically, making the word "good" useless when talking about God.

From a purely etymological perspective, the word "good" is useless unless you're talking about God.  But, more to address the situation, what you just said makes no sense.  I know an airplane flies, that doesn't make flight useless when talking about an airplane.  In fact, talking about an airplane would be useless if the airplane didn't fly.

The correct answer I was looking for to all of my why questions is that God made it that way. He could have made things differently, in a way where evil is not a requirement. But he didn't. That is evil.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"The correct answer I was looking for to all of my why questions is that God made it that way. He could have made things differently, in a way where evil is not a requirement. But he didn't. That is evil.

You say that, yet what would you prefer?  God could have done it differently?  How so?  He could have created the world out of nerf balls and fluffy down pillows, perhaps, made us into rejects from Hello, Kitty, living our lives as one continuous Precious Moments or Family Circus strip.  Perhaps He could have created us by the rules of some bowdlerized mid-80's cartoon, a GI Joe universe where the pilot always ejects as the plane explodes and the machinations of evil men are incompetent to the point of being laughable.  Or like the Care Bears!  

Talk about hell on earth.  That would be an evil God.

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"The correct answer I was looking for to all of my why questions is that God made it that way. He could have made things differently, in a way where evil is not a requirement. But he didn't. That is evil.

You say that, yet what would you prefer?  God could have done it differently?  How so?  He could have created the world out of nerf balls and fluffy down pillows, perhaps, made us into rejects from Hello, Kitty, living our lives as one continuous Precious Moments or Family Circus strip.  Perhaps He could have created us by the rules of some bowdlerized mid-80's cartoon, a GI Joe universe where the pilot always ejects as the plane explodes and the machinations of evil men are incompetent to the point of being laughable.  Or like the Care Bears!  

Talk about hell on earth.  That would be an evil God.

A world where there is no evil, for starters.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"A world where there is no evil, for starters.

I'm going to have to go back to one of your earlier questions:

QuoteWhy wouldn't God prize intelligence and rationality more?

The answer is, of course, that He does prize these highly, otherwise we wouldn't have them. What you seem to have a problem with is the fact that we have a choice how to employ this intelligence and rationality.

I'm guessing what you would prefer, since you prefer a world without evil, is for all of us to walk around like computer programs, fulfilling our designated functions and tasks. The problem with this is it would be a world without evil, but it would be a world without any good, either.

Quote from: "Achronos"I'm guessing what you would prefer, since you prefer a world without evil, is for all of us to walk around like computer programs, fulfilling our designated functions and tasks. The problem with this is it would be a world without evil, but it would be a world without any good, either.

Why?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Achronos"I'm guessing what you would prefer, since you prefer a world without evil, is for all of us to walk around like computer programs, fulfilling our designated functions and tasks. The problem with this is it would be a world without evil, but it would be a world without any good, either.

Why?

Because "good" requires a choice.  My computer might run well or it might not, depending on the programs it picks up.  Sometimes a program might not execute to my liking, but the program is not being evil or bad, it's behaving perfectly in accord with it's code.  Sometimes a program executes exactly as to my desired wishes, but the program is not being good, it is again behaving exactly as it's code defines it.  Now, if upon the execution of a program it could decide (let's say it's a music recording program) whether it wants to record my guitar track, or if it wants to reproduce Jay-Z instead, or if it wants to destroy all other programs and corrupt the operating system, then I could label the program as being good, or bad, or wicked.  But when the only thing it's capable of is doing what I tell it to, all it is being is "functional".

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Achronos"I'm guessing what you would prefer, since you prefer a world without evil, is for all of us to walk around like computer programs, fulfilling our designated functions and tasks. The problem with this is it would be a world without evil, but it would be a world without any good, either.

Why?

Because "good" requires a choice.

Why?

This line of questioning will inevitably lead to my point all along. It's good to have a choice because god made it so.

I'm just annoyed by when the freewill argument is reduced to "choice" when the real issue is much more complex than that.

It is ridiculous to say that good and bad can't exist without freewill though because that would mean the existence of "good" and "bad" are evidence of freewill.  

Well I think this will be my last post on this thread. I see that you would rather bash than discuss I hope that you will one day understand the nature and the Love of God.

Peace
(becasue I like the dancing banana)

Quote from: "gsaint"Well I think this will be my last post on this thread. I see that you would rather bash than discuss I hope that you will one day understand the nature and the Love of God.

Peace
(becasue I like the dancing banana)

I think that we gave great responses to your posts, ripping them into shreds (though it was mostly radicalaggrivation). If you can't handle this, then you're right -- it's probably best for you to leave. I have no foul intent when I say this; it's simply true.

Goodbye.

Quote from: "gsaint"Well I think this will be my last post on this thread. I see that you would rather bash than discuss I hope that you will one day understand the nature and the Love of God.

Peace
(becasue I like the dancing banana)

To whom is this comment directed. I certainly did not bash you, even if I did not agree. Are you refusing to respond to my points? We were just getting to the good parts.

First of all, GOD is a concept and title of opinion. It's relevance is completely subject to opinion regardless of it's questionable existence..

Example:

Cows are worshiped and sacred by some people, but I eat cows because I view them conceptually only as animals, and as potential food source. In either case, the concepts are matter of opinion! It's a 100% =/= 100%

Thus I could say the following and have it be 100% correct:

Yes, your GOD exist..However, it is not a GOD!.

So it is inherently an irrelevant and moot argument since such a concept is undefined, and it's qualifiers can be infinitely subject to pure opinion. Welcome to freedom of choice to which is freedom of opinion! So even if your entity existed, it's not proof of a "GOD", or even being a "GOD" to someone that sees the concept as being inapplicable since anything can be considered a "GOD" and worshiped as such. That includes the dust bunnies on my desk!

----

On Free will.. This really depends if you think your so called GOD is Omnipotent. Under Omnipotence there can be no such thing as "Free Will" or even "Freedom of Choice". And this is of course neglecting the fact that Omnipotence is a self-collapsing contradiction to which makes it literally impossible. Same goes for all the other "Omni's".

Evil is pretty much in the simplest terms possible going backwards, or being backwards, or going in a different direction other than forwards.  In growth, we go in one direction, but sometimes in growth we're pushed somewhere, or we see something and we talk towards it, away from the path of growth.  To do good is simply to follow the path of growth.

Now we can be programmed to grow, forced to stay within a narrow path unable to get out of it, or we have an open road with an arrow point that way.  If we are programmed to grow, God is a puppetmaster.  If we are forced to stay within a narrow path, God is an obsessive and psychopathic lover of mankind, truly malevolent.  If we are given open space with the arrow point that way, God becomes loving, unforceful but available for help, not rude but not ignoring us, not malevolent but not intrusive.  We can push Him away, and we can ask Him to come back, and readily He does no matter how many times we pushed Him away, whenever, wherever.

When it comes to suffering in this world, God became man and lived among us.  He walked the path down for us, to show us how one can suffer, but can never be pushed away from this path.  One can be tempted, but can never look anywhere but forward.  One can even undergo some natural disaster or disease, but His spirit is as healthy as ever.  One can die, but live on with much force in the world, as if He rose from the dead and lives on in each and every suffering Christian right afterwards.

Quote from: "Achronos"Evil is pretty much in the simplest terms possible going backwards, or being backwards, or going in a different direction other than forwards.  In growth, we go in one direction, but sometimes in growth we're pushed somewhere, or we see something and we talk towards it, away from the path of growth.  To do good is simply to follow the path of growth.

Nonsense. Evil is only another concept of opinion because morality itself is purely subject to positive, negative, and neutral selection and adaptation within society, and psychology.  

Example:

A woman who loves cats so dearly may see those who eat cats as "EVIL" or immoral.

You are at best playing to equate morality as an argument for a "GODS" existence when it is no such argument. Even a GOD (still a concept of opinion) can not create the basic laws of existence to which it's own existence depends on. The laws of "positive, negative, and neutral", and as said prior, it's because itself is slave to require them for it's own existence. These are the very same laws that govern existence itself, evolution, natural selection, emergence, emotion, feeling, morality, action, reaction, choice, decision, intent, cognitive dynamics, consciousness, self-awareness, or anything you can possibly think of.

QuoteNow we can be programmed to grow, forced to stay within a narrow path unable to get out of it, or we have an open road with an arrow point that way.  If we are programmed to grow, God is a puppetmaster.  If we are forced to stay within a narrow path, God is an obsessive and psychopathic lover of mankind, truly malevolent.  If we are given open space with the arrow point that way, God becomes loving, unforceful but available for help, not rude but not ignoring us, not malevolent but not intrusive.  We can push Him away, and we can ask Him to come back, and readily He does no matter how many times we pushed Him away, whenever, wherever.

Again, consciousness itself requires information to exist. It takes far more cause to support consciousness than it does to support unconsciousness. programs begin with information and not a "programmer" who requires it in order to function or even know itself exists. You can not create that which yourself needs to exist. Thus the concept of "Creationism" in itself is a logical fallacy. Worse yet, all minds require a place to exist in, and to be made of something to which they could neither create or exist without. GODS can not solve infinite regress or represent a Universal Set of all Sets.

And nobody is pushing anything away vs actually thinking and putting things into reason, and logical context.

QuoteWhen it comes to suffering in this world, God became man and lived among us.  He walked the path down for us, to show us how one can suffer, but can never be pushed away from this path.  One can be tempted, but can never look anywhere but forward.  One can even undergo some natural disaster or disease, but His spirit is as healthy as ever.  One can die, but live on with much force in the world, as if He rose from the dead and lives on in each and every suffering Christian right afterwards.

Again, this is nothing more than philosophical nonsense looking to pull the strings of emotion to manipulate people into conforming to your ideological construct. Try convincing people without using such dishonest arguments that are borderline use of fear mongering as a tool of conversion.


To put this simply:

YOUR OPINION IS IRRELEVANT IN A WORLD OF OPINION!

Why do you think there are 1,000's of supposed GODS? Can you even Define the concept? NOPE!

Quote from: "Achronos"Evil is pretty much in the simplest terms possible going backwards, or being backwards, or going in a different direction other than forwards.  In growth, we go in one direction, but sometimes in growth we're pushed somewhere, or we see something and we talk towards it, away from the path of growth.  To do good is simply to follow the path of growth.

Now we can be programmed to grow, forced to stay within a narrow path unable to get out of it, or we have an open road with an arrow point that way.  If we are programmed to grow, God is a puppetmaster.  If we are forced to stay within a narrow path, God is an obsessive and psychopathic lover of mankind, truly malevolent.  If we are given open space with the arrow point that way, God becomes loving, unforceful but available for help, not rude but not ignoring us, not malevolent but not intrusive.  We can push Him away, and we can ask Him to come back, and readily He does no matter how many times we pushed Him away, whenever, wherever.

When it comes to suffering in this world, God became man and lived among us.  He walked the path down for us, to show us how one can suffer, but can never be pushed away from this path.  One can be tempted, but can never look anywhere but forward.  One can even undergo some natural disaster or disease, but His spirit is as healthy as ever.  One can die, but live on with much force in the world, as if He rose from the dead and lives on in each and every suffering Christian right afterwards.

This is pretty much preaching.

Oh, and did you miss the bit about your god not existing? I can prove this in formal logic if you like. it may be that a deity exists, but it isn't the one you've chosen, because he's been given logically absurd and contradictory attributes by your book of wibble. Thought you might like to know that.

He isn't going to actually address our arguments because he really can't do that. Preaching for emotional and psychological attachment is all he has left to use. Logically, it's impossible for him to even counter my own argument much less the argument posted by: hackenslash.  

So let's see how honest he is.. Can he actually address an argument without emotional pleading, or preaching?

Quote from: "TheJackel"

Quote from: "Achronos"Evil is pretty much in the simplest terms possible going backwards, or being backwards, or going in a different direction other than forwards.  In growth, we go in one direction, but sometimes in growth we're pushed somewhere, or we see something and we talk towards it, away from the path of growth.  To do good is simply to follow the path of growth.

Nonsense. Evil is only another concept of opinion because morality itself is purely subject to positive, negative, and neutral selection and adaptation within society, and psychology.  

Example:

A woman who loves cats so dearly may see those who eat cats as "EVIL" or immoral.

You are at best playing to equate morality as an argument for a "GODS" existence when it is no such argument. Even a GOD (still a concept of opinion) can not create the basic laws of existence to which it's own existence depends on. The laws of "positive, negative, and neutral", and as said prior, it's because itself is slave to require them for it's own existence. These are the very same laws that govern existence itself, evolution, natural selection, emergence, emotion, feeling, morality, action, reaction, choice, decision, intent, cognitive dynamics, consciousness, self-awareness, or anything you can possibly think of.

QuoteNow we can be programmed to grow, forced to stay within a narrow path unable to get out of it, or we have an open road with an arrow point that way.  If we are programmed to grow, God is a puppetmaster.  If we are forced to stay within a narrow path, God is an obsessive and psychopathic lover of mankind, truly malevolent.  If we are given open space with the arrow point that way, God becomes loving, unforceful but available for help, not rude but not ignoring us, not malevolent but not intrusive.  We can push Him away, and we can ask Him to come back, and readily He does no matter how many times we pushed Him away, whenever, wherever.

Again, consciousness itself requires information to exist. It takes far more cause to support consciousness than it does to support unconsciousness. programs begin with information and not a "programmer" who requires it in order to function or even know itself exists. You can not create that which yourself needs to exist. Thus the concept of "Creationism" in itself is a logical fallacy. Worse yet, all minds require a place to exist in, and to be made of something to which they could neither create or exist without. GODS can not solve infinite regress or represent a Universal Set of all Sets.

And nobody is pushing anything away vs actually thinking and putting things into reason, and logical context.

QuoteWhen it comes to suffering in this world, God became man and lived among us.  He walked the path down for us, to show us how one can suffer, but can never be pushed away from this path.  One can be tempted, but can never look anywhere but forward.  One can even undergo some natural disaster or disease, but His spirit is as healthy as ever.  One can die, but live on with much force in the world, as if He rose from the dead and lives on in each and every suffering Christian right afterwards.

Again, this is nothing more than philosophical nonsense looking to pull the strings of emotion to manipulate people into conforming to your ideological construct. Try convincing people without using such dishonest arguments that are borderline use of fear mongering as a tool of conversion.


To put this simply:

YOUR OPINION IS IRRELEVANT IN A WORLD OF OPINION!

Why do you think there are 1,000's of supposed GODS? Can you even Define the concept? NOPE!

You know what's interesting in this whole argument, you go by one basic assumption:  That the laws and material of nature are eternal, but that has yet to be proven.  You know they exist, but you don't know that they're ever-existent, not yet at least.

What fear mongering did I use in my argument?  I simply gave you how life is like.  We grow, and sometimes our growth is stunted by many things in life.  It is a fact of life, not an opinion, not fear mongering.  If a physician was to help a patient in any way physical, if a friend was to be humane to others, it is the same as God helping our spiritual lives and giving purpose for growth to be furthered even after death.  It's not that I am using fear mongering to prove my point.  Your arguments do not show a need to hammer common sense into us, but rather a fear that you may be wrong.

Why Christianity?  Because it is the best model of growth for humanity.

Hello again :pop:

QuoteYou know what's interesting in this whole argument, you go by one basic assumption: That the laws and material of nature are eternal, but that has yet to be proven. You know they exist, but you don't know that they're ever-existent, not yet at least.

Actually they are proven.

For example:

Nothing can not be an existing person, object, substance, place or thing. Thus arguments like non-material, a-spatial ect are idiotic.. You can't exist as a -2 dimensional object or entity either. In fact, spatial capacity and dimension are considered infinite simply because the opposite is literally impossible to exist! You can't have a -1 dimensional space or volume of capacity. Nor can such negative concepts contain anything, have substance, or be existent. When Christians try to apply attributes associated with values of non-existence to a GOD, it almost makes me giggle because they don't even realize it.  You may as well try and argue that your deity exist in a place of non-existence.

Laws of material nature are proven, and I doubt even a theist would be dumb enough to try and argue that their GOD is made of "Nothing", and exists in a place of non-existence. Have fun with that position should you attempt to use it. Those 3 laws I gave you are the very base laws to existence itself. They are impossible to violate, or exist outside of. Worse yet, all minds must be temporally bound because it takes time to do things such as thinking, or even "Creating". There can be no progress without progression of one frame of reference to another. Especially in considering consciousness.

However, one of the worst things about the argument of a GOD is that it takes more cause to support consciousness than unconsciousness.  :P It doesn't work on me anymore

Quote from: "TheJackel"Actually they are proven.

For example:

Nothing can not be an existing person, object, substance, place or thing. Thus arguments like non-material, a-spatial ect are idiotic.. You can't exist as a -2 dimensional object or entity either. In fact, spatial capacity and dimension are considered infinite simply because the opposite is literally impossible to exist! You can't have a -1 dimensional space or volume of capacity. Nor can such negative concepts contain anything, have substance, or be existent. When Christians try to apply attributes associated with values of non-existence to a GOD, it almost makes me giggle because they don't even realize it.  You may as well try and argue that your deity exist in a place of non-existence.

Laws of material nature are proven, and I doubt even a theist would be dumb enough to try and argue that their GOD is made of "Nothing", and exists in a place of non-existence. Have fun with that position should you attempt to use it. Those 3 laws I gave you are the very base laws to existence itself. They are impossible to violate, or exist outside of. Worse yet, all minds must be temporally bound because it takes time to do things such as thinking, or even "Creating". There can be no progress without progression of one frame of reference to another. Especially in considering consciousness.

However, one of the worst things about the argument of a GOD is that it takes more cause to support consciousness than unconsciousness.  :P It doesn't work on me anymore

No one is advertising anything to you.  Let me give you some things straight out.  If you are a Christian, your heavenly realm is growth and unity with God.  If you are a Christian, you are to be self-sacrificial even to those who hate you or persecute you.  If you are a Christian, any poor person that needs your help, you are commanded to help, irregardless of who this person is.  If you a Christian, you should treat all as equals and not be deceptive, but straightforward and respectful with others.  No advertising, no superficial clean image, no fear mongering.  Just simply live your life and let others live, but when you live your life, you will suffer.  I don't think that's something comforting to sell, and rather than brainwashing, it's rejected by most brains even among nominal Christians (http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Atheist-Believing-Living-Doesnt/dp/031032789X), but that's what a true Christian is.  By your example alone, you should be able to draw people to yourself, not be a Protestant pop-up ad to others.

TheJackel, even when you were a "Christian" you were an atheist all along.  You never really were a Christian.

Quote from: "Achronos"If you fear that you are right, why are you so callous?  The problem with de-emotionalizing reality is simply in my opinion a destruction of reality, and a destruction of who we really are.

For instance, I love my girlfriend.  There are two levels of understanding this "love."  One is a biochemical understanding and another is a purposeful understanding.  If I simply throw away the purpose of emotion, and simply shrug my shoulders and call love simply an irrelevant feeling resultant of neuronal firing, I am fooling myself for the importance of love in one's life.  This is how God is to me, how prayer is important to me.  There is a physical side that can be explained, but to ascribe to it fakeness, an action towards something that doesn't exist is to me far from reality.  I don't mean to use fear mongering.  Apparently, you're not afraid of what I said, so your argument of fear mongering is irrelevant.

This sounds like an appeal to consequences fallacy to me.

QuoteBut I simply believe this.  There's always a why or how to everything around us.  It's amazing how Stephen Hawking has proven everything in this world spontaneously created from nothing. I simply wonder, how did it just spontaneously create itself?

Straw man fallacy.    

QuoteHow is there a cosmic balance of reactions between subparticles in the first place?  How did these branes and strings (which are considered one-dimensional, so I don't understand your one or two dimensional argument) come about?  How did they first start moving or shaking or vibrating into the material we are?  The answer to atheists like you is simply the Laws of Nature.

Straw man fallacy.

QuoteReally?  You know that's borderline deism.  You can't call yourself an atheist anymore and not consider the eternal nature of the "Laws."  In addition, "eternalness" and "infinity" are scientifically unobservable.  I cannot fathom how theoretical physicists simply assume their mathematical construct of infinity as creation.  I'd like to find out.  If infinity is indeed observable, then by all means, I don't mind God being the unobservable one that created it.

This looks like an argument from ignorance.

QuoteThe point is this, all things "move" in some sense, and I believe in a "Mover."  Your "Mover" is the Laws of Nature.  I simply the Laws of Nature are collectively the blueprint of the Logos, a "Law-Giver".  This necessitates the idea that there are things here that did not exist before.  Case in point:  I didn't exist before, and my self-awareness allows me to be even more contemplative of this fact and of my material nature.  Therefore, I also believe in a Creator, not Someone who reassembles what's already there, but Who brings about things that didn't exist before and keeps them existing, a blueprint of His ever-existence.  Finally, the ever-evolving and complicated Life that exists suggests a moving energy, a blueprint of a Life-Giver.  I believe in the Pantocrator, the Logos, and Life-Giver.  Creation attests to this, and I worship the one Name of God it truly bears.

False dichotomy, straw man fallacies.

QuoteHow do I come up with this assumption?  Well, I simply tested it.  Is it worth believing in Him or not?  If so, this God should also love, and move a sense of emotion in all of us to Love, and for this I simply tested this assumption by prayer, and sure enough, He exists, but not in the same plane as any form of other existence there is.  He is both existent and non-existent, infinite and infinitesimal, everything and nothing, transcendant and imminent.  He is the ultimate paradox, but I exist, and I don't want to stop existing.  I am moved, and I don't want to stop moving.  I have life, and I don't want it to go away.  Call it emotional or fear mongering if you like.  I call it the doorway to ultimate truth, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, One God.  Everything starts with an assumption, and you test it.  With atheism, there's nothing to test because it's a mere denial of the transcendant, not a fuller understanding of nature.

Argument from consequences.

QuoteTheJackel, even when you were a "Christian" you were an atheist all along.  You never really were a Christian.

No True Scotsman fallacy.

QuoteI'm having trouble following your argument here.  Can you clarify?

Seriously?  Hell, let's clarify..

There can simply be no Phenomenon, object, person, place, or thing without material physicality... And for the easier clarification. Nothing can not be a something! EVER! :)

QuoteIf you fear that you are right, why are you so callous?  The problem with de-emotionalizing reality is simply in my opinion a destruction of reality, and a destruction of who we really are.

I'm being direct. It's not "de-emotionalizing reality" either. It is preventing you from using such things as an argument because it's not an argument in regards to this subject. It's called honest discourse, and trying to emotionalize it a common tool used as some sort of argument to a supposed GODS existence when it is no such argument what-so-ever. If I don't be direct with you, this would spiral into nonsensical circular arguments that aren't worth anything in value to the discussion.

QuoteFor instance, I love my girlfriend.  There are two levels of understanding this "love."  One is a biochemical understanding and another is a purposeful understanding.  If I simply throw away the purpose of emotion, and simply shrug my shoulders and call love simply an irrelevant feeling resultant of neuronal firing, I am fooling myself for the importance of love in one's life.  This is how God is to me, how prayer is important to me.  There is a physical side that can be explained, but to ascribe to it fakeness, an action towards something that doesn't exist is to me far from reality.  I don't mean to use fear mongering.  Apparently, you're not afraid of what I said, so your argument of fear mongering is irrelevant.

As an experiment, try feeling love without actually and physically feeling it and expressing it. All emotions and feelings are material physical patterns, and all that means is that they are REAL!  ;)

QuoteThe answer to atheists like you is simply the Laws of Nature.  Really?  You know that's borderline deism.  You can't call yourself an atheist anymore and not consider the eternal nature of the "Laws."  In addition, "eternalness" and "infinity" are scientifically unobservable.  I cannot fathom how theoretical physicists simply assume their mathematical construct of infinity as creation.  I'd like to find out.  If infinity is indeed observable, then by all means, I don't mind God being the unobservable one that created it.

Incorrect. I am more specifically defined as a materialist. God's are simply not applicable to that position for obvious reasons discussed above. And infinite need not be observable to you because all we need to know in regards to realizing it as a reality is that - spatial capacity is literally impossible. And when you have an impossible in an equation such as this, infinity becomes automatic as a volume. So unless you can show how you can have a -1 dimensional object exist without substance, positive dimensional complexity, capacity to exist, ect, it's safe to assume infinite volume of spatial capacity since negative capacities can't contain anything or exist.

QuoteThe point is this, all things "move" in some sense, and I believe in a "Mover."  Your "Mover" is the Laws of Nature

Again Energy naturally exists. And -1 energy is impossible as is -1 spatial capacity considering energy is what makes up spatial capacity as an infinite volume. You can only have ground state to the base of all existence on an energy scale. Ground state represents Zero-point energy without literally being Zero since literal Zero is impossible to exist.

QuoteHow do I come up with this assumption?  Well, I simply tested it.  Is it worth believing in Him or not?  If so, this God should also love, and move a sense of emotion in all of us to Love, and for this I simply tested this assumption by prayer, and sure enough, He exists, but not in the same plane as any form of other existence there is.  He is both existent and non-existent, infinite and infinitesimal, everything and nothing, transcendant and imminent.

A very nonsensical pleading argument.

1) you have a literal impossible self contradiction
2) To say a GOD is infinite is equal to say the sum total of existence is GOD. That includes me, you, and everything. And that conflicts with another argument of "Existing in a different plane".. And the very fact that you claim it to be it's own individual with it's own mind and consciousness already makes it finite and not infinite.
3) You are also not grasping "Existing IN". Thus said entity is not the answer to existence or creator of. At best you are limited to material physical manipulation no different than man creating cars and big cities, or even synthetic life.

QuoteHe is the ultimate paradox, but I exist, and I don't want to stop existing.  I am moved, and I don't want to stop moving.  I have life, and I don't want it to go away.  Call it emotional or fear mongering if you like.  I call it the doorway to ultimate truth, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, One God.  Everything starts with an assumption, and you test it.  With atheism, there's nothing to test because it's a mere denial of the transcendant, not a fuller understanding of nature.

Incorrect. the Ultimate Paradox is that Existence itself doesn't requires Consciousness to exist. It is consciousness that is slave to the rules of existence. You essentially have it backwards. The biggest difference is the Existence simply exists because Non-existence can not exist. There is no creator to existence because that is impossible, and you can argue by virtue of opinion alone that there is no such thing as "GODS". Especially when all entities must follow the rules of existence!

QuoteNo one is advertising anything to you.

Never state you did. It was an example.

QuoteLet me give you some things straight out.  If you are a Christian, your heavenly realm is growth and unity with God.

Was a Christian. And the Realm of GOD or Heaven,.. Think of your questions in regards to our Universe and then translate those to Heaven or any plane and realm you think could exist. You will find that all those questions will remain unexplained in terms of "Creation" simply because all minds are contained and must have a place to exist in. It's irrelevant if there are an infinite number of realms or universes. You can't create that which yourself require to exist! Thus GODS are logical fallacies.

QuoteIf you are a Christian, you are to be self-sacrificial even to those who hate you or persecute you.  If you are a Christian, any poor person that needs your help, you are commanded to help, irregardless of who this person is.  If you a Christian, you should treat all as equals and not be deceptive, but straightforward and respectful with others.  No advertising, no superficial clean image, no fear mongering.  Just simply live your life and let others live, but when you live your life, you will suffer.  I don't think that's something comforting to sell, and rather than brainwashing, it's rejected by most brains even among nominal Christians (http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Atheist-Believing-Living-Doesnt/dp/031032789X), but that's what a true Christian is.  By your example alone, you should be able to draw people to yourself, not be a Protestant pop-up ad to others.

Irrelevant to the discussion, and is also irrelevant to religion vs any other form of belief. That kind of logic is applicable regardless simply because we are conscious entities. This includes emotions, feelings, morality, choices, decisions or whatever you want to claim.

QuoteTheJackel, even when you were a "Christian" you were an atheist all along.  You never really were a Christian.

False argument.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Achronos"If you fear that you are right, why are you so callous?  The problem with de-emotionalizing reality is simply in my opinion a destruction of reality, and a destruction of who we really are.

For instance, I love my girlfriend.  There are two levels of understanding this "love."  One is a biochemical understanding and another is a purposeful understanding.  If I simply throw away the purpose of emotion, and simply shrug my shoulders and call love simply an irrelevant feeling resultant of neuronal firing, I am fooling myself for the importance of love in one's life.  This is how God is to me, how prayer is important to me.  There is a physical side that can be explained, but to ascribe to it fakeness, an action towards something that doesn't exist is to me far from reality.  I don't mean to use fear mongering.  Apparently, you're not afraid of what I said, so your argument of fear mongering is irrelevant.

This sounds like an appeal to consequences fallacy to me.

QuoteBut I simply believe this.  There's always a why or how to everything around us.  It's amazing how Stephen Hawking has proven everything in this world spontaneously created from nothing. I simply wonder, how did it just spontaneously create itself?

Straw man fallacy.    

QuoteHow is there a cosmic balance of reactions between subparticles in the first place?  How did these branes and strings (which are considered one-dimensional, so I don't understand your one or two dimensional argument) come about?  How did they first start moving or shaking or vibrating into the material we are?  The answer to atheists like you is simply the Laws of Nature.

Straw man fallacy.

QuoteReally?  You know that's borderline deism.  You can't call yourself an atheist anymore and not consider the eternal nature of the "Laws."  In addition, "eternalness" and "infinity" are scientifically unobservable.  I cannot fathom how theoretical physicists simply assume their mathematical construct of infinity as creation.  I'd like to find out.  If infinity is indeed observable, then by all means, I don't mind God being the unobservable one that created it.

This looks like an argument from ignorance.

QuoteThe point is this, all things "move" in some sense, and I believe in a "Mover."  Your "Mover" is the Laws of Nature.  I simply the Laws of Nature are collectively the blueprint of the Logos, a "Law-Giver".  This necessitates the idea that there are things here that did not exist before.  Case in point:  I didn't exist before, and my self-awareness allows me to be even more contemplative of this fact and of my material nature.  Therefore, I also believe in a Creator, not Someone who reassembles what's already there, but Who brings about things that didn't exist before and keeps them existing, a blueprint of His ever-existence.  Finally, the ever-evolving and complicated Life that exists suggests a moving energy, a blueprint of a Life-Giver.  I believe in the Pantocrator, the Logos, and Life-Giver.  Creation attests to this, and I worship the one Name of God it truly bears.

False dichotomy, straw man fallacies.

QuoteHow do I come up with this assumption?  Well, I simply tested it.  Is it worth believing in Him or not?  If so, this God should also love, and move a sense of emotion in all of us to Love, and for this I simply tested this assumption by prayer, and sure enough, He exists, but not in the same plane as any form of other existence there is.  He is both existent and non-existent, infinite and infinitesimal, everything and nothing, transcendant and imminent.  He is the ultimate paradox, but I exist, and I don't want to stop existing.  I am moved, and I don't want to stop moving.  I have life, and I don't want it to go away.  Call it emotional or fear mongering if you like.  I call it the doorway to ultimate truth, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, One God.  Everything starts with an assumption, and you test it.  With atheism, there's nothing to test because it's a mere denial of the transcendant, not a fuller understanding of nature.

Argument from consequences.

QuoteTheJackel, even when you were a "Christian" you were an atheist all along.  You never really were a Christian.

No True Scotsman fallacy.

I just realised what's going on here. You're enrolled in a Freshman logic course and using this forum as a testing ground for trying out all the terms you're learning. Come on now, fess up!

Just in case people want the short version:

Emergence of order and complexity come from the chaotic system of positive, negative, and neutral feedback. The very same attributes of energy itself to which give rise to emerging properties such as ourselves from what is seemingly, but not actually nothing. The emergence of property from zero-point energy or ground state.

The only thing still unexplained entirely is gravity's entire role, or how exactly in detail did the big Bang come from a Ground State. And you can't do that with 100% certainty in physics without actually creating a Big Bang. And I don't think you want to be here if we were to do so :P[/quote]

I'm waiting for you to apply that rationality to everything :P

Quote from: "Achronos"I just realised what's going on here. You're enrolled in a Freshman logic course and using this forum as a testing ground for trying out all the terms you're learning. Come on now, fess up!

I wish. All I have is Wikipedia.

Yeah, I know that that not everything I said was a fallacy was actually a fallacy, but it seemed close enough to me. I can explain my logic behind my accusations, if you wish.

Quote from: "TheJackel"Seriously? LOL.. Nice avoidance of the issue sir.

I wasn't avoiding anything.  If I was, I wouldn't ask you to clarify.  Maybe I am dumb.  I'm sorry.

Give me time for my dyslexic brain to ruminate on what you wrote.

God bless.

Quote from: "Achronos"No one is advertising anything to you.

So you don't think evangelism is advertising?  If you are not advertising for religion, why do you waste your time on an atheist forum trying to sell your religion as Truth?

QuoteI wasn't avoiding anything.  If I was, I wouldn't ask you to clarify.  Maybe I am dumb.  I'm sorry.

What I wrote was very technical, but how hard is it to understand that "Nothing" can not be in literal context "Something"? It's very easy to conceptually understand, and you even seemingly like to argue that it could within your own self-contradicting arguments. There simply never was literally nothing As for the technical post, if you understand what a Ground State is to complexity, you are golden to understand that anything above ground state will have higher complexities greater than Zero (ground state).

The rest of that is just understanding the four stages of matter, how emergence works, or what it is when scientists talk about "Nothing" when they are only talking about "Ground state"/"Zero point Energy".

So what best describes existence? Energy! No God required.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteI wasn't avoiding anything.  If I was, I wouldn't ask you to clarify.  Maybe I am dumb.  I'm sorry.

What I wrote was very technical, but how hard is it to understand that "Nothing" can not be in literal context "Something"? It's very easy to conceptually understand, and you even seemingly like to argue that it could within your own self-contradicting arguments. There simply never was literally nothing As for the technical post, if you understand what a Ground State is to complexity, you are golden to understand that anything above ground state will have higher complexities greater than Zero (ground state).

The rest of that is just understanding the four stages of matter, how emergence works, or what it is when scientists talk about "Nothing" when they are only talking about "Ground state"/"Zero point Energy".

So what best describes existence? Energy! No God required.

Dude, calm down.  I'm reading your post right now, and it's making sense.  Before I was a bit confused on the point you were making, but you replied with a really long message. That's why I need some time.

So far I understand that "nothing" in the Hawking sense means a dynamic equilibrium.  The question I propose is how did this equilibrium come about?  And why are we not smashed together into a "0" state rather than keeping elements of the equilibrium separate?

As I read your post, I'll answer your post in full.

QuoteDude, calm down.  I'm reading your post right now, and it's making sense.  Before I was a bit confused on the point you were making, but you replied with a really long message. That's why I need some time.

Whoa! I don't think I was ever upset or anything for that matter :pop:

QuoteSo far I understand that "nothing" in the Hawking sense means a dynamic equilibrium.  The question I propose is how did this equilibrium come about?  And why are we not smashed together into a "0" state rather than keeping elements of the equilibrium separate?

In Quantum Physics there is only zero-point ground state energy on average, and has always been dynamic. And equilibrium is a very bad word to use actually. However, It doesn't come about, it is the very base of existence itself, material physicality, capacity, and complexity. It is lowest possible level of complexity possible, and the highest level possible. Otherwise you are talking about trying to rationalize the existence of non-existence as a person, place, or thing. Anything less than ground state is virtually impossible. There can never be Nothing as a substance, object, place, or thing correct? So why would even attempt to paste a rational that the substance of existence had to be created when that is impossible, as well as impossible to not exist. Energy technically is the only thing that can represent a Universal Set of all Sets, and solve infinite regress. A GOD could never do such a thing.There simply no cause to energy simply because it's non-existence is impossible since it is the very substance of exists, space, capacity, volume, information, matter, or sum total of all that exists and can exist.

Example:

It would be impossible to think, do, reply to this post, or exist at all without it.

QuoteAs I read your post, I'll answer your post in full.

Np. Take all the time you need  

Okay, some thoughts in this argument, until I'm done listening and reading information you've given me on the physics behind all this:

Quote from: "TheJackel"Seriously? LOL. Nice avoidance of the issue sir. But, let's play dumb for a second and clarify..

There can simply be no Phenomenon, object, person, place, or thing without material physicality... And for the easier clarification. Nothing can not be a something! EVER! It can not be a substance, object, person, place, entity, or thing!

Not hard to grasp at all.

That is why God is no simple phenomenon, object, person,place or thing.  His existence shouldn't even be called "existence."  Words cannot fathom who or what God is.  We have no choice but to use anthropomorphic language to describe Him, but God is not something to be described, but to be experienced, as we are given that capacity to experience Him.

QuoteI'm being direct. It's not "de-emotionalizing reality" either. It is preventing you from using such thing as an argument because it's not an argument in regards to this subject. It's called honest discourse, and trying to emotionalize it a common tool used as some sort of argument to a supposed GODS existence when it is no such argument what-so-ever. If I don't be direct with you, this would spiral into nonsensical circular arguments that aren't worth anything in value to the discussion.

Honestly God is not a "thing" or "person" whose existence should be proven like a stone or Socrates.  He (a pronoun one is forced to use) is the means by which one thinks and acts.  One can only "prove" Him by our actions and by reflecting the inner relationship we have with Him.  Science rightfully lacks emotions in its arguments.  But when I speak of God, emotions cannot be separated from the rational, for both are intertwined in speaking about God.

Atheists "emotionalize" their arguments by pointing out the disasters and atrocities that occur in the world and God does not intervene.  So what do you expect from a believer?  Perhaps, you shouldn't use arguments that point to people's emotions to prove that He doesn't exist, "Where's your God now?  Why hasn't He prevented the deaths of many innocents?"  That's not proving God's inexistence, that's stirring anger and resentment, no less emotional than one's call for God's love and peace in heart and spirit.

QuoteTry feeling love without actually and physically feeling it and expressing it. All emotions and feelings are material physical patterns, and all that means is that they are REAL!   Using these as arguments is worthless to the discussion because I don't think you are going to argue that your love is "Nothing", and made of "Nothing". I'm also not afraid of what you said because I've used those arguments before while I was a Christian. I fully comprehend the argument and it's purpose even if it's seemingly not by intention.

You say "Try feeling love without actually and physically feeling it and expressing it."  I say, I do feel the love of God, and I express it back to Him and to others as well.

Now, the rest of your post is scientific, and I'll need time to study it.  But the point is that this whole mode of existence we're in, this whole equilibrium of 0 we have (nothingness in this concept), all this discussion does not matter, because any solid theist who enjoys the study of science would not find this as threatening to his/her own belief in God, as least so far as I might think.  Your whole attack on Christianity is the idea of emotion.  I'm simply saying, you can't remove emotion from rationality in discussing God.  In just as much as God permeates His "Life" through us beyond any physical senses, it is the same in my discussion with you.  You cannot scientifically test God or describe God.  God simply is, whether it makes sense, whether it makes you giggle, or whether I look like a fool to you saying it, in the end, you have to understand that we don't even care what next scientific endeavor there is.

A big mistake on both sides is the idea we use "God of the gaps" argument.  For sure, there are theists who do use "God of the gaps" and there are atheists who recognize it and then generalize it to say we all believe in "God of the gaps."  As science fills the gaps, some people lose faith in their respective religions, but how come I didn't lose faith.  Read Psalm 57.  "Unless the Lord builds the city, the laborers labor in vain."  We already know who builds skyscrapers or homes.  But theists like to give credit to God because He is their primary purpose.  An analogy I like comes from CS Lewis where he states (and I'm paraphrasing it) that he believes in God not like he believes in the sun, but that through Him, like the sun, He can see all things more clearly.

I remember I had a discussion about abortion, and I wasn't arguing embryological abortion, but fetal abortion.  The argument made against me was that a woman has her rights about her own property (her body) just as a man can protect his own house from intruders.  I argued, but what if a toddler crawled into a man's house?  Does the man have a right to shoot and kill the baby?  The answer I received was that my argument is based on emotion, while his is based on logic alone.  I thought that argument indeed lacked emotion, and I didn't criticize this person for being an emotionless psychopath, although I'm sure others might, but I told him reality has it that emotion is as important as rationality.  I think there's a basic agreement to disagree from that point on.

I'm not arguing abortion at all here, but I'm simply stating the fact that to remove emotion from discussing God as if God is some sort of scientific hypothesis is a vain attempt because no one stated God existed in the same way anything else does.  The famous scientist who said, "God?  I have no need of that hypothesis" shows exactly the narrow thinking of scientists.  Logic can only take you so far, and emotion can only take you so far.  Just as "faith" is a philosophy by which one lives by, really the basis of faith is God, God is my faith.  He is not an idea that I live by, but I believe He permeates in my existence that I may live it rightly and freely.

It is why I like to speak of God as "transcendant."  I think that's the most accurate way to describe God, and even that does injustice to His "being".  The paradox is this:  I can conceive that He is inconceivable.  The strange thing is like string theory, one can't prove it, but it works.

There's one more thing I'm reading that I'd like to comment.  You say, "Existence exists because non-existence CANNOT exist."  Maybe I didn't read it (or hear it) yet in your links you gave me, but how is it that existence is in a cosmic equilibrium state and yet chemical and biological processes here require a state of negative free energy for life to continue to occur (by the introduction of larger more positive free energy)?  How is it that all things move in a way in which to prevent complete equilibrium all in one place?  Or how is it that a system continually moves in such a manner as to not "freeze" in a "lifeless" state of equilibrium?

If the answer to that question is something you already answered via one of the links you gave me, you don't have to answer this one.  But then again, I'm not sure if I'm asking it correctly to get my point across.

Okay, so more thoughts....I've watched all your videos (except the one hour one) and read all your comments.  Fascinating stuff, but what you seem to not understand is that by understanding more of what you're teaching me, I put more and more importance and majesty into the idea of God's creativity, and my belief in Him is stronger because of it.  As I explained before "God of the gaps" is indeed a God-blunderer.  One's true faith in God is precisely not that which explains gaps in the phenomena, but that which explains the Cause of all phenomena.

When I say I believe in Creator, Mover, Life-Giver, I don't mean that to be explained in a scientific sense.  The laws of physics, the chaos-order dynamic, the increasing and evolving complexity of nature, strings, branes, quantum mechanics/electrodynamics, qubits, mathematics, etc. are all "created, moved, and given life" by God.

Quote1) you have a literal impossible self contradiction
2) To say a GOD is infinite is equal to say the sum total of existence is GOD. That includes me, you, and everything. And that conflicts with another argument of "Existing in a different plane".. And the very fact that you claim it to be it's own individual with it's own mind and consciousness already makes it finite and not infinite.
3) You are also no grasping "Existing IN" hence not the answer to existence or creator of. At best you are limited to material physical manipulation no different than man creating cars and big cities, or even synthetic life.

1.) Because proving God exists in the same way you or I exist is impossible
2.) Despite the fact that it is yet to be proven (in fact, string theory is nothing but a theory by which one can see how the world works, and not something that can be tested like all other theories, which is a strange predicament scientists find themselves) that the cosmos is infinite, even if so, God is beyond the "sum of all things that exist."  The "plane" argument is anthropomorphic language.  God does not have His own consciousnss, is not an individual, etc, all anthropomorphic or limiting language that describes something unlimited.  As I explained before, it's hard to explain God because God is unexplainable.  But He permeates in us, and we can freely subject ourselves to Him.  He gave the cosmos freedom, and this freedom is actualized in us, but it does not mean He does not "exist."
3.) Nope.  Once again, we are limited to reshaping what already exists, but God is unlimited, and hence a "true" Creator.

QuoteIncorrect. the Ultimate Paradox is that Existence itself doesn't requires Consciousness to exist. It is consciousness that is slave to the rules of existence. You essentially have it backwards. The biggest difference is the Existence simply exists because Non-existence can not exist. There is no creator to existence because that is impossible, and you can argue by virtue of opinion alone that there is no such thing as "GODS". Especially when all entities must follow the rules of existence!

I asked this in my previous post, but I also want to say that this is quite an assumption that we make of reality itself, that existence is merely existence, and nothing else can be assumed.  It is a scientific principle, a primary law of thermodynamics, but again believers will simply tell you, "God created it that way."  As Hawkings even admits, he didn't disprove God, but rather he did something all atheists in the past have confessed as a central part of their "faith," "God is unnecessary."  There is nothing new in what he said, and it's an ages old belief, but this is where I strongly disagree with.  God is certainly unnecessary in scientific observations, but is necessary in seeing in science beauty and purpose.  No one can prove or disprove God in a scientific manner, but one can contemplate whether He is necessary or not in one's life, and if so, how does that necessity manifest itself?

I promise if I have more thoughts, I'll only do it after watching that long youtube video, but I don't think it'll change anything I believe or have written to you.

QuoteThat is why God is no simple phenomenon, object, person,place or thing.  His existence shouldn't even be called "existence."  Words cannot fathom who or what God is.  We have no choice but to use anthropomorphic language to describe Him, but God is not something to be described, but to be experienced, as we are given that capacity to experience Him.

This has got to be the most desperate use of irrationality to which I have ever seen come out of a Christians mouth or post on the internet. It's the most desperate form of pleading as well. This is even worse of an argument this argument I got in another forum:

QuoteOnly GOD can KNOW how to Create Knowledge into existence

People either are intentionally stupid for the sake of circular arguments, or they really are this dumb. And I really hope you are merely trying to play dumb. When you start using Carl Segan's Dragon arguments and then try to tag on attribute of non-existence so it doesn't have to apply to existence while trying to claim it exists has got to be just sheer intentional stupidity :shake:  

QuoteHonestly God is not a "thing" or "person" whose existence should be proven like a stone or Socrates.

Circular rationality and avoidance to the discussion. Nor did you catch on that even if an entity existed, the concept and title of "GOD" is still purely that of opinion! Otherwise it's entirely irrelevant lol. You really do like to ignore arguments and then ramble on as if you never read them. And to say something lays beyond your physical senses is again desperation. A lot of things could lay beyond our senses, this doesn't make them magically capable of not being bound to the rules of existence, or material physicality.

I will gladly accept your argument that your GOD is made of nothing, and exists in a state and place of non-existence..  :D

QuoteA big mistake on both sides is the idea we use "God of the gaps" argument.  For sure, there are theists who do use "God of the gaps" and there are atheists who recognize it and then generalize it to say we all believe in "God of the gaps."

Only GAPS we are filling is between zero and infinity.

QuoteAs science fills the gaps, some people lose faith in their respective religions, but how come I didn't lose faith.  Read my signature.  "Unless the Lord builds the city, the laborers labor in vain."  We already know who builds skyscrapers or homes.  But theists like to give credit to God because He is their primary purpose.  An analogy I like comes from CS Lewis where he states (and I'm paraphrasing it) that he believes in God not like he believes in the sun, but that through Him, like the sun, He can see all things more clearly.

Who built your GOD?
Who designed and created Knowledge into existence
Who designed and created consciousness
who designed and created intelligence
who designed and created existence
who designed and created material physicality so things could actually exist
Who created a place so things can have a place to exist?

And you do also understand that the Christian GOD is actually the Sun GOD stolen from other religions correct? Christianity is pretty much a cut and paste religion. And sorry, primary purpose can only be credited to existence itself! Everything else is just products of existence.

QuoteThere's one more thing I'm reading that I'd like to comment.  You say, "Existence exists because non-existence CANNOT exist."

You do understand the definitions of those correct?

QuoteMaybe I didn't read it (or hear it) yet in your links you gave me, but how is it that existence is in a cosmic equilibrium state and yet chemical and biological processes here require a state of negative free energy for life to continue to occur (by the introduction of larger more positive free energy)?

Existence isn't in a cosmic equilibrium, never was. It's a chaotic system to where only on average is there a ground state. And biological processes follow the same rules. and you are also trying to suggest life requires a closed system when that is in fact false. However, you can reference negative free energy here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbs_free_energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbs_free_energy)

QuoteThe Gibbs free energy is the maximum amount of non-expansion work that can be extracted from a closed system. This maximum can be attained only in a completely reversible process. When a system changes from a well-defined initial state to a well-defined final state, the Gibbs free energy Î"G equals the work exchanged by the system with its surroundings, minus the work of the pressure forces, during a reversible transformation of the system from the same initial state to the same final state.[2]

Gibbs energy (also referred to as ∆G) is also the chemical potential that is minimized when a system reaches equilibrium at constant pressure and temperature. As such, it is a convenient criterion of spontaneity for processes with constant pressure and temperature.

Good thing we live in an open system to where closed systems are subjective to what you are talking about. And they are not actually talking about literal "negative energy". It's available energy as stated here:

QuoteThe Gibbs free energy, originally called available energy, was developed in the 1870s by the American mathematician Josiah Willard Gibbs. In 1873, in a footnote[citation needed], Gibbs defined what he called the “available energy” of a body as such:

    The greatest amount of work which can be obtained from a given quantity of a certain substance in a given initial state, without increasing its total volume or allowing heat to pass to or from external bodies, except such as at the close of the processes are left in their initial condition.

In biochemistry you have this:

QuoteBecause of the laws of enthalpy and entropy, free energy is always increasing. However, in endothermic reactions, or chemical reactions that require energy to occur, net free energy is negative because the energy is "lost" to the environment as it is bonded in the reaction.

Energy is often defined in reference to something else, and the sign of the energy is a function which direction is flowing. If energy (heat) flows from a system to the environment, the enthalpy change is negative (exothermic), whereas if energy flows from the environment to the system, the enthalpy change is positive (endothermic).

You are still talking about Positive, negative, and neutral attributes of Energy, and existence.

QuoteHow is it that all things move in a way in which to prevent complete equilibrium all in one place?  Or how is it that a system continually moves in such a manner as to not "freeze" in a "lifeless" state of equilibrium?

Positive, negative, and neutral.


So all you are doing right now is trying to play the explain everything game when you only need to understand the 3 basic rules of existence and where ground state is. Anything between zero and X complexity is entirely irrelevant! Especially to existence since all things above Ground state are products of existence and are not required for existence to exist. That includes any conscious being, entity, or any object or thing in existence!

QuoteGod is beyond the "sum of all things that exist."

This right here tells me that you have completely lost this debate both rationally and logically on every single level possible. The existence out side of existence argument to make it possible to toss a string of words to together that allows something to not be bound to existence and can exist in a place and state of non-existence. :eek:

This argument is not better than a Flat Earther trying to claim that Earths circumference is 78 thousand miles with 486 million sq miles of surface area on a flat disk to who proceeds to state it as magical fact while being unable to provide a map, or even data to show that Earth isn't a GLOBE. It takes a lot of intentional ignorance to believe in such nonsense.   :

We are now ending this discussion

If you can reply to this without using energy, matter, complexity, information, material physicality, or the rules of existence.. You can continue this discussion.

Quote from: "Achronos"God is beyond the "sum of all things that exist."

Heh heh, that's one way of putting it.  

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "Achronos"God is beyond the "sum of all things that exist."

Heh heh, that's one way of putting it.  lol.. And the funny part is that the biggest difference between me and him in this argument is that I'm not making shit up as I go along . :P The first thing he tried to do was try and attempt to detach the GOD from the rules of existence since that would obviously collapse the whole GOD theory entirely. But I never thought a Theist would even attempt to do such a foolish thing, especially after I warned him prior to him doing so :sigh:

Damn, all he had to say is that it's possible that some entity is responsible for this Universe's existence as it is now while being bound to the same rules. I don't think he realizes that an entities existence is irrelevant since the GOD concept itself is just a concept of pure opinion. In order for something to be a GOD, you have to worship it as such! If you don't, then its simply not a GOD!.. Concepts of opinion are technically irrelevant to anyone other than that person who has the opinion. I don't even make the argument that the Big Bang couldn't have been the work, or even an accidental act of other entities! However, I don't deny the possibility of our Universe just being another molecule in a much larger reality, or in infinitely expanding realities either. But he's so bent on professing a creator to existence because anything less can be seen as just another material physical manipulator to which is technically in concept no different than man, or even some little ant! So they invent impossible concepts and then expect rational people to actually believe them.  And those that don't, they attempt to use emotional pleading, brainwashing, and subliminal manipulation as arguments.  :shake:

Quote from: "Achronos"God is beyond the "sum of all things that exist."

Come on guys, this statement is beyond refute.

Actually, someone should trademark this as it would make a great bumper sticker!

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "Achronos"God is beyond the "sum of all things that exist."

Come on guys, this statement is beyond refute.

Actually, someone should trademark this as it would make a great bumper sticker!

 :/  I have always told Christians that if they want to believe in a GOD, don't try making an impossible concept sound as if it's possible. It's shooting to high, and it just makes it out to be ridiculous vs actually plausible. Hence, be more realistic :pop:

It's not much different than Anselm's faulty statement of the ontological argument: “God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived”.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "Achronos"God is beyond the "sum of all things that exist."

Heh heh, that's one way of putting it.  

Or putting it another way, he's imaginary.

Quote from: "TheJackel"This has got to be the most desperate use of irrationality to which I have ever seen come out of a Christians mouth or post on the internet. It's the most desperate form of pleading as well. This is even worse of an argument this argument I got in another forum:

QuoteOnly GOD can KNOW how to Create Knowledge into existence

People either are intentionally stupid for the sake of circular arguments, or they really are this dumb. And I really hope you are merely trying to play dumb. When you start using Carl Segan's Dragon arguments and then try to tag on attribute of non-existence so it doesn't have to apply to existence while trying to claim it exists has got to be just sheer intentional stupidity :shake:  

What is so desperate about what I wrote?  What I have written have been believed for centuries.  This is nothing new.  I'm simply applying the same beliefs as has been professed before.  You claim to be a Christian before.  Show some sympathy then.  So far, it seems we're just talking past one another, where you call me stupid, and I call you narrow-minded.  I never tagged an attribute of non-existence or existence to God.  I am limited in my discussion of Him.  You compare God to "dragons, sky fairies" and yet you can't understand what I am trying to tell you.  You are unable to understand because you don't want to.  You are narrow-minded, and a pejorative one at that.

QuoteCircular rationality and avoidance to the discussion. Nor did you catch on that even if an entity existed, the concept and title of "GOD" is still purely that of opinion! Otherwise it's entirely irrelevant lol. You really do like to ignore arguments and then ramble on as if you never read them. And to say something lays beyond your physical senses is again desperation. A lot of things could lay beyond our senses, this doesn't make them magically capable of not being bound to the rules of existence, or material physicality.

I will gladly accept your argument that your GOD is made of nothing, and exists in a state and place of non-existence..  :D

Magical?  Place of non-existence?  Obviously, if you were a Christian, you'd understand where I'm coming from as I don't state belief in God is a magical idea, neither is God in a place of non-existence.  In fact where do I even state that?

QuoteWho built your GOD?
Who designed and created Knowledge into existence
Who designed and created consciousness
who designed and created intelligence
who designed and created existence
who designed and created material physicality so things could actually exist
Who created a place so things can have a place to exist?

The question "Who built your God" is a logical fallacy if one truly understands how God is defined.  God IS.  That's it.
Your other questions are clear to me the answer is God whether they be directly or indirectly.

QuoteAnd you do also understand that the Christian GOD is actually the Sun GOD stolen from other religions correct? Christianity is pretty much a cut and paste religion. And sorry, primary purpose can only be credited to existence itself! Everything else is just products of existence.

Really?  Is that the best you got?  Calling Christianity a "copy and paste" religion by assuming it was borrowed from a Sun God?  What relevance is it when one says that atheism is nothing but a rehash of Epicurus?  Does that really weaken atheism?  A religion that has aspects of truth doesn't falsify Christianity.  Try arguing something based on its own merits.  Your ways to show similarities to other religions is a form of desperation at this point.

QuoteYou do understand the definitions of those correct?
Existence isn't in a cosmic equilibrium, never was. It's a chaotic system to where only on average is there a ground state. And biological processes follow the same rules. and you are also trying to suggest life requires a closed system when that is in fact false. However, you can reference negative free energy here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbs_free_energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbs_free_energy)

QuoteThe Gibbs free energy is the maximum amount of non-expansion work that can be extracted from a closed system. This maximum can be attained only in a completely reversible process. When a system changes from a well-defined initial state to a well-defined final state, the Gibbs free energy Î"G equals the work exchanged by the system with its surroundings, minus the work of the pressure forces, during a reversible transformation of the system from the same initial state to the same final state.[2]

Gibbs energy (also referred to as ∆G) is also the chemical potential that is minimized when a system reaches equilibrium at constant pressure and temperature. As such, it is a convenient criterion of spontaneity for processes with constant pressure and temperature.

Good thing we live in an open system to where closed systems are subjective to what you are talking about. And they are not actually talking about literal "negative energy". It's available energy as stated here:

QuoteThe Gibbs free energy, originally called available energy, was developed in the 1870s by the American mathematician Josiah Willard Gibbs. In 1873, in a footnote[citation needed], Gibbs defined what he called the “available energy” of a body as such:

    The greatest amount of work which can be obtained from a given quantity of a certain substance in a given initial state, without increasing its total volume or allowing heat to pass to or from external bodies, except such as at the close of the processes are left in their initial condition.

In biochemistry you have this:

QuoteBecause of the laws of enthalpy and entropy, free energy is always increasing. However, in endothermic reactions, or chemical reactions that require energy to occur, net free energy is negative because the energy is "lost" to the environment as it is bonded in the reaction.

Energy is often defined in reference to something else, and the sign of the energy is a function which direction is flowing. If energy (heat) flows from a system to the environment, the enthalpy change is negative (exothermic), whereas if energy flows from the environment to the system, the enthalpy change is positive (endothermic).

You are still talking about Positive, negative, and neutral attributes of Energy, and existence.

Positive, negative, and neutral.

Yes, I know that already.  Everything you wrote.  I was worried I didn't ask it right.

Fine, there is a chaotic element of positive, negative, and neutral.  How is it that positive and negatives never cancel each other out

QuoteSo all you are doing right now is trying to play the explain everything game when you only need to understand the 3 basic rules of existence and where ground state is. Anything between zero and X complexity is entirely irrelevant! Especially to existence since all things above Ground state are products of existence and are not required for existence to exist.[/u] That includes any conscious being, entity, or any object or thing in existence!

Forgive me if you already explained it or I missed it, but I need to understand more of this.  In the meantime, is this what at present many people use to show that God doesn't exist?

Quote from: "Gawen"It's not much different than Anselm's faulty statement of the ontological argument: “God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived”.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteGod is beyond the "sum of all things that exist."

This right here tells me that you have completely lost this debate both rationally and logically on every single level possible. The existence out side of existence argument to make it possible to toss a string of words to together that allows something to not be bound to existence and can exist in a place and state of non-existence. :eek:

This argument is not better than a Flat Earther trying to claim that Earths circumference is 78 thousand miles with 486 million sq miles of surface area on a flat disk to who proceeds to state it as magical fact while being unable to provide a map, or even data to show that Earth isn't a GLOBE. It takes a lot of intentional ignorance to believe in such nonsense.  lol. But I get the feeling he thought it was clever to attempt to, or he just decided he would go straight into preaching, and then trolling the subject. There is more nonsense and deflection in his arguments than I would bother wasting my time to count  :shake:

I also think it's pathetic to say that such things don't need to be proven to exist because he says so, and that you should magically believe just because GOD exists as an idea or concept he worships on faith alone. It takes some serious form of brain meltdown to do that. And yes, I once professed and did this same crap to forums like this, and other people, and that is probably why it irks me so much when I see this crap. :) At least that way there is within the rules of opinion a 100% =/=100% of the existence of a GOD should such an entity actually be shown to exist. What would impress me though is if he came back and showed some humility and accept the fundamental flaws of his arguments.  

You're right.  It's not easy to believe in God.  It takes practice and consistency to do so.  To me, not believing in God requires one to live in a dumpster for years and not knowing that you smell bad.  Believing in God is a sobering experience to me.  Honestly, and I'm not saying this to attract you.  You simply asked how is that we believe in God, and I'm telling you.

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "Achronos"God is beyond the "sum of all things that exist."

Heh heh, that's one way of putting it.  :pop:

Quote from: "Asmodean"That which is beyond the sum of that which exist, by definition, does not exist itself, yes?  

That would be correct.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

Quote from: "Asmodean"That which is beyond the sum of that which exist, by definition, does not exist itself, yes?  

That would be correct.

So....

When is he going to correct this mistake?
The whole of Christianity hangs in the balance here, I would have thought this would be very near the top (if not the top) of his list of things to do.
One important dilemma that I can see is that he has also stated that anything less than creation of existence would only resolve to deism and not Christianity. Sticky situation here.

QuoteWhat is so desperate about what I wrote?  What I have written have been believed for centuries.  This is nothing new.

Not hard to imagine people centuries believing such nonsense, especially considering their average education was pretty damn poor. I could have flown over them in a Helicopter and they would have worshiped me as a GOD. Centuries old nonsense doesn't make it any less nonsensical centuries later. You are here attempting to suggest that because other people believe something that it's magically truth. It's a false and dishonest argument because you really don't want to face the arguments posted.

QuoteI'm simply applying the same beliefs as has been professed before.

Irrelevant

QuoteYou claim to be a Christian before.  Show some sympathy then.

How can I show you sympathy when you continue to use dishonest discourse, knowingly so no less. I've tried to be sympathetic, and you must remember where you are here. You are on a Forum that challenges and discusses these issues. If you don't want your faith or belief in GOD challenged, why are you here? You ought to know better, and ought to know what to expect when you enter these discussions, especially when you choose to engage in them.

QuoteSo far, it seems we're just talking past one another, where you call me stupid, and I call you narrow-minded.

Nobody called you stupid, nor do I think you are stupid. However, that doesn't mean that your actions here weren't stupid. We all do stupid things, and I did point that out. I also outlined why you got yourself into that position. You engaged in dishonest discourse, deflective arguments, circular arguments, and even arguments that were clearly made up as you went along. Did you seriously think those kinds of debating tactics or arguments would land you any respect? I even sometimes find myself in these situations to where I need to take a good step back and realize my own nonsense. We are all human, and we all do stupid things from time to time. So no, I wouldn't hold this against you unless you really choose to persist with it.  

QuoteI never tagged an attribute of non-existence or existence to God.

Actually you have, more than once. Please re-read your arguments. Don't make me quote you, that's not going to turn out well for you.

QuoteI am limited in my discussion of Him.  You compare God to "dragons, sky fairies" and yet you can't understand what I am trying to tell you.  You are unable to understand because you don't want to.  You are narrow-minded, and a pejorative one at that.

No, I compared your version or concept of it to those because it really is beyond possible. Also made the argument that you keep ignoring, and that argument was that the concept of GOD is only a concept of Opinion regardless of any entity should exist. Opinions in a world of Opinions is irrelevant! Things are only GODS if you worship them as such. Otherwise it's an irrelevant concept simply because anything can be worshiped as a GOD!.

QuoteOpinion is only your opinion.

Interesting, it seems like you have had your first logical thought. Now read the above over again.

QuoteNothing what you say I disagree with.  I understand science very well.  I don't denounce science, but I respectfully disagree with your belief that that's all that's there.

Eh? Science is only the study of all that is there and nothing more. Are you making the argument that since you feel there should be more, that there is magically more? It's ok if you disagree with my position, but that isn't actually what you are attempting to disagree with. This entire time you have been attempting to disagree with the fundamental rules of existence itself as if that's magically possible. Your GOD can't be made of nothing, can't be infinite, can't be omnipotent, can't be all powerful, can't exist out side the capacity of existence or spatial capacity, can't be a negative dimensional object, can't function or even know itself exists without information, can't create existence, and surely can't create the rules of existence either. The Christian GOD concept is so flawed that it's actually rather ridiculous.

QuoteCome again?  So you are arguing that the flaws of religion and of God is a god that created suffering and death and that people can't even lead by example?  If you can't see how emotional you are in your arguments right now, then you're right, there's no point in continuing this discussion.

I actually was quite calm, you simply read emotion in that vs actually taking the time to understand the argument. So I will make it really easy for you.

(under your beliefs)
1)  Did your GOD create the 10 commandments
2) Did your GOD create Death?
3) Did your GOD create suffering?
4) Did your GOD kill anything?
5) Do intelligent and wise Leaders lead by example, or do hypocrites make good leaders?
6) Is your GOD omnipotent (infinitely knows all there can infinitely ever be known?)
7) Who at that point would be responsible for when some parent drowns their children in a bathtub for their sins, or when someone commits genocide?

It's pretty much exactly what Island of Dr Monroe was referencing to.. You can't blame the beasts of your creations, fore their faults are that of your own doing! Nor can you lead by hypocrisy and expect those to follow your laws to which yourself chooses not to follow. Now go Back and read Genesis.

QuoteIs that really the best you can do?

Really? Do you even understand why you failed? What part about "try replying without energy, information, material physicality,existence, spatial capacity, matter ect" did you not comprehend? Of course you failed!

QuoteI don't understand this part of your post.  I thought what I stated here was clearly relevant to the discussion we're having.

This discussion pertains to all GODS, and not just the Christian GOD. Christianity is more specifically used in this argument because Creationism is actually impossible, nor would it be required.

QuoteMagical?  Place of non-existence?  Obviously, if you were a Christian, you'd understand where I'm coming from as I don't state belief in God is a magical idea, neither is God in a place of non-existence.  In fact where do I even state that?

To put this gently, if your GOD is made of something, your argument completely fails. Hence bound to material physicality. If you try to state it's made of non-material (nothing), The GOD concept still fails and self-collapses. Hence, not the answer to existence as it would just be another product of existence. You need to learn what infinite regress is and why no mind, or entity could ever solve infinite regress. It will need a place to exist in, something to be made of, and a complexity at least greater than zero. Just like the rest of us!

Existence itself is the cause to all that exists and can exist. Not some entity you want to worship as A GOD since itself is bound and slave to those very same rules! It can't create that which itself requires to exist. Minds can only be observers and processors of reality, they can not actually create it. Conscious beings can however manipulate it on a very limited scale, such as building cities.

QuoteThe question "Who built your God" is a logical fallacy if one truly understands how God is defined.  God IS.  That's it.

Incorrect. Your god requires to be made of something (material physicality), requires information to even know itself exists, requires information to even be conscious, must have a place to exist, must be more complex than ground state (zero), and must be bound to the rules of time... Sorry kiddo but your so called GOD is a logical fallacy. It can't solve infinite regress, and requires far more cause to exist than you are willing to admit. In fact it would require more cause to exist then either you or I. It's slave to the rules of existence to which itself can not create!

Your biggest problem, Existence doesn't require your GOD to exist! Your really have it ass backwards.

QuoteReally?  Is that the best you got?  Calling Christianity a "copy and paste" religion by assuming it was borrowed from a Sun God? 6 What relevance is it when one says that atheism is nothing but a rehash of Epicurus?  Does that really weaken atheism?

This tells me that you know very little about how Christianity was formed. And how would that ever weaken Atheism? GOD's are conceptually not applicable to many atheists because power and control aren't attributes worthy of worship. Entities are irrelevant, especially in regards to opinionated concepts such as GODS.  Anyways we can explore this discussion here:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4733 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4733)

Heck, I even had to debunk a crazy supposed "Creationist Scientist" here:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4624 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4624)

QuoteA religion that has aspects of truth doesn't falsify Christianity.

There are a a lot of things that Falsify Christianity.

Example:

    Genesis 1:29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food."


 Many humans have died, or have gotten severely ill discovering that even a potato is only edible if you don't eat the green parts. Here is but a very very very small list  :)

http://thinkingaloudforum.com/forum/vie ... 30#p473865 (http://thinkingaloudforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=132&t=13883&hilit=Christmas+Berry&start=30#p473865)

QuoteFine, there is a chaotic element of positive, negative, and neutral.  How is it that positive and negatives never cancel each other out

They do, a lot. A simple collapse of wave function in electrodynamics is a perfect example. And you are also forgetting that order from chaos is the result from positive, and negative feedback. Order lies at the very edge of chaos. When such things cancel out, you get neutral states, or different results and outcomes.  If you really want to dig deep into this subject, really take the time to study it.

QuoteForgive me if you already explained it or I missed it, but I need to understand more of this.  In the meantime, is this what at present many people use to show that God doesn't exist?

On a forum? They do make science books you know :eek:

QuoteI know you don't like hearing that.  I'm not trying to resort to any argument to convince you anything.  I am trying to show you how I personally believe.  I know you won't be convinced.  I didn't think what I said will convince you at all.  I'm simply trying to have a conversation and maybe try to understand where you're coming from, but you're making it impossible, and you resort to attacks.  I'm sorry you feel this way.

You need to get more realistic with your concept before it can be considered even plausible. BTW, you are getting handed the hammer because you keep making irrational and nonsensical arguments. There is so much dishonest discourse in your arguments that it's literally ridiculous.  :blink:

Quote.  To me, not believing in God requires one to live in a dumpster for years and not knowing that you smell bad.

You base your faith on dogma?  :) I think you are probably a nice guy who is passionate about his beliefs, I can respect that because I do know what that is like myself

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "TheJackel"

Quote from: "Asmodean"That which is beyond the sum of that which exist, by definition, does not exist itself, yes?  

That would be correct.

So....

When is he going to correct this mistake?
The whole of Christianity hangs in the balance here, I would have thought this would be very near the top (if not the top) of his list of things to do.
One important dilemma that I can see is that he has also stated that anything less than creation of existence would only resolve to deism and not Christianity. Sticky situation here.

Basically he's just mind masturbating the argument. It's really simple, if his god has to follow the laws of existence, his GOD becomes no GOD at all. Thus it must maintain a Carl's Dragon argument, and an entity with impossible Powers and attributes so fantastically ridiculous that it could exist outside of existence. Even the very concept that it would require a place to exist in would collapse the entire concept of GOD.

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "Achronos"God is beyond the "sum of all things that exist."

Heh heh, that's one way of putting it.  :pop:

Quite so, oh round piece of grumpy clay.

Quote from: "Tank"Quite so, oh round piece of grumpy clay.

That, I like!  

Quote from: "Asmodean"That which is beyond the sum of that which exist, by definition, does not exist itself, yes?  

No, not at all.  I tell you, the concept of God is not like fairies or unicorns.  When we say He exists, we don't say He exists like we do, we just don't have any better language to describe His being.  He neither exists nor does He not exist.  He is beyond the sum total of all things that exist like we exist.  He is the One we believe who created the laws of the cosmos, the "stuff" of the cosmos, and the interactions occurring between the "stuff" of the cosmos.  We believe that it is through Him that there exists the sum total of all things.  The sum total of all things is not Him, but He is in them, and they exist through Him.  It's a mystery that we can't explain, but as we grow, we get better at understanding more about it, which is what makes belief in Him and the afterlife so exciting.

Quote from: "Stevil"The whole of Christianity hangs in the balance here, I would have thought this would be very near the top (if not the top) of his list of things to do.

Do what exactly?  Talk about this?  You could simply ask.

QuoteOne important dilemma that I can see is that he has also stated that anything less than creation of existence would only resolve to deism and not Christianity. Sticky situation here.

Indeed.  A pantheistic sort of deism.  I.e. we're all part of "God" and God is an impersonal sum of all things, a force, the "laws" of our existence, the collective beauty of what is around.  I think most atheists really would resort to this type of belief in God.  It is very close to the "One" of the Hindus, without all the reincarnation stuff.  It essentially makes no difference to me whether one is a Hindu or an atheist.  Both have a form a vanity of life in it and makes all things seem that in the end, nothing matters really.

Quote from: "Achronos"Both have a form a vanity of life in it and makes all things seem that in the end, nothing matters really.

Yes, atheists are vain because we think that the universe was created for us, we're arbitrarily separated from the rest of the animal kingdom because of a supernatural piece of fluff that has absolutely no evidence to support its existence, and that we'll go to Heaven when we die because we let go of our reasoning and rational thinking to believe in an ancient book written by goat herders.

Oh, wait.

Seriously though, HOW THE FUCK ARE WE VAIN. MOST OF US BELIEVE THAT WE AREN'T REALLY MORE SPECIAL THAN ANYTHING ELSE. THAT'S THE OPPOSITE OF VANITY.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Yes, atheists are vain because we think that the universe was created for us

We should thank the Christian god for creating this for us. Where ever we look, lots and lots of pretty star formations. Very thoughtful of the Christian god.
[youtube:1iopsm90]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcBV-cXVWFw[/youtube:1iopsm90]

Quote from: "Achronos"we just don't have any better language to describe His being.  He neither exists nor does He not exist

The English description based on your definition would be "an impossible concept" nothing more than a romantic collective dream based on wishful desires while clinging to a denial of reality. Given that you do have a very good grasp on science I was hoping that you would limited the scope and power of your god to something more within the bounds of reality. I am truly on Dawkins level 7 with regards to this concept. Given your debating record on this site however I was not expecting you to backtrack or admit you don't know the answer but simply come up with waffle that offers no further realistic credance to how this impossiblity can actually be possible.

Either the Christian god is part of reality or it is not. If part of reality then it must exist. If it exists then it must be within space and must be made of something that also exists e.g. energy of which you are saying the Christian god created. I don't see a way around this.

You can't decide neither of the above since your argument does not hold ground with either premise. These two options are all encompasing as there is only either existence or non existence, there is not an option c no matter how unfathomable you make out that it is. Your attempt to suggest otherwise simply shows your willingness to deceive. Since you have taken this path I have to ask "Do you actually believe in the Christian God?" If you know that you are correct in your belief in the Christian god then I would have thought you would not need to resort to intentional deceit.

Quote from: "TheJackel"Not hard to imagine people centuries .....SNIP..... Is like myself

TheJackel, please stop quoting from websites that INVENT "pagan parallels" to Christ whole cloth. Many of those parallels simply are not true! It's hard to take someone seriously when you credulously quote from websites that claim Krishna was crucified. No such doctrine exists in Hinduism. Sorry, try again!

Some of those are interesting, but you don't really want to talk about those do you? Nah, I didn't think so! I've addressed most of your points below.

Quote from: "TheJackel"How can I show you sympathy when you continue to use dishonest discourse, knowingly so no less. I've tried to be sympathetic, and you must remember where you are here. You are on a Forum that challenges and discusses these issues. If you don't want your faith or belief in GOD challenged, why are you here? You ought to know better, and ought to know what to expect when you enter these discussions, especially when you choose to engage in them.

Honestly this is what is confusing, because I honestly don't know where I've been dishonest to you.  It's as if you've known me for years or something to claim I'm using dishonest discourse.

QuoteActually you have, more than once. Please re-read your arguments. Don't make me quote you, that's not going to turn out well for you.

Humor me.

QuoteThings are only GODS if you worship them as such. Otherwise it's an irrelevant concept simply because anything can be worshiped as a GOD!.

You have to differentiate between what is worshipped and what is God.  Not everyone flies an airplane, that doesn't mean the airplane is subjectively not an airplane to those that don't fly it.  God is God whether or not you worship Him.  Worship is only the result of a person's respect to Him, Who needs no worship anyway.

QuoteEh? Science is only the study of all that is there and nothing more. Are you making the argument that since you feel there should be more, that there is magically more? It's ok if you disagree with my position, but that isn't actually what you are attempting to disagree with. This entire time you have been attempting to disagree with the fundamental rules of existence itself as if that's magically possible. Your GOD can't be made of nothing, can't be infinite, can't be omnipotent, can't be all powerful, can't exist out side the capacity of existence or spatial capacity, can't be a negative dimensional object, can't function or even know itself exists without information, can't create existence, and surely can't create the rules of existence either. The Christian GOD concept is so flawed that it's actually rather ridiculous.

And honestly, when you were a Christian what did you think God was?  What exactly did you believe?

QuoteI actually was quite calm, you simply read emotion in that vs actually taking the time to understand the argument. So I will make it really easy for you.

Calm or not, you are eliciting emotion.  I am actually also quite calm in my discussion with you too.

Quote(under your beliefs)
1)  Did your GOD create the 10 commandments
2) Did your GOD create Death?
3) Did your GOD create suffering?
4) Did your GOD kill anything?
5) Do intelligent and wise Leaders lead by example, or do hypocrites make good leaders?
6) Is your GOD omnipotent (infinitely knows all there can infinitely ever be known?)
7) Who at that point would be responsible for when some parent drowns their children in a bathtub for their sins, or when someone commits genocide?

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Probably
5. Intelligent and wise leaders lead by example
6. Yes
7. The parent and the genocidal ones are responsible, so they will be held accountable for their actions with God.

QuoteNow go Back and read Genesis.

Arrogant anyone?  Hmmmm...how about you go back and read the gospel of John,.

Or maybe, you can give me some verses so that we can have have a discussion.

QuoteThis discussion pertains to all GODS, and not just the Christian GOD. Christianity is more specifically used in this argument because Creationism is actually impossible, nor would it be required.

What in the world has creationism to do with this?  We're talking about God, specifically in the Christian concept.  You want to bring other gods into this discussion, be my guest, but you're wasting your own time.  These religions don't even exist anymore.  They have no merit on their own anymore.  If God was certainly true for those religions, they would have never been extinct.  Just because they have aspects of truth doesn't make Christianity "false."

QuoteTo put this gently, if your GOD is made of something, your argument completely fails. Hence bound to material physicality. If you try to state it's made of non-material (nothing), The GOD concept still fails and self-collapses. Hence, not the answer to existence as it would just be another product of existence. You need to learn what infinite regress is and why no mind, or entity could ever solve infinite regress. It will need a place to exist in, something to be made of, and a complexity at least greater than zero. Just like the rest of us!

What exactly did you belief in God used to entail?

QuoteExistence itself is the cause to all that exists and can exist. Not some entity you want to worship as A GOD since itself is bound and slave to those very same rules!

Mistake, you assume that God is bound and slave to the "very same rules."  Where did I profess such a belief?  I don't believe in that.

QuoteIt can't create that which itself requires to exist. Minds can only be observers and processors of reality, they can not actually create it.[/u] Conscious beings can however manipulate it on a very limited scale, such as building cities.

Minds can only be observers and processors of reality, but they can't actually create it.  If that's so, how is do minds "create God?"

QuoteIncorrect. Your god requires to be made of something (material physicality)

No!  Never said that!  You want it to be that way.  The fact that I've given you a mysterious definition of God is driving you insane right now because you're unable to make your point unless God is actually within a created cosmos.

Quoterequires information to even know itself exists,

No!

Quoterequires information to even be conscious,

No!

Quotemust have a place to exist,

No!

Quotemust be more complex than ground state (zero),

No! Neither more complex or more simple, excited or less so.  He created ground state.

Quoteand must be bound to the rules of time...

No! Never said He is bound to the rules of time.  He created time.  

QuoteSorry kiddo but your so called GOD is a logical fallacy.

I'm not sure how you saw logical fallacy when you claim to reiterate things about God I never confessed.

QuoteIt can't solve infinite regress,

You can't solve infinite regress.  God created infinite regress.

Quoteand requires far more cause to exist than you are willing to admit. In fact it would require more cause to exist then either you or I. It's slave to the rules of existence to which itself can not create!

No, it has no cause to exist other than the fact that He just is.  He's not slave to the rules of existence, He created existence and its rules.

QuoteYour biggest problem, Existence doesn't require your GOD to exist! Your really have it ass backwards.

Existence most certainly does not disprove God.  God is necessary for man's spiritual needs.  I believe God gave existence a freedom in her laws, and so being part of this existence, I find a need for God to bless my freedom for a fulfilling life.

QuoteThere are a a lot of things that Falsify Christianity.

Example:

    Genesis 1:29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food."

This verse in its context talks about a story of Adam being in Paradise, where there's nothing detrimental for Adam until He disobeyed God.  So it's irrelevant to anything outside Paradise (typified as the Garden of Eden).  All the plants in the Garden of Eden are not harmful in it, that is allegory for the Divine Knowledge in Paradise, use it all for growth, except this Tree of Knowledge, you're not ready for it yet.

QuoteActually I do :), Internet is a good search tool as well. I'm not going to spend all year teaching you physics, or the entire sum of everything man currently knows. I provided you with a very basic understanding to where the most important aspects of understanding is found in those 3 laws, and ground state. The rest is semantics technically speaking.

I apologize.  As you may not know, my mind is tailored to biological sciences.  Physics, I only understand fundamentally, and Newtonian at best.  Is there an easy-to-read book where I can get an introductory feel of these teachings?

QuoteDid you scientifically validate any of your arguments? Such as that very argument that got you into a logical fallacy that tries to fly in the face of the laws of existence? These laws that can not possibly be written or broken but rather followed and subjected to require in order to exist? You are rejecting the scientific method by making up things as you go along without even being able to back yourself up. What do you expect when you say your GOD exists outside all that exists?

Okay, if to you what I'm saying is scientifically connected in some way, then perhaps, we need time off so that I can read some of these things and get back to you with a better understanding.  Are you a physicist of some sort?

QuoteThat really proves how much of a fallacy it is. Besides, the concept is purely reliant on your opinion anyways. Other opinions already nullify it. Opinionated concepts are irrelevant.

The point is that nothing can adequately describe God except what has been revealed to us, especially through Christ.  We receive the Holy Spirit that we may grow in God more and comprehend Him more, but it takes forever to do so.  That's the idea.  No science, nothing in all of existence here can adequately describe Him or understand Him.

QuoteI don't believe in the concepts of GODS, it's simply not applicable what-so-ever regardless if an entity even existed. Either all things are GODS, or there are no GODS at all.

I'm asking when you were a Christian, what exactly was your idea of God?

QuoteYou do understand the very contradiction of your post correct? If you have a concept in your head, you have fathomed it.

I can fathom only as much as I can fathom, but He is more.  He became incarnate to lift our minds to Him.

QuoteThe argument here used however is merely an excuse to believe when it's existence has shown to be irrelevant, impossible, or subjected to the arguments above. It's more Carl Segan's Dragon, and that gets you nowhere in a debate.

It does get no one anywhere in the debate.  I feel like I'm only reiterating my definition.  If it's a logical fallacy, fine.  I think Hawking understood exactly the definition of God, and sees how theists can find God still compatible with what he solved.  He chose His words carefully.  He didn't disprove God, he simply feels God is unnecessary.

QuoteYou need to get more realistic with your concept before it can be considered even plausible. BTW, you are getting handed the hammer because you keep making irrational and nonsensical arguments. There is so much dishonest discourse in your arguments that it's literally ridiculous.  :raised:  

That was an analogy.  When people live in a dumpster they don't know what smelling bad is.  When your whole life you think a certain way about existence and about God, you don't know what God really is, and I don't really think you know where I am coming from, and we're just talking past one another.

QuotePlease do realize though that there is nothing wrong with what you believe in. Just remember that getting into discussions with opposing views, use honest discourse and arguments. :)

And I too feel you really do care, but somehow either you or I am not getting it.  You accuse me of logical fallacy, but I think you are misrepresenting my ideas about God to begin with!

Perhaps, it's best we start all over.  What do you think Christians think God is?

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "TheJackel"How can I show you sympathy when you continue to use dishonest discourse, knowingly so no less. I've tried to be sympathetic, and you must remember where you are here. You are on a Forum that challenges and discusses these issues. If you don't want your faith or belief in GOD challenged, why are you here? You ought to know better, and ought to know what to expect when you enter these discussions, especially when you choose to engage in them.

Honestly this is what is confusing, because I honestly don't know where I've been dishonest to you.  It's as if you've known me for years or something to claim I'm using dishonest discourse.

QuoteActually you have, more than once. Please re-read your arguments. Don't make me quote you, that's not going to turn out well for you.

Humor me.

QuoteThings are only GODS if you worship them as such. Otherwise it's an irrelevant concept simply because anything can be worshiped as a GOD!.

You have to differentiate between what is worshipped and what is God.  Not everyone flies an airplane, that doesn't mean the airplane is subjectively not an airplane to those that don't fly it.  God is God whether or not you worship Him.  Worship is only the result of a person's respect to Him, Who needs no worship anyway.

QuoteEh? Science is only the study of all that is there and nothing more. Are you making the argument that since you feel there should be more, that there is magically more? It's ok if you disagree with my position, but that isn't actually what you are attempting to disagree with. This entire time you have been attempting to disagree with the fundamental rules of existence itself as if that's magically possible. Your GOD can't be made of nothing, can't be infinite, can't be omnipotent, can't be all powerful, can't exist out side the capacity of existence or spatial capacity, can't be a negative dimensional object, can't function or even know itself exists without information, can't create existence, and surely can't create the rules of existence either. The Christian GOD concept is so flawed that it's actually rather ridiculous.

And honestly, when you were a Christian what did you think God was?  What exactly did you believe?

QuoteI actually was quite calm, you simply read emotion in that vs actually taking the time to understand the argument. So I will make it really easy for you.

Calm or not, you are eliciting emotion.  I am actually also quite calm in my discussion with you too.

Quote(under your beliefs)
1)  Did your GOD create the 10 commandments
2) Did your GOD create Death?
3) Did your GOD create suffering?
4) Did your GOD kill anything?
5) Do intelligent and wise Leaders lead by example, or do hypocrites make good leaders?
6) Is your GOD omnipotent (infinitely knows all there can infinitely ever be known?)
7) Who at that point would be responsible for when some parent drowns their children in a bathtub for their sins, or when someone commits genocide?

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Probably
5. Intelligent and wise leaders lead by example
6. Yes
7. The parent and the genocidal ones are responsible, so they will be held accountable for their actions with God.

QuoteNow go Back and read Genesis.

Arrogant anyone?  Hmmmm...how about you go back and read the gospel of John,.

Or maybe, you can give me some verses so that we can have have a discussion.

QuoteThis discussion pertains to all GODS, and not just the Christian GOD. Christianity is more specifically used in this argument because Creationism is actually impossible, nor would it be required.

What in the world has creationism to do with this?  We're talking about God, specifically in the Christian concept.  You want to bring other gods into this discussion, be my guest, but you're wasting your own time.  These religions don't even exist anymore.  They have no merit on their own anymore.  If God was certainly true for those religions, they would have never been extinct.  Just because they have aspects of truth doesn't make Christianity "false."

QuoteTo put this gently, if your GOD is made of something, your argument completely fails. Hence bound to material physicality. If you try to state it's made of non-material (nothing), The GOD concept still fails and self-collapses. Hence, not the answer to existence as it would just be another product of existence. You need to learn what infinite regress is and why no mind, or entity could ever solve infinite regress. It will need a place to exist in, something to be made of, and a complexity at least greater than zero. Just like the rest of us!

What exactly did you belief in God used to entail?

QuoteExistence itself is the cause to all that exists and can exist. Not some entity you want to worship as A GOD since itself is bound and slave to those very same rules!

Mistake, you assume that God is bound and slave to the "very same rules."  Where did I profess such a belief?  I don't believe in that.

QuoteIt can't create that which itself requires to exist. Minds can only be observers and processors of reality, they can not actually create it.[/u] Conscious beings can however manipulate it on a very limited scale, such as building cities.

Minds can only be observers and processors of reality, but they can't actually create it.  If that's so, how is do minds "create God?"

QuoteIncorrect. Your god requires to be made of something (material physicality)

No!  Never said that!  You want it to be that way.  The fact that I've given you a mysterious definition of God is driving you insane right now because you're unable to make your point unless God is actually within a created cosmos.

Quoterequires information to even know itself exists,

No!

Quoterequires information to even be conscious,

No!

Quotemust have a place to exist,

No!

Quotemust be more complex than ground state (zero),

No! Neither more complex or more simple, excited or less so.  He created ground state.

Quoteand must be bound to the rules of time...

No! Never said He is bound to the rules of time.  He created time.  

QuoteSorry kiddo but your so called GOD is a logical fallacy.

I'm not sure how you saw logical fallacy when you claim to reiterate things about God I never confessed.

QuoteIt can't solve infinite regress,

You can't solve infinite regress.  God created infinite regress.

Quoteand requires far more cause to exist than you are willing to admit. In fact it would require more cause to exist then either you or I. It's slave to the rules of existence to which itself can not create!

No, it has no cause to exist other than the fact that He just is.  He's not slave to the rules of existence, He created existence and its rules.

QuoteYour biggest problem, Existence doesn't require your GOD to exist! Your really have it ass backwards.

Existence most certainly does not disprove God.  God is necessary for man's spiritual needs.  I believe God gave existence a freedom in her laws, and so being part of this existence, I find a need for God to bless my freedom for a fulfilling life.

QuoteThere are a a lot of things that Falsify Christianity.

Example:

    Genesis 1:29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food."

This verse in its context talks about a story of Adam being in Paradise, where there's nothing detrimental for Adam until He disobeyed God.  So it's irrelevant to anything outside Paradise (typified as the Garden of Eden).  All the plants in the Garden of Eden are not harmful in it, that is allegory for the Divine Knowledge in Paradise, use it all for growth, except this Tree of Knowledge, you're not ready for it yet.

QuoteActually I do :), Internet is a good search tool as well. I'm not going to spend all year teaching you physics, or the entire sum of everything man currently knows. I provided you with a very basic understanding to where the most important aspects of understanding is found in those 3 laws, and ground state. The rest is semantics technically speaking.

I apologize.  As you may not know, my mind is tailored to biological sciences.  Physics, I only understand fundamentally, and Newtonian at best.  Is there an easy-to-read book where I can get an introductory feel of these teachings?

QuoteDid you scientifically validate any of your arguments? Such as that very argument that got you into a logical fallacy that tries to fly in the face of the laws of existence? These laws that can not possibly be written or broken but rather followed and subjected to require in order to exist? You are rejecting the scientific method by making up things as you go along without even being able to back yourself up. What do you expect when you say your GOD exists outside all that exists?

Okay, if to you what I'm saying is scientifically connected in some way, then perhaps, we need time off so that I can read some of these things and get back to you with a better understanding.  Are you a physicist of some sort?

QuoteThat really proves how much of a fallacy it is. Besides, the concept is purely reliant on your opinion anyways. Other opinions already nullify it. Opinionated concepts are irrelevant.

The point is that nothing can adequately describe God except what has been revealed to us, especially through Christ.  We receive the Holy Spirit that we may grow in God more and comprehend Him more, but it takes forever to do so.  That's the idea.  No science, nothing in all of existence here can adequately describe Him or understand Him.

QuoteI don't believe in the concepts of GODS, it's simply not applicable what-so-ever regardless if an entity even existed. Either all things are GODS, or there are no GODS at all.

I'm asking when you were a Christian, what exactly was your idea of God?

QuoteYou do understand the very contradiction of your post correct? If you have a concept in your head, you have fathomed it.

I can fathom only as much as I can fathom, but He is more.  He became incarnate to lift our minds to Him.

QuoteThe argument here used however is merely an excuse to believe when it's existence has shown to be irrelevant, impossible, or subjected to the arguments above. It's more Carl Segan's Dragon, and that gets you nowhere in a debate.

It does get no one anywhere in the debate.  I feel like I'm only reiterating my definition.  If it's a logical fallacy, fine.  I think Hawking understood exactly the definition of God, and sees how theists can find God still compatible with what he solved.  He chose His words carefully.  He didn't disprove God, he simply feels God is unnecessary.

QuoteYou need to get more realistic with your concept before it can be considered even plausible. BTW, you are getting handed the hammer because you keep making irrational and nonsensical arguments. There is so much dishonest discourse in your arguments that it's literally ridiculous.  :raised:  

That was an analogy.  When people live in a dumpster they don't know what smelling bad is.  When your whole life you think a certain way about existence and about God, you don't know what God really is, and I don't really think you know where I am coming from, and we're just talking past one another.

QuotePlease do realize though that there is nothing wrong with what you believe in. Just remember that getting into discussions with opposing views, use honest discourse and arguments. :)

And I too feel you really do care, but somehow either you or I am not getting it.  You accuse me of logical fallacy, but I think you are misrepresenting my ideas about God to begin with!

Perhaps, it's best we start all over.  What do you think Christians think God is?

Wow, there is so much delusion in that posted argument to where it's really not even worth responding to  lol And no, I don't just post information on parallels, I suggest you actually study your religion kiddo. You might also want to check up on the fact that people like Jesus were nearly a dime a dozen where most of that crap was common folklore. How dumb do you really think we are here? It's also not our problem that you can't even understand that you can't defy the rules that govern existence. Your head is simply in the clouds because you can't deal with reality. And I love the answer you gave in regards to "Did your GOD kill anything". Probably? EH? Did you ever even read genesis? And you call me arrogant/ignorant :crazy: Buy hey, Atheists will gladly accept your answers here today  lol. How does one create time since it would take time create time? :pop:


And I do find this funny:

QuoteThe tragedy is this. That all my memories, all my loved ones, all what I know will be gone. Energy and matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but my whole life can.

This is straight from your own little typing fingers . BTW, then never will be technically GONE since they are just patterns of matter and energy themselves. Whether or not they remain intact is dependent on if you understand science of if you believe in fallacies because you fear reality.

Quote from: "TheJackel"Wow, there is so much delusion in that posted argument to where it's really not even worth responding to  lol And no, I don't just post information on parallels, I suggest you actually study your religion kiddo. You might also want to check up on the fact that people like Jesus were nearly a dime a dozen where most of that crap was common folklore. How dumb do you really think we are here? It's also not our problem that you can't even understand that you can't defy the rules that govern existence. Your head is simply in the clouds because you can't deal with reality. And I love the answer you gave in regards to "Did your GOD kill anything". Probably? EH? Did you ever even read genesis? And you call me arrogant/ignorant ? And you even go into making fallacious self invented nonsense to rationalize your GODS creation of poisonous plants while telling everyone it's ok to EAT.. Damn, if that isn't attempted murder and genocide, what is?

Now you know why I gave up on him.

Quote from: "TheJackel"Wow, there is so much delusion in that posted argument to where it's really not even worth responding to  lol And no, I don't just post information on parallels, I suggest you actually study your religion kiddo. You might also want to check up on the fact that people like Jesus were nearly a dime a dozen where most of that crap was common folklore. How dumb do you really think we are here? It's also not our problem that you can't even understand that you can't defy the rules that govern existence. Your head is simply in the clouds because you can't deal with reality. And I love the answer you gave in regards to "Did your GOD kill anything". Probably? EH? Did you ever even read genesis? And you call me arrogant/ignorant :crazy: Buy hey, Atheists will gladly accept your answers here today  lol. How does one create time since it would take time create time? :pop:

This makes God a man or material, instead of "greater" than the very creation He creates (beyond time, matter, and space).

Wait...are you under the impression that Orthodoxy is based upon the Bible?  Or that Christianity's foundations are threatened in any way if the validity of the Bible is called into question?

Quote from: "Achronos"Wait...are you under the impression that Orthodoxy is based upon the Bible?  Or that Christianity's foundations are threatened in any way if the validity of the Bible is called into question?

Can you explain how orthodoxy isn't based on the bible or how christianity would even be more than a small cult if nobody thought of the bible as valid?

"It seems obvious to me that the peculiar vapidity of New Atheist literature is simply a reflection of the more general vapidity of all public religious discourse these days, believing and unbelieving alike. In part, of course, this is because the modern media encourage only fragmentary, sloganeering, and emotive debates, but it is also because centuries of the incremental secularization of society have left us with a shared grammar that is perhaps no longer adequate to the kinds of claims that either reflective faith or reflective faithlessness makes.

The principal source of my melancholy, however, is my firm conviction that today’s most obstreperous infidels lack the courage, moral intelligence, and thoughtfulness of their forefathers in faithlessness. What I find chiefly offensive about them is not that they are skeptics or atheists; rather, it is that they are not skeptics at all and have purchased their atheism cheaply, with the sort of boorish arrogance that might make a man believe himself a great strategist because his tanks overwhelmed a town of unarmed peasants, or a great lover because he can afford the price of admission to a brothel. So long as one can choose one’s conquests in advance, taking always the paths of least resistance, one can always imagine oneself a Napoleon or a Casanova (and even better: the one without a Waterloo, the other without the clap).

But how long can any soul delight in victories of that sort? And how long should we waste our time with the sheer banality of the New Atheistsâ€"with, that is, their childishly Manichean view of history, their lack of any tragic sense, their indifference to the cultural contingency of moral “truths,” their wanton incuriosity, their vague babblings about “religion” in the abstract, and their absurd optimism regarding the future they long for?

I am notâ€"honestly, I am notâ€"simply being dismissive here. The utter inconsequentiality of contemporary atheism is a social and spiritual catastrophe. Something splendid and irreplaceable has taken leave of our cultureâ€"some great moral and intellectual capacity that once inspired the more heroic expressions of belief and unbelief alike. Skepticism and atheism are, at least in their highest manifestations, noble, precious, and even necessary traditions, and even the most fervent of believers should acknowledge that both are often inspired by a profound moral alarm at evil and suffering, at the corruption of religious institutions, at psychological terrorism, at injustices either prompted or abetted by religious doctrines, at arid dogmatisms and inane fideisms, and at worldly power wielded in the name of otherworldly goods. In the best kinds
of unbelief, there is something of the moral grandeur of the prophetsâ€"a deep and admirable abhorrence of those vicious idolatries that enslave minds and justify our worst cruelties.

But a true skeptic is also someone who understands that an attitude of critical suspicion is quite different from the glib abandonment of one vision of absolute truth for anotherâ€"say, fundamentalist Christianity for fundamentalist materialism or something vaguely and inaccurately called “humanism.” Hume, for instance, never traded one dogmatism for another, or one facile certitude for another. He understood how radical were the implications of the skepticism he recommended, and how they struck at the foundations not only of unthinking faith, but of proud rationality as well.

A truly profound atheist is someone who has taken the trouble to understand, in its most sophisticated forms, the belief he or she rejects, and to understand the consequences of that rejection. Among the New Atheists, there is no one of whom this can be said, and the movement as a whole has yet to produce a single book or essay that is anything more than an insipidly doctrinaire and appallingly ignorant diatribe."

- David Bentley Hart

QuoteAmong the New Atheists, there is no one of whom this can be said, and the movement as a whole has yet to produce a single book or essay that is anything more than an insipidly doctrinaire and appallingly ignorant diatribe.

Yet another apologist harping on tone so he doesn't have to deal with he content of any actually arguments put forth. Because I'm sure if he's read, say, Hitchen's "God is Not Great" he would have found the entire book was "Wah! God is a big dumb meany!" This whole blurb of his amounts to nothing more than an ad hominem and a generalization of whatever "New Atheists" are suppose to be. (As far as I can tell it describes modern atheists who are critical of religion, as oppose to some false non-existent cute n' cuddly teddy bear atheists who got in line and never said anything bad about religion, whom apologists get all nostalgic about. Sorry to say, but people have been calling BS on religion for centuries.)

QuoteYou're saying "go back and read Genesis" as if I don't know what's in Genesis.  That's arrogance.  You're assuming I know nothing of my religion.  I've explained very clearly the context and allegory of "eat all plants" in that specific verse.  Now, you're just being defiant, or in denial, or simply an ass about it.

Incorrect. You tried to rationalize it's stupidity. The only person here being in denial is you..

Quote"What did you think God is when you were a Christian,"

Before I educated myself, exactly what you think. Fortunately, my IQ went above 20 after 18 years of age. Doesn't take a genius to figure out this logical fallacy. And I do believe you are again trying to deflect with irrelevant arguments. Seriously, you need to stop trolling the discussion. If you don't know what a troll is, I suggest you google it.

QuoteI'm not trolling.  You're misrepresenting my beliefs.

Incorrect. You don't seem to even understand your position.

QuoteFor example, the book of Revelation is a vision, with colorful metaphors in every line. Yet, that page makes light of "stars will fall from the sky"...

What does stating the obvious about starlight have to do with the discussion? Ahh yes, more deflection from the arguments posted.. Let us know when your god understands that plants don't grow before the existence of the sun!.

QuoteOr the smallest seed is the mustard seed. I guess he should have said orchid seed, assuming there were any orchids around. He could have been scientifically correct, but then you'd have entire chapters of the bible dedicated to scientific explanations.

The bible can't even get the order of events correct much less be worth anything scientifically. I can go through Genesis if you like and completely rip it apart.

QuoteInstead, A broad use of metaphors are used to illustrate concepts and ideas, so everyone can understand.

That's really all it is, just concepts and ideas that are inherently incorrect, contradictory , or just plane stupid.

QuoteKinda like star trek, when the" flux veriton capacitor will emit tachyons to collapse the space-time graviton Talinberg Phenomenon" which was followed by the other guy saying "kinda like turning the faucet off on the sink"... Well no, stupid, not like that at all, but good enough.

It's more like "No stupid", The Earth wasn't here before the Sun, and insects have 6 legs, while plants can't grow or exist without sunlight! Plus many others not mentioned here.

BTW.. Did your GOD create Darkness and Light? Funny how there can only be one or the other.. Ahh, another fail.

QuoteThis also got me to giggle lol. How can you have progression of thought without progression or processes? It's entirely moronic. It's right up there with the concept of preexisting existence so one can create existence in order for ones self to exist. Seriously, don't put yourself so low on the IQ meter for the sake of making circular arguments that make no logical sense. If you want to play for ignorance like many Christians do, go find some little kids to brainwash because you have come to the wrong place son!  :crazy: Do you know why ppl are getting stern with you? You intentionally play stupid. I mean, you have got to be playing stupid because I don't think anyone is really that dumb to make such an argument of pure intelligible nonsense.  :rant: . You sir have poor debating skills, and you actually think your arguments are worth something here on a forum where people actually use their brains.  

Quote from: "Sophus"

QuoteAmong the New Atheists, there is no one of whom this can be said, and the movement as a whole has yet to produce a single book or essay that is anything more than an insipidly doctrinaire and appallingly ignorant diatribe.

Yet another apologist harping on tone so he doesn't have to deal with he content of any actually arguments put forth. Because I'm sure if he's read, say, Hitchen's "God is Not Great" he would have found the entire book was "Wah! God is a big dumb meany!" This whole blurb of his amounts to nothing more than an ad hominem and a generalization of whatever "New Atheists" are suppose to be. (As far as I can tell it describes modern atheists who are critical of religion, as oppose to some false non-existent cute n' cuddly teddy bear atheists who got in line and never said anything bad about religion, whom apologists get all nostalgic about. Sorry to say, but people have been calling BS on religion for centuries.)

Oh, he gives a completely thorough treatment to their arguments in his newest book, as well as the rest of the article from which this quote was taken.  He longs for the days when atheists had reasonable arguments to consider.  So do I, frankly.  Atheism today is a sad state of affairs.

Quote from: "DJAkuma"

Quote from: "Achronos"Wait...are you under the impression that Orthodoxy is based upon the Bible?  Or that Christianity's foundations are threatened in any way if the validity of the Bible is called into question?

Can you explain how orthodoxy isn't based on the bible or how christianity would even be more than a small cult if nobody thought of the bible as valid?

Orthodoxy is an historical movement out of which the Bible came, not the other way around.  The New Testament is describing something that is already taking place and is written to churches that already exist.  It is not the source.

You can point out errors all day long, find every apparent logical inconsistency, every scientific fact it got wrong and you won't hear much from Orthodox Christians besides, "That's interesting."  Nothing is riding on the Bible for us.

Quote from: "Achronos"Atheism today is a sad state of affairs.

Riiiigggght... what exactly are you expecting it to be? Who are these old glory days atheists we should use as role models?

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "Achronos"Atheism today is a sad state of affairs.

Riiiigggght... what exactly are you expecting it to be? Who are these old glory days atheists we should use as role models?

I vote for Diagoras of Melos, Theodorus of Cyrene, Critias, Democritus and Strato of Lampsacus; but maybe that's just me.

What makes the "New Atheist movement" a sad state of affairs, Achronos?

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "DJAkuma"

Quote from: "Achronos"Wait...are you under the impression that Orthodoxy is based upon the Bible?  Or that Christianity's foundations are threatened in any way if the validity of the Bible is called into question?

Can you explain how orthodoxy isn't based on the bible or how christianity would even be more than a small cult if nobody thought of the bible as valid?

Orthodoxy is an historical movement out of which the Bible came, not the other way around.  The New Testament is describing something that is already taking place and is written to churches that already exist.  It is not the source.

You can point out errors all day long, find every apparent logical inconsistency, every scientific fact it got wrong and you won't hear much from Orthodox Christians besides, "That's interesting."  Nothing is riding on the Bible for us.

Do you know why that is ? It's because they don't care, and because they know they can't actually deal with them logically, or even on an honest level. Why do you think you are trained to use self inventive circular arguments .You being a prime example here!.  Only a really brainwashed victim or idiot would actually think the Bible was even remotely accurate or credible. And all religions are technically cults, 300 years of burning alone is enough to brand Christianity as a cult. the bible is 99% fictitious while the last 1% of truth only lies in that it was a man written book by more than 40 Authors. I wasted much of my life believing in Fictitious nonsense. BTW.. The Orthodoxy does a very piss poor job of describing how the bible came to be, in fact, much of it is fabricated. We know where the Authors of the bible got their inspirations from, and that was from other religions and folklore/beliefs. It's entirely a cut and paste form of creative writing to which is a text book example of servitude to power. People are easy to control once you have them emotionally bonded to an imaginary symbol of power and fear. How do you think brainwashing works?

You really want to educate yourself, read some books on the mechanics of brainwashing and then read the bible over again, and then watch and observe how churches operate and advertise. Pick up some fliers and you can easily tell how messed up it is. It's really that bad!

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"What makes the "New Atheist movement" a sad state of affairs, Achronos?

I think it's the emotionless attitude towards his beliefs, or the brutal bluntness of logic and reason that many theists like equivocate to something as bad as the symbol of Satan. Plus I think he's equivocating atheists to emotionless zombies because they don't believe in his lord Jesus or GOD.  :sigh:  I've had some pretty good discussions with Theists, but I would say this one was one of the worst I've had. However, I wasn't exactly being nice myself since much of the posts I've had were late at night after a long day of work. So I think my civility had broken down when aggravated by nonsensical and dishonest arguments.  

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "Achronos"Atheism today is a sad state of affairs.

Riiiigggght... what exactly are you expecting it to be? Who are these old glory days atheists we should use as role models?

I vote for Diagoras of Melos, Theodorus of Cyrene, Critias, Democritus and Strato of Lampsacus; but maybe that's just me.

So I should be... Greek? Dead? I don't get it.

Quote from: "TheJackel"Before I educated myself, exactly what you think. Fortunately, my IQ went above 20 after 18 years of age. Doesn't take a genius to figure out this logical fallacy. And I do believe you are again trying to deflect with irrelevant arguments. Seriously, you need to stop trolling the discussion. If you don't know what a troll is, I suggest you google it.

Another ad hominem. You seem ill equipped to handle debate without insults.

QuoteIncorrect. You don't seem to even understand your position.

Physician, heal thyself.

QuoteWhat does stating the obvious about starlight have to do with the discussion? Ahh yes, more deflection from the arguments posted.. Let us know when your god understands that plants don't grow before the existence of the sun!.

Even if I were a literal interpreter Genesis, your argument is fairly weak; plants don't need the Sun, they need light, warmth, water, and nutrients (all of which, mind you, can be done nowadays without the plant ever encountering natural sunlight).  If one takes the timeline literally, then light came first - hence, a crucial building block for plant life.  Leave the simpleton arguments at home.

QuoteThe bible can't even get the order of events correct much less be worth anything scientifically. I can go through Genesis if you like and completely rip it apart.

You obviously don't understand its intention, so why would we want you to make a fool of yourself?  You don't walk into a Kindergarten and mock the children for being less than 5' tall; they're not supposed to be that tall yet at that age.

QuoteThat's really all it is, just concepts and ideas that are inherently incorrect, contradictory , or just plane stupid.

It's more like "No stupid", The Earth wasn't here before the Sun, and insects have 6 legs, while plants can't grow or exist without sunlight! Plus many others not mentioned here.

See my comment above.

QuoteBTW.. Did your GOD create Darkness and Light? Funny how there can only be one or the other.. Ahh, another fail.

You're not very good at physics, are you?  Only light was created, since darkness is, by definition, an absence of light; you probably think, scientifically, that "cold" exists, too

QuoteWTF? Dude, lay off the drugs man.

Ad hominem.  These seem to pop up a lot with you.

QuoteIf you can't even make intelligible arguments, please don't make any at all. And it didn't even answer the questions  :blink:  it's One load of Delusional pile of mind masturbation.

"Getting stern."  LOL.  Are you the teacher who's trying to make up for the fact that people don't naturally respect them, so instead you lower yourself to insults and bullying?  How passe!

QuoteGood to know he doesn't exist.

Not in the way that you think He does.

QuoteYou want to believe your deity is made of nothing (non-material).. Go ahead and do so.
You want to believe your god exist outside of place of existence (nowhere, or nonexistence) you go ahead and think that.
You want to believe that your GOD doesn't need information to know anything, or even it's own existence.. You go ahead and think that.

We believe what has been revealed, in word, in deed, in testimony, in tradition, in truth.  If we're wrong, there's been no harm to you; if we're right, well... Don't say you weren't warned.

QuoteAttaching qualities of non-existence and nothing to something is exactly a prime example of the quality of the brainwashing many theists receive. It's the teaching of idiocy in order inject blind faith without question. And that is why so many of you make up your own imaginative nonsense. That is dishonest as you can possibly ever get  :shake:

The ability of people to believe in things that they cannot experience empirically, and which challenge existing notions of existence, has been a driving force not only in religion, but in science as well.  For people of science, those beliefs lead to hypotheses, experiments, and either proof or rejection; for people of faith, those beliefs lead to (hopefully) a good and productive life in a community of faith, and eternal joy once we're freed of the present existence.

Quote from: "TheJackel"Do you know why that is ? It's because they don't care, and because they know they can't actually deal with them logically, or even on an honest level.

Who's "they"?  Orthodox theologians that you've obviously never read?  Anyway, this actually proves my point, they don't really "care" because they don't have to.  Nothing is hingeing on the Bible's authenticity for Orthodoxy.

QuoteWhy do you think you are trained to use self inventive circular arguments .You being a prime example here!.  Only a really brainwashed victim or idiot would actually think the Bible was even remotely accurate or credible.

Ad hominem. Nice. Am I trained or am I self-inventing?  Or did I train myself?

QuoteYou being a prime example! Only a really brainwashed victim or idiot would actually think the Bible was even remotely accurate or credible.

I'm sorry, did I say this somewhere?  I'm a prime example because, what, I've been appealing to the accuracy of the Bible for something?  Where and when?

QuoteAnd all religions are technically cults, 300 years of burning alone is enough to brand Christianity as a cult.

LOL.  You've demonstrated yourself to be a poor historian (and poorer philosopher), so why should this statement be treated as a credible one?

Quotethe bible is 99% fictitious while the last 1% of truth only lies in that it was a man written book by more than 40 Authors.

You do understand that your percentages are (a) not grounded in reality (not even from an Atheist's perspective), and (b) not worth the electrons they've wasted in their existence. Sounds like somebody needs to go back to Jr. High and get re-acquainted with basic math and percentages...

QuoteI wasted much of my life believing in Fictitious nonsense.

Sounds like you're still in that phase to me. "Tis better to have loved and lost then never loved at all."

QuoteBTW.. The Orthodoxy does a very piss poor job of describing how the bible came to be, in fact, much of it is fabricated.

Which source from "The Orthodoxy" are you referring to?

QuoteWe know where the Authors of the bible got their inspirations from, and that was from other religions and folklore/beliefs.

Surely you don't have documents younger than the Bible in mind?  If you have more ancient sources that have parallels with the Bible, I'd love to read them.

QuoteIt's entirely a cut and paste form of creative writing to which is a text book example of servitude to power.[ People are easy to control once you have them emotionally bonded to an imaginary symbol of power and fear. How do you think brainwashing works?

I'm not sure how it works but I assure you, my conversion from atheism wasn't because I somehow got brainwashed as an adult.  If anyone comes across as a rabid, fundamentalist with hints of having been brainwashed, I think it's you my friend. You obviously have no clue how it works, since you've misapplied the label and certainly the methodology.

BTW Your regurgitating a tired rhetoric that has been debunked by even the most radical Biblical critics doesn't endear you to anyone  such as myself.

QuoteYou really want to educate yourself, read some books on the mechanics of brainwashing and then read the bible over again, and then watch and observe how churches operate and advertise. Pick up some fliers and you can easily tell how messed up it is. It's really that bad!

LOL. I'm not sure how it works but I assure you, my conversion from atheism wasn't because I somehow got brainwashed as an adult.  If anyone comes across as a rabid, fundamentalist with hints of having been brainwashed, I think it's you my friend. Your posts reek of it.

TheJackel, you obviously have no understanding of the Bible, or history for that matter.  You claim religions to be "copy and paste" of each other, but your arguments are nothing but a copy and paste of the most unscholarly stupidities online.  IQ 20 points higher?  Are you sure you didn't see that arrow upside down?  Your arguments are nothing but misrepresentations, whether intentionally (which is trolling) or unintentionally (which is stupidity in your part).  Either way, it's pointless to continue with this discussion because either you don't understand my arguments or you're turning a blind eye.  I mean look at this:

QuoteIncorrect. You tried to rationalize it's stupidity. The only person here being in denial is you..

Let's assume this can be taken literally.  Again, in its context, we're talking about the Garden of Eden, and then after Adam sinned, thorns started to show, a fallen world where poisonous fruits occur.  Shows how much you're stupidly ignoring context in the Bible.

QuoteIncorrect. You don't seem to even understand your position.

LOL!  Now I must admit, you did make me laugh on this one.  Shows a character of supreme IQ to truly understand my position that I apparently don't understand  

In both the Bible and "my position" you're looking for something that's not even there.  How sad.

While some religions aren't derivative of older ones (like scientology) many, if not most are. In the book of mormon whole passages are plagarized almost verbatim from the bible (KJV) and a few other books, in the bible there are many parallels in older religions from the epic to gilgamesh to greek and egyptian mythology. It's like an ancient game of telephone where the details change over time.

So Whitney after accusing me of preaching and assuming that people are addicted to vices, you don't single TheJackel out either?

His comments are really crossing the line into ad hominem attacks. (ie: the implication that I'm "on drugs" and the accusation that my IQ is drastically less than his, just to name 2 examples.) Ad hominems are not only against the board rules, but they also just uncivil and inappropriate for mature debate. I realize things can get heated in any debate, however I really do think these comments about myself are meant to discredit my arguments, that is the very definition of an ad hominem. Even if these were meant either in jest, or just to "make a point", they still fit the definition of ad hominems. I ask that TheJackel please try and make his points without resorting to the name calling and crypto-ad hominem arguments.

By all means keep your crosshairs on me...

Quote from: "Achronos"So Whitney after accusing me of preaching and assuming that people are addicted to vices, you don't single TheJackel out either?

His comments are really crossing the line into ad hominem attacks. (ie: the implication that I'm "on drugs" and the accusation that my IQ is drastically less than his, just to name 2 examples.) Ad hominems are not only against the board rules, but they also just uncivil and inappropriate for mature debate. I realize things can get heated in any debate, however I really do think these comments about myself are meant to discredit my arguments, that is the very definition of an ad hominem. Even if these were meant either in jest, or just to "make a point", they still fit the definition of ad hominems. I ask that TheJackel please try and make his points without resorting to the name calling and crypto-ad hominem arguments.

By all means keep your crosshairs on me...

That is why there is a report button on each post.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "Achronos"So Whitney after accusing me of preaching and assuming that people are addicted to vices, you don't single TheJackel out either?

His comments are really crossing the line into ad hominem attacks. (ie: the implication that I'm "on drugs" and the accusation that my IQ is drastically less than his, just to name 2 examples.) Ad hominems are not only against the board rules, but they also just uncivil and inappropriate for mature debate. I realize things can get heated in any debate, however I really do think these comments about myself are meant to discredit my arguments, that is the very definition of an ad hominem. Even if these were meant either in jest, or just to "make a point", they still fit the definition of ad hominems. I ask that TheJackel please try and make his points without resorting to the name calling and crypto-ad hominem arguments.

By all means keep your crosshairs on me...

That is why there is a report button on each post.

I never said he was on drugs, it's highlighting the fact that his argument made no logical sense. So for anything against his position to which he can't seem to handle intelligently, it becomes a hominem attack.  

Quote from: "TheJackel"

Quote from: "Davin"That is why there is a report button on each post.

I never said you were he was on drugs, it's highlighting the fact that his argument made no logical sense. So for anything against his position to which he can't seem to handle intelligently, it becomes a hominem attack.  

My point was that the button exists on everyone's posts, not just his. It seemed like he was feigning discrimination but didn't even make an attempt to notify the mods to your posts he has a problem with as I'm sure people have with some of his posts.

Quote from: "Davin"My point was that the button exists on everyone's posts, not just his. It seemed like he was feigning discrimination but didn't even make an attempt to notify the mods to your posts he has a problem with as I'm sure people have with some of his posts.

Maybe he thought to do so might do no good and so didn't until it urked him to this point.  I can see that might have been his POV.

QuoteWho's "they"?  Orthodox theologians that you've obviously never read?  Anyway, this actually proves my point, they don't really "care" because they don't have to.  Nothing is hingeing on the Bible's authenticity for Orthodoxy.

It does. For one the Ark story is completely taken from Gilgamesh. Jesus Story is hardly original (take the time to actually study it, and his rivals). You really seem unable to deal with how fabricated the bible really is. The bible's authenticity is only authentic to where you can establish that it was written by man. It's Authenticity stops there son. The Orthodoxy does not explain the bible's origins in detail, and makes quite a bit of assumptions.

Let's just explore the problems with calling the bible a "historical document of truth". Let's start with inconsistency in Genesis alone, and why it's all fabricated nonsense by some moron that didn't know anything about the real world or how it really came to be. Unless of course Genesis is reference to the 24 hour day and night cycle, and common events like floods with a little over the top embellishments.. In that context it would at least make semi sense while still failing to make complete sense. Such as the fact that there is no way there is enough water on Earth to rise any higher than 250 - 350 ft above current sea level. So let's examine some of this below:

To save myself time, I am going to quote from another source even though I had written my own articles here on Genesis:

---
In the first chapter of Genesis, there is a legendary account of the creation. These legends contradict each other at every point. In the first, the earth is represented as coming into existence completely enveloped in water. In the second, it is represented as being originally a dry plain, lacking even moisture. 1 (Gen. 1:2, 9; 2:6) According to the first account, all the fowls of the air were created out of water-

Quote-"and God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth"

. . .

Quoteand the waters brought forth "every winged fowl after his kind." But according to the second account, the fowls were created out of the ground "

And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air." 2 (Gen. 1:20, 21; 2:19) The first story has it that the trees were made on the third day, and that man was formed three days later. The second story declares that man was made before the trees. 3 (Gen.1:12,13, 26-31; 2:7,9.)

If the first account is true, the fowls were created before man. If the second is correct, they were created after man. 4 (Gen. 1:21, 27 2:7,19) The first tale distinctly teaches that man was created after all the beasts. The second is as positive in its assurance that man was formed before the beasts. 5 (Gen. 1:25,27; 2:7,19) In the first account, we are told that man and woman were created at the same time, by one act of creation, and after all other things had been made. In the second story, it is explained that the man was made alone; that the woman was not formed until the man had failed to find a wife among the beasts, and that the making of the man, before the beasts, and of the woman, after the beasts, constituted two distinct acts of creation. 6 (Gen. 1:25,27; 2:7, 20-22) According to the first account, the man and the woman were given the freedom of the world, and were told to subdue it. According to the second, they were confined within the narrow limits of a garden.

-----

And that is just a few examples with concerning the Bibles Authenticity.

QuoteAd hominem. Nice. Am I trained or am I self-inventing?  Or did I train myself?

You seem to be both.. I know I was when I was a Christian. I don't preach nonsense anymore, nor do I self-invent my own interpretations of the bible and then preach it like you do.

QuoteI'm sorry, did I say this somewhere?  I'm a prime example because, what, I've been appealing to the accuracy of the Bible for something?  Where and when?

So you appeal to the accuracy of the bible without actually questioning and examining it's accuracy correct? You might want to work on that accuracy problem with the bible. And even if those who wrote the bible managed to get it right, it still wouldn't give the bible authenticity!

QuoteLOL.  You've demonstrated yourself to be a poor historian (and poorer philosopher), so why should this statement be treated as a credible one?

Should I point out examples in the bible itself then? LOL.. There are plenty examples I can go by to show it's a cult. Hardly a poor historian either because the 300 years of burning wasn't a magical fairy tale, neither were the Crusades.

QuoteYou do understand that your percentages are (a) not grounded in reality (not even from an Atheist's perspective), and (b) not worth the electrons they've wasted in their existence. Sounds like somebody needs to go back to Jr. High and get re-acquainted with basic math and percentages...

Really, please verify the core to your bible as being 100% truth. Ahh, you can't can you! GJ!

QuoteSounds like you're still in that phase to me. "Tis better to have loved and lost then never loved at all."

Incorrect, it's better to know a lie than to blindly follow one. And love has nothing to do with this discussion.

QuoteWhich source from "The Orthodoxy" are you referring to?

The origin of the Bible can be summed-up as follows: "A mere translation of a translation of an interpretation of an oral tradition" This is essentially true.  Translations such as the King James Version are derived from existing copies of ancient manuscripts such as the Hebrew Masoretic Text, or the Textus Receptus , and are not translations of texts translated from other interpretations.

The other problem you have is this:

The Bible is God's letter to humanity collected into 66 books written by 40 divinely inspired writers over a period of over 1,600 years. So it's pretty damn funny when you read the bible. The bible itself is a assumed as GOD's Word! Please feel free to authenticate that! .. What's worse, religious people try to authenticate it through vague prophecies. Talk about gullible! It get's worse when many of the prophecies fail to come to be (such as many prophecies surrounding Jesus's own birth), or when they proclaim the obvious like the end of the world!.

QuoteSurely you don't have documents younger than the Bible in mind?  If you have more ancient sources that have parallels with the Bible, I'd love to read them.

Go read up on other religions far more ancient than Christianity son! Hello! Even the nativity scenes are similar to that of Egyptian nativity scenes (as a small example).

QuoteI'm not sure how it works but I assure you, my conversion from atheism wasn't because I somehow got brainwashed as an adult.

Then you won't be afraid to read some books on the mechanics of brainwashing and subliminal programming and then actually re-read the bible or observe how religion operates on a daily basis. If you really are so sure about your position you won't have much to worry about.

QuoteIf anyone comes across as a rabid, fundamentalist with hints of having been brainwashed, I think it's you my friend. You obviously have no clue how it works, since you've misapplied the label and certainly the methodology.

I'm not rabid, I'm being very direct with you. And any animosity shown here in this thread is due to your circular self-invented avoiding arguments, or preaching. Not once have you actually addressed any points made here with any sort of honesty. When you can manage to drop the act and actually engage a discussion without being dishonest, you let me know.

QuoteBTW Your regurgitating a tired rhetoric that has been debunked by even the most radical Biblical critics doesn't endear you to anyone  such as myself.

BTW your regurgitating circular arguments. And sorry, nothing I've stated has been debunked by the most radical Biblical critics. Nice try though.

QuoteLOL. I'm not sure how it works but I assure you, my conversion from atheism wasn't because I somehow got brainwashed as an adult.  If anyone comes across as a rabid, fundamentalist with hints of having been brainwashed, I think it's you my friend. Your posts reek of it.

I'm not actually atheist by choice, I'm materialist or a realist. You might want to realize that atheism is pretty much automatic attribute of both of those. And on all accounts you have failed to address any arguments I've made without circulating your head in the clouds of irrationality, dishonesty, avoidance, deflection, and nonsense.

-----

So again:

 Much of the stuff you will find in the bible will have parallels in regards to the Egyptian's, and older religions. Even nativity scenes ectra have shown to be pretty similar to Christianity. And I wasn't referring to copy paste vs copying the ideas, stories, and folklore and molding it into the making of the bible itself. Much of what you read in the bible is and was heavily influenced by much older religions. There are reasons why such parallel's exist that are hardly even original. Even Jesus's own story is hardly original! .. For Pete's sake, take the time to actually compare your bible to other ancient religions and literature!

And it might help if you could verify which version of the bible is "authentic"

http://www.allbibles.com/bibleversions.asp (http://www.allbibles.com/bibleversions.asp)

Which one do you read and follow?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"My point was that the button exists on everyone's posts, not just his. It seemed like he was feigning discrimination but didn't even make an attempt to notify the mods to your posts he has a problem with as I'm sure people have with some of his posts.

Maybe he thought to do so might do no good and so didn't until it urked him to this point.  I can see that might have been his POV.

I don't think it matters what his preconceptions were, he should have tested it to verify before publicly accusing the mods and specifically Whitney, of being unfair towards him. It's never good to accuse another person of poor behavior without reasonable evidence.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"My point was that the button exists on everyone's posts, not just his. It seemed like he was feigning discrimination but didn't even make an attempt to notify the mods to your posts he has a problem with as I'm sure people have with some of his posts.

Maybe he thought to do so might do no good and so didn't until it urked him to this point.  I can see that might have been his POV.

I don't think it matters what his preconceptions were, he should have tested it to verify before publicly accusing the mods and specifically Whitney, of being unfair towards him. It's never good to accuse another person of poor behavior without reasonable evidence.

Agreed.  However, people are fallible and sometimes let emotion drive them at some point.  I'm also guilty of this.  I'm not perfect but strive to not fall into this again.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Agreed.  However, people are fallible and sometimes let emotion drive them at some point.  I'm also guilty of this.  I'm not perfect but strive to not fall into this again.

I agree, that is why I offered a reminder instead of once again (I did previously jump to accusations of dishonesty for something that appeared to be blatant plagiarism from Achronos), not giving the benefit of doubt for what could have been an honest mistake.

Quote from: "TheJackel"Should I point out examples in the bible itself then? LOL.. There are plenty examples I can go by to show it's a cult. Hardly a poor historian either because the 300 years of burning wasn't a magical fairy tale, neither were the Crusades.

Funny you should bring those up, as they weren't perpetrated by our church.  Again, "poor historian," and linguist, to boot.  Why must you be provided with even the most basic of information?  From a sociological perspective, Orthodox Christianity, and Christianity in general, are not "cults."   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult)  It's Sociology 101, man - go back to school.

QuoteReally, please verify the core to your bible as being 100% truth. Ahh, you can't can you! GJ!

Straw man; Orthodox Christians don't bring 100% into the equation when comparing the Bible to history.  Your argument - laughable as it is - is that 99% of the bible is false, a point I would contend is worthy of ridicule, and which you surely need to prove rather than assert.

QuoteIncorrect, it's better to know a lie than to blindly follow one. And love has nothing to do with this discussion

There are no blind men (well, very very few, thanks to speech-to-text technology) on an internet discussion, and there's no lie presented by Orthodoxy.  And, since we're talking about faith, Love has everything to do with the discussion.

QuoteBTW Your regurgitating a tired rhetoric that has been debunked by even the most radical Biblical critics doesn't endear you to anyone  such as myself.

I've yet to see a circular argument in here; but I should admit that your tired posts have bored me enough to "change the channel" a number of times.

QuoteAnd sorry, nothing I've stated has been debunked by the most radical Biblical critics. Nice try though.

"We know where the Authors of the bible got their inspirations from, and that was from other religions and folklore/beliefs. It's entirely a cut and paste form of creative writing to which is a text book example of servitude to power."

Let me give you a basic one, since I have neither the time nor inclination to point out to you the volumes of work on the subject: critics have been claiming that Christmas on Dec 25th was in order to take over a pagan holiday; historians have demonstrated that the celebration of Christmas was on Dec 25th at least 1 century before the celebration for Sol Invictus was added to the Winter Solstice.  Christmas has been a big attack point for those who wish to ridicule Christianity; while the "spirit of the holiday" may have been taken over by commercial interests for many people, the date has been "tradition" far longer than pagan celebrations during that period of time, and indeed has likely been a magnet drawing other attention to that season (e.g. the aforementioned feast for Sol Invictus' rise, the over-emphasis on Hannukah, which isn't even a top-5 feast for Judaism, etc.).

QuoteIm not rabid, I'm being very direct with you. And any animosity shown here in this thread is due to your circular self-invented avoiding arguments, or preaching. Not once have you actually addressed any points made here with any sort of honesty. When you can manage to drop the act and actually engage a discussion without being dishonest, you let me know.

There should be no animosity; you bring anger because you don't fully understand what you're arguing against, but you're dead-set against it regardless of the arguments.  If you spent your "Christian" life as a Protestant, you have no clue what historical Christianity is about; even if you were RC, you've got no concept of where the Orthodox Christians are coming from.

You keep claiming you were a Christian; I'm sure your faith was well-informed and well-studied. *chuckle*

People escaped Jonestown when folks started dying.  Yet, thousands and thousands have died for the Christian faith, including over 80 eye-witnesses to what you would have us believe is a hoax (the Resurrection).  Would each of those people die for a lie - not just die, die painful, drawn-out deaths?  Crucifixion, stoning, etc. - that's not lethal injection, or beheading.  Their Christian faith led them to take care of society's undesirables, led them to take care of the extremely ill and poor, and led them to stand firm when others wished to persecute them out of existence.  Say what you will of those who call themselves Christian but are so only in name; there have been many millions of Christians who have raised humanity from barbarism because of the convictions of their faith.  We can go back to our pre-Christian society, if you wish: exposing our undesired children until they die, killing all our political dissidents and prisoners, raping our captives, neglecting our widows, enslaving our orphans, etc.  Of course, since you hold a philosophical position contrary to the majority (i.e. atheism), you'd be among the first on the hemlock list...

QuoteMuch of the stuff you will find in the bible will have parallels in regards to the Egyptian's, and older religions. Even nativity scenes ectra have shown to be pretty similar to Christianity. And I wasn't referring to copy paste vs copying the ideas, stories, and folklore and molding it into the making of the bible itself. Much of what you read in the bible is and was heavily influenced by much older religions. There are reasons why such parallel's exist that are hardly even original. Even Jesus's own story is hardly original! .. For Pete's sake, take the time to actually compare your bible to other ancient religions and literature!

You're attributing to my position beliefs which I have never claimed to hold.  Surely you know that you're doing this, and it really makes me wonder which one of is so unsure of their position!

TheJackel, I'm going to use the plainest language I can muster, ok?  I'll say it slowly too:  Nothing. In. Orthodoxy. Hinges. On. The. Reliability. Of. The. Bible.

The authenticity of the Bible is not what Orthodox appeal to for their tradition.  Since you enjoy accusing me of making things up, I'll quote perhaps the most popular Orthodox theologian of our time, Fr. Thomas Hopko:

"At this point, allow me to reiterate that Orthodoxy is in no way based on the Bible. Nor is it based or derived from a set of oral teachings running parallel to the Bible."

I'm genuinely sorry you spent so much time typing out a vendetta against the Bible only to be met with mild amusement, but that's all you're going to find here.  Attack it all you want, it in no way weakens my position.

QuoteYou're attributing to my position beliefs which I have never claimed to hold. Surely you know that you're doing this, and it really makes me wonder which one of is so unsure of their position!

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6661 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6661)


And I made this just for people like you

http://matt-mattjwest.newsvine.com/_new ... causation- (http://matt-mattjwest.newsvine.com/_news/2011/01/17/5864016-information-the-material-physical-cause-of-causation-)

Quote from: "TheJackel"And I made this just for people like you
http://matt-mattjwest.newsvine.com/_new ... causation- (http://matt-mattjwest.newsvine.com/_news/2011/01/17/5864016-information-the-material-physical-cause-of-causation-)

Information: The material physical Cause of causation (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=6660) as being discussed here on HAF.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

QuoteYou're attributing to my position beliefs which I have never claimed to hold. Surely you know that you're doing this, and it really makes me wonder which one of is so unsure of their position!

http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewto ... f=2&t=6661 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6661)


And I made this just for people like you

http://matt-mattjwest.newsvine.com/_new ... causation- (http://matt-mattjwest.newsvine.com/_news/2011/01/17/5864016-information-the-material-physical-cause-of-causation-)

I have to say that I fail to see the merits of all this wordplay. Since God exists, defining reality to exclude Him is obviously illegitimate.

All the wordplay in your post destroys your objectivity. For example, you begin by defining your position as the "materialist/realist" view. However, I would call the theistic view the "realist" view, because it objectively address the order in nature, human consciousness, rationality, and our responsibility to a moral law. I would call the materialist view the fantastical/magical view as it asserts or implicitly assumes that something comes from nothing, order comes from disorder, and more comes from less. Second, you refer to our view of God as some "magical" being. Obviously Christians do not believe in magic, and the word "magic" is so ill defined that it's hard to even know what you mean.

Finally, I have to say, I don't know if your are addressing creationism (the view the world was created in six days with no evolution), polytheism (the view that there are multiple gods, who are part of the created system), deism (the view that there is a god who ordered everthing then stands back and watches) or monotheism (traditionally, the view that there is one transcendant God who is infinitely beyond the system of created reality and brought all beings with in the created system from non-being to being, and contours to be the cause of created reality's continued existence). I assume that you are not talking about pantheism.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "TheJackel"And I made this just for people like you lol.

Quote from: "TheJackel"Yep, and you still have someone trying to claim nothing can exist as an object, person, place, or thing. It's like people don't even comprehend what the literal definition of nothing is :pop:  phase on that thread and your assertions therein.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "TheJackel"Yep, and you still have someone trying to claim nothing can exist as an object, person, place, or thing. It's like people don't even comprehend what the literal definition of nothing is :pop:  phase on that thread and your assertions therein.

[strike:plfmii66]That's kewl, because he won't win that argument until he can prove nothing as an existing object, person, place or thing to which includes language, concepts, thoughts, ideas, emotions, or even feelings. It keeps ignoring that very basic problem to his argument. The only point he ever had was if energy patterns that are not brainwaves or in the mind constitute as information. That however, was entirely irrelevant to the article I posted :)

Quote from: "Achronos"I have to say that I fail to see the merits of all this wordplay. Since God exists, defining reality to exclude Him is obviously illegitimate.

Exclude? You miss the point. There is no good reason to include any deity in our definition of reality, not least because there's no good reason to suppose that any such entity exists.

QuoteAll the wordplay in your post destroys your objectivity.

As opposed to your bias toward your imaginary friend, which makes you entirely objective.

QuoteFor example, you begin by defining your position as the "materialist/realist" view. However, I would call the theistic view the "realist" view, because it objectively address the order in nature, human consciousness, rationality, and our responsibility to a moral law.

Wibble, wibble, wibble. That's all I got from that. You simply assert this, with no supporting evidence.

QuoteI would call the materialist view the fantastical/magical view as it asserts or implicitly assumes that something comes from nothing,

Errr, no. Only the theist view has anything coming from nothing. The empirical view is that 'nothing' is an invalid and impossible construct. You haven't been keeping up to date with your quantum mechanics, have you? This groundbreaking news is only 70 years old, or so, so pretty new to somebody who thinks that the words of semi-literate nomads constitutes the latest in knowledge.

 

Quoteorder comes from disorder,

Well, if you have any understanding of physics, you might understand why this is a crass bit of misdirection. Order most certainly can come from disorder. In fact, we have a mechanism for it. It's called gravity.

Quoteand more comes from less.

And here we wander into ignorance of thermodynamics to be added to the list of things you don't know anything about. Specifically, the first law of thermodynamics prohibits 'more' coming from 'less', in the form of the prohibition of the creation or destruction of energy.

QuoteSecond, you refer to our view of God as some "magical" being. Obviously Christians do not believe in magic,

Quote from: "The Free Dictionary"mag·ic  (mjk)
n.
1. The art that purports to control or forecast natural events, effects, or forces by invoking the supernatural.
2.
a. The practice of using charms, spells, or rituals to attempt to produce supernatural effects or control events in nature.
b. The charms, spells, and rituals so used.
3. The exercise of sleight of hand or conjuring for entertainment.
4. A mysterious quality of enchantment: "For me the names of those men breathed the magic of the past" (Max Beerbohm).
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or invoking the supernatural: "stubborn unlaid ghost/That breaks his magic chains at curfew time" (John Milton).
2. Possessing distinctive qualities that produce unaccountable or baffling effects.

Seems pretty clear to me. How did your magic man create everything again?

Quoteand the word "magic" is so ill defined that it's hard to even know what you mean.

Unlike 'god' of course, which is so well-defined.

More rectal vindaloo and strawman caricatures of what atheists actually think.

QuoteI have to say that I fail to see the merits of all this wordplay. Since God exists, defining reality to exclude Him is obviously illegitimate.

When someone has no argument, contradict one's self, deny, assert magic here, and claim we excluded an asserted magic thingy here for no reason.

QuoteAll the wordplay in your post destroys your objectivity.

Yeah, everything is just a word play..hmm let's objectively apply that your own arguments. :shake:

QuoteHowever, I would call the theistic view the "realist" view, because it objectively address the order in nature, human consciousness, rationality, and our responsibility to a moral law.

Evidence to support yourself with in any of these cases? Ahh yes, the assertions of creationism based only the same evidence to which evolution is based on! Evidence that reality exists and is complex in nature!   And a rational position isn't asserting magic man Done it from a Carl Sagan's Position!.

QuoteI would call the materialist view the fantastical/magical view as it asserts or implicitly assumes that something comes from nothing,

This tells me you never even read, or bothered to even try to comprehend my posted reply to where it covered that very subject:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6482&start=75#p97016 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6482&start=75#p97016)

If you had read this, you would be facepalming right now.. Especially when I have repeatedly stated that nothing can not be a person, place, or thing in literal context! Existence exists because once again!, non-existence doesn't exist! No entity required, no magical creation needed!

Quoteorder comes from disorder, and more comes from less. Second, you refer to our view of God as some "magical" being. Obviously Christians do not believe in magic, and the word "magic" is so ill defined that it's hard to even know what you mean.

Again failure to understand an argument. You can review order from chaos here:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6482&start=75#p97016 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6482&start=75#p97016)

QuoteFinally, I have to say, I don't know if your are addressing creationism (the view the world was created in six days with no evolution), polytheism (the view that there are multiple gods, who are part of the created system), deism (the view that there is a god who ordered everthing then stands back and watches) or monotheism (traditionally, the view that there is one transcendant God who is infinitely beyond the system of created reality and brought all beings with in the created system from non-being to being, and contours to be the cause of created reality's continued existence). I assume that you are not talking about pantheism.

Watch that video in that link and you might actually figure out the evolution of the Bible. Don't assume I am talking about anything.

QuoteGod who is infinitely beyond the system of created reality and brought all beings with in the created system from non-being to being, and contours to be the cause of created reality's continued existence)

here you are again arguing for the nothing god.. Non by definition means "NO" or "NOT".. Good to know that your GOD is a Non-being! And worse yet, you are trying to make the creation of reality sound as if it's even a logical or even intelligible answer.. translation: GOD exists infinitely outside existence to create existence while you try to profess it as being in existence.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "TheJackel"Yep, and you still have someone trying to claim nothing can exist as an object, person, place, or thing. It's like people don't even comprehend what the literal definition of nothing is :pop:  phase on that thread and your assertions therein.

[strike:3tig7l3w]That's kewl, because he won't win that argument until he can prove nothing as an existing object, person, place or thing to which includes language, concepts, thoughts, ideas, emotions, or even feelings. It keeps ignoring that very basic problem to his argument. The only point he ever had was if energy patterns that are not brainwaves or in the mind constitute as information. That however, was entirely irrelevant to the article I posted :)

I figured something like this would come.  I can't help but notice your demeanor on the other thread defending your stance...quite the opposite when being challenged.  

QuoteI figured something like this would come.  I can't help but notice your demeanor on the other thread defending your stance...quite the opposite when being challenged.  :) And I had invited the challenge, the demeanor was only to encourage the challenge in order to fully debate it until an understanding had come to be realized. He's also correct that I was pushing it a bit tooo far with the term information but also doesn't negate the premise of the article.. Just needs to be corrected a bit after I do some more research.

However, your GOD only conceptually exists in your head and in txt. The object itself doesn't exist.    Unless of course you can prove it like I can prove the existence of a horse.

I read the original link Jackel and it appears you are attempting to explain how "I" can exist in a purely material universe without descending into Nihilism. Such a defense is made by arguing that we do have a purpose after death in that our energy is transplanted into other aspects of the created order. While this is a nice attempt at explaining away the nihilistic conclusions of naturalism, it still falls short for one main reason:

Purpose requires a direction and direction requires a Director.

That in my death my atoms are transfered and I feed worms is a happy accident of evolution, a mere by-product, but certainly not a "purpose." Nor does it avoid nihilism because it points out that only in my annihilation do I serve any purpose; while alive I have no purpose, no "essence" except that which I make for myself.

But the mere idea of there being one substance (physical) is an absurdity as there's no backing for it and it's ultimately illogical. To demonstrate that there's no backing for the idea of there being one substance, we merely look to the statement, "There is only one substance." Now, if such a statement produces knowledge then the statement proves there are two substances and that the mind is immaterial (though it works with the material brain). I can audibly declare "There is only one substance," I can write it, I can sing it, I can put it in a video, and so on. I can shape the knowledge in any formation. Upon learning that "There is only one substance," you gain knowledge while I lose none. That is, you have learned something without me giving anything up. But this doesn't happen with material items - if I have a blue apple and give it to you, I no longer have that same blue apple. Thus, by attempting to present me with something knowledgable in order to prove there is no immaterial substance, you must use the immaterial. This is why such naturalistic arguments are self-defeating and lack backing.

More importantly, were we to ignore the above and grant there is only one substance (physical) then it would be illogical to believe as such, even if true. This might strike you as odd, but bear with me.

If the physical universe is all that exists then it is ultimately guided by natural selection. Natural selection is concerned with one thing - survival. Natural selection doesn't care one iota for the truth of a position, merely whether or not the position leads to the survival of the species. So we look at the belief in a spiritual substance, or more namely, God. If the belief in God doesn't aid in survival then such a belief should have dissipated by now. On the contrary, if the belief in God has aided in survival then we have no reason to argue against such a belief. Either way, the belief becomes epiphenominal for the naturalist and difficult to explain away.

But the atheist might say that a belief in God has in fact aided us in survival in the past, but now only harms us. Rather than avoiding the previous argument, the atheist has only set up a dilemma where he must take on one horn or the other. If God doesn't exist, but the belief in God aids in survival or did at one time, then this serves as proof that natural selection is geared towards survival and not truth gathering - so long as a belief aids in survival, the truth of the belief is irrelevant. If the truth is superfluous to survival and accidental, then it means we cannot trust our cognitive abilities. Our trust in our noetic environment would be thrown off as there would be no way we could justifiably say that a belief in naturalism - or any belief - is rational considering our rationality was bred for survival and not truth gathering.

To see this, imagine walking into a factory that produces widgets. You take pride in noticing that all the widgets are red, but then someone points out to you that there are red lights in the factory, thus making everything appear to be red. Now, it could be that the widgets are red, but you'd have no rational grounds to claim so; any claim that the widgets are actually red, regardless of the reality of them being red, would be a baseless claim, that is, illogical.

So under this naturalistic viewpoint that you present to us we are left with a dilemma and we must take one horn or the other; we must explain how a belief in God (or the immaterial) came about sans natural selection, or we must say that a false belief was created via natural selection. Either way, we lost any true capacity to accept naturalism as a logical position, even if true.

Now, while this doesn't disprove naturalism, it does show the lunacy and untenable nature of naturalism, or the belief in one physical substance. We can prima facie reject naturalism simply on it being untenable and by definition irrational. This leaves the naturalist in envy of the dualist who holds to what is at least a logical position and one that can be validated by universal human experience and observation.

Okay, there are a few misconceptions here that I think I should clear up.

Quote from: "Achronos"But the mere idea of there being one substance (physical) is an absurdity as there's no backing for it and it's ultimately illogical.

This I don't quite understand. We have never found anything nonphysical in the universe, because our universe is physical. Why then would anyone assert that nonphysical things exists. Even ideas in your head are physical processes - networks of neurons.

QuoteThat is, you have learned something without me giving anything up. But this doesn't happen with material items - if I have a blue apple and give it to you, I no longer have that same blue apple. Thus, by attempting to present me with something knowledgable in order to prove there is no immaterial substance, you must use the immaterial. This is why such naturalistic arguments are self-defeating and lack backing.

But that is simply not true, because you're treating knowledge like it is non-physical. Knowledge might not be a substance, but it has physical properties. The human cognome project seeks to do to the brain what the human genome project did to DNA. Through decades of research with millions of participants through various forms of brain scan technology, never have we found a nonphysical process, that includes language and learning. A thought might not be a material item, but it is a physical process. The physical processes of potassium/sodium ion channels and chemical neurotransmitters, the networks they make, are pretty well understood - none of it being supernatural.

QuoteIf the physical universe is all that exists then it is ultimately guided by natural selection.

That is incorrect. The universe is only "guided" by physical laws. There are definite physical laws in atomic chemistry, physics, and mathematics; but biological laws of nature are not concrete laws. They are simply biological processes that function on this planet.

QuoteSo we look at the belief in a spiritual substance, or more namely, God. If the belief in God doesn't aid in survival then such a belief should have dissipated by now. On the contrary, if the belief in God has aided in survival then we have no reason to argue against such a belief. Either way, the belief becomes epiphenominal for the naturalist and difficult to explain away.

There are biological reasons to believe in God. Our human brain is built to understand cause and effect; combine that dynamic with ignorance of primitive cultures, and it is obvious that the ideas of Gods were invented to find a cause and effect relationships to things primitive people didn't understand. Natural forces became Gods. Diseases became Gods. The supernatural explanation of course has faded since then, with a naturalistic point of view. So not only does naturalism explain it, but it also cures it.

QuoteIf God doesn't exist, but the belief in God aids in survival or did at one time, then this serves as proof that natural selection is geared towards survival and not truth gathering.

Natural selection is only the name of the process, not a guiding force. Organisms that are able to adapt, or have certain traits, survive. There is no "truth" or knowledge present in the system. The system does not go toward an end goal. Natural selection is label given to only one process in biology - for example there is artificial selection, or sexual selection.

Quoteso long as a belief aids in survival, the truth of the belief is irrelevant.

Not quite. Truth is relevant to the human condition. We have evolved beyond the shallow drive of just surviving, and we have become a species that values truth. While truth is inconsequential to the universe, it is important to us. You say truth is superfluous to our survival, but from a psychological standpoint, the truth is VERY relevant to our survival. Knowing the cause and effect of something, knowing something is true, allows us to survive. So here I'm not sure where your argument is going.

QuoteSo under this naturalistic viewpoint that you present to us we are left with a dilemma and we must take one horn or the other; we must explain how a belief in God (or the immaterial) came about sans natural selection, or we must say that a false belief was created via natural selection. Either way, we lost any true capacity to accept naturalism as a logical position, even if true.

I did explain how the idea of God was created via natural selection, which has also created false beliefs, in Gods. There have been many ideas of God in the past, all of which are claimed to be false since only a handful of major religions still exist today. So not only has the human brain, from natural selection, created the idea of God, but also made false Gods. The concept of any God is just the same biologically driven thinking of finding causes to an uncontrollable universe. God only exists because some believe it to exist, and they only believe so because someone before them told them, which going all the way back, only happened because something occurred that couldn't have been explained at the time. I'm not sure then where all of this naturalism is illogical comes from. Everything so far has been explained by natural processes. However if the natural process wasn't the answer, someone else would have to demonstrate what it was before claiming to be right.

QuoteThis I don't quite understand. We have never found anything nonphysical in the universe, because our universe is physical. Why then would anyone assert that nonphysical things exists. Even ideas in your head are physical processes - networks of neurons....But that is simply not true, because you're treating knowledge like it is non-physical. Knowledge might not be a substance, but it has physical properties. The human cognome project seeks to do to the brain what the human genome project did to DNA. Through decades of research with millions of participants through various forms of brain scan technology, never have we found a nonphysical process, that includes language and learning. A thought might not be a material item, but it is a physical process. The physical processes of potassium/sodium ion channels and chemical neurotransmitters, the networks they make, are pretty well understood - none of it being supernatural.

The problem with such a statement is that it's begging the question - it assumes that all that exists is the physical and therefore everything has to be a product of the physical. Thus, the scientific discoveries are tainted from the get-go even though they bring about more questions and show the implausibility of naturalism.

You state that knowledge has physical properties, but again I ask, what properties? Certainly knowledge is manifested physically, but knowledge itself, the ding an sich of knowledge, is quite intangible. As I stated, were it material then we would lose something when presenting knowledge. Simply dismissing this with a wave of your hand and saying, "No, it's neuron processes" doesn't constitute a sufficient rebuttal.

As for the project, I'm well aware of such types of projects, but they've all failed thus far to explain the "ghost in the machine." Naturalism is committed to a non-dual explanation of the universe, which significantly hampers them when it comes to the philosophy of the mind. They must treat the issues between body and mind as "brute facts" and say, "evolution did it" even though such issues are sui generis when compared to the naturalist explanation of man. Naturalism takes consciousness for granted and assumes it is a product of evolution, yet cannot provide a sufficient cause within the evolutionary output; after all, we can imagine a world where consciousness does not exist, thus we know that consciousness is not a necessary part of creation.

Thus we have this grand metaphysic provided to us by naturalism that consciousness just doesn't fit into. Consciousness becomes a recalcitrant fact, something that undermines the grand narrative and can't be fit within the grand narrative, yet we know it exists. So we turn to your hypothesis and the hypothesis of many - everything is just a function of the brain.

Yet, this completely lacks any nuanced approach to the immaterial aspects of the human experience. Were we to cover the windows of a car and then look at the engine, we would see a machine without a driver. If we moved one part of the engine, we could get it to rev up. The modern scientist would then declare, "Aha! There is no driver in the machine, only the machine! See, when I touch this part of the engine it revs up! This means that when we see cars driving and turning, it is the machine because the driver is an illusion!" This is essentially the same thing being done when we look at certain patterns in the brain. When scientists see that certain areas are stimulated with certain environments, this shows the effect on the brain, but it still doesn't explain the cause as originating in the brain.

The problem mentioned above is proven by the fact of our awareness. I am aware of my senses, but such a concept is contradictory if we are merely physical; how can the brain be aware of itself if it is purely physical? Removing humans, such an awareness is not duplicated in nature. All my thoughts, my beliefs, my views, my wants, my needs, are aware only to me; no scientist can discover them by opening my brain. So where are they stored? Why can't my mind be read? Why is it that when I die my knowledge goes with me, rather than dumping it into a computer? Where is all of this located?

But moving onto the argument from mereological replacement, we see that we can change the parts of a human without impacting the whole. Were we purely physical beings, we would predict that in changing one part of us (be it a lung, a heart, etc) we would change completely. As it is, we don't. Thus, under a purely physical point of view, the logical conclusion is that all "I" am is a brain. Yet the brain doesn't function without the rest of the body and therefore is dependent upon everything else, making everything essential to the brain's identity (for survival). Yet we just saw that replacing parts doesn't change our identity. Thus, there must be some non-physical identity that keeps us as the whole.

I would encourage you to pick up a copy of J.P. Moreland's Recalcitrant Imago Dei for further study on this issue.

QuoteThat is incorrect. The universe is only "guided" by physical laws. There are definite physical laws in atomic chemistry, physics, and mathematics; but biological laws of nature are not concrete laws. They are simply biological processes that function on this planet.

Then they are concrete for us, which still gets to the point I was making. For us, on this planet, the most important aspect guiding our lives is natural selection - so important that no naturalist would ever advocate that we can deviate from natural selection. It simply is.

Here is where everything gets interesting. You admit that natural selection is only concerned about survival and that God was an invention that aided in that survival via explanatory powers of the natural world when you say:

QuoteThere are biological reasons to believe in God. Our human brain is built to understand cause and effect; combine that dynamic with ignorance of primitive cultures, and it is obvious that the ideas of Gods were invented to find a cause and effect relationships to things primitive people didn't understand. Natural forces became Gods. Diseases became Gods. The supernatural explanation of course has faded since then, with a naturalistic point of view. So not only does naturalism explain it, but it also cures it...Natural selection is only the name of the process, not a guiding force. Organisms that are able to adapt, or have certain traits, survive. There is no "truth" or knowledge present in the system. The system does not go toward an end goal. Natural selection is label given to only one process in biology - for example there is artificial selection, or sexual selection.

(As an aside, natural selection predicts sexual selection, that is, sexual selection falls under the process of natural selection...)

Now you go on to contradict yourself when you say,

QuoteNot quite. Truth is relevant to the human condition. We have evolved beyond the shallow drive of just surviving, and we have become a species that values truth. While truth is inconsequential to the universe, it is important to us. You say truth is superfluous to our survival, but from a psychological standpoint, the truth is VERY relevant to our survival. Knowing the cause and effect of something, knowing something is true, allows us to survive. So here I'm not sure where your argument is going.

...and then turn around again and contradict yourself by saying,

QuoteI did explain how the idea of God was created via natural selection, which has also created false beliefs, in Gods. There have been many ideas of God in the past, all of which are claimed to be false since only a handful of major religions still exist today. So not only has the human brain, from natural selection, created the idea of God, but also made false Gods. The concept of any God is just the same biologically driven thinking of finding causes to an uncontrollable universe. God only exists because some believe it to exist, and they only believe so because someone before them told them, which going all the way back, only happened because something occurred that couldn't have been explained at the time. I'm not sure then where all of this naturalism is illogical comes from. Everything so far has been explained by natural processes. However if the natural process wasn't the answer, someone else would have to demonstrate what it was before claiming to be right.

So you fall right into the trap I set - you have proven that believing in naturalism is illogical and untenable. Again, you say, "Well we've evolved beyond that." How do you know? How do you know that's not just a survival mechanism causing you to believe we've moved beyond it?

Regardless of your subjective and anecdotal answer, the fact is that discovering the truth isn't necessary to us as a species. You can't say that a belief in God was formed as a survival mechanism and then turn around and say that truth is essential for our species survival. Those two statements contradict each other. If God doesn't exist, but belief in Him was necessary for survival, then knowing the truth is not essential for our survival, meaning there is no reason to trust in our cognitive abilities because they will lead us to believe things that aid in our survival, but are not true.

Were this a debate, this would be the case of "game, set, match." You bit right into what I was saying and proved how naturalism is illogical. However, I would implore that you get over your bias against Christianity and theism in general and actually contemplate what you have read today. I beg of you to research this issue beyond typing it into . Go read books on this subject, real books by real philosophers, not some hack-job done by a Richard Dawkins or a Kirk Cameron

Quote from: "Achronos"The problem with such a statement is that it's begging the question - it assumes that all that exists is the physical and therefore everything has to be a product of the physical. Thus, the scientific discoveries are tainted from the get-go even though they bring about more questions and show the implausibility of naturalism.

Scientific discoveries are not tainted. How do you even get that idea? Because a field of inquiry stays within the boundaries of the physical universe, doesn't mean there aren't other things out there. Science doesn't touch religion because science cannot go beyond the physical. Implausibility is not a problem because, so far, 100% of our universe has been observed as physical. It's not that I deny that there might be something nonphysical, but the better question is, why would I accept it when 0% of our universe has been identified as nonphysical?

QuoteYou state that knowledge has physical properties, but again I ask, what properties? Certainly knowledge is manifested physically, but knowledge itself, the ding an sich of knowledge, is quite intangible. As I stated, were it material then we would lose something when presenting knowledge. Simply dismissing this with a wave of your hand and saying, "No, it's neuron processes" doesn't constitute a sufficient rebuttal.

Not everything is lost when it has been given up. There is such a thing as replication. In your analogy, nothing can be created, things can only be passed on. The physical manifestation of knowledge are quite clear in the robust growth of dendritic connections within the human brain. To learn something and retain knowledge then becomes a function of the size of the neural network. You say it's intangible, but why do you say so? You say it doesn't because you assume so. Learning and communication, creativity, etc, are functions of the brain. One doesn't have to give up anything like it is a resource. It's a difficult concept for first grasp, but do computers lose anything by sharing information wirelessly? No, then obvious computers must be nonphysical, or supernatural, dare I even say magical?

QuoteAs for the project, I'm well aware of such types of projects, but they've all failed thus far to explain the "ghost in the machine." Naturalism is committed to a non-dual explanation of the universe, which significantly hampers them when it comes to the philosophy of the mind.

Actually, it doesn't because the mind (or consciousness) is a function of the brain - a physical object. Without the brain, the consciousness cannot survive in the physical world. Now you dismissing naturalism because it cannot explain something is an argument from ignorance: we haven't learned everything about something, that thing must not be true. You on the other hand, say naturalism is not true, yet you cannot establish that supernaturalism IS true. Nobody has ever observed the soul, or angels/demons, fairies, psychics, magic, etc. So once again, the supernaturalistic explanation in a 100% physical universe is lacking evidence. It is because it lacks evidence that I find it false, not that I dogmatically defend naturalism.

QuoteNaturalism takes consciousness for granted and assumes it is a product of evolution, yet cannot provide a sufficient cause within the evolutionary output; after all, we can imagine a world where consciousness does not exist, thus we know that consciousness is not a necessary part of creation.

Woah, hold on, have you actually looked at the evolutionary perspective on consciousness, or have you just said there is none because you personally haven't seen it? There are tons of resources out there on human consciousness. Properly defining it would be particularly nice, however depending on who you ask, consciousness may also be only an illusion. Until we can better understand the brain, there can be no consensus of what consciousness is, or where it comes from. That means you cannot say that there IS a supernatural aspect until you demonstrate it, and I cannot say that there is definitely none. I can however say that because everything else in the entire universe is physical, that consciousness is probably as well, if it even exists. Call that an assumption if you like, but it is far meeker than the assumption you're making.

QuoteThus we have this grand metaphysic provided to us by naturalism that consciousness just doesn't fit into. Consciousness becomes a recalcitrant fact, something that undermines the grand narrative and can't be fit within the grand narrative, yet we know it exists. So we turn to your hypothesis and the hypothesis of many - everything is just a function of the brain.

Because why would you think anything else? This whole universe is occurring inside your brain. And after that brain dies, every single function of the personality, emotions, cognitions, sensations and physical motor functions cease. This is not an opinion, but a verifiable fact. Every aspect of a body can be removed and replaced, yet the person keeps themselves, yet if that brain were removed, even select parts of it, the human would cease being that human.

QuoteWhen scientists see that certain areas are stimulated with certain environments, this shows the effect on the brain, but it still doesn't explain the cause as originating in the brain.

And you saying that the unknown is NOT physical is an argument from ignorance. Because we don't know something, you cannot say it is material or supernatural. I can say that everything else so far, without exception, has been material. Personally, I'm putting my bet on material.

QuoteI am aware of my senses, but such a concept is contradictory if we are merely physical [woah, what?]; how can the brain be aware of itself if it is purely physical? Removing humans, such an awareness is not duplicated in nature. All my thoughts, my beliefs, my views, my wants, my needs, are aware only to me; no scientist can discover them by opening my brain. So where are they stored? Why can't my mind be read? Why is it that when I die my knowledge goes with me, rather than dumping it into a computer? Where is all of this located?

First, self awareness is a very physical process, and we've identified it in other species. The basic litmus test of self awareness is showing an animal their reflection. If they can recognize it as themselves, then they know have a basic concept of what they look like, and who they are. Fun fact, dolphins, (some) apes, and even magpies are self aware. Even more fun fact, some humans before the age of two are NOT self aware. Whatever self awareness is, it is not solely part of the human condition. Secondly, with enough technology, it is possible that we might be able to map out every neuron in your brain, essentially reading you thoughts. We can even do it now at a very basic level. Where is all of it located?; in various parts of the brain. Before you start claiming that we have no naturalistic explanation, I would encourage you to actually look up the naturalistic explanations.

QuoteBut moving onto the argument from mereological replacement, we see that we can change the parts of a human without impacting the whole. Were we purely physical beings, we would predict that in changing one part of us (be it a lung, a heart, etc) we would change completely. As it is, we don't. Thus, under a purely physical point of view, the logical conclusion is that all "I" am is a brain. Yet the brain doesn't function without the rest of the body and therefore is dependent upon everything else, making everything essential to the brain's identity (for survival). Yet we just saw that replacing parts doesn't change our identity. Thus, there must be some non-physical identity that keeps us as the whole.

Whaaat? This just baffles me. Every part of our body operates at a physical level. Talk to any doctor, and they'll tell you that everything is run by chemistry. We can remove an arm, and the human is still in the physical universe. We can do heart, liver, kidney transplants, and the human does not change their personality. However if you give the human specific chemicals that affect parts of their brain, like say dopamine, not only will their personality change, but their physical body will too. These chemicals are also physical. I have NO idea why you think there is a non-physical part of the body, because every part of the body is PHYSICAL. The brain could survive on its own if it were hypothetically hooked up to a machine to keep it alive. Such an existence without sensations would be quite a dreary one, but it is possible.

QuoteThen they are concrete for us, which still gets to the point I was making. For us, on this planet, the most important aspect guiding our lives is natural selection - so important that no naturalist would ever advocate that we can deviate from natural selection. It simply is.

But we have deviated from natural selection. I'm beginning to think that you are getting the wrong idea of natural selection. Natural selection is the process by which the environment causes certain adaptations to survive. Now because we humans have been able to modify our environment, we essentially mitigate the effects of natural selection. For example we allow sickly people to survive and reproduce, going against natural selection, because their value to us as humans is worth keeping them in the gene pool. There is a whole different process called artificial selection that we use, sometimes without even recognizing it.

Quote(As an aside, natural selection predicts sexual selection, that is, sexual selection falls under the process of natural selection...)

Natural selection is the environment selection specific traits. Sexual selection is the mating process selecting certain traits. They are not one in the same, and sometimes they work against each other. The male peacock for example has adaptations that would cause him to die by natural selection, but they are kept going by sexual selection.

QuoteSo you fall right into the trap I set

Hold on there Jethro, not quite. You seem to miss the distinction I'm making. Our species was built upon the foundation of finding cause and effect for things in our universe. At present, our species values truth above some things. The idea of religion is not truth, but only a remnant of our primitive past when the urge to find cause and effect trumped the urge to find truth. However I think you keep confusing naturalism with natural selection. They are not the same thing. Even if we evolved a certain way, it still means that the universe is still, so far, completely physical. You're making a shell game by trying to convolute the definitions of natural selection and naturalism. As I said, they are not the same thing.

QuoteYou have proven that believing in naturalism is illogical and untenable. Again, you say, "Well we've evolved beyond that." How do you know? How do you know that's not just a survival mechanism causing you to believe we've moved beyond it?

And how have I done that? How have I shown that the universe is not entirely physical? I'm not sure how you give out points, but you're fairly far behind simply because of the astounding falseness of the assertions you've made. You are making assumptions on the universe based only on your limited experience. You so far have not defeated naturalism.

QuoteThe fact is that discovering the truth isn't necessary to us as a species.

Who said it was necessary? I said our species valued truth. You're so quick to claim victory, when your claim attacks nothing I said. Please reread what I wrote.

QuoteYou can't say that a belief in God was formed as a survival mechanism and then turn around and say that truth is essential for our species survival. Those two statements contradict each other. If God doesn't exist, but belief in Him was necessary for survival, then knowing the truth is not essential for our survival, meaning there is no reason to trust in our cognitive abilities because they will lead us to believe things that aid in our survival, but are not true.

Well, like I said, I never said it was essential to our survival. I said we valued truth. Obviously it isn't absolutely necessary for our survival because humans have believed things that were not true - namely religion. You seem to think my statements contradict each other, but you didn't read my statements. And finally, even if they did, that would not refute naturalism.

QuoteWere this a debate, this would be the case of "game, set, match."

Yeah, not quite. You should go back and read what I said; not defeat your interpretation of what I said. *sigh* And finally, look up naturalism, and try to find points against it. The arguments of naturalism are not contradictory, only what you think I said of natural selection (not even remotely naturalism). I doubt this is a case of game, set, match.. The points you've made, I've matched. The points I've made, you haven't. You think you caught me in a contradiction, but that was a fault of your reading comprehension. You say that the contradiction disproved naturalism, when you didn't address the points of naturalism. I'm beginning to think you don't know what natural selection is - or naturalism for that matter. Some things you were just flat out wrong (ex: self awareness, sexual selection, and you didn't even touch artificial selection). If you want to bring your A game, actually match my points and explain why they're wrong.

Quote from: "Achronos"The problem with such a statement is that it's begging the question - it assumes that all that exists is the physical and therefore everything has to be a product of the physical. Thus, the scientific discoveries are tainted from the get-go even though they bring about more questions and show the implausibility of naturalism.

It's the reverse. You assume that something does exist beyond the physical. Until you can prove something does, you're the one making assumptions.

Event_Horizon you are missing Effecient Causality and the related Law of Sufficient Reason.

Essentially, it's the problem both of modern atheism and modern apologetics; hardly anyone actually reads experts in the field, so their arguments generally are off target (this stands for both Christians and atheists).

Anyway, I'm working on a reply E_H, though it will probably be my last one as I generally don't have a lot of time to spend on long internet debates where there are no rules and there are no ends...but it does provide a nice distraction from editing my manuscript.

QuoteScientific discoveries are not tainted. How do you even get that idea? Because a field of inquiry stays within the boundaries of the physical universe, doesn't mean there aren't other things out there. Science doesn't touch religion because science cannot go beyond the physical. Implausibility is not a problem because, so far, 100% of our universe has been observed as physical. It's not that I deny that there might be something nonphysical, but the better question is, why would I accept it when 0% of our universe has been identified as nonphysical?

This is what I mean by “tainted,” it’s begging the question. It takes the conclusion, “All things are material” and injects it into the premise “There is a material cause for everything.” It automatically closes itself off to an immaterial causality. Thus, no matter what the theist argues, he is left at a disadvantage.

Furthermore, what you are proposing comes dangerously close to logical positivism, which has been proven to be a dead belief because it’s self-refuting. If you are saying that knowledge can only be constituted by what is observable, then I think I’ve found the problem in your reasoning.

QuoteNot everything is lost when it has been given up. There is such a thing as replication. In your analogy, nothing can be created, things can only be passed on. The physical manifestation of knowledge are quite clear in the robust growth of dendritic connections within the human brain. To learn something and retain knowledge then becomes a function of the size of the neural network. You say it's intangible, but why do you say so? You say it doesn't because you assume so. Learning and communication, creativity, etc, are functions of the brain. One doesn't have to give up anything like it is a resource. It's a difficult concept for first grasp, but do computers lose anything by sharing information wirelessly? No, then obvious computers must be nonphysical, or supernatural, dare I even say magical?

This is a straw man fallacy; you’re misrepresenting my argument, possibly because you may not understand it because I didn’t explain it that way.
The best way to explain it is to look at computers and ask, “Are computers immaterial?” Obviously they aren’t. So would this mean that information is also material? Not at all, because you’re committing the fallacy of equivocation; you’re assuming that because computers can pass information and computers are physical, information must also be physical. However, information is not an essential aspect of computers. In other words, one can conceivably have a computer that contains no information (via nothing being programmed onto it). In fact, your analogy turns on you and actually aids my position.

The question is, “What is information?” If information is material then we should be able to take it and put it under the microscope. The statement, “This is a material statement” should be able to fit under the microscope. But we can only do so when we give a physical manifestation to the idea “This is a material statement.” This is because (and this is where the clarification would have aided you in understanding what I was saying) ideas are inherently immaterial. While ideas can be presented in different physical aspects â€" and must if we are to share ideas â€" the idea itself is immaterial, which allows it to be put into different physical forms. For instance, right now you are reading this idea via the reflections of light, a purely physical process. Were we in person, you would know of the idea via sound waves being constructed in a certain way that makes the idea intelligible to you.

All of this indicates that the idea, in its essential self, is immaterial whereas it does require a material format in order to be understood and shared. However, the form of the idea can change, indicating that while the essential idea itself (the ding an sich of the idea) remains unchanged, the form changed drastically.

That is what is meant when I say that an idea or knowledge is immaterial. To say, “Well this is all a process of the brain” is an incomplete statement. Yes, while the brain uses physical functions to interpret and process, there is nothing to indicate that the brain is the cause of the processes rather than the effects of a cause. To assert otherwise is to beg the question.

Now before you turn this on me and say that I am assuming otherwise, let me state that I am not. Merely I am saying that you can’t use the conclusion I am attacking to support your premises. I am attacking x and stating that y used as a justification of x doesn’t work. This doesn’t mean you can turn around and uplift y to justify x, because that is begging the question.

QuoteActually, it doesn't because the mind (or consciousness) is a function of the brain - a physical object. Without the brain, the consciousness cannot survive in the physical world. Now you dismissing naturalism because it cannot explain something is an argument from ignorance: we haven't learned everything about something, that thing must not be true. You on the other hand, say naturalism is not true, yet you cannot establish that supernaturalism IS true. Nobody has ever observed the soul, or angels/demons, fairies, psychics, magic, etc. So once again, the supernaturalistic explanation in a 100% physical universe is lacking evidence. It is because it lacks evidence that I find it false, not that I dogmatically defend naturalism.

Again, this is more question begging. You stated that consciousness is a product of the brain de facto. But that’s what I’m debating, so you’re asserting the contention as a fact, meaning that it’s quite impossible to prove otherwise, hence the accusation of question begging.

As for an argument from ignorance, I don’t fall into that fallacy at all. I’m saying that it is impossible for naturalism to explain certain things. This would mean that if we could ever explain consciousness as something that actually exists, naturalism couldn’t account for it by nature of what naturalism teaches. That’s not an argument from ignorance at all; rather the converse is true. To say, “Well we haven’t discovered it yet” is the actual argument from ignorance because it’s saying, “Yeah, we can’t explain it, but we will.” In other words, though there is no answer, nor any reason to believe that naturalism can by its nature beget an answer, you hold blind faith that an answer will come about (though any such answer would undermine naturalism). That is, by definition, the argument from ignorance.

What I’m arguing is that certain aspects of humans are beyond the explanatory powers of naturalism while they are predicted by cognitive realism. To simply assert that naturalism is true and use it as a defeater is circular â€" you might as well argue the Bible is infallible because the Bible says it’s infallible. It’s the same type of argument.

QuoteWoah, hold on, have you actually looked at the evolutionary perspective on consciousness, or have you just said there is none because you personally haven't seen it? There are tons of resources out there on human consciousness. Properly defining it would be particularly nice, however depending on who you ask, consciousness may also be only an illusion. Until we can better understand the brain, there can be no consensus of what consciousness is, or where it comes from. That means you cannot say that there IS a supernatural aspect until you demonstrate it, and I cannot say that there is definitely none. I can however say that because everything else in the entire universe is physical, that consciousness is probably as well, if it even exists. Call that an assumption if you like, but it is far meeker than the assumption you're making.

Admittedly, I am not an expert on the philosophy of mind. However, it did compose a major section of my degree and graduate studies, so while I’m not an expert, I am familiar with it. Notably, I am familiar with the works of Jaegwon Kim, Roderick Chisholm, John Searle, Daniel Dennett, Frank Jackson, Thomas Nagel, and others. My understanding of naturalism in relation to philosophy of the mind comes from them, so if you disagree with my summation of the naturalistic argument, you should take it up with the naturalists.

As for taking on meek assumptions, again your creating a fallacy (composition). You’re assuming that because some parts of the universe are physical, all of existence itself has to be physical as well. Yet, consciousness is but one defeater for such a fallacious way of thinking; simply waving it off as an illusion doesn’t work because such a teaching is self-defeating (one must be conscious in order to say that it’s an illusion).
The idea of consciousness as an illusion comes from the view that only material states can be validated in the third person (as an observer). Since consciousness is a first person activity, logical positivists have proposed the theory that consciousness is an illusion since it can’t be properly observed and tested via the scientific method. The illogical and self-defeating nature of logical positivism aside, such a stance is a priori preposterous. Let me explain.

You can search through any textbook in chemistry or physics and you will not discover anything that explains consciousness as a part of matter. We do not see any other aspect of the material universe begetting consciousness. This is compounded by our own debate â€" you are arguing that my beliefs are false. But let me ask you, is the moon false? Is the Sun false? Are atoms false? The answer is that they are neither true nor false. But if consciousness is an illusion then ideas are matters of material consideration, which in turn means that ideas cannot be true or false; they can simply be (such as the moon, atoms, or the Sun). To assert otherwise is a case of special pleading.

In order to explain anything about humans, we must do so in a personal fashion and not a mechanistic manner. If Peter desired to stab Paul, then we would explain this in a personal manner and not a mechanistic manner. We wouldn’t say that Peter’s desire was a mechanistic response (with exception to self-defense, but let us say that Peter killed Paul because he didn’t like Paul’s tie) because if we did say that Peter’s act was mechanistic, then how could we properly send him to prison or hold him accountable for his crime? After all, the real fault lays with Paul for wearing a tie that would incite people to murder; but then again, if consciousness is an illusion then Paul only chose that tie because biology had guided him to choose that tie, so there was no real choice involved.

So from just an a priori view of humanity, we know that consciousness isn’t an illusion because we experience it on a daily basis. While that might make the logical positivists and empiricists cringe, I simply point them back to their corners and tell them to explain their self-refuting epistemology before they come out of their rooms.

QuoteBecause why would you think anything else? This whole universe is occurring inside your brain. And after that brain dies, every single function of the personality, emotions, cognitions, sensations and physical motor functions cease. This is not an opinion, but a verifiable fact. Every aspect of a body can be removed and replaced, yet the person keeps themselves, yet if that brain were removed, even select parts of it, the human would cease being that human.

I agree that the brain is essential to human survival, but this doesn’t prove that the brain is the central aspect of everything. An engine is essential to the survival of a car, but for the car to operate and drive correctly it needs a driver, who doesn’t need the car. Thus, the driver is essential to the proper function of the car, but the car is not essential to the proper function of the driver. This would be akin to the dualistic argument for human persons (though it might frustrate Aquinas).

But my explanation is covered above.

QuoteAnd you saying that the unknown is NOT physical is an argument from ignorance. Because we don't know something, you cannot say it is material or supernatural. I can say that everything else so far, without exception, has been material. Personally, I'm putting my bet on material.

More straw man and question begging. What I am saying is that it is beyond the explanatory power of naturalism to explain certain aspects of human existence. I’m saying that certain aspects of human existence contradict naturalism and therefore naturalism can never truly explain it. Now, if naturalism is false, then supernaturalism must be true (in some form). When you have an either/or and it is proven to be an either/or with no third option, if one option is eliminated as a viable way to describe reality, the other option must be true by processes of elimination.

To be honest, I really don’t have the time to go through the rest of the post. As it stands, even if I did I would merely be using longer sentences to justify my claims and I fear you would come back and take it one line at a time (thus ignoring the broader context).

Generally, I have no problem going back and forth so long as the discussion is friendly, concise, and going somewhere. So I leave you the final word, but I would implore you to go out there and look up Richard Swinburne’s “Evolution of the Soul.” Please, read books, not the internet.

Quote from: "Achronos"This is what I mean by “tainted,” it’s begging the question. It takes the conclusion, “All things are material” and injects it into the premise “There is a material cause for everything.” It automatically closes itself off to an immaterial causality. Thus, no matter what the theist argues, he is left at a disadvantage.

Furthermore, what you are proposing comes dangerously close to logical positivism, which has been proven to be a dead belief because it’s self-refuting. If you are saying that knowledge can only be constituted by what is observable, then I think I’ve found the problem in your reasoning.

Unless you're referring to social sciences this statement is flat out wrong. Please reference otherwise. Prove what you are saying.

QuoteSo I leave you the final word, but I would implore you to go out there and look up Richard Swinburne’s “Evolution of the Soul.” Please, read books, not the internet.

I read a lot of books and I have to tell ya: There's nothing magical in its ink or papers that keeps the writer from lying or being incapable of err. Or for that matter making themselves look as silly any fool with a keyboard. Especially when it comes to Christian apologetics.

Quote from: "The Lying Wikipedia"When [Swinburne] tried to explain Holocaust as a God's way of giving Jews the opportunity to be brave and noble, Atkins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Atkins) growled: "May you rot in hell".

By the way, if you're saying some things are immaterial and you can prove it, by all means accomplish what modern sciecne has never been able to do, on an internet forum.  

Quote from: "Achronos"This is what I mean by “tainted,” it’s begging the question. It takes the conclusion, “All things are material” and injects it into the premise “There is a material cause for everything.” It automatically closes itself off to an immaterial causality. Thus, no matter what the theist argues, he is left at a disadvantage.

Of course the theist is left at a disadvantage because none of what we found so far is supernatural, and yet the theist argues for a supernatural universe. The burden of proof is on the theist (or supernaturalist). Everything the naturalist has predicted has been consistent with their premises. I can assume that we live in an all material universe, and that could indeed be wrong at some point, but everything so far as been material. The assumption you make however is much more egregious because you assume something exists despite no evidence for it in a universe that has astounding evidence for the contrary.

QuoteThe best way to explain it is to look at computers and ask, “Are computers immaterial?” Obviously they aren’t. So would this mean that information is also material? Not at all, because you’re committing the fallacy of equivocation; you’re assuming that because computers can pass information and computers are physical, information must also be physical.

I know the information passed between the computers is physical, and we know how it works. I’m not saying that because the computer is physical that the part of the computer is also physical, but that we know the information passed is physical in and of itself. And what is your explanation? That it’s not a physical process because there is no material that you can hold in your hand or see under a microscope?

QuoteThat is what is meant when I say that an idea or knowledge is immaterial. To say, “Well this is all a process of the brain” is an incomplete statement. Yes, while the brain uses physical functions to interpret and process, there is nothing to indicate that the brain is the cause of the processes rather than the effects of a cause. To assert otherwise is to beg the question.

Now before you turn this on me and say that I am assuming otherwise

But you ARE assuming because you don’t know if the brain is the cause or the effect and you assume there is something nonphysical about it. You say that knowledge is immaterial, yet you don’t understand how brain processes, stores, categorizes, and changes information. There is astounding amounts of research that shows that the brain is the cause of such things and nothing to the contrary. I can give the brain dopamine inhibitors to such a degree that a person shows signs of schizophrenia. Obviously the chemicals caused the brain to change, and therefore express certain psychological traits. The schizophrenia didn’t change the brain, the brain caused the schizophrenia. I can also remove parts of your brain and you will be unable to perform certain functions, like inhibition control, or form memories. The brain is the seat of everything, and taking it away causes everything else to stop. So yes, according to new research, the brain is the cause. You’re trying to argue exceptionally old points of mind/brain dualism which have been addressed and are currently being eroded by cognitive neuroscience.

QuoteAgain, this is more question begging. You stated that consciousness is a product of the brain de facto. But that’s what I’m debating, so you’re asserting the contention as a fact, meaning that it’s quite impossible to prove otherwise, hence the accusation of question begging.

It’s not that I’m begging the question, it’s just that I have a degree in psychology and you don’t understand the physical properties of the brain. Simply because you don't know something that I do doesn't mean that I'm making something up. The evidence supports a consciousness rooted in the brain, so what is your evidence against? We can change the way people think by physical chemicals affecting physical receptors in physical networks of the brain. Once the person dies, the consciousness doesn’t just drift around in a cloud. The person is gone, and so is their consciousness. Everything points to a physical brain and so far there is no evidence to the contrary. So when you say I’m making an assumption, or begging the question, that is just false.

QuoteThis would mean that if we could ever explain consciousness as something that actually exists, naturalism couldn’t account for it by nature of what naturalism teaches.

Then I think we’re arguing on different points because I came into this debate defending naturalism as the idea that depicts reality and the universe as something physical, as in not supernatural. If you’re trying to say that I need to find a root of everything in nature then our points aren’t matching. I am less concerned with how consciousness got there, and more concerned with the workings as such. In either case, if you’re arguing for something other than a physical universe, then you have to show evidence as to why you think so. But once again there's a problem, you simply can't say that nature didn't cause something if you don't know how nature functions.

QuoteYou hold blind faith that an answer will come about (though any such answer would undermine naturalism). That is, by definition, the argument from ignorance.

I have no faith (in anything). I personally make no claim to the existence of the supernatural, as stated in my previous posts, but if I were pressed for an answer, I’d say that judging from the physical makeup of the universe, I would expect the rest of the universe to be physical as well â€" things like the origin of consciousness and the origin of universe itself. Every question scholars have asked so far has been eventually answered by a physical observation, and not a supernatural one. In order for me to accept the contrary, and even for the contrary against naturalism to be true, you need EVIDENCE of such. Which you don’t seem to have. What you are arguing is your interpretations of physical phenomena, or going after things we have little understanding of, and using that against naturalism without putting forward a point of your own.

QuoteYou’re assuming that because some parts of the universe are physical, all of existence itself has to be physical as well.

But in a universe where everything so far is physical, why would I think that someone is not physical? 100% of the universe is physical, and 0% of the universe is not physical. Show me the evidence contrary to that and I will change my mind. I admit I made an assumption, but your assumption is far worse â€" assuming there is something nonphysical in a physical universe.

QuoteWe wouldn’t say that Peter’s desire was a mechanistic response (with exception to self-defense, but let us say that Peter killed Paul because he didn’t like Paul’s tie) because if we did say that Peter’s act was mechanistic, then how could we properly send him to prison or hold him accountable for his crime? After all, the real fault lays with Paul for wearing a tie that would incite people to murder; but then again, if consciousness is an illusion then Paul only chose that tie because biology had guided him to choose that tie, so there was no real choice involved.

Welcome to the conversation psychological behaviorists had sixty years ago. Is there a consensus of how consciousness works? NO. Will we find out? MAYBE. The observations seen over the years shows that our brain is run by very VERY complex circuitry. There are positive feedback loops, and circuits that fight against each other, and there is a constant war between the inhibitory networks in the prefrontal cortex and the emotionally desire driven networks of the limbic system. Some psychologists argued that everything we do is not actually a choice but a calculation within our brains, and that we have no free will (B.F. Skinner, or John Watson, I think). They argued that the idea of free will is a construct of the brain. To function at a higher level, the personality needs to think it’s in control. There is also much more than just our day to day thinking. Waking consciousness is only the top of the pyramid to which countless other processes go on at the base, undetected. Now do I agree with that? I’m not sure. However what does the supernaturalistic explanation have? Well not much. Every function of the body and reception by the senses is done by the brain. So what purpose does something like a soul have? If the soul even exists at all, it is trivial. But mind/brain dualism isn’t anything new. The arguments are pretty old, and they’re turning obsolete by new research.

QuoteI agree that the brain is essential to human survival, but this doesn’t prove that the brain is the central aspect of everything.

The facts say otherwise. Look up the case of Phineas Gage, and how damage to the prefrontal cortex caused personality changes. The brain is the central aspect to everything because it manages everything within our body. You don’t seem to have a very robust understand as to the workings of the brain: from the brainstem controlling heartbeat and respiration, to the occipital lobe controlling sight, or the pituitary gland controlling hormones. Without the brain, we would die; or if we didn't die, we would have no feelings or memories. Every other part of the body can be replaced, but not the brain. As soon as you remove that 3 pound of grey matter, the human stops existence. However if you replaced every other part of the body, perhaps making someone a cyborg, they would keep their personality, memories, and emotions, etc etc. So when you say naturalism can’t explain it, half of that statement is just wrong, and the other half is an argument from ignorance.

QuoteNow, if naturalism is false, then supernaturalism must be true (in some form).

[/quote]

Awww, pretty tricky, but no, supernaturalism is true once evidence for it arises that shows it to be true. If naturalism is false, then naturalism is false.

As it stands, you know a great deal about philosophy, way more than me, but you also understand very little of the processes of psychology, biology and evolution. Naturalism would be very easily refuted if evidence of the supernatural came to light, and it would take much less effort to argue away naturalism then. However you’ve gone and tried to refute naturalism because you see things that cannot be explained by naturalism, to which you should probably look them up. Some things you assert are just downright wrong, and the things we don’t know yet are simply arguments from ignorance.

Every supernaturalistic explanation has been shown to be wrong over the course of scientific inquiry. Why do the planets move? What keeps us on the ground? What causes diseases? What causes psychological disorders? What made the first organisms? Where did we come from? The supernaturalistic explanations have been losing ground for hundreds of years. The base you stand on is eroding, and until you can show something supernatural then supernaturalism is not a viable way to consider reality. As far as naturalism goes, everything we’re been able to observe is natural, and you have not provided evidence for me to think otherwise.

Quote from: "Achronos"This is what I mean by “tainted,” it’s begging the question. It takes the conclusion, “All things are material” and injects it into the premise “There is a material cause for everything.” It automatically closes itself off to an immaterial causality. Thus, no matter what the theist argues, he is left at a disadvantage.

Wrong. It doesn't take any conclusions. It asks the question 'what is reality telling us?' and goes no further. It doesn't discount the immaterial, it sees no good reason to count it. I hope you can see the distinction, Mr 'I've got a PhD in making up shit about made-up entities and a masters in navel-gazing'.

Your complete failure to understand basic logic demonstrates, I think, the lack of anything remotely resembling veracity regarding your claims.

If you covered this part of the misunderstanding, forgive me, but I keep seeing it so I'm going to have to assume it has not been addressed, at least sufficiently.  This probably doesn't either, but I needed to dip my toe into this thread.

Quote from: "Achronos"This is what I mean by “tainted,” it’s begging the question. It takes the conclusion, “All things are material” and injects it into the premise “There is a material cause for everything.” It automatically closes itself off to an immaterial causality. Thus, no matter what the theist argues, he is left at a disadvantage.

I've been an observer for the majority of this thread, but what I'm seeing time and time again is the setting up of a false dichotomy between reality and claims that there exists something outside the realm of reality, though obviously completely ill- or un-defined.

Or as the other descriptions keep putting it: the natural and the supernatural.  Again, that's a false dichotomy.  And there is not a closing off, per-se, of considering immaterial sources since science and naturalism deal with such all the time (see below), the general claims are that there has never been any demonstration of why we really should consider the magical thinking and there has never really been demonstrated repetition sufficient for proof.  [There have been countless claims that do not hold water, such as the recent O'Reilly "The tide comes in, the tide goes out, no miscommunication." example (likely slightly incorrect since I typed it from memory), that are so laughable since naturalism completely demolishes that attempt at providing an example of magic demonstrating itself in our world.]

Quote from: "Achronos"As for taking on meek assumptions, again your creating a fallacy (composition). You’re assuming that because some parts of the universe are physical, all of existence itself has to be physical as well.

This is something that's been talked about so very much in this thread and I believe part of the basic misunderstanding.  Science, naturalism, and truly studying reality do not claim all things studied are necessarily physical (though that also depends on the definition of physical and it appears multiple have been used during this thread): take gravity, or magnetism, or various fields and forces that appear to act at a distance.  Those are not completely understood, particularly the underlying basic properties that might tie them together.  Unlike things made of matter, we cannot do as was mentioned elsewhere in this thread and slice off a piece to store on a slide to come back later and peek at under a microscope.

Where naturalism comes in is that we do not say everything is necessarily of that slice it/store it/magnify it composition, but there is necessarily some repeatable interaction with something that is.  With magnetic fields we can investigate them crudely with iron filings observing the patterns made when introduced to the field, and we can do it multiple times and show others how to perform the same tests to investigate themselves.  Part of science is also devising finer-tuned tests to more deeply probe into the nature of what is being investigated, so there are other tests, meters, scopes that can give quantitative analysis of those not exactly physical yet still very real forces.  Though not exactly physical, they're still very natural parts of reality that can be systematically studied since they do interact with the physical.


Time and again in this thread, there keep being made assertions that there exists some form of super-natural that cannot be studied or measured due to some variety of reasons that never seem to be fully explained.

The two claims related to the supernatural, then, are that it cannot be studied since it is somehow outside of reality, and also that you do somehow know about it in some way and can write about and explain parts of it.  Those two statements contradict each other, though, since your ability to know about it necessitates some form of interaction with the natural world that can be studied by those that actually care to.


Since naturalism and science are merely methodology and process for studying anything and everything we interact with, by definition we can study and probe into it if it has any interaction with the physical universe that we can observe and manipulate.

If that which you are calling the supernatural truly exists and interacts with our universe in any way, then it's truly not supernatural and would merely be part of reality and nature we do not know about yet.  Demonstrate it really exists.  Show others how to demonstrate it exists and interacts with the universe in any way at all.  Those that engage in the magical thinking might not like that doing that demystifies it and removes it from the realm of magical thinking so many people appear to want to exist, but that's part of the nature of truly seeking to understand reality.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"The facts say otherwise. Look up the case of Phineas Gage, and how damage to the prefrontal cortex caused personality changes. The brain is the central aspect to everything because it manages everything within our body. You don’t seem to have a very robust understand as to the workings of the brain: from the brainstem controlling heartbeat and respiration, to the occipital lobe controlling sight, or the pituitary gland controlling hormones. Without the brain, we would die; or if we didn't die, we would have no feelings or memories. Every other part of the body can be replaced, but not the brain. As soon as you remove that 3 pound of grey matter, the human stops existence. However if you replaced every other part of the body, perhaps making someone a cyborg, they would keep their personality, memories, and emotions, etc etc. So when you say naturalism can’t explain it, half of that statement is just wrong, and the other half is an argument from ignorance.

I'm not sure where the Abrahamists placed the soul, Aristotle and others had it in the heart, and other organs had mystical import.
Maybe it is hidden in a secret invisible organ, or disguised in an apparently useless one.
All I can say is think carefully before you allow your appendix to be removed.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"Every other part of the body can be replaced, but not the brain. As soon as you remove that 3 pound of grey matter, the human stops existence. However if you replaced every other part of the body, perhaps making someone a cyborg, they would keep their personality, memories, and emotions, etc etc.

That's changing pretty fast, I read an article a couple weeks ago about work being done on an artificial hippocampus and they're not far from animal trials and say that it won't be long after that for clinical trials on humans. It said the hippocampus will be one of the simpler parts of the brain to replicate in silicon and the easiest to test since once it's implanted the subject will either be able to form new memories or not.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"I'm not sure where the Abrahamists placed the soul, Aristotle and others had it in the heart, and other organs had mystical import.
Maybe it is hidden in a secret invisible organ, or disguised in an apparently useless one.
All I can say is think carefully before you allow your appendix to be removed.

If you can find an organ that gingers are missing you've found where the soul resides.

Quote from: "DJAkuma"That's changing pretty fast, I read an article a couple weeks ago about work being done on an artificial hippocampus and they're not far from animal trials and say that it won't be long after that for clinical trials on humans. It said the hippocampus will be one of the simpler parts of the brain to replicate in silicon and the easiest to test since once it's implanted the subject will either be able to form new memories or not.

That is absolutely fascinating. I've been out of school for about a year, so I don't have access to the latest research. If you have a link to the article I would live to see it. Right now I'm googling "artificial hippocampus" and getting some interesting things.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"

Quote from: "DJAkuma"That's changing pretty fast, I read an article a couple weeks ago about work being done on an artificial hippocampus and they're not far from animal trials and say that it won't be long after that for clinical trials on humans. It said the hippocampus will be one of the simpler parts of the brain to replicate in silicon and the easiest to test since once it's implanted the subject will either be able to form new memories or not.

That is absolutely fascinating. I've been out of school for about a year, so I don't have access to the latest research. If you have a link to the article I would live to see it. Right now I'm googling "artificial hippocampus" and getting some interesting things.

I came across it while looking for something else, if I come across it again I'll post a link, it was some pretty cool stuff.

QuoteAchronos wrote:This is what I mean by “tainted,” it’s begging the question. It takes the conclusion, “All things are material” and injects it into the premise “There is a material cause for everything.” It automatically closes itself off to an immaterial causality. Thus, no matter what the theist argues, he is left at a disadvantage.

Please define the absence of substance or material. It's non-material (no substance).. Hence, "nothing" in the literal context. You can feel free to show me a nothing object, person, place or thing. There is a reason why it automatically closes itself off to immaterial causality because nothing can not be a form of causality in the literal context. You can feel free to reference the definition of "nothing" here:

Nothing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing)

QuoteNothing is a concept that describes the absence of anything. Colloquially, the concept is often used to indicate the lack of anything relevant or significant, or to describe a particularly unimportant thing, event, or object. It is contrasted with something and everything. Nothingness is used more specifically as the state of nonexistence of everything.

Dictionary.com:

- 4 dictionary results
noth·ing
â€, â€,/ˈnʌθɪŋ/ Show Spelled[nuhth-ing] Show IPA
â€"noun
1.
not anything; naught:
2.
no part, share, or trace (usually fol. by of ): God has no evidence to prove it's existence.
3.
something that is nonexistent.
4.
nonexistence
5.
something or someone of no importance or significance:

---

So let's explore the prefix "non":

Dictionary.com:
a prefix meaning “not,” freely used as an English formative, usually with a simple negative force as implying mere negation or absence of something

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/non- (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/non-)
non-
prefix
1. indicating negation / nonexistent

non (nōÌ,n)
adverb, interjection
1. no

Now put those into context of "Non-material". Now feel free to explain how nothing can be an existing object, person, place or thing in literal context.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "Will"The Jolly Green Giant actually exists. I can prove it with verifiable, testable evidence and repeatable testing. I'm not joking. There's a man living outside of Stockholm with gigantism who also has a melanin mutation which makes his skin appear to be a shade of green.

Here (http://underthebutton.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/just-kidding.jpg) is an article about him from the Guardian, and here (http://underthebutton.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/just-kidding.jpg) is a link to the study on gigantism of which he was a volunteer.


Did you click on the links? Did you, for one second, realize that there may be evidence for something which you were simply unaware of? That's because you also understand the concept that one cannot disprove a negative.

I think negatives can be disproved. To use a favorite of Stenger's examples, there are no elephants in Yellowstone Park. Because even if there were you would see the traces they leave behind (footprints, dung, etc.) This is also why I think the monotheistic God has been disproved. He simply did not show up where we would expect him to. Admittedly, Deism is a different story.

I have a different take on that.

I can't disprove that unicorns don't exist but if someone were to come and say they say a unicorn that was part of the universe but not bound by its laws (such as a gravity-defying unicorn) that could then morph into a planet and back again I think one could say that such a thing is disproved based on what we know and not just the absence of evidence. Not only is there no reason not to believe in it but there are reasons not to believe in it, which is exactly my anti theistic take on the god of the bible and personal gods of theists.

A theistic god (whichever one) comes with a load of knowledge claims attached to it which can be and frequently are disproved.

Quote from: "gsaint"Very interesting post. I wish I was here sooner but since I wasn't I just going to slightly mess up you guys flow.

radicalaggrivation Please correct me if I am wrong but this is Epicurus's argument.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?  Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?  Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

This is what I believe. God is both Willing and able to remove evil. So the question is were did evil come from? Evil is disobedience of the rules God setup. I would say that it is started with Love. Love is a choice and God wanted man to love Him to choose Him. God could have made everyone obey Him but since Love requires a decision then we have to actively choose Him. So if we have to choose Him that means that we have an option to not choose Him.

Now lets move on to what I spoke of earlier, the disobedience of God. God requires justice but He is also merciful. So in His mercy He used Jesus as a stand in for all acts of evil committed by anyone. So if you make the decision to choose to give your life to God then He will begin to make you like Him. (No you will not become gods but you will be exactly what you were meant to be...holy)This is not religion this actually allowing God to rule in your life and change who you are. This is a process of learning and growing. This is God's mercy . Once everyone who will accept His offer has then He will enact His justice by removing evil. He will even destroy this earth and remake a new one.

The prevention of evil can not just rest upon God's shoulders but also on those who do evil. God have given us the ability to choose to choose to obey Him or disobey Him. To be evil or allow Him to make us like Him. He is willing to equip us with the ability to not be evil but it must be on His terms and since He made it all who are we to tell Him anything different?

Does god also know everything beforehand? Is god omniscient? How can we have the free will to chose to "love" god if he already knows beforehand if we will or not?

If God was subject to his own rules, he'd never get into heaven.

Quote from: "xSilverPhinx"Does god also know everything beforehand? Is god omniscient? How can we have the free will to chose to "love" god if he already knows beforehand if we will or not?

Are we going back to this?  Knowing *your choices before *you choosing does not force *your choice...it remains *YOUR choice.

Moving on.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "xSilverPhinx"Does god also know everything beforehand? Is god omniscient? How can we have the free will to chose to "love" god if he already knows beforehand if we will or not?

Are we going back to this?  Knowing *your choices before *you choosing does not force *your choice...it remains *YOUR choice.

Moving on.

No, not moving on, because I really want to understand why this makes sense to theists because to me as someone standing outside the theistic box it really doesn't.

Assuming we have the free will to make our own choices...I won't dispute that. An omniscient god knows how this universe will play out till it's end, are you going to tell me that it doesn't include whether or not you'll choose to believe in that god? What is god-given free will in that sort of deterministic universe?

If he already knows what you're going to choose before you choose it but still want to punish you (send you to hell) for a choice that he already knows you're going to make before you're even born, how is he omnibenevolent?  

The whole argument would make more sense in the quantum probalistic frame where paralel universes  diverge after every probable event, but still...how far does god's omniscience go? The word has quite an absolute meaning - god knows everything, and that includes everything.

This Video Is Amazing to say the least:

[youtube:1gxu4tta]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6w2M50_Xdk[/youtube:1gxu4tta]

---

Let's lay out why Omniscience is BS.. Or many other supposed Omni attributes are BS.

unfortunately for Christians, their GOD is literally impossible to exist. I can just simply crush the entire concept using just basic information theory. We can just take a moment to address the Fount of Knowledge:

QuoteSt John of Damascus, The Fount of Knowledge:

    Abstract 1:
    "The uncreate, the unoriginate, the immortal, the bound- less, the eternal, the immaterial, the good, the creative, the just, the enlightening, the unchangeable, the passionless, the uncircumscribed, the uncontained, the unlimited, the indefi- nable, the invisible, the inconceivable, the wanting nothing, the having absolute power and authority, the life-giving, the almighty, the infinitely powerful, the sanctifying and com- municating, the containing and sustaining all things, and the providing for all all these and the like He possesses by His nature. They are not received from any other source; on the contrary, it is His nature that communicates all good to His own creatures in accordance with the capacity of each."

    Abstract 2:
    "And yet again, there is His knowing of all things by a simple act of knowing. And there is His distinctly seeing with His divine, all-seeing, and immaterial eye all things at once"

       1. Omniscient
       2. Boundless
       3. Unlimited
       4. Uncontained
       5. The containing and sustaining of all things
       6. Omnipresent

Thus it can be said that such an argument self-collapses in every area of the supposed attributes given when anyone of them is taken out of the equation by another conflicting attribute, or thing. Especially in the case or state of absolute Omniscience. So here is what it boils down to under information theory:

* I = reference to all the information that gives I an Identity. It's the entire essences of "I am".

So let's see where this entire GOD concept completely falls apart. Especially when concerning "Omniscience".

1) A boundless GOD? Can a boundless GOD be boundless if you are to claim all of us to separate individuals? What boundaries lie between GOD being me, and not being me? If he is uncontained then what separates him from me? If he's unlimited, what limits define GOD apart from who I am?.. If he is omnipresent, where do I exist? If he contains and sustains all things, would he not be existence itself? Thus am I, and everyone else here not the conscious representations of god, or GOD himself?

2) The Christian GOD concept can only ever at best describe existence itself as a whole. You may as well be worshiping yourself.

3) Even solipsism will fail under information theory because consciousness can not exist without cause! Consciousness can not exist without first a base of inquiry that can support it. Thus consciousness requires information, with a system to which has feedback in order to achieve a function of observation.

A: There can be no choice, or decision made without information
B: There can be no consciousness or awareness without information
C: One can not have knowledge without information
D: One can not do anything without information
E: One can not exist without informational value
F: One can not think without information
G: One can not even know one's self exists without information
H: One can not reply, respond, or react without information
I: One can not convey, send, or express a message without information
J: There can be no morals, ethics, or laws without information
K: One can not have or express emotions, or feelings without information
L: One can not have experiences, or experience anything at all without information
M: One can not have a place to exist in order to be existent without information
N: One can not Create, or Design anything without information
O: One can not have the ability to process things without information
P: Intelligence can not exist without information to apply
Q: No system, or process can exist without information
R: Cause and effect can not exist without information

There are 3 fundamental laws that govern cause and effect, information, and energy. These same 3 laws govern consciousness, morals, ethics, laws, emotions, and feelings. So what are they?

POSITIVE
NEGATIVE
NEUTRAL

These are not only the base laws of existence, they are the attributes to everything, and everything we know of is made of energy. thus it's considered under information theory that Energy =/= information as both substance and value. They are two sides of the same coin! And their 3 fundamental properties/attributes/laws are the cause of all causation. Information and energy are thus simply stated as "Cause".

There can only ever be a positive, negative, or neutral;

Action
Reaction
Process
Mathematical equation
Answer
Choice
Decision
Intent
Purpose
Moral
Ethic
Emotion
Feeling
Piece of information
State
Function
Ability
Response
System
Feedback
Opinion
Phenomenon
Condition
Ability
Power
Electric Charge
Selection
Adaptation
Mutation
Transformation
Position
Point of view
Observation
Sensation
Perception
Or the relativity of anything above

So when we look up in the sky, and at existence we can say "Dude, I am you!", I can comprehend you!.

Quote from: "xSilverPhinx"Assuming we have the free will to make our own choices...I won't dispute that. An omniscient god knows how this universe will play out till it's end, are you going to tell me that it doesn't include whether or not you'll choose to believe in that god? What is god-given free will in that sort of deterministic universe?

If he already knows what you're going to choose before you choose it but still want to punish you (send you to hell) for a choice that he already knows you're going to make before you're even born, how is he omnibenevolent?  

The whole argument would make more sense in the quantum probalistic frame where paralel universes  diverge after every probable event, but still...how far does god's omniscience go? The word has quite an absolute meaning - god knows everything, and that includes everything.

It's quite simple... We have free will and make our own choices as you do not dispute.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"It's quite simple... We have free will and make our own choices as you do not dispute.

At least 14 billion years ago god knew I would drink a Coke this morning, would it have been possible for me to not drink a Coke?

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"It's quite simple... We have free will and make our own choices as you do not dispute.

At least 14 billion years ago god knew I would drink a Coke this morning, would it have been possible for me to not drink a Coke?

Yes it is possible you could've drank a Pepsi, or a Mountain Dew, a Rock Star... but YOU CHOSE to drink a Coke.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"It's quite simple... We have free will and make our own choices as you do not dispute.

At least 14 billion years ago god knew I would drink a Coke this morning, would it have been possible for me to not drink a Coke?

Yes it is possible you could've drank a Pepsi, or a Mountain Dew, a Rock Star... but YOU CHOSE to drink a Coke.

So let's say god knew I would drink a Coke, but then I chose to just drink water.

Quote from: "Davin"So let's say god knew I would drink a Coke, but then I chose to just drink water.

God would know you pondered Coke, but drank water.  It's not rocket science.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"So let's say god knew I would drink a Coke, but then I chose to just drink water.

God would know you pondered Coke, but drank water.  It's not rocket science.

So god knew I would drink a Coke, but was wrong because I chose to drink water?

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"So let's say god knew I would drink a Coke, but then I chose to just drink water.

God would know you pondered Coke, but drank water.  It's not rocket science.

So god knew I would drink a Coke, but was wrong because I chose to drink water?

Did you not read my reply?  God simply knows what YOUR CHOICE is.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"God would know you pondered Coke, but drank water.  It's not rocket science.

So god knew I would drink a Coke, but was wrong because I chose to drink water?

Did you not read my reply?  God simply knows what YOUR CHOICE is.

And I can't "choose" anything else.

Quote from: "Davin"And I can't "choose" anything else.

You can choose whatever you're little heart desires.  It's YOUR CHOICE.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Did you not read my reply?  God simply knows what YOUR CHOICE is.

So an omnibenelovant god already knows some people will choose not to beleive in them and already has a special place reserved for those people?

Do you see where the problem is?


Does not compute! Does not compute! Does not compute!

It'n not about whether we have choices in the matter, it's about the possibility of an omnibelevolant, omnipresent and omniscient god existing.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"And I can't "choose" anything else.

You can choose whatever you're little heart desires.  It's YOUR CHOICE.

Then I can choose what god doesn't know I'll choose.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"And I can't "choose" anything else.

You can choose whatever you're little heart desires.  It's YOUR CHOICE.

Then I can choose what god doesn't know I'll choose.

You can choose whatever your heart desires to choose.  It's YOUR CHOICE.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "xSilverPhinx"Assuming we have the free will to make our own choices...I won't dispute that. An omniscient god knows how this universe will play out till it's end, are you going to tell me that it doesn't include whether or not you'll choose to believe in that god? What is god-given free will in that sort of deterministic universe?

If he already knows what you're going to choose before you choose it but still want to punish you (send you to hell) for a choice that he already knows you're going to make before you're even born, how is he omnibenevolent?  

The whole argument would make more sense in the quantum probalistic frame where paralel universes  diverge after every probable event, but still...how far does god's omniscience go? The word has quite an absolute meaning - god knows everything, and that includes everything.

It's quite simple... We have free will and make our own choices as you do not dispute.

You are attempting to place limits on an Omniscient, boundless, limitless, uncontained, container and sustainer of all things things GOD.. Do you not compute the problem with your argument? You clearly do not comprehend the definition of Omniscience.. It's like you are attempting to invent your own limits and rules to your GOD, and invent your own definition of Omniscience to mean something other than what they are clearly being defined as. Do you even understand that such a GOD could only ever at best be the entire sum total of existence itself?   You are so hung up on the argument of "Choice" that you completely ignore addressing the problem, if fact, you intentionally ignore the very heart of the argument as if it doesn't exist.

Quote from: "TheJackel"You are attempting to place limits on an Omniscient, boundless, limitless, uncontained, container and sustainer of all things things GOD.. Do you not compute the problem with your argument? You clearly do not comprehend the definition of Omniscience.. It's like you are attempting to invent your own limits and rules to your GOD, and invent your own definition of Omniscience to mean something other than what they are clearly being defined as. Do you even understand that such a GOD could only ever at best be the entire sum total of existence itself?   You are so hung up on the argument of "Choice" that you completely ignore addressing the problem, if fact, you intentionally ignore the very heart of the argument as if it doesn't exist.

Maybe, because I'm a believer and thus of inferior intelligence, you should clarify Omniscience for me.  (sigh)

Fate/destiny/God's Will and Free Will cannot exist with each other. God's will says that what happens happens because it was deemed necessary and made to happen regardless of one's choice, there fore destroying free will. If Free Will exists then God's will is gone because he does not control anything that we do. Make up your mind people.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "TheJackel"You are attempting to place limits on an Omniscient, boundless, limitless, uncontained, container and sustainer of all things things GOD.. Do you not compute the problem with your argument? You clearly do not comprehend the definition of Omniscience.. It's like you are attempting to invent your own limits and rules to your GOD, and invent your own definition of Omniscience to mean something other than what they are clearly being defined as. Do you even understand that such a GOD could only ever at best be the entire sum total of existence itself?   You are so hung up on the argument of "Choice" that you completely ignore addressing the problem, if fact, you intentionally ignore the very heart of the argument as if it doesn't exist.

Maybe, because I'm a believer and thus of inferior intelligence, you should clarify Omniscience for me.  (sigh)

That is a failed argument.. That's like saying that I believe non-existence in the literal context is a DOG running around my house, and that it exists because it doesn't exist just because I can believe it exists by stringing those words together in a tossed salad. All while ignoring why it's a logical fallacy, and avoiding having to address any argument that addresses the fact that it is. I then have the nerve and pretentiousness to preach it as gospel truth. And in organized religion, to indoctrinate people by preying on their human vulnerabilities, fears, ect into believing it. If you want to believe it, OK.. But coming here to engage in a theological discussion on the subject with the dishonest intent to never actually address the problems with that position is not showing any form of intellectual integrity.

So I will put this in real simple terms:

 The very fact that I exist, or anyone else here exists, will nullify that entire argument of an omniscient, boundless, limitless, container and sustainer of all things, or uncontained GOD. And this just ignores the fact that said GOD would be bound to require information to even have the potential of existing even in a more realistic plausible form.

In regards to free will:

It' would be irrelevant if a GOD existed or not.. Free will would never truly exist.. I could list an infinite number of things that I don't have free will over.. It's best described as restricted will. And just because options exist from which you can choose from does not mean there is a GOD!.. Options exist because there is a whole world around you to choose from! it's a fundamental part about having a consciousness. However your consciousness, or any other for that matter, can not exist without the world to which you exist in, and are apart of! And that includes the very information that makes it all possible.

Quote from: "TheJackel"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "TheJackel"You are attempting to place limits on an Omniscient, boundless, limitless, uncontained, container and sustainer of all things things GOD.. Do you not compute the problem with your argument? You clearly do not comprehend the definition of Omniscience.. It's like you are attempting to invent your own limits and rules to your GOD, and invent your own definition of Omniscience to mean something other than what they are clearly being defined as. Do you even understand that such a GOD could only ever at best be the entire sum total of existence itself?   You are so hung up on the argument of "Choice" that you completely ignore addressing the problem, if fact, you intentionally ignore the very heart of the argument as if it doesn't exist.

Maybe, because I'm a believer and thus of inferior intelligence, you should clarify Omniscience for me.  (sigh)

That is a failed argument.. That's like saying that I believe non-existence in the literal context is a DOG running around my house, and this it exists because it doesn't exist just because I can believe it exists by stringing those words together in a tossed salad. All while ignoring why it's a logical fallacy, and avoiding having to address any argument that addresses the fact that it is. I then have the nerve and pretentiousness to preach it as gospel truth. And in organized religion, to indoctrinate people by preying on their human vulnerabilities, fears, ect into believing it. If you want to believe it, OK.. But coming here to engage in a theological discussion on the subject with the dishonest intent to never actually address the problems with that position is not showing any form of intellectual integrity.

So I will put this in real simple terms:

 The very fact that I exist, or anyone else here exists, will nullify that entire argument of an omniscient, boundless, limitless, container and sustainer of all things, or uncontained GOD. And this just ignores the fact that said GOD would be bound to require information to even have the potential of existing, even in a more realistic plausible form.

In regards to free will:

It' would be irrelevant if a GOD existed or not.. Free will would never truly exist.. I could list an infinite number of things that I don't have free will over.. It's best described as restricted will.

This is your description or definition of Omniscience?

Your free will exists.  You can choose freely.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"You can choose whatever you're little heart desires.  It's YOUR CHOICE.

Then I can choose what god doesn't know I'll choose.

You can choose whatever your heart desires to choose.  It's YOUR CHOICE.

Then I choose what god doesn't know I'll choose which means that god is not omniscient.

QuoteThis is your description or definition of Omniscience?

Your free will exists.  You can choose freely.

You have got to be kidding me.. Is this play ignorance day? I think people forgot to tell me it was ignorance day. Is this where we put our minds on a holiday so we don't have to address the argument intellectually and honestly?

QuoteOmniscience (pronounced /É'mˈnɪsiÉ™ns/)[1] (or omniscient point-of-view in writing) is the capacity to know everything infinitely, or at least everything that can be known about a character including thoughts, feelings, life and the universe, etc.

I'm feeling Déjà vu here of your inability to address what Omniscience means. This isn't open to your own self invention of what you think it means.

A) An Omniscient GOD that infinitely knows everything infinitely would be impossible
B) An Omniscient GOD that knows everything to which does exist, or is knowable could only ever at best be the entire sum total of existence itself.. AKA the Universe, and whatever might be beyond that. Such perhaps infinite number of other Universes..
C) In either Case, I am as knowable as the rest of existence since I am apart of it.. I am at best GOD under such an argument, and that includes everyone else here!

Now apply the definition of Omniscience to terms like boundless, limitless, uncontained, container and sustainer of all things ect. And the obvious should be glaringly in your face as to why such a GOD is ridiculously impossible! Unless you want to worship existence itself as GOD, and thus be worshiping yourself, and everyone else as GOD, you have no means of a logical attempt at claiming a GOD is "Omniscient".  That includes the birds, the bees, aliens, bacteria, snakes, rabbits, all the atoms in your body, your thoughts, your feelings, your emotions, your own consciousness,  or even the dirt you walk on. You may as well Call existence one Giant Mind that worships itself in the ultimate case of Deluded Narcissism.

And Animated Dirt, this isn't to get you to deny a GOD's existence..It's to get you to realize the type of GOD you believe exists, is literally a logical fallacy.. There may yet be a creator out there, but it's not going to be what you want to believe it to be... And if you watch the video I posted, it's purpose is to get you to realize what's real, and what's fallacy. And it doesn't even go to say there is "NO Creator" of our Universe.. And that is because we in science understand that it's a matter of physics, and that we ourselves could perhaps become Creators of Universes beyond our own, if we haven't already done so unknowingly. And if we were to have created a Universe knowingly, or unknowingly, what does that make us? What would that make us? Would we thus be GODS?

Who knows what you wrote...TheJackel

Omniscience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscience) is; Omniscience (pronounced /É'mˈnɪsiÉ™ns/)[1] (or omniscient point-of-view in writing) is the capacity to know everything infinitely, or at least everything that can be known about a character including thoughts, feelings, life and the universe, etc. In monotheism, this ability is attributed to God.

I guess I have to answer my own queries and I suppose you, TheJackel cannot understand that your free will exists in that you are free to choose what you will according to your own findings and according to your own mind.  God has given you that ability.  It does not mean you can literally do anything you want that you logically cannot do.

God's omniscience in regard to you is simply the ability to see what choices you will make because He knows you.  He knows YOU and what makes YOU, YOU.  He knows every individual, not because He programmed each a certain way, but because He knows the YOU that is YOU.  He knows what you will choose and why you will choose that.  His knowledge does not limit your choice to a set path because the path is set by YOU.  He simply knows the path.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"[...]He knows every individual, not because He programmed each a certain way, but because He knows the YOU that is YOU.

So god did not create everything?

Here is another problem with trying to maintain that everyone has free will with a god that knows everything and created everything: if god is omniscient and created everything, then how can you say that this god designed everything (including everyone and what makes them them, which includes what choices they'll make), but did not program everything?

This god could have done things differently and I might have been a believer in god, but chose instead to make sure I was not a believer in god. I'm how this god intended me to be and could be no different. You cannot suppose that a god knows everything a person will choose, while having created the person, and then say that this god had not programmed the person. This is contradictory logic.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"[...]He knows every individual, not because He programmed each a certain way, but because He knows the YOU that is YOU.

So god did not create everything?

Everything but free will.  God cannot create free will.  He gives the ability to think and choose for oneself.

Quote from: "Davin"Here is another problem with trying to maintain that everyone has free will with a god that knows everything and created everything: if god is omniscient and created everything, then how can you say that this god designed everything (including everyone and what makes them them, which includes what choices they'll make), but did not program everything?

It's as difficult as YOU make it seem or think it is.  It's not difficult to understand at all.  God created everything.  His design of the human body works.  His design of the human brain works.  He designed into the brain, cognition.  He could've "programmed" the brain, but He didn't.  We are able to think, reason, interpret, ponder...and ultimately choose between what we see, hear, feel, think...all of our senses define each individual's choice.  WE make our choices.

Quote from: "Davin"This god could have done things differently and I might have been a believer in god, but chose instead to make sure I was not a believer in god. I'm how this god intended me to be and could be no different. You cannot suppose that a god knows everything a person will choose, while having created the person, and then say that this god had not programmed the person. This is contradictory logic.

What is contradictory is to say you don't have choice.  Have you not delved as deeply as YOU WANT to find truth?  YOU have chosen what, when, where, for how long...you search for anything and by THAT you make your choices.  The fact remains, YOU can choose God.  You are not dead yet.  There is still time and time may make the difference.  God knows when, where, how you will die and He knows in what camp of belief you will be in.  The choice is still up to you here and now.  God's knowledge of that day does not cement you today.  When you die, your ability to choose dies with you.  Your fate, if you will, is sealed at death.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Who knows what you wrote...TheJackel

Omniscience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscience) is; Omniscience (pronounced /É'mˈnɪsiÉ™ns/)[1] (or omniscient point-of-view in writing) is the capacity to know everything infinitely, or at least everything that can be known about a character including thoughts, feelings, life and the universe, etc. In monotheism, this ability is attributed to God.

I guess I have to answer my own queries and I suppose you, TheJackel cannot understand that your free will exists in that you are free to choose what you will according to your own findings and according to your own mind.  God has given you that ability.  It does not mean you can literally do anything you want that you logically cannot do.

God's omniscience in regard to you is simply the ability to see what choices you will make because He knows you.  He knows YOU and what makes YOU, YOU.  He knows every individual, not because He programmed each a certain way, but because He knows the YOU that is YOU.  He knows what you will choose and why you will choose that.  His knowledge does not limit your choice to a set path because the path is set by YOU.  He simply knows the path.

This is essentially intentional ignorance and circle jerking in attempt to circumvent the definition of Omniscience, and how its applied in theology, and in regards to said GODS other supposed attributes.. It's like screaming in desperation to ignore what it means. It's like watching you deny reality over and over again because you can't admit being wrong. And you don't even grasp why your argument completely collapses every attribute given to your supposed "GOD". It's thus not actually omniscient in a theological sense, it just only knowing in a particular subject according to you.. It's like knowing 2+2=4.. lol. You are apparently not able to mentally process what nullifies your entire argument. You ignore it dishonestly, and intentionally.

You may as well be a Flat Earhter telling me the Earth is flat while ignoring why it's not.

Quote from: "TheJackel"This is essentially intentional ignorance and circle jerking in attempt to circumvent the definition of Omniscience, and how its applied. It's like screaming in desperation to ignore what it means. It's like watching you deny reality over and over again because you can't admit being wrong. And you don't even grasp why your argument completely collapses every attribute given to your supposed "GOD". It's thus not actually omniscient in a theological sense, it just only knowing in a particular subject according to you.. It's like knowing 2+2=4.. lol. You are apparently not able to mentally process what nullifies your entire argument. You ignore it dishonestly, and intentionally.

Circle jerking?  You keep claiming I'm playing ignorance, yet you haven't defined Omniscience...and now you ADD to it as Theological Omniscience.  On the contrary, I had to go and define it myself.  I've also showed you how you do have the free will to choose and the difference between free will in choosing and free will in doing.  You can choose to accept or reject God.  It is YOUR choice.  You cannot, however, will to be a bird.  That's not logical and not in line with the free will argument.  (You are, however, free to think you're a bird.)

So without going into some rant of lists and thousands of words, define simply what Omniscience is and we can move from there.  It shouldn't be a huge task.  I think a line or two would suffice.

QuoteCircle jerking?

Yes, circle jerking.. That's exactly what you are doing.

QuoteYou keep claiming I'm playing ignorance,

That's because you are, and well demonstrated below.

Quoteyet you haven't defined Omniscience..

 :drool

Quote.and now you ADD to it as Theological Omniscience.

There is a difference between practical omniscience on a subject (such as basic math, or perhaps a game of chicken), and the theological use of omniscience to where the deity is claimed to be literally Omniscient, and have it as an actual attribute of it's nature in relation to all it's other attributes.... For petes sake, visit the damn wiki page on it!

QuoteOn the contrary, I had to go and define it myself.

We can tell, you seem to think your own deluded self-invented definitions magically make any logical sense. And I posted the damn definition for you! But if you had let's say not self-invented your own definition and actually looked it up, you clearly didn't comprehend it's definition and chose to interpret it into your own mystical definition that makes no damn sense what-so-ever.

QuoteI've also showed you how you do have the free will to choose and the difference between free will in choosing and free will in doing.

Completely and entirely irrelevant to the argument to which has been put forth before you! Free will is entirely irrelevant regardless of what side of the fence you are on in this discussion. Stating the obvious is useless, especially when what you are attempting to argue doesn't address the context of the argument! Free will actually defies Omniscience! That is more of a point towards Atheists that it is towards Theists!.. And Free will can't exist either without INFORMATION!

QuoteYou can choose to accept or reject God.  It is YOUR choice.

You speak as if it exist to where I would have a choice to choose the acceptance of it. I can't accept to choose to accept the existence of something that doesn't exist! I don't day dream ideas and then claim them to be "real". You may as well try and attempt to tell me that Mario (the fictional character) is real and that I have made a choice to refuse to accept it's real.. Especially when I know Mario is a fictional character.

QuoteYou cannot, however, will to be a bird.  That's not logical and not in line with the free will argument.  (You are, however, free to think you're a bird.)

Your logic isn't even in line with intellectual coherency.. Your hugging a free will argument as if it's a safety blanket from actually having to address Omniscience properly, and properly in regards to the definition of the Christian GOD.. The definition well pointed out in the Fount of Knowledge under Chapter 14. Hence, you are cherry picking attributes without even comprehending what they mean, or how they apply to all the other attributes, and the world around you!.. It's like watching the Titanic sink while the Captain and everyone on board denies it's sinking right up to where they all die. It's like ok... Enjoy the sinking ship of Titanical ignorance. I don't care, but I will address it when you come here preaching it.

QuoteSo without going into some rant of lists and thousands of words, define simply what Omniscience is and we can move from there.  It shouldn't be a huge task.

I don't think we can patch the hole in your ship Captain, you refuse to believe it's there. I think this is where I take the life boat and save myself from your sheer intentional ignorance.  

Fact remains.  Free will exists.  You make your own choices of your own mind.

That's not circle jerking.

If Omniscience is defined differently than the link provided, then simply define it.  So far you're just whining.

QuoteFact remains.  Free will exists.

Not in literal context.. Free being a big problem with that argument. It's restricted choices! And regardless, Dirt is real too, and so is existence! You have made no point here worth even arguing. it's pleadingly ambiguous at best.

QuoteYou make your own choices of your own mind.

Computers with self-organizing algorithms make choices of their own processing. Welcome to realizing that reality is a Complex Adaptive System with feedback!.. However, I can't make any such choices without information to process or weigh, and neither can you or anything that is conscious! Just like a computer can not process information without information to process! Colors can not process other colors into new colors or patterns of color without information either!  Consciousness can not exist without a system with feedback, or a system without information.  So here is something you need to learn about information theory and how it relates to programming, systems, processes, functions, or things that require feeback, value, substance, complexity, and structure. Systems that can support such things as conscious minds, life, or any Phenomenon in general to which could exist.

QuoteNothing begins with consciousness, and everything begins and ends with information

Take good note of this, because it's not going to magically go away, or become a magical fallacy because you would want to wish it away. It's simply how shit really is, its the cold reality of existence! And it's not something you need to fear, or ignore. It's not something you need to bow down to and worship! And that is because it is you, and you are it!

QuoteThat's not circle jerking.

Yes it is

QuoteIf Omniscience is defined differently than the link provided, then simply define it.  So far you're just whining.

No it's not me whining, it's you whining because you can't deal with the actual definition of the word, and what it actually means.

...Bah

Quote from: "GAYtheist"...Bah

I agree  :pop:

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"[...]He knows every individual, not because He programmed each a certain way, but because He knows the YOU that is YOU.

So god did not create everything?

Everything but free will.  God cannot create free will.  He gives the ability to think and choose for oneself.

This god gives the ability of free will, but did not create it? How can a god give a person free will without creating free will?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"Here is another problem with trying to maintain that everyone has free will with a god that knows everything and created everything: if god is omniscient and created everything, then how can you say that this god designed everything (including everyone and what makes them them, which includes what choices they'll make), but did not program everything?

It's as difficult as YOU make it seem or think it is.  It's not difficult to understand at all.  God created everything.  His design of the human body works.  His design of the human brain works.  He designed into the brain, cognition.  He could've "programmed" the brain, but He didn't.  We are able to think, reason, interpret, ponder...and ultimately choose between what we see, hear, feel, think...all of our senses define each individual's choice.  WE make our choices.

Despite that you're attributing things to a god without a shred of evidence to support it, I'll go along with it for a little while. Maybe this god programmed you to merely think there is free will. Saying that a god knows everything you do before you do it is contradictory to you having the free will to choose a different action.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"This god could have done things differently and I might have been a believer in god, but chose instead to make sure I was not a believer in god. I'm how this god intended me to be and could be no different. You cannot suppose that a god knows everything a person will choose, while having created the person, and then say that this god had not programmed the person. This is contradictory logic.

What is contradictory is to say you don't have choice.  Have you not delved as deeply as YOU WANT to find truth?  YOU have chosen what, when, where, for how long...you search for anything and by THAT you make your choices.  The fact remains, YOU can choose God.  You are not dead yet.  There is still time and time may make the difference.  God knows when, where, how you will die and He knows in what camp of belief you will be in.  The choice is still up to you here and now.  God's knowledge of that day does not cement you today.  When you die, your ability to choose dies with you.  Your fate, if you will, is sealed at death.

If this god created everything to be as it is, and this god knew what it was doing when it created everything, while adding on that this god knows everything you will do, does not support your argument for free will. If this god knows me and chose to make everything as it is, then I have no free will because I am as this god designed me and the things I base my decisions on are as this god designed them. Unless you're proposing that this god is not all knowing and/or did not create everything to be as it is.

Quote from: "Davin"This god gives the ability of free will, but did not create it? How can a god give a person free will without creating free will?

It's a by-product of free thinking.  One can think freely, but without the ability to choose otherwise, free will does not exist.  Kind of like a person in prison.  He/she wants freedom, freedom exists, but he/she cannot have it, cannot enjoy it, cannot choose it.  Free will, like love, cannot be created, but simply exists when freedom to choose exists.

Quote from: "Davin"Despite that you're attributing things to a god without a shred of evidence to support it, I'll go along with it for a little while. Maybe this god programmed you to merely think there is free will. Saying that a god knows everything you do before you do it is contradictory to you having the free will to choose a different action.

I've never claimed to be able to prove God.  It's not possible without God showing Himself.  Until then, I suppose you're right, I have no shred of evidence for God (except for prophecy fulfilled in the scriptures that at least give some evidence to a higher power, but I'm not necessarily here to prove that anyway)

Saying God knows what I do before I do it is not contradictory at all.  You have yet to prove that.  You asked if God foreknew you would drink a coke, could you drink something else?  I said, of course you could drink something else, but YOU CHOSE Coke!  God's knowledge of what you will do does not force you to do it.  All the choices are yours and yours alone.  It's not contradictory at all.  Not in the least.

Quote from: "Davin"If this god created everything to be as it is, and this god knew what it was doing when it created everything, while adding on that this god knows everything you will do, does not support your argument for free will.

Absolutely it supports it.  In fact, it down-right SUPPORTS IT.  If God created you and me and in the process of creating us He saw I would choose Him and you would not, what would you say if He instead decided to quit creating you and move on to the next?  That is removal of free will!  Not allowing you to live because you don't choose God?  You have free will and while God knows YOUR CHOICE, He gives you life.  As it says in scripture;

Quote from: "Matthey 5:43-45  NIVcolor=#0080FF]"]"You have heard that it was said, `Love your neighbor* and hate your enemy.'  But I tell you: Love your enemies* and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.[/color]

One cannot say that God directs anyone to follow Him.  No one can say that His followers prosper more than those that curse Him.  If He had discontinued in creating you, then He would be guilty of "stacking the deck".  Being unfair.  But His fairness dictates that He finish creating and allowing each person to become the YOU that you will be ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN CHOOSING.

Quote from: "Davin"If this god knows me and chose to make everything as it is, then I have no free will because I am as this god designed me and the things I base my decisions on are as this god designed them. Unless you're proposing that this god is not all knowing and/or did not create everything to be as it is.

What I propose and what the scripture teaches is that everything that God made in the beginning was good.  I would say it was perfect as anything God does that is good, by definition, is perfect.  God created everything and it prospered for who knows how long...until sin came into the picture.  According to the scriptures, it seems sin came in relatively quick, but we cannot know exactly how long that was.  It really makes no difference.  The point is that God made it all to work perfectly, but when sin came in, it skewed creation.  Think of the movies, "Back to the Future".   Going back and changing one thing can have catastrophic implications on the future and the future that "you" came from will now be different.  Sin entered and changed things.  Did God know it would?  Yes, but again, to change the future in order to control it, is against the idea of free will.  You would have to study some on the implications of original sin, what the work of Satan is in regards to his falling away...but that's WAY beyond what we are speaking of here.  Suffice to say, the crude analogy of the movies, "Back to the Future", fit.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"This god gives the ability of free will, but did not create it? How can a god give a person free will without creating free will?

It's a by-product of free thinking.  One can think freely, but without the ability to choose otherwise, free will does not exist.  Kind of like a person in prison.  He/she wants freedom, freedom exists, but he/she cannot have it, cannot enjoy it, cannot choose it.  Free will, like love, cannot be created, but simply exists when freedom to choose exists.

So this god did not create everything.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"Despite that you're attributing things to a god without a shred of evidence to support it, I'll go along with it for a little while. Maybe this god programmed you to merely think there is free will. Saying that a god knows everything you do before you do it is contradictory to you having the free will to choose a different action.

I've never claimed to be able to prove God.  It's not possible without God showing Himself.  Until then, I suppose you're right, I have no shred of evidence for God (except for prophecy fulfilled in the scriptures that at least give some evidence to a higher power, but I'm not necessarily here to prove that anyway)

Then don't make statements based on mere assertions as if they are facts.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Saying God knows what I do before I do it is not contradictory at all.  You have yet to prove that.  You asked if God foreknew you would drink a coke, could you drink something else?  I said, of course you could drink something else, but YOU CHOSE Coke!  God's knowledge of what you will do does not force you to do it.  All the choices are yours and yours alone.  It's not contradictory at all.  Not in the least.

If this god fourteen billion years ago sees that tomorrow you will choose to kick a rock while walking, can you choose to do something else that this god did not see? How many different choices do you have available after this god knows what you will do? You really have only two options that are not contradictory: the god does not know everything or you can only perform the actions this god knows you will perform. When you can only perform one action, there is no free will, because as many other options you may think you have, you can only do the one thing the god knows you will do. So free will in your scenario is just an illusion.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"If this god created everything to be as it is, and this god knew what it was doing when it created everything, while adding on that this god knows everything you will do, does not support your argument for free will.

Absolutely it supports it.  In fact, it down-right SUPPORTS IT.  If God created you and me and in the process of creating us He saw I would choose Him and you would not, what would you say if He instead decided to quit creating you and move on to the next?  That is removal of free will!  Not allowing you to live because you don't choose God?  You have free will and while God knows YOUR CHOICE, He gives you life.  As it says in scripture;

Quote from: "Matthey 5:43-45  NIVcolor=#0080FF]"]"You have heard that it was said, `Love your neighbor* and hate your enemy.'  But I tell you: Love your enemies* and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.[/color]

This verse does not say how one can have free will while god know the exact choice you will make. I can't find anything in this verse that has anything to do with what we're talking about.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"One cannot say that God directs anyone to follow Him.  No one can say that His followers prosper more than those that curse Him.  If He had discontinued in creating you, then He would be guilty of "stacking the deck".  Being unfair.  But His fairness dictates that He finish creating and allowing each person to become the YOU that you will be ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN CHOOSING.

According to how this god designed me and the world of which I make my decisions, knowing exactly how I would be when this god created everything and creating everything so that I would be this way.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"If this god knows me and chose to make everything as it is, then I have no free will because I am as this god designed me and the things I base my decisions on are as this god designed them. Unless you're proposing that this god is not all knowing and/or did not create everything to be as it is.

What I propose and what the scripture teaches is that everything that God made in the beginning was good.  I would say it was perfect as anything God does that is good, by definition, is perfect.  God created everything and it prospered for who knows how long...until sin came into the picture.  According to the scriptures, it seems sin came in relatively quick, but we cannot know exactly how long that was.  It really makes no difference.  The point is that God made it all to work perfectly, but when sin came in, it skewed creation.  Think of the movies, "Back to the Future".   Going back and changing one thing can have catastrophic implications on the future and the future that "you" came from will now be different.  Sin entered and changed things.  Did God know it would?  Yes, but again, to change the future in order to control it, is against the idea of free will.  You would have to study some on the implications of original sin, what the work of Satan is in regards to his falling away...but that's WAY beyond what we are speaking of here.  Suffice to say, the crude analogy of the movies, "Back to the Future", fit.

So this omniscient god did not see that sin would happen?

Quote from: "Davin"So this god did not create everything.

He did not create that which is not something that is createable.

Quote from: "Davin"Then don't make statements based on mere assertions as if they are facts.

Where is your fact that God does not exist?  Show me the proof.  I'm sure all Atheists/Atheism would like to know there is no more need for a Spectrum of Theistic Probability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability).

Quote from: "Davin"If this god fourteen billion years ago sees that tomorrow you will choose to kick a rock while walking, can you choose to do something else that this god did not see?

Yes.  You can choose to do something else.  The fact of the matter is that YOU CHOSE to kick a rock.

Quote from: "Davin"How many different choices do you have available after this god knows what you will do?

Your choices are numerous...one might say, infinite.

Quote from: "Davin"You really have only two options that are not contradictory: the god does not know everything or you can only perform the actions this god knows you will perform.

Wrong.  YOU CHOOSE.  It is your choice.  The fact that God knows YOUR CHOICE is not that God forces YOUR CHOICE.

Quote from: "Davin"When you can only perform one action, there is no free will, because as many other options you may think you have, you can only do the one thing the god knows you will do. So free will in your scenario is just an illusion.

Wrong again, my friend.  The choice is YOURS to make and YOU choose what YOU want.  God simply has the knowledge of what YOUR FREE WILL choice is.  You can choose ANYTHING YOU want.  It remains, it is YOUR CHOICE and thus, free will.

Quote from: "Davin"This verse does not say how one can have free will while god know the exact choice you will make. I can't find anything in this verse that has anything to do with what we're talking about.

That's because you don't see the point that God allows ALL to live and choose freely, not favoring any, but allowing all to choose.  The sun rises on both the "evil" and the good.  It rains on both the "evil" and the good.  THAT's what the verse says.  It's the implications of free will and how God allows everyone to live according to their own mind.

Quote from: "Davin"According to how this god designed me and the world of which I make my decisions, knowing exactly how I would be when this god created everything and creating everything so that I would be this way.

The way you live is your choice.  If God is and there is life everlasting, you have freely chosen to be excluded.  It is of your own free will.

Quote from: "Davin"So this omniscient god did not see that sin would happen?

Have you not read what I wrote?  It's no wonder you can't understand.  You skim over and don't read.  Yes, God knew and for the exact reason I wrote to which you replied, He allowed it to go as "destiny" would have it, but in order to reconcile those that would choose Him, He made a legal way to be reconciled.  A fair way.  A way in which no one can say, "God made me..."  It is by free will we choose our path and the reconcilliation is a gift...free to anyone that will.  Nothing must be done.  All that is needed to be done, is done already.  To go on would be preaching.

I think this discussion is the perfect example of compartmentalization. The concepts of omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence just aren't communicating with eachother.  

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"So this god did not create everything.

He did not create that which is not something that is createable.

How do you know free will not creatable?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"Then don't make statements based on mere assertions as if they are facts.

Where is your fact that God does not exist?  Show me the proof.  I'm sure all Atheists/Atheism would like to know there is no more need for a Spectrum of Theistic Probability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability).

So because you're trying to elevate mere assertion to the level of facts, you want me to commit the same illogical mistake? I say colloquially that god does not exist in the same way I say that dancing waffles do not exist. Unless someone can provide some evidence for dancing waffles I have no reason to accept that they exist, and if someone said that dancing waffles are everywhere and I've yet to see any evidence of them, then the version of dancing waffles that are everywhere do not exist. Because in the case of something that is supposed to be everywhere, the absense of evidence is evidence for absence. The same applies to any god. To make any exceptions is just special pleading.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"If this god fourteen billion years ago sees that tomorrow you will choose to kick a rock while walking, can you choose to do something else that this god did not see?

Yes.  You can choose to do something else.  The fact of the matter is that YOU CHOSE to kick a rock.

How can you tell that you choose to kick the rock and you weren't programmed to do exactly as this god knows you will do and designed you to do?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"How many different choices do you have available after this god knows what you will do?

Your choices are numerous...one might say, infinite.

No, the choices are not infinite, because there is only thing one can choose. If one chooses something that this god did not know they would choose then the god is not omniscient. If the person can't choose something other than what the god knows the person will choose then there's no free will.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"You really have only two options that are not contradictory: the god does not know everything or you can only perform the actions this god knows you will perform.

Wrong.  YOU CHOOSE.  It is your choice.  The fact that God knows YOUR CHOICE is not that God forces YOUR CHOICE.

So you choose the logically contradictory option, I see that logic is not important to you.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"When you can only perform one action, there is no free will, because as many other options you may think you have, you can only do the one thing the god knows you will do. So free will in your scenario is just an illusion.

Wrong again, my friend.  The choice is YOURS to make and YOU choose what YOU want.  God simply has the knowledge of what YOUR FREE WILL choice is.  You can choose ANYTHING YOU want.  It remains, it is YOUR CHOICE and thus, free will.

If you can only choose what the god knows you will choose, then you can only make one choice and there is no free will. No matter how many times you attempt to assert otherwise, your logic is contradictory.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"This verse does not say how one can have free will while god know the exact choice you will make. I can't find anything in this verse that has anything to do with what we're talking about.

That's because you don't see the point that God allows ALL to live and choose freely, not favoring any, but allowing all to choose.  The sun rises on both the "evil" and the good.  It rains on both the "evil" and the good.  THAT's what the verse says.  It's the implications of free will and how God allows everyone to live according to their own mind.

Ok, it rains on both good an evil, what does this have to do with the logically contradictory concepts of free will and only having one path to follow? If you have to spend time explaining what the verse means and interpret it and not take it literally, then why post the verse that is essentially useless to quote? In the Religious exclamation thread you stated that religious things must be considered literally, but now you're not taking a verse from the bible literally. Again you're not very consistent.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"According to how this god designed me and the world of which I make my decisions, knowing exactly how I would be when this god created everything and creating everything so that I would be this way.

The way you live is your choice.  If God is and there is life everlasting, you have freely chosen to be excluded.  It is of your own free will.

Not if god designed everything while knowing exactly what I'll do if he did it this way or that way.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"So this omniscient god did not see that sin would happen?

Have you not read what I wrote?  It's no wonder you can't understand.  You skim over and don't read.  Yes, God knew and for the exact reason I wrote to which you replied, He allowed it to go as "destiny" would have it, but in order to reconcile those that would choose Him, He made a legal way to be reconciled.  A fair way.  A way in which no one can say, "God made me..."  It is by free will we choose our path and the reconcilliation is a gift...free to anyone that will.  Nothing must be done.  All that is needed to be done, is done already.  To go on would be preaching.

So god created everything with the intention of allowing sin.

Quote from: "Davin"How do you know free will not creatable?

How do you know it is?

Quote from: "Davin"So because you're trying to elevate mere assertion to the level of facts, you want me to commit the same illogical mistake? I say colloquially that god does not exist in the same way I say that dancing waffles do not exist. Unless someone can provide some evidence for dancing waffles I have no reason to accept that they exist, and if someone said that dancing waffles are everywhere and I've yet to see any evidence of them, then the version of dancing waffles that are everywhere do not exist. Because in the case of something that is supposed to be everywhere, the absense of evidence is evidence for absence. The same applies to any god. To make any exceptions is just special pleading.

[youtube:1v0n4qup]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDU0CTDMk2g[/youtube:1v0n4qup]
There.  You are proven wrong.  No more assertions.

Quote from: "Davin"How can you tell that you choose to kick the rock and you weren't programmed to do exactly as this god knows you will do and designed you to do?

How can you tell if you're actually choosing to participate in this discussion?

Quote from: "Davin"If you can only choose what the god knows you will choose, then you can only make one choice and there is no free will. No matter how many times you attempt to assert otherwise, your logic is contradictory.

Wrong.  YOU CHOOSE WHAT YOU CHOOSE.  God simply knows your choice.  You have many choices to choose from.
You're wrong, it's not contradictory.

Quote from: "Davin"Ok, it rains on both good an evil, what does this have to do with the logically contradictory concepts of free will and only having one path to follow? If you have to spend time explaining what the verse means and interpret it and not take it literally, then why post the verse that is essentially useless to quote? In the Religious exclamation thread you stated that religious things must be considered literally, but now you're not taking a verse from the bible literally. Again you're not very consistent.

If you can't see the point in it yet, it's not worth having to explain to one with "higher intelligence" things of elementary intelligence.

Quote from: "Davin"Not if god designed everything while knowing exactly what I'll do if he did it this way or that way.

Deny it as much as you want.  YOU know you are choosing to disbelieve in God.  YOU have studied and weighed the evidence and YOU believe there is more evidence that suggests God is a myth.  YOUR CHOICE.

Quote from: "Davin"So god created everything with the intention of allowing sin.

God created everything NOT INTENDING sin would enter, but KNOWING sin would enter.  If one sets out to create a free will'd being (freedom of choice) the possibility that this entity will choose otherwise (other than the Creator would want) is real and unavoidable without "stacking the deck".

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"How do you know free will not creatable?

How do you know it is?

I do not, but I'm also not making a claim, so the burden of proof is on you.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"So because you're trying to elevate mere assertion to the level of facts, you want me to commit the same illogical mistake? I say colloquially that god does not exist in the same way I say that dancing waffles do not exist. Unless someone can provide some evidence for dancing waffles I have no reason to accept that they exist, and if someone said that dancing waffles are everywhere and I've yet to see any evidence of them, then the version of dancing waffles that are everywhere do not exist. Because in the case of something that is supposed to be everywhere, the absense of evidence is evidence for absence. The same applies to any god. To make any exceptions is just special pleading.

[youtube:78wze48c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDU0CTDMk2g[/youtube:78wze48c]
There.  You are proven wrong.  No more assertions.

If you're going to equate your god to being as real as a cartoon animated waffle, then go right ahead.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"How can you tell that you choose to kick the rock and you weren't programmed to do exactly as this god knows you will do and designed you to do?

How can you tell if you're actually choosing to participate in this discussion?

Answer the question.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"If you can only choose what the god knows you will choose, then you can only make one choice and there is no free will. No matter how many times you attempt to assert otherwise, your logic is contradictory.

Wrong.  YOU CHOOSE WHAT YOU CHOOSE.  God simply knows your choice.  You have many choices to choose from.
You're wrong, it's not contradictory.

As many times as you claim that I'm wrong, you've yet to demonstrate that a god that knows excatly what you will do, has given you free will. You have no choices so long as this god knows exactly what you will do.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"Ok, it rains on both good an evil, what does this have to do with the logically contradictory concepts of free will and only having one path to follow? If you have to spend time explaining what the verse means and interpret it and not take it literally, then why post the verse that is essentially useless to quote? In the Religious exclamation thread you stated that religious things must be considered literally, but now you're not taking a verse from the bible literally. Again you're not very consistent.

If you can't see the point in it yet, it's not worth having to explain to one with "higher intelligence" things of elementary intelligence.

Quoting an unrelated verse from the bible was a really bad idea. I don't think you should do that again.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"Not if god designed everything while knowing exactly what I'll do if he did it this way or that way.

Deny it as much as you want.  YOU know you are choosing to disbelieve in God.  YOU have studied and weighed the evidence and YOU believe there is more evidence that suggests God is a myth.  YOUR CHOICE.

Really now, and where did you get this information from? I'd really like to know, because it is very wrong.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"So god created everything with the intention of allowing sin.

God created everything NOT INTENDING sin would enter, but KNOWING sin would enter.  If one sets out to create a free will'd being (freedom of choice) the possibility that this entity will choose otherwise (other than the Creator would want) is real and unavoidable without "stacking the deck".

So sin happened as this god knew sin would happen when it created the universe this way and allowed it to happen... how is that different from intending to allow sin?

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"How do you know free will not creatable?

How do you know it is?

I do not, but I'm also not making a claim, so the burden of proof is on you.[/quote]
I'm of lower intelligence.  I'm likely not able to prove free will is non-creatable.  I suppose it falls under the same proof as "unalienable rights".  Shall we have that removed?

Quote from: "Davin"If you're going to equate your god to being as real as a cartoon animated waffle, then go right ahead.

You equated God to a cartoon, not me.   I simply proved you wrong.  So likewise, if you were wrong about dancing waffles, there's a good chance you're wrong about God.

Quote from: "Davin"Answer the question.

You can't see that I've answered this question numerous times?  Because the choice was made by the entity with freedom to choose.  It could've kicked a pebble, a stone, a piece of bark, a fallen branch...anything.  The fact is that IT CHOSE to kick a rock.

Quote from: "Davin"As many times as you claim that I'm wrong, you've yet to demonstrate that a god that knows excatly what you will do, has given you free will. You have no choices so long as this god knows exactly what you will do.

Are you denying the freedom you have to choose?  The point that you are able to defy the Almighty is testament to the fact that you contain within you the ability to freely choose.  How many dictators do you know that are/were kind enough to allow people to choose what they wanted?  More illogical thinking, IMHO.  "What you don't want to pay taxes?  Oh, ok.  Nevermind.  Live and enjoy my kingdom at no cost to you because you choose..."  Yes...that's logical.

Quote from: "Davin"Quoting an unrelated verse from the bible was a really bad idea. I don't think you should do that again.

What is a bad idea is not paying attention to the points and examples brought into the discussion and then claiming its a bad idea because "you don't see the relation...".  To understand it, you would only need to go back and read.

Quote from: "Davin"Really now, and where did you get this information from? I'd really like to know, because it is very wrong.

Wrong?  Ok, so now you believe God exists.  Fine.  I suppose this discussion is over between you and I as there is no more debate.

Quote from: "Davin"So sin happened as this god knew sin would happen when it created the universe this way and allowed it to happen... how is that different from intending to allow sin?

I suppose it is much like we ourselves made the Shuttle, for instance.  Did the makers intend it to explode and kill 9 (was it 9?)  Or is there always an element of human error in making something?  Likewise, God intended for His creation to take a certain path.  He knew it wouldn't because to do otherwise would be not give full freedom of choice.  There was the element of human error.  If you can't understand that...we are wasting a lot of time.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"How do you know it is?

I do not, but I'm also not making a claim, so the burden of proof is on you.

I'm of lower intelligence.  I'm likely not able to prove free will is non-creatable.  I suppose it falls under the same proof as "unalienable rights".  Shall we have that removed?

"unalienable rights" are what we created, however as has been shown on many occasions, they are in fact alienable.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"If you're going to equate your god to being as real as a cartoon animated waffle, then go right ahead.

You equated God to a cartoon, not me.   I simply proved you wrong.  So likewise, if you were wrong about dancing waffles, there's a good chance you're wrong about God.

So because there is a cartoon of dancing waffles, I may also be wrong about a cartoon of god?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"Answer the question.

You can't see that I've answered this question numerous times?  Because the choice was made by the entity with freedom to choose.  It could've kicked a pebble, a stone, a piece of bark, a fallen branch...anything.  The fact is that IT CHOSE to kick a rock.

You could not do anything else, because the god already knew what you would do.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"As many times as you claim that I'm wrong, you've yet to demonstrate that a god that knows excatly what you will do, has given you free will. You have no choices so long as this god knows exactly what you will do.

Are you denying the freedom you have to choose?  The point that you are able to defy the Almighty is testament to the fact that you contain within you the ability to freely choose.  How many dictators do you know that are/were kind enough to allow people to choose what they wanted?  More illogical thinking, IMHO.  "What you don't want to pay taxes?  Oh, ok.  Nevermind.  Live and enjoy my kingdom at no cost to you because you choose..."  Yes...that's logical.

I would appreciate it if you addressed my points.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"Quoting an unrelated verse from the bible was a really bad idea. I don't think you should do that again.

What is a bad idea is not paying attention to the points and examples brought into the discussion and then claiming its a bad idea because "you don't see the relation...".  To understand it, you would only need to go back and read.

I did read, it had no relevance.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"Really now, and where did you get this information from? I'd really like to know, because it is very wrong.

Wrong?  Ok, so now you believe God exists.  Fine.  I suppose this discussion is over between you and I as there is no more debate.

Yes you are wrong, as well as I do not believe that a god exists. My world view is not based around my lack of belief in a god, my lack of belief in a god is a result of my world view.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"So sin happened as this god knew sin would happen when it created the universe this way and allowed it to happen... how is that different from intending to allow sin?

I suppose it is much like we ourselves made the Shuttle, for instance.  Did the makers intend it to explode and kill 9 (was it 9?)  Or is there always an element of human error in making something?

So god is subject to the same kind of human error as humans are?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Likewise, God intended for His creation to take a certain path.  He knew it wouldn't because to do otherwise would be not give full freedom of choice.  There was the element of human error.  If you can't understand that...we are wasting a lot of time.

So humans did something that this god did not know they would do? My point still stands. Either this god was ignorant that sin would enter or he intended it to enter. The only way that would be a false dichotomy is if this god were not all powerful and/or all knowing.

Quote from: "Davin"unalienable rights" are what we created, however as has been shown on many occasions, they are in fact alienable.

Certainly there are those that debate or are debating this.

Quote from: "Davin"So because there is a cartoon of dancing waffles, I may also be wrong about a cartoon of god?

That too.

Quote from: "Davin"You could not do anything else, because the god already knew what you would do.

God only knows what we will CHOOSE.  The choice is yours to make.  You can choose anything you want, it's your choice.  I can choose any that I want.

Quote from: "Davin"I would appreciate it if you addressed my points.

State them.

Quote from: "Davin"I did read, it had no relevance.

It does.  I'm sure you can decipher it.

Quote from: "Davin"Yes you are wrong, as well as I do not believe that a god exists. My world view is not based around my lack of belief in a god, my lack of belief in a god is a result of my world view.

Talk about circular argument.  Fine.  You're an Atheist.  Changes nothing really, it's still part of your worldview.

Quote from: "Davin"So god is subject to the same kind of human error as humans are?

I'm beginning to understand.  You read what you want to read.  Let me say it again in English.  Human Error.
God made a perfect being given the ability to choose of its own free will.  Therein lies the POTENTIAL for that being to er.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Likewise, God intended for His creation to take a certain path.  He knew it wouldn't because to do otherwise would be not give full freedom of choice.  There was the element of human error.  If you can't understand that...we are wasting a lot of time.

So humans did something that this god did not know they would do? My point still stands. Either this god was ignorant that sin would enter or he intended it to enter. The only way that would be a false dichotomy is if this god were not all powerful and/or all knowing.

I'm going to refrain from answering how I'm inclined to because I value my stay here at HAF.

Let me throw it out there again and maybe this time it will be a little more plain.  Assuming you don't believe God exists, for arguments sake;

1.  God makes Man (human).
2.  God makes Man perfectly.
3.  God gives Man the ability to choose freely.
4.  Man eventually chooses to go against God.

If God is Man's Creator, is it not human error to go against God, God being the Sustainer of life?  
The design is not wrong.  The design works fine.  The body and brain work fine.  It's the freedom of choice that has sent the human off.  The human has decided to go against his Creator.  Is it thus God's fault that the human CHOSE to disbelieve?  I can see on one small scale that *YOU could say since God gave Man free will, it is God's fault.  I would give a hesitant, "yes" to that as God did give him free will and because of free will, Man was able to choose against his Creator.  The thing God does not do, is force any choice.  His foreknowledge of that choice is not dictating what that choice is.  It is simply the knowledge of.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"unalienable rights" are what we created, however as has been shown on many occasions, they are in fact alienable.

Certainly there are those that debate or are debating this.

So, after this short diversion, you don't know if free will can't be created.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"So because there is a cartoon of dancing waffles, I may also be wrong about a cartoon of god?

That too.

So god is as real as a man made cartoon, gotcha.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"You could not do anything else, because the god already knew what you would do.

God only knows what we will CHOOSE.  The choice is yours to make.  You can choose anything you want, it's your choice.  I can choose any that I want.

This god upon creating everything knew exactly how everything would go including every single choice you will make, if the god made things differently then you'd make different choices, how is this different than god controlling your actions? Remember that once this god knows you will do something, you cannot do anything else.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"I would appreciate it if you addressed my points.

State them.

As many times as you claim that I'm wrong, you've yet to demonstrate that a god that knows excatly what you will do, has given you free will. You have no choices so long as this god knows exactly what you will do.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"I did read, it had no relevance.

It does.  I'm sure you can decipher it.

Nope, no relevance. A god making it rain on people has nothing to do with free will.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"Yes you are wrong, as well as I do not believe that a god exists. My world view is not based around my lack of belief in a god, my lack of belief in a god is a result of my world view.

Talk about circular argument.  Fine.  You're an Atheist.  Changes nothing really, it's still part of your worldview.

No, being an atheist is not part of my world view just as not believing in dancing waffles is not part of my world view. That is if we're talking about a how we view the world. My world view is based on evidence and rational thinking. The things I accept, that I'm undecided on and deny come from that.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"So god is subject to the same kind of human error as humans are?

I'm beginning to understand.  You read what you want to read.  Let me say it again in English.  Human Error.
God made a perfect being given the ability to choose of its own free will.  Therein lies the POTENTIAL for that being to er.

I asked, "So sin happened as this god knew sin would happen when it created the universe this way and allowed it to happen... how is that different from intending to allow sin?" to which you responded, "I suppose it is much like we ourselves made the Shuttle, for instance. Did the makers intend it to explode and kill 9 (was it 9?) Or is there always an element of human error in making something?"

I asked how knowing something would happen and not doing anything to prevent it from happening while creating the things that would make it happen were any different from intending it to happen. You responded with saying that the shuttle designers did not intend their shuttle to blow up. So your answer to how it was different than god intending sin to enter the universe was to bring up human error. Making it a reasonable conclusion that you meant that god made a mistake and that sin was not intentional.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Likewise, God intended for His creation to take a certain path.  He knew it wouldn't because to do otherwise would be not give full freedom of choice.  There was the element of human error.  If you can't understand that...we are wasting a lot of time.

So humans did something that this god did not know they would do? My point still stands. Either this god was ignorant that sin would enter or he intended it to enter. The only way that would be a false dichotomy is if this god were not all powerful and/or all knowing.

I'm going to refrain from answering how I'm inclined to because I value my stay here at HAF.

Let me throw it out there again and maybe this time it will be a little more plain.  Assuming you don't believe God exists, for arguments sake;

1.  God makes Man (human).
2.  God makes Man perfectly.
3.  God gives Man the ability to choose freely.
4.  Man eventually chooses to go against God.

and God saw that it was good.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"If God is Man's Creator, is it not human error to go against God, God being the Sustainer of life?

Not in and of itself.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"The design is not wrong.  The design works fine.  The body and brain work fine.  It's the freedom of choice that has sent the human off.  The human has decided to go against his Creator.  Is it thus God's fault that the human CHOSE to disbelieve?  I can see on one small scale that *YOU could say since God gave Man free will, it is God's fault.  I would give a hesitant, "yes" to that as God did give him free will and because of free will, Man was able to choose against his Creator.  The thing God does not do, is force any choice.  His foreknowledge of that choice is not dictating what that choice is.  It is simply the knowledge of.

My point still stands. Either this god was ignorant that sin would enter or he intended it to enter or it entered because this god did not have the power to prevent it.

AnimatedDirt and Devin seem to like to go at it an awful lot.  Wouldn't be something if they were the same person just putting on a show for the rest of us?

That is because we are the same person.

If I was though, I think I'd make it quite a bit less boring.

A quick question for AnimatedDirt:


How would you define what is "your" choice and how free do you think they are?

(I'm not denying that our choices are our choices and that we shouldn't be responsible for them, but I'm curious as to what your take on this is.)

Quote from: "Davin"So, after this short diversion, you don't know if free will can't be created.

Free will cannot be created in that it is a concept only brought about and understood by a cognitive mind.

Quote from: "Davin"So god is as real as a man made cartoon, gotcha.

I think you just acknowledged God is as real as Man makes cartoons.

Quote from: "Davin"As many times as you claim that I'm wrong, you've yet to demonstrate that a god that knows excatly what you will do, has given you free will. You have no choices so long as this god knows exactly what you will do.

Many times have I answered this.  The problem is you refuse to accept the answer.  Here it is again;

You are wrong.  God only knows the choices.  You and I make those choices of our own free will.

Quote from: "Davin"My point still stands. Either this god was ignorant that sin would enter or he intended it to enter or it entered because this god did not have the power to prevent it.

Neither.  You are wrong again.  God is not ignorant to the problem free will brings.  God's intention was not "this" as we know life.

In fact God does have the power to change it.  No doubt in my mind.  The problem in changing it is called "stacking the deck" and more specifically would be Him being dishonest in giving free will if that free will is not truely free.  He could've made it different.  But then we wouldn't have true free will, but would basically be programmed to do what He wants.  Robots.  The fact that you have decided "God" isn't for you is proof positive that you/we are not robots programmed to run one path.  The path we run is the path we choose on our own.

Quote from: "xSilverPhinx"A quick question for AnimatedDirt:
How would you define what is "your" choice and how free do you think they are?
(I'm not denying that our choices are our choices and that we shouldn't be responsible for them, but I'm curious as to what your take on this is.)

If I'm understanding your question, xSilverPhinx, I'd say that we are free to choose our path in life.  That's not to say, "I choose to be a Neurosurgeon...and voila!  There are steps to becoming a neurosurgeon, but you can choose to take those steps.  Also, a person cannot choose illogical choices such as, "I choose to be a horse."

Our free will allows us to look at, and interpret our world as our own mind sees and interprets it.  If one decides that the notion of "God" is too much of a fairytale and so holds no belief, then that person is allowed to make that choice of his/her own free will.  What this does is make each person accoutable to themselves.  The Atheist cannot be angry at "God", if at the end of time "God" does show up and put the Atheist where he/she chose to be.  Both the Atheist and the Christian employ the same mind and have access to the same "evidence".  One makes a choice one way, the other, another way.  If there are some that do believe in God, then there was enough evidence to convince as all are equally intelligent...well, the consencus of HAF is that the Christian is of lesser intelligence.  We Christians don't mind at all. (I know that someone will bring up people that are metally challenged or mind diseases like Alzheimer's...I don't claim to know how God will judge these)

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "xSilverPhinx"A quick question for AnimatedDirt:
How would you define what is "your" choice and how free do you think they are?
(I'm not denying that our choices are our choices and that we shouldn't be responsible for them, but I'm curious as to what your take on this is.)

If I'm understanding your question, xSilverPhinx, I'd say that we are free to choose our path in life.  That's not to say, "I choose to be a Neurosurgeon...and voila!  There are steps to becoming a neurosurgeon, but you can choose to take those steps.  Also, a person cannot choose illogical choices such as, "I choose to be a horse."

Okay, so what you're saying that our choices are the ones that our persons make under no coercive influence?

I myself don't think there's such a thing as pure free will, it's more like something in between having free will and not having it, but based on having any actual control over our thoughts and actions. The tricky thing is distinguishing between what is freer and what's less. A good example is hypnosis. A hypnotised person will not do something that's against their will, such as commit a crime because of the hypnotist's influence unless they're already prone to or have been groomed to, but the influence is there and it does influence the will. They can act under suggestions that direct their thoughts and behavior. (if you want a good example of a mentalist/illusionist/"mind reader" there's a guy called Derren Brown whose videos and demonstrations can be found on YouTube. They're very interesting to watch.)

Then there's the question of the choices that you become conscious of seconds after you've made them. This has been scientifically validated, people have been submitted to making decisions while in a CT scan and the time lapse between their brain making a decision and their awareness of the decision their brain made was as long as 6 seconds and in the rapid firing of neurons, that's a long time . There's no doubt that the choice is coming from your brain in that case, but how free are they? Or how free is a part of it? Which part? How do you know what influenced those and if you weren't under some subtle coercion such as suggestion, propaganda or brainwashing which interacted with the complex information processor that is your brain to direct your thoughts?

QuoteOur free will allows us to look at, and interpret our world as our own mind sees and interprets it.  If one decides that the notion of "God" is too much of a fairytale and so holds no belief, then that person is allowed to make that choice of his/her own free will.  What this does is make each person accoutable to themselves.  The Atheist cannot be angry at "God", if at the end of time "God" does show up and put the Atheist where he/she chose to be.  Both the Atheist and the Christian employ the same mind and have access to the same "evidence".  One makes a choice one way, the other, another way.  If there are some that do believe in God, then there was enough evidence to convince as all are equally intelligent...

Now how does this relate to god-given free will? The problem I have with that is: assuming god knows everything that is going to happen in the universe, every event you'll go through in your life that will ultimately shape you in some ways your genetics which will also shape you, every book you're going to read, every person you're going to talk to in an exact moment in your life some which may have left you more prone to make a certain decision, but will still punish you for not believing?

God is not just something you can start believing in without evidence. People differ on what they accept as evidence, but there's no objective way to determine whether that evidence leads necessarily to a certain, specific god. You can have a religious experience and call that evidence - fine - but which god would you have chosen to believe in if you were living in the Muslim world? Why did you choose Christianity?

Quotewell, the consencus of HAF is that the Christian is of lesser intelligence.  We Christians don't mind at all. (I know that someone will bring up people that are metally challenged or mind diseases like Alzheimer's...I don't claim to know how God will judge these)

You say you don't mind, but there's obvious spite right there. I know enough very intelligent Christians to know that not all christians are stupid, it's the stupid ones which are generally the loudest and that does influence the stereotype. There are borderline retarded, average, intelligent and brilliant christians and atheists. Or do you think that all athiests are highly intelligent free thinkers?

Quote from: "xSilverPhinx"Okay, so what you're saying that our choices are the ones that our persons make under no coercive influence?

I'm sure we make lots of choices under coercive influence.  However, the free will God gave includes that AND the ability to choose "right" from "wrong".  Assuming God exists; then there is things He has decided are right and wrong.  If He is God, then He can know absolutely what is right and what is wrong.  The beauty of our free will is that while this God has made the "shell", if you will, of humanity perfect (granted some people think putting the waste disposal next to the entertainment area is wrong...I have yet to find any man complaining about the female body and its parts.) He has also made the mind perfect too.  Our mind is able to take in information, and give output based on that information.  As information changes, so does the output.  Each mind works the same and can take in the same information, but each PERSON is different.  We are individuals and not robots.  We all have access, can process the same information, but some come out with differing solutions/theories.  There are scientists that are Christians, there are Atheists that have become Christians.  There are Christians that have become Atheists.  It goes both ways.  This shows that everyone is choosing from their own mind.  Some, in fact, are influenced by their global position, but then to understand and/or believe in God is not limited to those only in Christianized areas.  The scripture plainly says that we (believers) are to spread the Good News around the world.  That every person should be given the choice.  With the advent of global communication, there is hardly a spot on earth that hasn't been touched.  That's not to say it's 100% done.

Quote from: "xSilverPhinx"[...]good example is hypnosis. A hypnotised person will not do something that's against their will, such as commit a crime because of the hypnotist's influence unless they're already prone to or have been groomed to, but the influence is there and it does influence the will. They can act under suggestions that direct their thoughts and behavior.

I think what I mentioned above delves into this...at least what I think your bringing out.

Quote from: "xSilverPhinx"Then there's the question of the choices that you become conscious of seconds after you've made them. This has been scientifically validated, people have been submitted to making decisions while in a CT scan and the time lapse between their brain making a decision and their awareness of the decision their brain made was as long as 6 seconds and in the rapid firing of neurons, that's a long time . There's no doubt that the choice is coming from your brain in that case, but how free are they? Or how free is a part of it? Which part? How do you know what influenced those and if you weren't under some subtle coercion such as suggestion, propaganda or brainwashing which interacted with the complex information processor that is your brain to direct your thoughts?

I'd say that there's nothing really going on here other than the fact that one became conscious of a decision seconds after making the decision.  To me it's much like going to McDonalds and ordering my favorite.  An ice cream cone.  Moments later, my mind is in thought of that cool, smooth ice cream and then the soggy cone for last.  The decision for the cone comes quickly, the pondering of that decision starts after the decision itself.  That's my take.  I'm no scientist.

Quote from: "xSilverPhinx"

Quote from: AnimatedDirt"Our free will allows us to look at, and interpret our world as our own mind sees and interprets it.  If one decides that the notion of "God" is too much of a fairytale and so holds no belief, then that person is allowed to make that choice of his/her own free will.  What this does is make each person accoutable to themselves.  The Atheist cannot be angry at "God", if at the end of time "God" does show up and put the Atheist where he/she chose to be.  Both the Atheist and the Christian employ the same mind and have access to the same "evidence".  One makes a choice one way, the other, another way.  If there are some that do believe in God, then there was enough evidence to convince as all are equally intelligent...

Now how does this relate to god-given free will?

We are discussing religion/God here aren't we?  Free will as it pertains to choosing God/anything?

Quote from: "xSilverPhinx"The problem I have with that is: assuming god knows everything that is going to happen in the universe, every event you'll go through in your life that will ultimately shape you in some ways your genetics which will also shape you, every book you're going to read, every person you're going to talk to in an exact moment in your life some which may have left you more prone to make a certain decision, but will still punish you for not believing?

I may be getting your point wrong, but it seems it is much the same as I've already heard from Davin and others.
God punishes* dependant on each individual's choice.  Whether He knows or not, the punishment is dealt out according to each person's own choice.  (Punishment is death...of which the Atheist freely admits will happen anyway)

Quote from: "xSilverPhinx"God is not just something you can start believing in without evidence. People differ on what they accept as evidence, but there's no objective way to determine whether that evidence leads necessarily to a certain, specific god. You can have a religious experience and call that evidence - fine - but which god would you have chosen to believe in if you were living in the Muslim world? Why did you choose Christianity?

Blessed I am that I was born into a Christian family in a nation that allows freedom of religion.  As I mentioned above, the task laid upon the believer is that with this knowledge comes the responsibility to share it with all, ultimately with the world.  No one should have an excuse to say that they never knew about God.  You all here have made a conscious decision that there is no God.  So if there is, and He does come to claim that which loves Him and you are left out, it is because you freely chose to.  (what will God do with people that haven't had the choice as the question might arise?  I don't know.  We are not explained how this scenario will play out in scripture.)

Quote from: "xSilverPhinx"You say you don't mind, but there's obvious spite right there. I know enough very intelligent Christians to know that not all christians are stupid, it's the stupid ones which are generally the loudest and that does influence the stereotype. There are borderline retarded, average, intelligent and brilliant christians and atheists. Or do you think that all athiests are highly intelligent free thinkers?

Not spite.  I acknowledge that I am vastly inferior in knowledge of philosophies, science, politics...what I do claim, however is a superior knowledge of what the scriptures teach as opposed to those that simply spout glancing points from the bible..."God asked a man to sacrifice his son....that's not a God I want to follow..."  While true on the surface, it is a false generalization.

Total and complete ignorance is what that is.

Religion is a man made fallacy that promotes itself in death. Only in dying will anyone know the truth.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"So, after this short diversion, you don't know if free will can't be created.

Free will cannot be created in that it is a concept only brought about and understood by a cognitive mind.

How does this logic follow that free will cannot be created?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"So god is as real as a man made cartoon, gotcha.

I think you just acknowledged God is as real as Man makes cartoons.

I acknowledged that god is as real as any other concept made up by man, given that that was your evidence, it appears that this is the conclusion you came to as well.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"As many times as you claim that I'm wrong, you've yet to demonstrate that a god that knows excatly what you will do, has given you free will. You have no choices so long as this god knows exactly what you will do.

Many times have I answered this.  The problem is you refuse to accept the answer.  Here it is again;

You are wrong.  God only knows the choices.  You and I make those choices of our own free will.

If this omniscient god knows that you will drink a glass of water at 3:08pm tomorrow afternoon, what will you do tomorrow at 3:08pm in the afternoon?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"My point still stands. Either this god was ignorant that sin would enter or he intended it to enter or it entered because this god did not have the power to prevent it.

Neither.  You are wrong again.  God is not ignorant to the problem free will brings.  God's intention was not "this" as we know life.

In fact God does have the power to change it.  No doubt in my mind.  The problem in changing it is called "stacking the deck" and more specifically would be Him being dishonest in giving free will if that free will is not truely free.  He could've made it different.  But then we wouldn't have true free will, but would basically be programmed to do what He wants.  Robots.  The fact that you have decided "God" isn't for you is proof positive that you/we are not robots programmed to run one path.  The path we run is the path we choose on our own.

So this god knew sin would come into the picture and has the power to stop it, so god intended for sin.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"I'm sure we make lots of choices under coercive influence.  However, the free will God gave includes that AND the ability to choose "right" from "wrong".  Assuming God exists; then there is things He has decided are right and wrong.  If He is God, then He can know absolutely what is right and what is wrong.

I agree that people make their own choices based on what they see as right and wrong. And that they should be responsible for them.

QuoteThe beauty of our free will is that while this God has made the "shell", if you will, of humanity perfect (granted some people think putting the waste disposal next to the entertainment area is wrong...I have yet to find any man complaining about the female body and its parts.) He has also made the mind perfect too.  Our mind is able to take in information, and give output based on that information.  As information changes, so does the output.  Each mind works the same and can take in the same information, but each PERSON is different.  We are individuals and not robots.  We all have access, can process the same information, but some come out with differing solutions/theories.  There are scientists that are Christians, there are Atheists that have become Christians.  There are Christians that have become Atheists.  It goes both ways.  This shows that everyone is choosing from their own mind.  Some, in fact, are influenced by their global position, but then to understand and/or believe in God is not limited to those only in Christianized areas.  The scripture plainly says that we (believers) are to spread the Good News around the world.  That every person should be given the choice.  With the advent of global communication, there is hardly a spot on earth that hasn't been touched.  That's not to say it's 100% done.

Our minds are very good at what they do, but they're not perfect. They're flawed because they're very good at what they do. Optical illusions prove this. BBC Horizon released a documentary a short while ago on optical and audible illusions called "is seeing believing?" - really interesting stuff as well - in which they explain these 'brain failures' in more depth. And that's exactly what fascinates me about theists. They hold a worldview so different from my own and I want to know why, mostly from the perceptual and cognitive model of reality side rather than theological.

Muslims say the same thing, that their religion should be spread, and they believe in their god and holy book as much as you do in yours. Why aren't most people who come into contact with Islam (through the Internet or whatever) choose to become Muslim? They also make truth claims that unbelievers who didn't choose their way will suffer for eternity in the afterlife.  

Quote from: "xSilverPhinx"Then there's the question of the choices that you become conscious of seconds after you've made them. This has been scientifically validated, people have been submitted to making decisions while in a CT scan and the time lapse between their brain making a decision and their awareness of the decision their brain made was as long as 6 seconds and in the rapid firing of neurons, that's a long time . There's no doubt that the choice is coming from your brain in that case, but how free are they? Or how free is a part of it? Which part? How do you know what influenced those and if you weren't under some subtle coercion such as suggestion, propaganda or brainwashing which interacted with the complex information processor that is your brain to direct your thoughts?

QuoteI'd say that there's nothing really going on here other than the fact that one became conscious of a decision seconds after making the decision.  To me it's much like going to McDonalds and ordering my favorite.  An ice cream cone.  Moments later, my mind is in thought of that cool, smooth ice cream and then the soggy cone for last.  The decision for the cone comes quickly, the pondering of that decision starts after the decision itself.  That's my take.  I'm no scientist.

Let's say you're walking on the street under the scorching sun feeling the heat as if you were in an oven and you come across a McDonald's with a big poster on it's window with a perfect vanilla ice cream cone. The colour of the ice cream is as white as crispy snow, there might even be ice in the background art of the poster. An complete picture of re freshness. You see lettering that says something simple and suggestive like ""Hot day? Have an ICE CREAM." Suddenly you're aware of just how thirsty you are and how much you want that sugary cool ice cream to put out a bit of the heat you feel is emanating from your interior. Your brain already likes and naturally craves sugar, since it is its only fuel. It's been naturally programmed to. It may be flooded with neurotransmitters that anticipate the pleasure of eating that ice cream and you go in the store to buy it.
It was your choice, but it was determined in part by those factors...and 6 seconds before you were even aware of the choice you made.

The choice is yours to buy that ice cream, but how much of it was free? Would you have chosen your favourite ice cream if you were walking on the street in a freezing cold blizzard, had just filled your stomach with so many sweets that your blood sugar was high and thus any craving for more is turned off?

QuoteWe are discussing religion/God here aren't we?  Free will as it pertains to choosing God/anything?

My bad. I wrote that as a continuation of where I left off previously.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "xSilverPhinx"The problem I have with that is: assuming god knows everything that is going to happen in the universe, every event you'll go through in your life that will ultimately shape you in some ways your genetics which will also shape you, every book you're going to read, every person you're going to talk to in an exact moment in your life some which may have left you more prone to make a certain decision, but will still punish you for not believing?

I may be getting your point wrong, but it seems it is much the same as I've already heard from Davin and others.
God punishes* dependant on each individual's choice.  Whether He knows or not, the punishment is dealt out according to each person's own choice.  (Punishment is death...of which the Atheist freely admits will happen anyway)

Nope, you're not getting it wrong. That's exactly the issue I (and many atheists) have with god-given free will in a deterministic universe where an omnibenevolent god who knows everything, including whether or not you'll choose to worship him, waits for you to live your life already knowing that you won't choose to believe in him and then blames and punishes you for choosing not to. There are two parts to this problem - that of just how free our free will is and god's omnibenevolence.

QuoteBlessed I am that I was born into a Christian family in a nation that allows freedom of religion.  As I mentioned above, the task laid upon the believer is that with this knowledge comes the responsibility to share it with all, ultimately with the world.  No one should have an excuse to say that they never knew about God.  You all here have made a conscious decision that there is no God.  So if there is, and He does come to claim that which loves Him and you are left out, it is because you freely chose to.  (what will God do with people that haven't had the choice as the question might arise?  I don't know.  We are not explained how this scenario will play out in scripture.)

Let's put the god of the bible aside for this one and take another example instead, so you can better understand where atheists are coming from.

Supposing someone came up to you and said that Allah has given you the choice to worship him but if you refuse out of your free will you will receive the foretold punishment. You've already chosen your set of beliefs, values and philosophies based on your life experience, culture, learning and the path you've chosen as an outcome of all that. Why don't you choose Islam even though they have a holy book they claim is true, a prophet they claim is the prophet of the one god and millions of followers and believers who have seen evidence for the existence of that particular god as told in the Quran?

In hindsight your whole life has led you to where you are now based on the choices you made and the opportunities that were open to you. You're where Allah already knew you would be. Why won't you choose Islam?

Thing is, Allah knows you won't choose Islam, but gave you free will. You chose to continue being an unbeliever in Islam for your own reasons (not enough evidence to make you change your mind, maybe?) . He's also omnibenevolent but will put you in hell after you die because you didn't choose to become a Muslim, even though he always knew you wouldn't. Is that benevolent?

QuoteNot spite.  I acknowledge that I am vastly inferior in knowledge of philosophies, science, politics...what I do claim, however is a superior knowledge of what the scriptures teach as opposed to those that simply spout glancing points from the bible..."God asked a man to sacrifice his son....that's not a God I want to follow..."  While true on the surface, it is a false generalization.

Total and complete ignorance is what that is.

Well I'm ignorant on the bible and scripture. In fact, it's something that I've been wanting to remedy for quite some time now, but as I mentioned above my interests pertain mostly to the cognitive side of beliefs (religious and non religious), perception and the like. I've got a perfectly good KJV sitting somewhere that's been collecting dust for many years, but reading it to discuss the theological aspect would take time and energy I don't have. Not to mention I would have to read up on history, archeology, educate myself further in comparative religions and the history of the the judeo-christian religion and how it changed over time and what influenced it in its infancy. And also the political side of Christianity too, and the vestiges it contains as a tool for power. I think that the bible is not something that can be read isolated from other topics.

That's why I try to refrain from discussing actual parts of the bible, though my limited knowledge has allowed me to see that many Christians don't know anything about the bible either.

*Edited to correct misspellings.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt""God asked a man to sacrifice his son....that's not a God I want to follow..."  While true on the surface, it is a false generalization.

Total and complete ignorance is what that is.

Hmmm, my first thought was WTF!
My second thought, it said it in the bible right? Abraham was asked by God to kill his son.
A specific instance, which was referenced as a specific instance by the person (me) refering to it. I am struggling to see where the generalisation is.
I most certainly am ignorant of the bible as a whole, but that story, I've heard that one. You can put whatever enterpretation on it that you want. But if you read the passage, well, it is what it is.
It seems you are imagining a completely different Bible to the one that is actually written. Your assertions about your god taint your view of its actions as described in the bible.

Animated Dirt is right in one way.  Often there are people who do not know the Bible that use a verse here and there from what they've seen on another atheist website to show the holes in scripture.  

I'll say this much.  I've read the Bible twice, spent 33 years as a Christian, and tried several denominations, and can say that to maintain faith in God and the Bible and Jesus you have to set aside much of the Bible, and ignore some of the doctrine that every minister and church teach.

I do think we're starting to see the beginnings of a nation turning away from God.  There are fewer people who believe in God now.  Out of those who do, the majority do not attend church.  Are we just that much busier as a nation?  Perhaps most of the remaining theists maintain a loose belief in God based on being taught so in their younger lives and fear in going to hell if they turn away.

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt""God asked a man to sacrifice his son....that's not a God I want to follow..."  While true on the surface, it is a false generalization.

Total and complete ignorance is what that is.

Hmmm, my first thought was WTF!
My second thought, it said it in the bible right? Abraham was asked by God to kill his son.
A specific instance, which was referenced as a specific instance by the person (me) refering to it. I am struggling to see where the generalisation is.
I most certainly am ignorant of the bible as a whole, but that story, I've heard that one. You can put whatever enterpretation on it that you want. But if you read the passage, well, it is what it is.
It seems you are imagining a completely different Bible to the one that is actually written. Your assertions about your god taint your view of its actions as described in the bible.

Yes ignorance what else can you call it?
Doesn't everyone know what a funny old bloke god is?
Always joking around, what a whit.
Kill your son, ah no I was only joking, ha.... ha.....ha

I never did read that part of the bible, I'm sure I heard about it at Sunday school, probably coloured in Abraham.  As I recall it old Ab was rewarded for his willingness to kill his son with not having to kill his son.  Shit, I just don't know why this faith never stuck with me.

Well, I've done the research now.
It seems that theists are quite confused about this story, there are lots of differing oppinions, lots of "excuses", none of the excuses draw on what it actually said about this story, but make stuff up to substantiate an excuse. Same thing goes for the She bears incident.

One Christain said that they weren't very happy with the bible because it makes god out to be a "monster"
Wikipedia talks about how the Jews reject the story as it is within the bible,

QuoteRabbi Yona Ibn Janach (Spain, 11th century) wrote that God demanded only a symbolic sacrifice. Rabbi Yosef Ibn Caspi (Spain, early 14th century) wrote that Abraham's "imagination" led him astray, making him believe that he had been commanded to sacrifice his son. Ibn Caspi writes "How could God command such a revolting thing?"

But the bible does not talk about only a symbolic sacfice (which is bad enough). The bible does not say this is Abraham's imagination. The bible is clear and specific that Abraham was demanded by god to kill his son Issac.

QuoteOther rabbinic scholars also note that Abraham was willing to do everything to spare his son, even if it meant going against the divine command

Again, another made up excuse. This excuse is not reflected in teh scripture.

and for the Christian response as per Wiki

QuoteThe Author of Hebrews here considers Abraham's faith in God to be of such a magnitude that he felt reassured that if God would allow him to perform the task which he'd requested, God would be able to resurrect the slain Isaac, in order that his prophecy (Genesis 21:12) might be fulfilled

Again, nowhere in scripture was described that Abraham thought that there was no consequence to his son with regards to Abraham killing him. This excuse is simply an imaginative twist to wriggle out of the difficult situation that a Christian's all loving perfect God is demanding a faithful follwer to kill his own son.

QuoteEarly Christian preaching sometimes simply received Jewish interpretations of the binding of Isaac without elaborating on them. For example Hippolytus of Rome says in his Commentary on the Song of Songs, "The blessed Isaac became desirous of the anointing and he wished to sacrifice himself for the sake of the world"

Here is a funny contradictory excuse from Answers.com

QuoteGod was testing Abrahm so that Abrahm would know that his love for God has to come first above all else including his son. God does not and has not EVER asked anyone to sin because he is a HOLY God and that goes against who he is. If someone says that God asked someone to sin then it was not from God but Satan, The Father of Lies.

So, God asks Abraham to kill his son as a test to see who Abraham loves the most. Then the excuse goes on to say God has never asked anyone to sin because... blah blah. Here it is based on assertions but denies the scripture as written, god asking Abraham to sacrifice his son!

It seems everyone is ignorant of this story, noone knows what the hell it is about, and oppinions and theories are abound.

@Stevil: What I've found to be the status quo of theists is that when they claim you've not done the research, they won't accept that you've honestly done the research unless you come to the same conclusion they have. In an intellectually honest argument, one doesn't just say that the other has not done the proper research, they provide something on the proper research to demonstrate it. To just say someone has not done the proper research and leave it at that is an attempt to discredit the point without having to actually argue against the point. I would not be surprised to see AD say that you haven't researched enough or you just dismiss the arguments on account of you being an atheist in an attempt to once again avoid your points.

The bible itself is not about the stories. It is not a peice of historical documents to record events that happened. The book is to teach and influence the reader how to think and behave. Each story has some sort of lesson such that the reader becomes indocterined into a way of thinking.

The Abraham lesson is to teach the reader to obey, to follow all other lessons and morals of the bible without question (as well as the church). It provides an extreme example of a Father obeying and attempting to kill his son, as a lesson to say nothing is beyond the level of obedience that is expected. The book of Job is a similar lesson.

It overcomes the grotesqueness and do as I say not as I do by making wild assertions, God is love, God is perfect, blah blah.

I would think many new Christians must struggle with the grotesque aspect of the bible. It must take a great amount of effort to get them to overcome this and see it as God being perfect.

This is my current thought on it anyhow. I know all Christians would adimately disagree.

Quote from: "Stevil"Well, I've done the research now.
It seems that theists are quite confused about this story, there are lots of differing oppinions, lots of "excuses", none of the excuses draw on what it actually said about this story, but make stuff up to substantiate an excuse. Same thing goes for the She bears incident.

I see you've done some research, but selective and half-hearted, at best.  Still, the point is that there are differing opinions on the event.  However, I don't think you even went to the source itself.

God never intended that Abraham go through with the sacrifice of his son.  It is a picture of Christ at his death (sacrifice), the innocent boy carrying the wood himself and the father carrying the fire.  Abraham seems to have known all along that God wouldn't REALLY have him take his own son, but he trusted God.  In fact, when Abraham told the servants to "stay here and we will be back", is a statement of faith that God WOULD provide the sacrifice...even when the boy asks about having wood and fire but no sacrifice, Abraham tells his son, "God will provide".  See Genesis 22 if at all interested.

Contrary to Davin's idea, I don't care whether you come to the "right" conclusion.  I would rather someone intelligently discuss points that they disagree with in scripture or about God rather than simply spouting off some point off a list.  It would be better to question the "test" rather than the request that was the test.  Why?  Because the request/task was never intended to be fulfilled to the letter.  I question the test myself to some degree, but I don't dismiss the point brought about as a result.  In the end, God did provide.  God did sacrifice a Son.  His own.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Stevil"Well, I've done the research now.
It seems that theists are quite confused about this story, there are lots of differing oppinions, lots of "excuses", none of the excuses draw on what it actually said about this story, but make stuff up to substantiate an excuse. Same thing goes for the She bears incident.

I see you've done some research, but selective and half-hearted, at best.  Still, the point is that there are differing opinions on the event.  However, I don't think you even went to the source itself.

God never intended that Abraham go through with the sacrifice of his son.  It is a picture of Christ at his death (sacrifice), the innocent boy carrying the wood himself and the father carrying the fire.  Abraham seems to have known all along that God wouldn't REALLY have him take his own son, but he trusted God.  In fact, when Abraham told the servants to "stay here and we will be back", is a statement of faith that God WOULD provide the sacrifice...even when the boy asks about having wood and fire but no sacrifice, Abraham tells his son, "God will provide".  See Genesis 22 if at all interested.

Contrary to Davin's idea, I don't care whether you come to the "right" conclusion.  I would rather someone intelligently discuss points that they disagree with in scripture or about God rather than simply spouting off some point off a list.  It would be better to question the "test" rather than the request that was the test.  Why?  Because the request/task was never intended to be fulfilled to the letter.  I question the test myself to some degree, but I don't dismiss the point brought about as a result.  In the end, God did provide.  God did sacrifice a Son.  His own.

If the Abraham story were to be believed, there are several possibilities for his behavior.  One could be that God ordered him to make a sacrifice of his son, but that Abraham didn't really believe that's what God was going to have him do, as you said.  Perhaps another explanation could be that Abraham was schizophrenic, having auditory hallucinations telling him to sacrifice his son, but he didn't really want to do it, so he knew the hallucinations would tell him to stop.

The Abraham story actually sounds a lot like some of the things I heard from two schizophrenics when I was working at a mental health institution.  One was even arrested because her husband caught her about to sacrifice her daughter because God told her to do it.  She claimed later that God had just changed his mind just before her husband walked into the room.  While I was working there, she claimed Jesus visited her at night to make love to her, and once even came out of her room naked after such an experience.  That was a disturbing sight.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Stevil"Well, I've done the research now.
It seems that theists are quite confused about this story, there are lots of differing oppinions, lots of "excuses", none of the excuses draw on what it actually said about this story, but make stuff up to substantiate an excuse. Same thing goes for the She bears incident.

I see you've done some research, but selective and half-hearted, at best.  Still, the point is that there are differing opinions on the event.  However, I don't think you even went to the source itself.

Yeah, I'm not surprised.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"God never intended that Abraham go through with the sacrifice of his son.  It is a picture of Christ at his death (sacrifice), the innocent boy carrying the wood himself and the father carrying the fire.  Abraham seems to have known all along that God wouldn't REALLY have him take his own son, but he trusted God.  In fact, when Abraham told the servants to "stay here and we will be back", is a statement of faith that God WOULD provide the sacrifice...even when the boy asks about having wood and fire but no sacrifice, Abraham tells his son, "God will provide".  See Genesis 22 if at all interested.

So where in the bible does it say that Abraham knew he wouldn't have to REALLY sacrifice his son? If Abraham REALLY knew that he wouldn't have to sacrifice his son, then the whole point of the story is that when god tells you to do something, you REALLY know he doesn't mean it? Then why is not anything said by this god not taken with the same grain of salt? How do we know this god REALLY means that you have to beleive in him and Jesus to get into heaven?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Contrary to Davin's idea, I don't care whether you come to the "right" conclusion.

Contrary to my idea but you acted exactly as I predicted. Does that mean that I'm a prophet because my prediction came true?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"I would rather someone intelligently discuss points that they disagree with in scripture or about God rather than simply spouting off some point off a list.  It would be better to question the "test" rather than the request that was the test.  Why?  Because the request/task was never intended to be fulfilled to the letter.  I question the test myself to some degree, but I don't dismiss the point brought about as a result.  In the end, God did provide.  God did sacrifice a Son.  His own.

God sacrificed his own son, who was himself, who knew the whole deal of what was going on... so god let himself die in order to sacrifice himself to himself because of something that was in his control that he knew about in the first place... I don't see the sacrifice.

If this omniscient god knows that you will drink a glass of water at 3:08pm tomorrow afternoon, what will you do tomorrow at 3:08pm in the afternoon?

Quote from: "Davin"God sacrificed his own son, who was himself, who knew the whole deal of what was going on... so god let himself die in order to sacrifice himself to himself because of something that was in his control that he knew about in the first place... I don't see the sacrifice.

Not to mention that he came back to life three days later (bigger and better than ever), so the sacrifice was, in effect, nullified.

Quote from: "Davin"Yeah, I'm not surprised.

I knew you'd like that response.

Quote from: "Davin"So where in the bible does it say that Abraham knew he wouldn't have to REALLY sacrifice his son? If Abraham REALLY knew that he wouldn't have to sacrifice his son, then the whole point of the story is that when god tells you to do something, you REALLY know he doesn't mean it? Then why is not anything said by this god not taken with the same grain of salt? How do we know this god REALLY means that you have to beleive in him and Jesus to get into heaven?

Like I said...lots of asserting, conjecture, assuming...and you've not even gone to the source.

Quote from: "Davin"Contrary to my idea but you acted exactly as I predicted. Does that mean that I'm a prophet because my prediction came true?

I wrote what you wanted to hear and it felt good didn't it?  To be a prophet, one has to do better than make an educated guess at future events.

Quote from: "Davin"God sacrificed his own son, who was himself, who knew the whole deal of what was going on... so god let himself die in order to sacrifice himself to himself because of something that was in his control that he knew about in the first place... I don't see the sacrifice.

Very telling and honest words.

Quote from: "Davin"If this omniscient god knows that you will drink a glass of water at 3:08pm tomorrow afternoon, what will you do tomorrow at 3:08pm in the afternoon?

*You will be thirsty by your own thought process and drink something of your choice.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"God sacrificed his own son, who was himself, who knew the whole deal of what was going on... so god let himself die in order to sacrifice himself to himself because of something that was in his control that he knew about in the first place... I don't see the sacrifice.

Very telling and honest words.

Maybe you'd like to explain why it is a sacrifice.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"So where in the bible does it say that Abraham knew he wouldn't have to REALLY sacrifice his son? If Abraham REALLY knew that he wouldn't have to sacrifice his son, then the whole point of the story is that when god tells you to do something, you REALLY know he doesn't mean it? Then why is not anything said by this god not taken with the same grain of salt? How do we know this god REALLY means that you have to beleive in him and Jesus to get into heaven?

Like I said...lots of asserting, conjecture, assuming...and you've not even gone to the source.

I've been to the source, it LITERALLY says that god commanded Abraham to kill his son, and never LITERALLY says that Abraham knew god was lying to him.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"Contrary to my idea but you acted exactly as I predicted. Does that mean that I'm a prophet because my prediction came true?

I wrote what you wanted to hear and it felt good didn't it?  To be a prophet, one has to do better than make an educated guess at future events.

Sure, it was funny that you're poor argument tactics were no different than the ones used by the majority of theists I've talked to.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"God sacrificed his own son, who was himself, who knew the whole deal of what was going on... so god let himself die in order to sacrifice himself to himself because of something that was in his control that he knew about in the first place... I don't see the sacrifice.

Very telling and honest words.

Yes, there was no actual sacrifice, very honest indeed.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"If this omniscient god knows that you will drink a glass of water at 3:08pm tomorrow afternoon, what will you do tomorrow at 3:08pm in the afternoon?

*You will be thirsty by your own thought process and drink something of your choice.

If this omniscient god knows that you will drink a glass of water at 3:08pm tomorrow afternoon, what will you do tomorrow at 3:08pm in the afternoon?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"If this omniscient god knows that you will drink a glass of water at 3:08pm tomorrow afternoon, what will you do tomorrow at 3:08pm in the afternoon?

*You will be thirsty by your own thought process and drink something of your choice.

Quote from: "Davin"I've been to the source, it LITERALLY says that god commanded Abraham to kill his son, and never LITERALLY says that Abraham knew god was lying to him.

Care to quote what you claim?

Quote from: "Davin"Sure, it was funny that you're poor argument tactics were no different than the ones used by the majority of theists I've talked to.

Have you noticed a trend then?  One might say you're employing the same counter-argument and thus the same argument is all you'll get.  That and you keep going which says even more.

Quote from: "Davin"Yes, there was no actual sacrifice, very honest indeed.

Honest as ignorance can be.

Quote from: "Davin"If this omniscient god knows that you will drink a glass of water at 3:08pm tomorrow afternoon, what will you do tomorrow at 3:08pm in the afternoon?

Oh...I see now how you don't see things...you missed my answer entirely.

*You will be thirsty by your own thought process and drink something of your choice.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"I've been to the source, it LITERALLY says that god commanded Abraham to kill his son, and never LITERALLY says that Abraham knew god was lying to him.

Care to quote what you claim?

Sure:
[spoiler:2jvfjpar]

Quote from: "Gen 22:1-19"1 Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, “Abraham!”

   â€œHere I am,” he replied.

 2 Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you loveâ€"Isaacâ€"and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.”

 3 Early the next morning Abraham got up and loaded his donkey. He took with him two of his servants and his son Isaac. When he had cut enough wood for the burnt offering, he set out for the place God had told him about. 4 On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance. 5 He said to his servants, “Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you.”

 6 Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. As the two of them went on together, 7 Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, “Father?”

   â€œYes, my son?” Abraham replied.

   â€œThe fire and wood are here,” Isaac said, “but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?”

 8 Abraham answered, “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.” And the two of them went on together.

 9 When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. 10 Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. 11 But the angel of the LORD called out to him from heaven, “Abraham! Abraham!”

   â€œHere I am,” he replied.

 12 “Do not lay a hand on the boy,” he said. “Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.”

 13 Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram[a] caught by its horns. He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son. 14 So Abraham called that place The LORD Will Provide. And to this day it is said, “On the mountain of the LORD it will be provided.”

 15 The angel of the LORD called to Abraham from heaven a second time 16 and said, “I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, 18 and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed,[c] because you have obeyed me.”

 19 Then Abraham returned to his servants, and they set off together for Beersheba. And Abraham stayed in Beersheba.

[/spoiler:2jvfjpar]

The god commands Abraham to sacrifice Isaac as a burnt offering, then says that because Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son Isaac, that the god blessed him.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"Sure, it was funny that you're poor argument tactics were no different than the ones used by the majority of theists I've talked to.

Have you noticed a trend then?  One might say you're employing the same counter-argument and thus the same argument is all you'll get.  That and you keep going which says even more.

Can you predict my behavior as well as I can predict yours?
My persistence in this says what? I guarantee that you'll be wrong with this assumption as well.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"Yes, there was no actual sacrifice, very honest indeed.

Honest as ignorance can be.

Which is far more honest than being ignorant yet claiming knowledge.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"If this omniscient god knows that you will drink a glass of water at 3:08pm tomorrow afternoon, what will you do tomorrow at 3:08pm in the afternoon?

Oh...I see now how you don't see things...you missed my answer entirely.

*You will be thirsty by your own thought process and drink something of your choice.

That's not an action. Why can't you just answer the question?

Quote from: "Davin"The god commands Abraham to sacrifice Isaac as a burnt offering, then says that because Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son Isaac, that the god blessed him.

There are at least two indications of Abraham's faith.
1.  "...We will worship and then we will come back to you."
2.  ""God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son."
Abraham knew whatever had to be done, he would return with his son.

Quote from: "Davin"Can you predict my behavior as well as I can predict yours?

I don't try to.  I give you a bit more credit than you give me.

Quote from: "Davin"My persistence in this says what? I guarantee that you'll be wrong with this assumption as well.

Some sort of pleasure.

Quote from: "Davin"Which is far more honest than being ignorant yet claiming knowledge.

But you have made a decision on the matter without being informed on the whole of the matter.  

Quote from: "Davin"That's not an action. Why can't you just answer the question?

I have answered it.  Plainly.  Drinking is not an action?  You just don't like the answer.

*You will be thirsty by your own thought process and drink something of your choice.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"The god commands Abraham to sacrifice Isaac as a burnt offering, then says that because Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son Isaac, that the god blessed him.

There are at least two indications of Abraham's faith.
1.  "...We will worship and then we will come back to you."
2.  ""God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son."
Abraham knew whatever had to be done, he would return with his son.

And the evidence against that that more supports that Abraham was just lying to the servants as well as to Isaac:
1) Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you loveâ€"Isaacâ€"and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.”

2) 9 When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. 10 Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. 11 But the angel of the LORD called out to him from heaven, “Abraham! Abraham!”

3) 12 “Do not lay a hand on the boy,” he said. “Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.”

4) 15 The angel of the LORD called to Abraham from heaven a second time 16 and said, “I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, 18 and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed,[c] because you have obeyed me.”

So either Abraham was lying to the servants and Isaac or the god was lying when the god said, “I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son[...]".

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"Can you predict my behavior as well as I can predict yours?

I don't try to.  I give you a bit more credit than you give me.

I doubt that, you already stated lies about me, at least I've never lied about you.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"My persistence in this says what? I guarantee that you'll be wrong with this assumption as well.

Some sort of pleasure.

My persistence in this says, "Some sort of pleasure."? That does not make sense.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"Which is far more honest than being ignorant yet claiming knowledge.

But you have made a decision on the matter without being informed on the whole of the matter.

Which part of the matter am I not informed on? What evidence do you have for any part of this matter?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"That's not an action. Why can't you just answer the question?

I have answered it.  Plainly.  Drinking is not an action?  You just don't like the answer.

*You will be thirsty by your own thought process and drink something of your choice.

You can only perform one action: the action the god that created everything knows you will do. Perhaps you can explain how you get to free will from a god that created everything knowing exactly how everything will be.

If I set up a bunch of dominos, I know which way they will fall, if I put some AI in each domino to make them to think that the way they will fall is the way they "wanted" to fall and was their free choice. It just so happens that they "want" to fall the same direction I designed them to fall in. I think this analogy more matches an all knowing god that created everything. Perhaps you can give an analogy that better describes how you propose free will to exist when a god created everything knowing exactly how everything will be.

Quote from: "Davin"So either Abraham was lying to the servants and Isaac or the god was lying when the god said, “I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son[...]".

Lying or confident in God's word.  God lied?  How so.  If God swore by himself (by His own name...heh, back to the religious exclamations topic) that Abraham was blest because he was willing to sacrifice his own son to God?  God blest him becasue of his faith, not because of daring to go through with the task.  Never was God intending that Abraham actually sacrifice his son.  It was exactly as the Bible states...a test to see how much Abraham trusted God and a lesson on what it would take to reconcile humanity back to God.  Not the sacrifice of a created being, but a sacrifice of God Himself.

Quote from: "Davin"I doubt that, you already stated lies about me, at least I've never lied about you.

I have not lied.  You claim as I said, you dismiss evidence.  Full stop.

Quote from: "Davin"My persistence in this says, "Some sort of pleasure."? That does not make sense.

Really?  Persistence in this says you must gain some sort of pleasure out of it...out of persisting in this, you must gain some sort of pleasure.

Another point that you cannot see, but is quite out in the open?

Quote from: "Davin"Which part of the matter am I not informed on? What evidence do you have for any part of this matter?

You tell me, then, how is God's death a sacrifice.  Explain to me the Gospel.  How is it God is legally able to reconcile humanity back by His death?  Lots of things I'm not sure whether you know or not.  At least, one should be able to explain these points as they are well documented in scripture.  You are free to disagree, but disagree with the substance of the story and not just a listing from an internet search of "bible contradictions".  Those are many and easily found.

Quote from: "Davin"You can only perform one action: the action the god that created everything knows you will do. Perhaps you can explain how you get to free will from a god that created everything knowing exactly how everything will be.

He knows, he doesn't dictate.  Knowing the outcome is not dictating the outcome.  Given an almanac of the last century's happenings.  Does the knowledge of who will win the Superbowl dictate who will win the superbowl by design?  No.  Likewise, while God has created everything, those given free will are able to do as they choose from whatever there is to choose from, be it drinks, clothing to put on, shower or not shower...choosing God or not choosing God.

Quote from: "Davin"If I set up a bunch of dominos, I know which way they will fall, if I put some AI in each domino to make them to think that the way they will fall is the way they "wanted" to fall and was their free choice. It just so happens that they "want" to fall the same direction I designed them to fall in. I think this analogy more matches an all knowing god that created everything. Perhaps you can give an analogy that better describes how you propose free will to exist when a god created everything knowing exactly how everything will be.

Not quite.  Dominoes will not fall unless a force is acted upon them in one direction or another.  Falling is not the factor.  All have fallen and all are in need of being lifted up.  You and I are a free thinking entity.  We are both able to decide on our own which belief is better for our own findings...if any belief at all.  There are many ways of falling, but only one way to God if that be your own desire.  You have the same information I do and you choose differently than I do.  We are free to choose.  God knows ultimately, but His knowledge does not necessarily dictate our choice.

Can you choose other than what God knows?  Yes.  You have the ability to choose as you wish.  it is YOUR CHOICE.

*You will be thirsty by your own thought process and drink something of your choice to quench the thirst.  What you drink is entirely up to you.  You can choose whatever your heart desires.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"So either Abraham was lying to the servants and Isaac or the god was lying when the god said, “I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son[...]".

Lying or confident in God's word.  God lied?  How so.  If God swore by himself (by His own name...heh, back to the religious exclamations topic) that Abraham was blest because he was willing to sacrifice his own son to God?  God blest him becasue of his faith, not because of daring to go through with the task.  Never was God intending that Abraham actually sacrifice his son.  It was exactly as the Bible states...a test to see how much Abraham trusted God and a lesson on what it would take to reconcile humanity back to God.  Not the sacrifice of a created being, but a sacrifice of God Himself.

I feel that the Abraham character was likely lying to everyone because that is what you do when you take someone out back to kill them, especially if that someone doesn't know about it, and you want it to be a surprise.

I have no doubt that the god character did not intend for Abraham to kill his son. That is not what I  have a problem with. I have a problem with the god character getting the Abraham character to intend to kill his son simply because the god character ask it of him. It was cruel and unnecessary. I would never ask my young daughter to kill her kitten simply to prove to me that she loves me more. Even if I stopped her going through with it, it would be a terrible, awefull, horrific and disgusting thing for a parent to do. It would leave scars on that childs mind forever and if the kitten was capable of thinking about it then it would be right it feeling pretty pissed.

If it is up for interpretation, (and from what I have read, it seems that many, many people have an interpretation and opinion) well, mine is that the story is a lesson to the followers to do as they are darn well told. To have faith in authority and second guess your own judgement. It is about obidience and developing a dependancy in the bible, church, spiritual advisor...
This is my opinion. You can call me naive and ignorant if you disagree and I can throw the same insults back on you and your opinion. But in the end we should focus on the story and not on each other, we are different people with different backgrounds and hence more than likely to differ in alot of our opinions. All I ask is for tolerance.

Quote from: "Stevil"I feel that the Abraham character was likely lying to everyone because that is what you do when you take someone out back to kill them, especially if that someone doesn't know about it, and you want it to be a surprise.

I can see this to some degree, but it seems the bigger picture is missed.  You are forgetting that this is an account of an event that happened and while all the necessary information is in place, not every detail is relayed, nor is it necessarily needed.  If we take this as it is, there are two witnesses, the two servants, that are present and would have seen and could've testified that Abraham went up with his son and came down without him and they never saw his son again, had the sacrifice gone as the human sees it.  However we have the faith of Abraham shown twice that, 1.  He and his son would return and 2. that God would provide the sacrifice.

Quote from: "Stevil"I have no doubt that the god character did not intend for Abraham to kill his son. That is not what I  have a problem with. I have a problem with the god character getting the Abraham character to intend to kill his son simply because the god character ask it of him. It was cruel and unnecessary.

Cruel and unnecessary.  Well, I'd agree with cruel, but definitely necessary when one looks at the context of the point.  Never would God have allowed Abraham to sacrifice his own son because it is not through human blood that we (humanity) are reconciled back to God.  The cruelty is what is required to be reconciled back when sin enters into the picture.

Quote from: "Stevil"I would never ask my young daughter to kill her kitten simply to prove to me that she loves me more. Even if I stopped her going through with it, it would be a terrible, awefull, horrific and disgusting thing for a parent to do. It would leave scars on that childs mind forever and if the kitten was capable of thinking about it then it would be right it feeling pretty pissed.

Again, one must look at this (as best one can) through different eyes or from a different perspective.  First of all the culture was different than we know now.  It would be terrible, awful, horrific and disgusting for a human to ask for a life sacrifice to prove love.  God asked, but doesn't require it from us.  We should be willing to give up everything for Him...and the thing about God is that whatever we lose here in this life, can be returned to us better in the next.  This is why Abraham had confidence in doing as God asked.  He knew God would provide the sacrifice as had been taught to them from the time of Adam and Eve.  

Quote from: "Stevil"If it is up for interpretation, (and from what I have read, it seems that many, many people have an interpretation and opinion) well, mine is that the story is a lesson to the followers to do as they are darn well told. To have faith in authority and second guess your own judgement. It is about obidience and developing a dependancy in the bible, church, spiritual advisor...
This is my opinion. You can call me naive and ignorant if you disagree and I can throw the same insults back on you and your opinion. But in the end we should focus on the story and not on each other, we are different people with different backgrounds and hence more than likely to differ in alot of our opinions. All I ask is for tolerance.

I wouldn't fault your interpretation as you seem to have it almost "right" (IMHO).  If God is who He says He is, then we should follow as He darn well tells us.  If He created us and this universe, then He knows best and is that which sustains life.  We are not to be dependant on the Bible, but the Bible points us to God in whom we should, then, be dependant on.  *You'll get no insults from me when you make an honest try at least in understanding.  I'm not sure I've sent any insults to anyone, but if I have, I do apologize.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"So either Abraham was lying to the servants and Isaac or the god was lying when the god said, “I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son[...]".

Lying or confident in God's word.  God lied?  How so.  If God swore by himself (by His own name...heh, back to the religious exclamations topic) that Abraham was blest because he was willing to sacrifice his own son to God?  God blest him becasue of his faith, not because of daring to go through with the task.  Never was God intending that Abraham actually sacrifice his son.  It was exactly as the Bible states...a test to see how much Abraham trusted God and a lesson on what it would take to reconcile humanity back to God.  Not the sacrifice of a created being, but a sacrifice of God Himself.

Which is not the same as Abraham having faith that god didn't really want him to kill his son, that part is not in the bible. The god would be lying if he said that Abraham was willing to kill his son but Abraham wasn't really willing to kill his son because he thought the god would stop him.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"I doubt that, you already stated lies about me, at least I've never lied about you.

I have not lied.  You claim as I said, you dismiss evidence.  Full stop.

No, you lied about the reasons I dismiss evidence. You're fine up to this:

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"You just said you dismiss evidence. That's my whole point.

Your lying comes after:

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"You dismiss that which you care not to delve deeper into and find the core reason you dismiss it. You dismiss the Bible because "God asked a man to sacrifice his son." Full Stop. You dismiss the end of the story, the meaning of it and the reasons why God did it. It's your choice and perogative to disagree, but don't disagree and therefore dismiss the evidence when you've not even searched the evidence. It's like if you're an archaeologist digging for ancient civilizations. You jab the spade into the dirt, uncover more dirt...and move on to another location. You know where to look, you simply have potholed the Bible and so dismissed its claim(s) on superficial knowledge of what says.

That is you making shit up and lying. Why are you so dishonest?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"My persistence in this says, "Some sort of pleasure."? That does not make sense.

Really?  Persistence in this says you must gain some sort of pleasure out of it...out of persisting in this, you must gain some sort of pleasure.

That makes a lot more sense, but is wrong.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"Which part of the matter am I not informed on? What evidence do you have for any part of this matter?

You tell me, then, how is God's death a sacrifice.

Because this god cannot die, you need to explain how this god pretending to die is a sacrifice.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Explain to me the Gospel.

Which one?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"How is it God is legally able to reconcile humanity back by His death?  Lots of things I'm not sure whether you know or not.  At least, one should be able to explain these points as they are well documented in scripture.  You are free to disagree, but disagree with the substance of the story and not just a listing from an internet search of "bible contradictions".  Those are many and easily found.

I shouldn't have to tell you, you're the Christian, you're supposed to tell me. This is just as stupid as me asking you why I'm an atheist.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"He knows, he doesn't dictate.  Knowing the outcome is not dictating the outcome.  Given an almanac of the last century's happenings.  Does the knowledge of who will win the Superbowl dictate who will win the superbowl by design?  No.  Likewise, while God has created everything, those given free will are able to do as they choose from whatever there is to choose from, be it drinks, clothing to put on, shower or not shower...choosing God or not choosing God.

Not quite.  Dominoes will not fall unless a force is acted upon them in one direction or another.  Falling is not the factor.  All have fallen and all are in need of being lifted up.  You and I are a free thinking entity.  We are both able to decide on our own which belief is better for our own findings...if any belief at all.  There are many ways of falling, but only one way to God if that be your own desire.  You have the same information I do and you choose differently than I do.  We are free to choose.  God knows ultimately, but His knowledge does not necessarily dictate our choice.

How does this explain how a god that created everything while knowing how everything will be and the choices people will make based on how the god created everything leads to free will. Essentially all you've said is that the god made everything, knows everything and for no explainable reason, we have free will. Just saying something isn't enough, you need to explain it. All you've done is merely assert that there is free will in spite of the god that created everything knows exactly everything everyone will choose. Your mere assertions are the problem with people accepting the concept.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Can you choose other than what God knows?  Yes.  You have the ability to choose as you wish.  it is YOUR CHOICE.

So the god doesn't know everything because people can choose to do something the god does not know they will do.

Quote from: "Davin"Which is not the same as Abraham having faith that god didn't really want him to kill his son, that part is not in the bible. The god would be lying if he said that Abraham was willing to kill his son but Abraham wasn't really willing to kill his son because he thought the god would stop him.

Neither is the part that God requires us to sacrifice our sons and daughters for salvation.  It was a test to one man which in turn serves as a test to us all.  What are we willing to give up if God is God?  If not everything, then He is not our God.  Again, to fully understand the context of this is to at least understand the basics which *you may not even know since it seems *your knowledge of Christianity is superficial.

Quote from: "Davin"That is you making shit up and lying. Why are you so dishonest?

If this is making shit up, lying and being dishonest, then prove it wrong and support some of your superficial claims against Christianity with some actual understanding of what these accounts of the past mean, how we should put them into practice, if at all, and/or how it relates to our beliefs and hope.  No one says that to understand it from this context is to believe it.

Quote from: "Davin"That makes a lot more sense, but is wrong.

It made the same sense the first time and is not wrong because you would not be here on HAF if there was absolutely no pleasure to gain from it.  At most, it's partially wrong, but not completely.

Quote from: "Davin"Because this god cannot die, you need to explain how this god pretending to die is a sacrifice.

Another point at which you have no understanding and so you make more assertions.  So you dismissing evidence stands quite firm.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Explain to me the Gospel.

Which one?

The one according to your understanding from scripture.  YOUR interpretation.

Quote from: "Davin"I shouldn't have to tell you, you're the Christian, you're supposed to tell me. This is just as stupid as me asking you why I'm an atheist.

I'm not here to tell you, and you've not asked me to tell you.

Quote from: "Davin"How does this explain how a god that created everything while knowing how everything will be and the choices people will make based on how the god created everything leads to free will.

Who said it all leads to free will?  It's becoming evident you simply don't understand simple concepts.

Quote from: "Davin"Essentially all you've said is that the god made everything, knows everything and for no explainable reason, we have free will.

I'm sure you're just as able to point at every single change in evolutionary history to prove exactly how humanity came about.  Explain the gaps to the same satisfaction you're asking here and I'll explain the "for no explainable reason" to you.  Hold your own beliefs up to the same scrutiny as you request me to hold mine.

Quote from: "Davin"Just saying something isn't enough, you need to explain it. All you've done is merely assert that there is free will in spite of the god that created everything knows exactly everything everyone will choose. Your mere assertions are the problem with people accepting the concept.

Have you heard some scientists trying to explain evolutionary beliefs?  Much the same as you claim against the Christian belief here.  Much the same.  Assertions that this came to this, then...opps, there's nothing here for a few million years, but then we have this so this is what came of that...and voila...Humans!

Quote from: "Davin"So the god doesn't know everything because people can choose to do something the god does not know they will do.

Every person is free to choose whatever they themselves see as fit to choose.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"We should be willing to give up everything for Him...and the thing about God is that whatever we lose here in this life, can be returned to us better in the next.

This is the dangerous bit. This is what I had pointed out before to which your response was that I was ignorant. So, we have now come full circle.
My point is that if you think your god has demanded something from you that you and/or your society would deem as detrimental or deplorable (e.g. kill a family member) then you need to be really sure that this demand/request has in actual fact come from your god and not some other source and that your god is indeed what you think your god is.

I can see why some people end up going to prison for doing things that they had perceived came as a message from god. A friend of mine had a flatmate that was on medication to stop his voices. He thought god was talking to him through the TV set. This stuff happens and combined with the Christian stance you have presented above, it becomes very dangerous.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"Which is not the same as Abraham having faith that god didn't really want him to kill his son, that part is not in the bible. The god would be lying if he said that Abraham was willing to kill his son but Abraham wasn't really willing to kill his son because he thought the god would stop him.

Neither is the part that God requires us to sacrifice our sons and daughters for salvation.  It was a test to one man which in turn serves as a test to us all.  What are we willing to give up if God is God?  If not everything, then He is not our God.  Again, to fully understand the context of this is to at least understand the basics which *you may not even know since it seems *your knowledge of Christianity is superficial.

Just because I choose to not make assumptions about what the scriptures say doesn't mean that my knowledge of Christianity is superficial. You have no idea of my knowledge of Christianity. And as it turns out, you now admit you were wrong when you stated: "Abraham knew whatever had to be done, he would return with his son." So having not even mastered the story of Abraham well enough to have a coherent and consistent understanding, you claim I have a misunderstanding.

You can assume this all you want, however even if I had never heard or read the myths before, does not discredit my points. You have to address the points made, and not commit an ad hominem fallacy by attacking the person instead.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"That is you making shit up and lying. Why are you so dishonest?

If this is making shit up, lying and being dishonest, then prove it wrong and support some of your superficial claims against Christianity with some actual understanding of what these accounts of the past mean, how we should put them into practice, if at all, and/or how it relates to our beliefs and hope.  No one says that to understand it from this context is to believe it.

You're now committing the argument from ignorance fallacy by making a claim and saying that one must provide an alternate explanation to disprove it. Intellectually honest arguments do not work that way, you must provide the evidence for your claims. All claims require evidence even if you're clearly lying.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"That makes a lot more sense, but is wrong.

It made the same sense the first time and is not wrong because you would not be here on HAF if there was absolutely no pleasure to gain from it.  At most, it's partially wrong, but not completely.

How do you know this? How do you know my motivations? You're just making shit up again.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"Because this god cannot die, you need to explain how this god pretending to die is a sacrifice.

Another point at which you have no understanding and so you make more assertions.  So you dismissing evidence stands quite firm.

So this god is not immortal?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Explain to me the Gospel.

Which one?

The one according to your understanding from scripture.  YOUR interpretation.

My interpretation is that it's just a bunch of stories just like any other mythology and has no empirical evidence to support it so there is no reason to accept it as true.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"I shouldn't have to tell you, you're the Christian, you're supposed to tell me. This is just as stupid as me asking you why I'm an atheist.

I'm not here to tell you, and you've not asked me to tell you.

And I'm not here to tell you what you believe and/or what you accept as true. So stop saying, "You tell me" when I ask you a question. I'm not asking you for me to tell myself, unlike your demonstrated assumptions about me, I do not make assumptions about others.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"How does this explain how a god that created everything while knowing how everything will be and the choices people will make based on how the god created everything leads to free will.

Who said it all leads to free will?  It's becoming evident you simply don't understand simple concepts.

No one, I asked how it leads to free will, not how everything leads to free will. Not being able to undersatand a simple statement makes your second statement here look humorously ironic.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"Essentially all you've said is that the god made everything, knows everything and for no explainable reason, we have free will.

I'm sure you're just as able to point at every single change in evolutionary history to prove exactly how humanity came about.  Explain the gaps to the same satisfaction you're asking here and I'll explain the "for no explainable reason" to you.  Hold your own beliefs up to the same scrutiny as you request me to hold mine.

I don't want "every" explainable reason, but something more than:
1: God knows everything
2: God makes everything
...
~~: Free will

Would be much better.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"Just saying something isn't enough, you need to explain it. All you've done is merely assert that there is free will in spite of the god that created everything knows exactly everything everyone will choose. Your mere assertions are the problem with people accepting the concept.

Have you heard some scientists trying to explain evolutionary beliefs?  Much the same as you claim against the Christian belief here.  Much the same.  Assertions that this came to this, then...opps, there's nothing here for a few million years, but then we have this so this is what came of that...and voila...Humans!

I'm not the one claiming something here, the burden of proof is on you, however your example of how you explain evolution is almost as vacuous as your argument for free will.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"So the god doesn't know everything because people can choose to do something the god does not know they will do.

Every person is free to choose whatever they themselves see as fit to choose.

...

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Can you choose other than what God knows? Yes. You have the ability to choose as you wish. it is YOUR CHOICE.

Quote from: "Davin"Just because I choose to not make assumptions about what the scriptures say doesn't mean that my knowledge of Christianity is superficial. You have no idea of my knowledge of Christianity. And as it turns out, you now admit you were wrong when you stated: "Abraham knew whatever had to be done, he would return with his son."

Not even close.

Quote from: "Davin"So having not even mastered the story of Abraham well enough to have a coherent and consistent understanding, you claim I have a misunderstanding.

Present the full explanation and I'll say you don't have a total misunderstanding.

Quote from: "Davin"You can assume this all you want, however even if I had never heard or read the myths before, does not discredit my points. You have to address the points made, and not commit an ad hominem fallacy by attacking the person instead.

No attacks have been made towards you at all.

Quote from: "Davin"You're now committing the argument from ignorance fallacy by making a claim and saying that one must provide an alternate explanation to disprove it. Intellectually honest arguments do not work that way, you must provide the evidence for your claims. All claims require evidence even if you're clearly lying.

You seem to be grasping desperately at some "fallacy" again.  I've given the interpretation and some evidence to back it up.
Clearly lying?  Point to the lie.

Quote from: "Davin"How do you know this? How do you know my motivations? You're just making shit up again.

State your position and prove me wrong...that there is zero pleasure in your presence here at HAF.

Quote from: "Davin"So this god is not immortal?

You tell me.  What have you read and where?

Quote from: "Davin"My interpretation is that it's just a bunch of stories just like any other mythology and has no empirical evidence to support it so there is no reason to accept it as true.

Therein lies the perfect evidence to show there is no real idea of what something is that you dismiss.  The Gospel is not a bunch of stories.

Quote from: "Davin"And I'm not here to tell you what you believe and/or what you accept as true. So stop saying, "You tell me" when I ask you a question. I'm not asking you for me to tell myself, unlike your demonstrated assumptions about me, I do not make assumptions about others.

Nor am I here to tell you what you believe.  I say, "You tell me..." because you seem to be quite an authority on Christianity and its claims.

Quote from: "Davin"No one, I asked how it leads to free will, not how everything leads to free will. Not being able to undersatand a simple statement makes your second statement here look humorously ironic.

And again...nothing lead to free will.  What is to not understand?

Quote from: "Davin"I don't want "every" explainable reason, but something more than:
1: God knows everything
2: God makes everything
...
~~: Free will

Would be much better.

It was never put as such.

Quote from: "Davin"I'm not the one claiming something here, the burden of proof is on you, however your example of how you explain evolution is almost as vacuous as your argument for free will.

I'm not here to explain evolution.  I never claimed evolution is wrong because...but likewise, it seems the knowledge given on biblical principles is just as vacuous.

AnimatedDirt

You run around in circles more than a dog chases it's tail So I am going to cut to the chase here Animated dirt, and see if you agree with the following attribute of your GOD found in the Fount of Knowledge:

St John of Damascus, The Fount of Knowledge: (http://www.archive.org/stream/AnExactExpositionOfTheOrthodoxFaith/An_Exact_Exposition_Of_The_Orthodox_Faith_djvu.txt)

Abstract 1:

Quote:
"The uncreate, the unoriginate, the immortal, the bound- less, the eternal, the immaterial, the good, the creative, the just, the enlightening, the unchangeable, the passionless, the uncircumscribed, the uncontained, the unlimited, the indefi- nable, the invisible, the inconceivable, the wanting nothing, the having absolute power and authority, the life-giving, the almighty, the infinitely powerful, the sanctifying and com- municating, the containing and sustaining all things, and the providing for all all these and the like He possesses by His nature. They are not received from any other source; on the contrary, it is His nature that communicates all good to His own creatures in accordance with the capacity of each."


Abstract 2:

Quote:
"And yet again, there is His knowing of all things by a simple act of knowing. And there is His distinctly seeing with His divine, all-seeing, and immaterial eye all things at once"

1) Omnipresent
2) Boundless
3) Unlimited
4) Uncontained
5) Omniscient
6) Contains and Sustains all things
7) Is immaterial (made of nothing).

Give me a simple yes or no if you agree to the Christian definition of GOD? When you give me your answer, I will respond.. Ad do keep it to a simple "yes I agree", or "No, I disagree".

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"Just because I choose to not make assumptions about what the scriptures say doesn't mean that my knowledge of Christianity is superficial. You have no idea of my knowledge of Christianity. And as it turns out, you now admit you were wrong when you stated: "Abraham knew whatever had to be done, he would return with his son."

Not even close.

So which is it: did Abraham know he would return with his son as you said or was Abraham going to sacrifice his son as the god in the bible said?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"You can assume this all you want, however even if I had never heard or read the myths before, does not discredit my points. You have to address the points made, and not commit an ad hominem fallacy by attacking the person instead.

No attacks have been made towards you at all.

Just the two most recent:

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"[...]it seems *your knowledge of Christianity is superficial.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"But you have made a decision on the matter without being informed on the whole of the matter.

Instead of dealing with my points, you claimed my knowledge on the subject was limited. This is attacking the man in order to discredit the argument the man is presenting, instead of dealing with the argument the man is presenting. Which is known as the ad hominem fallacy.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"You're now committing the argument from ignorance fallacy by making a claim and saying that one must provide an alternate explanation to disprove it. Intellectually honest arguments do not work that way, you must provide the evidence for your claims. All claims require evidence even if you're clearly lying.

You seem to be grasping desperately at some "fallacy" again.  I've given the interpretation and some evidence to back it up.
Clearly lying?  Point to the lie.

I pointed to several lies, but here are some again:

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"You dismiss that which you care not to delve deeper into and find the core reason you dismiss it. You dismiss the Bible because "God asked a man to sacrifice his son." Full Stop. You dismiss the end of the story, the meaning of it and the reasons why God did it. It's your choice and perogative to disagree, but don't disagree and therefore dismiss the evidence when you've not even searched the evidence. It's like if you're an archaeologist digging for ancient civilizations. You jab the spade into the dirt, uncover more dirt...and move on to another location. You know where to look, you simply have potholed the Bible and so dismissed its claim(s) on superficial knowledge of what says.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Another point at which you have no understanding and so you make more assertions.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Persistence in this says you must gain some sort of pleasure out of it...out of persisting in this, you must gain some sort of pleasure.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"[...]it seems the knowledge given on biblical principles is just as vacuous.

These are just plain made up bullshit.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"How do you know this? How do you know my motivations? You're just making shit up again.

State your position and prove me wrong...that there is zero pleasure in your presence here at HAF.

I see you changed from gaining some kind of pleasure from this argument, to gaining some kind of pleasure from HAF. Good choice to move the goal post. Is there any fallacy you will not commit?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"So this god is not immortal?

You tell me.  What have you read and where?

You said I have no understanding on whether the god can die or not, I was under the impression that the god was immortal.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"Because this god cannot die, you need to explain how this god pretending to die is a sacrifice.

Another point at which you have no understanding and so you make more assertions.  So you dismissing evidence stands quite firm.

If the god is immortal, then living for 33 years and getting tortured for a few days won't even register as anything. Getting pricked on the finger with a needle will register more in our lifetime than 33 years will on an infinite timescale. So even if the god were tortured for 33 years, with the immortality, there really is no sacrifice.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"My interpretation is that it's just a bunch of stories just like any other mythology and has no empirical evidence to support it so there is no reason to accept it as true.

Therein lies the perfect evidence to show there is no real idea of what something is that you dismiss.  The Gospel is not a bunch of stories.

So there aren't any stories in the bible? What is in the bible then if it's not a bunch of stories?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"And I'm not here to tell you what you believe and/or what you accept as true. So stop saying, "You tell me" when I ask you a question. I'm not asking you for me to tell myself, unlike your demonstrated assumptions about me, I do not make assumptions about others.

Nor am I here to tell you what you believe.  I say, "You tell me..." because you seem to be quite an authority on Christianity and its claims.

Only what poeple have claimed Christianity is and what it says in the bible. I've even read the JW bible, the Book of Mormon and the Quran. But since the claims for Christianity are so diverse and different, you need to tell me what your position is. Asking me what your position is, is just stupid.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"No one, I asked how it leads to free will, not how everything leads to free will. Not being able to undersatand a simple statement makes your second statement here look humorously ironic.

And again...nothing lead to free will.  What is to not understand?

Quote from: "Davin"I don't want "every" explainable reason, but something more than:
1: God knows everything
2: God makes everything
...
~~: Free will

Would be much better.

It was never put as such.

I know, you refuse to provide any kind of detail, yet still insist that you're correct.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Davin"I'm not the one claiming something here, the burden of proof is on you, however your example of how you explain evolution is almost as vacuous as your argument for free will.

I'm not here to explain evolution.  I never claimed evolution is wrong because...but likewise, it seems the knowledge given on biblical principles is just as vacuous.

I think if you honestly were neutral on whether I understand the biblical stories, you'd find that this is false, but you have an obvious bias against atheists (as can be seen by your lies about me that I have listed in this post).

It's fun watching two people go back and forth over the whether a man who didn't exist knew that a god who didn't exist didn't actually want him to sacrifice his son who didn't exist.

Then again, you guys aren't really arguing over the Bible and Abraham, or even anything religious.  You are really arguing over who is the more skillful debater.  Not very productive in getting your point across to take time to point out that the person you're debating isn't exactly Plato.

Quote from: "Stevil"My point is that if you think your god has demanded something from you that you and/or your society would deem as detrimental or deplorable (e.g. kill a family member) then you need to be really sure that this demand/request has in actual fact come from your god and not some other source and that your god is indeed what you think your god is.

I just remembered something from watching Boston Legal

QuoteExodus 31:15 "For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death"

Here we have a very clear and specific demand from god, a call to action from it's devote worshippers to kill the people who work on Sundays.
I am guessing that Animated Dirt either chooses to ignore this call to action or simply applies an interpretation as to redefine the message so that it is in actuallity not a call to action.

Quote from: "Stevil"

QuoteExodus 31:15 "For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death"

Here we have a very clear and specific demand from god, a call to action from it's devote worshippers to kill the people who work on Sundays.
I am guessing that Animated Dirt either chooses to ignore this call to action or simply applies an interpretation as to redefine the message so that it is in actuallity not a call to action.

At one point in biblical history, things were of this nature.  The way I see/interpret this is much the same as raising a child.  At early age, there are directions and consequences to not following directions.  The human race and more specifically, the people God was leading/teaching were "young" and didn't understand everything.  I'm not going to try and rationalize people killed for not keeping the Sabbath in those days other than to say it may've been early judgement.

The NT/Jesus is a "new" covenant (really the old, but simply explained to a more mature follower no longer a "child".) and as Jesus states in one situation, "He with no sin, cast the first stone."  At that point Christ could've cast the stone Himself had He wanted to smite the girl/woman for her sins, but He didn't.  Instead He told her to "Go and sin no more".

In the same vane, anyone that doesn't honor their father and mother is also to be "put to death".  It is to the point that if one of the 10 is broken, then all have been broken and the imperfect dies/put to death.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"In the same vane, anyone that doesn't honor their father and mother is also to be "put to death".  It is to the point that if one of the 10 is broken, then all have been broken and the imperfect dies/put to death.

Welcome back AD, I thought you may have got sick of us (me) putting down the bible.

Wow, seems that we are lucky the human race still exists with all the put to death stuff. I'm glad people don't take it seriously. It is easy to see how extremists go crazy though, in all religions, especially when there are enough of them to do some damage.

Quote from: "Stevil"Welcome back AD, I thought you may have got sick of us (me) putting down the bible.

No, just jury duty kept me away for a couple of weeks.  See here (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=7299) and here (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=7290&p=110274#p110274).

Quote from: "Stevil"Wow, seems that we are lucky the human race still exists with all the put to death stuff. I'm glad people don't take it seriously. It is easy to see how extremists go crazy though, in all religions, especially when there are enough of them to do some damage.

It's serious.  While at one time we were "children" and consequences came swiftly, today we are not children and consequences will still come, but more than likely at the end of the day.