Proof that the Christian god cannot exist [Archive] - Page 2

jayleew

06-17-05, 01:06 PM

Proof that the Christian god cannot exist.

This is a revision and refinement of a post I made over a year ago but there are so many new members now that I felt it worth a revisit.

Omniscience vs. Human Free will. A Paradox.

Omniscience: Perfect knowledge of past and future events.
Free will: Freedom to choose between alternatives without external coercion.
Paradox: Statements or events that have contradictory and inconsistent properties.

Proposal:

Christianity cannot claim that God is omniscient and also claim that humans have free will. The claims form a paradox, a falsehood.

Reasoning:

If God is omniscient then even before we are born God will have complete knowledge of every decision we are going to make.

Any apparent choice we make regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior is predetermined. This must be true to satisfy the assertion that God is omniscient. Effectively we have no choice in the matter. What we think is free will is an illusion. Our choices have been coerced since we exist and act according to the will of God.

Alternatively if human free will is valid, meaning that the outcome of our decisions is not pre-determined or coerced, then God cannot be omniscient, since he would not know in advance our decisions.

Question:

If God knows the decision of every individual, before they are born, regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior, then why does he create one set of individuals destined for heaven and another set destined for eternal damnation? This seems unjust, perverse and particularly evil.

Conclusions:

If God is omniscient then humans do not have free will (see argument above) and the apparent arbitrary choice of God to condemn many individuals to eternal damnation is evil. I.e. God does not possess the property of omni benevolence and is therefore not worth our attention.

If humans have true free will then God cannot be omniscient (see argument above). If he is not omniscient then he also cannot be omnipotent since knowledge of the future is a prerequisite for total action. Without these abilities God can no longer be deemed a god – i.e. God does not exist.

If humans do not have free will then the choice of whether to choose Jesus as a savior or not makes total nonsense of Christianity since the choice is pre-determined and we are merely puppets at the hands of an evil monster.

Cris
I am tired of debating this with non-Christians, if you want a detailed explanation, go to Who created God? in the forum. We talked about it there. In a nutshell: We can prove that we do (in fact) have free will. I can run my car into a pole if I wanted to, but I hope you all just take my word that I have free will, and you all have free will, and not make me prove it by driving into a pole. :eek:

So, the question is, does free will negate the existence of God. It depends on your understanding of free will.

No, having free will does not. Why not? Because I can give you advice on any given decision you are faced with, but the choice is still yours. I can tell you that you ought to believe in God, but you have the choice. That is what the Holy Spirit does (in a simplistic explanation). It gives advice, but it is deeper than that. Your definition of "Free Will" is incorrect.

How can a God be omniscient without having a predetermined destiny for each of us (which destroys free will)? He knows the infinite number of possibilities and the infinite number of possibilities that can arise from each possibility. He also knows our hearts which then he can apply probabilities to each possibility, in order to know the chances of us choosing a certain way.

I propose that God doesn't know what we will choose, but he knows our heart, and he knows what will happen if we choose option A or option B. His behavior in the past in scripture supports this concept that God hopes that we will choose His way:

God, who predetermined to wipe out the Isrealites and planned to build a nation of Moses long ago, changed his mind because Moses pleaded for them. Right there it shows that God knows what will happen if Moses chooses to plead and if not, but doesn't know which possibility we will choose. However, he does know the heart of man and knows who he can trust to make the right decision. These people are called, "Friends of God" I hope God calls me a friend, but I don't know.

Long story short...your definition of Free Will is incorrect.
Free will: Freedom to choose between alternatives despite external coercion.

jayleew

06-17-05, 01:09 PM

MarcAC: Matters not; the question still stands, I still had a good laugh, and wherever Tony 1 is I still express my Christian love.
*************
M*W: MarcAC, there is no question about whom Jesus was or who you thought he was. He didn't exist. So, there is no salvation. What is the driving force that makes you believe you are saved by the sacrifice of Jesus H. Christ???
Because to us, the Scriptures are the only concrete evidence of God.

jayleew

06-17-05, 01:19 PM

I had a good laugh too, thanks. ROTFLMAO
what is it with you religious zealots, we dont believe in heaven or hell, so why do you constantly throw it at us as if you think we'd be scared. duh!

It is rather futile. Christians! Heed the words of Christ:
Matthew 7:
6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

In other words, it is futile to discern the scriptures for those who do not want to hear. They will only beat the "crap" out of you.

MarcAC

06-17-05, 01:36 PM

Hell is in essence a place with the absence of a God you don't believe in. So rejoice, even though you may be a little hot, you will at least finally be rid of the God you are already ignoring.:D Exactly, the "argument" shall stand in hell. :D

Turduckin

06-17-05, 03:18 PM

Because to us, the Scriptures are the only concrete evidence of God.

This 'scripture only' view is not supported by scripture. Romans 1 starting at verse 18 - What may be known of God - even his invisible qualities - is clearly evident in creation.

MarcAC

06-17-05, 03:29 PM

Free will: Freedom to choose between alternatives despite external coercion.Very true - determinists should pay attention to this.

TruthSeeker

06-17-05, 03:40 PM

Paradox: Statements or events that have contradictory and inconsistent properties.

Christianity cannot claim that God is omniscient and also claim that humans have free will. The claims form a paradox, a falsehood.
A paradox is not a false statement- it is a true statement that is seemingly contradictory.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=paradox
par·a·dox ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-dks)
n.
1. A seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true: the paradox that standing is more tiring than walking.
2. One exhibiting inexplicable or contradictory aspects: “The silence of midnight, to speak truly, though apparently a paradox, rung in my ears” (Mary Shelley).
3. An assertion that is essentially self-contradictory, though based on a valid deduction from acceptable premises.
4. A statement contrary to received opinion.

Paradoxes are very common when you are discussing higher truths, since higher truths are all-inclusive and flexible.

jayleew

06-17-05, 04:03 PM

This 'scripture only' view is not supported by scripture. Romans 1 starting at verse 18 - What may be known of God - even his invisible qualities - is clearly evident in creation.
Maybe not, but it is what keeps my logical mind from saying that God doesn't exist. Whether we like it or not, a belief in God is irrational according to the mind of man (which is science, reason, etc.). The fact that there is a Bible, which is the only message that I can touch from God, is evidence to the logical minds that CHOOSE to believe. So, my faith has a foundation in Scriptures and not what the preacher says on Sunday.

Diesel

06-17-05, 04:15 PM

It is rather futile. Christians! Heed the words of Christ:
Matthew 7:
6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

In other words, it is futile to discern the scriptures for those who do not want to hear. They will only beat the "crap" out of you.
At least atheists do not constantly call you dogs, swine, snakes, etc and hope you go to "hell"

MarcAC

06-17-05, 04:22 PM

At least atheists do not constantly call you dogs, swine, snakes, etc and hope you go to "hell"After seeing two (2) of your posts I have two (2) pieces of evidence which can be used to demonstrate your need of a "Reading for Dummies" manual.

Diesel

06-17-05, 04:30 PM

Did I insult you in a thread somewhere or are you just being an ass??

okinrus

06-17-05, 04:38 PM

The threads too long to know whether I'm repeating anything or not, but here goes.

Omniscience: Perfect knowledge of past and future events.

No, omniscience is knowing everything, basically having complete knowledge. Knowledge is a creation of God. Whether God knows the future depends on whether the future is a part of knowledge and whether God creates knowledge within time or outside of time.

Free will: Freedom to choose between alternatives without external coercion.

Again, you haven't really defined free will here? What's freedom?To me, free will is the rational explanation of justice and ourselves in that we can say "we chose to do something". But freedom, unlike free will, can be taken away. Freedom is the individual's ability to physically do something, while free will is the individual's ability to make choices, not necessarily acting on them. Obviously this definition isn't good either. I suspect free will can only be properely defined by given circular examples, for there exists no other concept quite like free will.

Paradox: Statements or events that have contradictory and inconsistent properties.

OK, there are other definitions of the word paradox. Often a paradox occurs because the speaker hasn't properly defined every and each word. For example, the saying everyone who seeks to save their life will lose it is not a contradiction because what is meant by the sentence isn't a contradiction.

If God is omniscient then even before we are born God will have complete knowledge of every decision we are going to make.

Your definition, yes, but what does this mean?

Any apparent choice we make regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior is predetermined.

As soon as we are able to make a choice, we have free will. Whether this choice is known beforehand doesn't take away the fact that we make choices.

MarcAC

06-17-05, 04:42 PM

Did I insult you in a thread somewhere or are you just being an ass??You can't insult me. :)

Turduckin

06-17-05, 04:49 PM

The fact that there is a Bible, which is the only message that I can touch from God, is evidence to the logical minds that CHOOSE to believe. So, my faith has a foundation in Scriptures and not what the preacher says on Sunday.

What about faith, before the printing press was invented?

jayleew

06-17-05, 04:53 PM

At least atheists do not constantly call you dogs, swine, snakes, etc and hope you go to "hell"

Of course, of course.

I am calling you nothing. Jesus was illustrating the point he was trying to make, so that the people could understand. I am trying to stop the preaching and get to the arguement, in a way that Christians do with one another. After all, God is at the center of all our relationships, so we respond to God's word.

I will not call you any name, because it is pointless to come to any conclusion if both sides of an argument bash each other and their statements without thinking first. Mudslinging is pointless to solving an arguement. Besides the fact, the moment I start judging you, is the moment I cease to be Christian.

jayleew

06-17-05, 04:58 PM

What about faith, before the printing press was invented?
With my mind...I don't think I would have been a Christian before the Bible. If there was no Bible...I don't think I would have faith, because the word is my strength of faith. The word is my food. Now, that I have tasted the Words of Life, my faith would not diminish if all the Bibles were destroyed.

I would have driven a nail in Jesus and spit on his face.

Turduckin

06-17-05, 05:08 PM

Now, that I have tasted the Words of Life, my faith would not diminish if all the Bibles were destroyed.

But if all the bibles were destroyed, how would you hear the word, how would you eat your food. Wouldn't you starve to death?

Cyperium

06-17-05, 07:25 PM

Proof that the Christian god cannot exist.

This is a revision and refinement of a post I made over a year ago but there are so many new members now that I felt it worth a revisit.

Omniscience vs. Human Free will. A Paradox.

Omniscience: Perfect knowledge of past and future events.
Free will: Freedom to choose between alternatives without external coercion.
Paradox: Statements or events that have contradictory and inconsistent properties.

Proposal:

Christianity cannot claim that God is omniscient and also claim that humans have free will. The claims form a paradox, a falsehood.

Reasoning:

If God is omniscient then even before we are born God will have complete knowledge of every decision we are going to make.

Any apparent choice we make regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior is predetermined. This must be true to satisfy the assertion that God is omniscient. Effectively we have no choice in the matter. What we think is free will is an illusion. Our choices have been coerced since we exist and act according to the will of God.

Alternatively if human free will is valid, meaning that the outcome of our decisions is not pre-determined or coerced, then God cannot be omniscient, since he would not know in advance our decisions.

Question:

If God knows the decision of every individual, before they are born, regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior, then why does he create one set of individuals destined for heaven and another set destined for eternal damnation? This seems unjust, perverse and particularly evil.

Conclusions:

If God is omniscient then humans do not have free will (see argument above) and the apparent arbitrary choice of God to condemn many individuals to eternal damnation is evil. I.e. God does not possess the property of omni benevolence and is therefore not worth our attention.

If humans have true free will then God cannot be omniscient (see argument above). If he is not omniscient then he also cannot be omnipotent since knowledge of the future is a prerequisite for total action. Without these abilities God can no longer be deemed a god – i.e. God does not exist.

If humans do not have free will then the choice of whether to choose Jesus as a savior or not makes total nonsense of Christianity since the choice is pre-determined and we are merely puppets at the hands of an evil monster.

CrisFree will is free will, if your choice is to kill someone then that is your choice. If Saddam Hussein wants to murder someone, then that is his choice. God is well aware that people are suffering, and will suffer. But it is still our free will, our choice to limit that suffering as much as we can. The rain comes down on both good and evil.

No one can argue that they are puppets, since they aren't. As high as the sky is over the earth, that high is the thoughts of God higher than the thoughts of men. Free will is a gift from God. And it is free. The freedom may be limited by our limited nature, but that's not all that bad, since if it wasn't limited in any way we would be like water flowing in all directions, we must have feelings and the choice of acting according to these feelings if we choose to, or not acting, or go against the feelings even. Troublesome as it may appear that God knows your next move, it isn't really because He is so much higher that you can do anything and God will have forseen it anyway. That is not a limit to free will, it is you that make the choice. You have been given the choice.

Crunchy Cat

06-17-05, 07:56 PM

enton

08-19-05, 12:50 AM

Omniscience vs. Human Free will. A Paradox.
Christians` God is not omniscient.

Godless

08-19-05, 10:18 AM

Christians` God is not omniscient.

Thanks for clarifying that! not only is "IT" not omniscient, "IT" Dont exist. "IT" is not omnipresent, nor omnipotent, but it is "NONEXISTENT". We knew!.

Godless

TruthSeeker

08-19-05, 02:02 PM

It "doesn't" exist, Godless.......

Why not? Should we listen to someone that doesn't know grammar on the subject of an all-knowing creature? :p

I'm just being mean... ;)

Godless

08-20-05, 12:18 AM

I put the "IT" between paranthesis, to imply god. The word "god" to me is an it, not a being, not an existent, but a word with no identity. No other way to describe such a concept. God is nothing more than the illusions of ancient schizophrenic men.

Godless

enton

08-20-05, 12:51 AM

Thanks for clarifying that! not only is "IT" not omniscient, "IT" Dont exist. "IT" is not omnipresent, nor omnipotent, but it is "NONEXISTENT". We knew!.

Godless
How funny! "IT" does exist. If "IT" does not exist hypothetically speaking, why use "IT"?

TruthSeeker

08-20-05, 01:19 AM

enton

08-20-05, 01:20 AM

Can someone tell me where I can find "free will" in the bible? I tried to figure out where it is but I haven't been able to. Thanks.
It`s not written in the Bible. It`s written in your heart.

superluminal

08-20-05, 01:26 AM

enton,

You are beginning to look stupid.

enton

08-20-05, 02:16 AM

enton,

You are beginning to look stupid.
How come?

superluminal

08-20-05, 02:27 AM

Well, giving answers like "it's written in your heart" has so many problems I can't begin to list them. I can give that kind of answer by randomly picking out sentences from any book of bad poetry.

Godless

08-20-05, 02:36 AM

I understood very well what Usaid, that my grammar is lousy. So fucking sue me!!.

I'm a highschooldropout, thatearnsanaverageof80000ayearinthestockmarket!!.

callitintuition,Idon'tunderstandthefreakingmathbeh indit;)

Godless

enton

08-20-05, 02:48 AM

Well, giving answers like "it's written in your heart" has so many problems I can't begin to list them. I can give that kind of answer by randomly picking out sentences from any book of bad poetry.
By the way, I just mix illumining poetry. Don`t be mad because I am a poet
( http://www.poetrypoem.com/rholu ).

BVS

11-13-05, 09:01 PM

Cris and supporters,
Firstly I say that I disapprove of forums like this, and that we should be respecting all opinoins, not using it as an online battle ground. I am a firm believer in God by the way, and your paradoxal arguement regarding His omniscience and free will works only in our present level of consciousness. God is obviously beyond the physical plane, and will never ever leave physical evidence as to His existence - you or anyone else as long as they live will never be able to prove or disprove God's existence. Is it so difficult that He is just beyond our comprehension? If you think of us now as the peak of humanity and its intelligence you are very mistaken. To think that "God does not work in terms I understand, therefore He must not exist" is exactly what makes us human. His consciousness is infinite, and the dwarfed vision of men cannot even begin to perceive His divine state. Humans have free will, and God is omniscient. It is the task given to us to overcome our state of existence through choice to find God again.

KennyJC

11-13-05, 09:37 PM

Hello old thread.

A (Christian) God can not exist because 7 day creation did not happen.

Good Game and Good Night.

Marlin

11-13-05, 09:48 PM

Hello old thread.

A (Christian) God can not exist because 7 day creation did not happen.

Good Game and Good Night.

I read somewhere that the word for "day" in Genesis can also be translated as "era" or "unspecified period of time."

TrueCreation

11-13-05, 10:01 PM

edited - This is an old thread, so im making a new one for this post to go in.

-Chris Grose

Medicine*Woman

11-13-05, 10:19 PM

I read somewhere that the word for "day" in Genesis can also be translated as "era" or "unspecified period of time."
**************
M*W: More correctly it is translated as "age," as in the end of the "age."

Marlin

11-13-05, 10:22 PM

**************
M*W: More correctly it is translated as "age," as in the end of the "age."

Yes, that's it. So the Genesis account doesn't necessarily limit the Creation to 7 "24-hour days," but instead could be 7 "ages" of unknown amounts of time (millions of years, perhaps?).

TruthSeeker

11-13-05, 11:14 PM

The Bible should be translated all over again.... :rolleyes:

PsychoticEpisode

11-13-05, 11:32 PM

Days, eras, ages...what does it matter? The only thing thats important is to make it satisfy what science is discovering every day. So, are we on Day 6 since things are still happening out there in the universe, or are we on Day 7 and God's still on siesta or are we on Day 8 or more? Some days were obviously longer than others when you think of hominids only being around for 2 million years and the Earth is 4.5 billion. Just how long is a day in biblical parlance. Let's figure it out assuming all days are of equal length.

If God took day 7 off, that would mean the first 6 days took 4.5 billion minus 2 million= 4.498 billion years. So each of the first 6 days were 4.498 billion divided by 6 = 749,667,000 million years. That would mean that God must still be off duty and resting because his 7th day still has 747,667,000 years to go. Of course the days could be 3 times that if you start at the beginning of time 15 billion years ago. Did the bible specify some days longer than others? It would have to be so because there are 10.5 billion years from light to the Earth creation. Biblical scholars are wonderful philosophers but lousy mathematicians.

Paraclete

11-13-05, 11:43 PM

Just saw this one -I must admit I have not read all the postings - too many !!
I promise that on this beauty I will ONLY use my philosophically skills !!

Cris, you claim, that the Christian God do not exist !!

It actually looks like both your proposal and reasoning holds water ...
Con gratulations.....

Then your question , OK ...

Conclusion 1: The first part is OK - you actually proves that God has no benevolence as you know benevolence, if he is omniscient - but then you jump to the conclusion that he is not worth our attention , I disagree : not all christians believe, that God is good as humans understand good.

Why do you think that God has benevolence as you know it - he loves to punish people :

He created Adam and Eve knowing they would eat his apples and kicked them out Paradise.
He created the people in the time of Noah - knowing they would sin and killed them by flooding the world.
He created the people of Sodom and Gomorrah , knowing they would sin and burned off their cities including the people .
He knew the people he created in Egypt would do wrong and send them the plagues.

God is still a bloody interesting creation and deserves our attention ........
This only proofs that God does what HE likes, and may not have the same ethics about good and evil as humans have ..

AND NOTICE THIS :
If Philosopher´s Stone is right about souls not feeling pain but just feel a little different when burning in fire - then actually God has benevolence because it is then NOT evil to let humans go to Hell !!!!!!!!!!!!

Conclusion 2: Yes , you actually proves that God do not exist if we have free will .
Con gratulation Cris - that is actually interesting ...

Conclusion 3) hmm , I am not sure this is good Cris , it is true that you prove that we are puppets in the hand of an evil monster (as you understand evil ). But now you jump to conclusions again , IF there are Christians that might accept God like that (God does what he wants and has no benevolence as you understand it ) ,then the choice is NOT nonsense, and after all they do not have any choice but accepting it, if it is Gods will , since in this case they do NOT have free will - do you see the logic ....

Or even worse - if Philosopher´s Stone is right with his souls not feeling pain - then God HAS benevolence, because it is not evil to condem humans to hell !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And then your proof has failed - then God DO indeed exist, omniscient,omnipotent and with benevolence ..... !!!!!

Cris - I think your proof is in dire strait !!!!!!! Please help me out on this one ,Cris !!!

Marlin

11-13-05, 11:59 PM

Or even worse - if Philosopher´s Stone is right with his souls not feeling pain - then God HAS benevolonce, because it is not evil to condem humans to hell !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Or, hell is very painful but only a temporary condition and God will forgive whoever repents eventually. The only people for whom hell is truly eternal and forever are the devil and his angels (including the "sons of perdition" who defect to the devil's side in mortality). The rest of us have hope and God is benevolent.

Marlin

11-14-05, 12:10 AM

Or, hell is very painful but only a temporary condition and God will forgive whoever repents eventually. The only people for whom hell is truly eternal and forever are the devil and his angels (including the "sons of perdition" who defect to the devil's side in mortality). The rest of us have hope and God is benevolent.

I forgot to put this in:

Of course, to avoid hell altogether, we need to repent in this life and obey God's commandments, because if we procrastinate repentance, we may find ourselves unable to repent. Without repentance there can be no forgiveness, so it is vital for us to repent while in this life.

philosopher´s stone

11-14-05, 12:28 AM

Oh my God !!!!!!!
Cris, Cris, Cris, Cris - come and read this one !!!

This is a very,very good thread !!

Cris , your proof is a true beauty - I bow to yeh !!!!!!!!!!

But I actually think Paraclete did the impossible - he trumped it !!!!!!!!!!!!

Paraclete I have only one question : Are you God ?

Cris

11-14-05, 12:47 AM

BVS,

Hi and welcome to sciforums.

Firstly I say that I disapprove of forums like this, and that we should be respecting all opinoins,Why? Why respect someone’s opinion if you believe it to be wrong. One can still have respect for the person and at the same time prove their opinions to be nonsense.

not using it as an online battle ground.If religion is fundamentally dangerous to the future of humanity, as many of us believe, and religionists say otherwise, then we have a battle – online and offline, whether you think it good or not.

I am a firm believer in God by the way, Then I would recommend you take a course on logic so that you might be able to think more clearly.

and your paradoxal arguement regarding His omniscience and free will works only in our present level of consciousness.It is simple logic applied to current Christian mythology. You will need to change the myth if you want it to be logically consistent.

God is obviously beyond the physical plane, What does that mean and why is it obvious?

and will never ever leave physical evidence as to His existence Why not? Why would something apparently all-powerful want to hide?

you or anyone else as long as they live will never be able to prove or disprove God's existence.The logic speaks for itself. Do you want to redefine your god so that it becomes a logical possibility but with reduced abilities then?

Is it so difficult that He is just beyond our comprehension?That is the agnostic position. Theists claim otherwise. Or rather when faced with very awkward questions they claim their god is so mysterious that it cannot be understood – basic cop-out. That’s the problem with fantasies with no empirical basis; they fall apart when examined closely – which happens with every known major religion.

If you think of us now as the peak of humanity and its intelligence you are very mistaken.Umm, our current state is the peak of humanity and human intelligence. Prior to us in the evolutionary chain were our primate ancestors who had less complex brains. In the future as we develop better skills with genetic engineering we are quite likely to intelligently direct our future evolution and dramatically increase our current level of intelligence. But for now we are the most intelligent species on this planet.

To think that "God does not work in terms I understand, therefore He must not exist" is exactly what makes us human.Can you demonstrate my proof to be wrong then?

His consciousness is infinite, and the dwarfed vision of men cannot even begin to perceive His divine state.Yet he cannot escape simple logic though. He is constrained by the same rules as are we, e.g. he cannot make a square circle and neither can we. And in this case we cannot have free will if he is omniscient.

Humans have free will, and God is omniscient. Which we have shown is impossible. You can choose one or the other but not both. They are mutually exclusive.

It is the task given to us to overcome our state of existence through choice to find God again.According to Christian mythology, but unfortunately the tenets of Christianity described in this thread are paradoxical – i.e. the basis of Christianity is nonsense.

Cris

11-14-05, 01:20 AM

Paraclete,

Cris, you claim, that the Christian God do not exist !!Not quite. Only as defined within the claims of Christianity. If they were to amend their mythology to avoid the paradox then they can still claim a god of some type.

Conclusion 1: The first part is OK - you actually proves that God has no benevolence if he is omniscient - but then you jump to the conclusion that he is not worth our attention , I disagree : not all christians believe, that God is good Why then worship a malignant god? But does my opinion alter the prior logic?

Why do you think that God has benevolence - he loves to punish people :……..…This only proofs that God does what HE likes, and may not have the same ethics about good and evil as humans have ..And parents punish their children and we put people in prison, all in the hope that they will learn. You are confusing a mechanism with an ultimate result. One could argue that he would punish millions so that a greater good would be served ultimately. But that wasn’t my point. If omniscient and the creator then he would have designed every instant from the beginning of time to the end. Why then choose some to be eternal and some to perish where they could have no say in their ultimate fate? This is basic injustice and could not be seen as being in accord with omni-benevolence, which is part of the definition of the Christian god. See the Catholic Encyclopedia for this.

If Philosopher´s Stone is right about souls not feeling pain but just feel a little different when burning in fire - then actually God has benevolence because it is then NOT evil to let humans go to Hell According to the bible hell means permanent death – it is not a place where people suffer eternally, their souls simple cease to exist, consumed by the lake of fire. The apparent selection by God is that some will live eternally and another group will cease to exist – decided at the beginning of time before we had a chance to have any say in the matter.

.. IF there are Christians that might accept God like that (God does what he wants and has no benevolence as you understand it ) ,then the choice is NOT nonsense, and after all they do not have any choice but accepting it, if it is Gods will , since in this case they do NOT have free will - do you see the logic ....I think you would need to give an example of any Christain who would accept that their god is not omni-benelovent and even then this would have to be a minor cult. If we take the generally accepted perspectve that the Christian god is all-good then you have no case.

And then your proof has failed - then God DO indeed exist, omniscient, omnipotent and with benevolence ..... !!!!!

Cris - I think your proof is in dire strait !!!!!!! LOL – dream on. Ultimately good must mean life and evil must mean permanent non existence. If he is omni-benevolent then no one can be terminated, at least not without being given a choice, and that cannot occur if he is omniscient and created everything.

Cris

11-14-05, 01:34 AM

philo,

But I actually think Paraclete did the impossible - he trumped it !!!!!!!!!!!! Umm - I don't think so.

Cris

11-14-05, 01:38 AM

Marlin,

Yes, that's it. So the Genesis account doesn't necessarily limit the Creation to 7 "24-hour days," but instead could be 7 "ages" of unknown amounts of time (millions of years, perhaps?). The bible says days and we have no evidence it meant anything other than what we know as a day.

Attempts to rationalise this so that it fits the known facts of evolution are signs of desperate theologians trying to deal with the imposibility of the A&E story yet still trying to claim it as true somehow.

TrueCreation

11-14-05, 01:39 AM

Cris, im curious to see what your thoughts are in this thread, this one is somewhat old and is getting very long: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=50075

Marlin

11-14-05, 01:52 AM

Marlin,

The bible says days and we have no evidence it meant anything other than what we know as a day.

Attempts to rationalise this so that it fits the known facts of evolution are signs of desperate theologians trying to deal with the imposibility of the A&E story yet still trying to claim it as true somehow.

The Hebrew word for "day" in Genesis 1:

Genesis 40:4 Translates as "a season"
Judges 11:4 Translates as "in the process of time"

And in LDS scripture (Pearl of Great Price):
Abraham 4:5,8 The Gods called the creation periods "days"

Paraclete

11-14-05, 02:04 AM

Cris ,
your headline is :" Proof that the Christian God can not exist " so that MUST be your main claim !!!!
Perhaps you should start with defining what you think is the " Christian " God , because there are really a lot of different so called christian churches where God is perceived different - incredible but true . If you mean the catholic perception of God then say so !!

By the way you are absolutely right in your paradox, so of course you can not have human free will and a omniscient God at the same time. I understand that very well - but your issue was : to proof that the christian God can not exist.

You claim that according to the bible hell means permanent death, where the souls cease to exist - please inform me where in the bible is that written !!!!!!!!!
And in your answer to philosopher´s stone about souls feeling pain - you claim that going to heaven means coming back to the earth again - that sounds not like the bible to me.
It sounds like reincarnation !!!
And before you edited your posting again ,then you claimed that you did not even understand my logic in conclusion 3 -
I am not surprised Cris , I am not surprised !!!!!!!!!

Marlin

11-14-05, 02:32 AM

And in your answer to philosopher´s stone about souls feeling pain - you claim that going to heaven means coming back to the earth again - that sounds not like the bible to me.
It sounds like reincarnation !!!

Matt. 5:5
Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

Have the meek inherited the earth yet? I don't think so. This verse obviously refers to a time in the future, and that time hasn't come yet. Sounds like the earth will be heaven if the meek inherit it in the end.

Cris

11-14-05, 02:35 AM

Marlin,

The Hebrew word for "day" in Genesis 1:

Genesis 40:4 Translates as "a season"That ref gives no definition of a day. Do you have the correct ref?

Judges 11:4 Translates as "in the process of time"Also does not appear to define a day.

And in LDS scripture (Pearl of Great Price):
Abraham 4:5,8 The Gods called the creation periods "days"LDS scriptures are not bible references.

Cris

11-14-05, 02:39 AM

Truecreation - yes, I've seen your post and read it - thinking of a suitable reply. I have something slightly differnt and trying to think how it would fit.

Your'e right this is a very old thread.

Marlin

11-14-05, 02:44 AM

The Hebrew word for "day" in Genesis 1:

“ Genesis 40:4 Translates as "a season"

That ref gives no definition of a day. Do you have the correct ref?

No, no, no. It doesn't define a day--rather, the Hebrew word used in Genesis 1 for "day" is translated by the King James Version people as "a season" in Genesis 40:4. And the same word appears in the KJV as "in the process of time" rather than as "day" in Judges.

Paraclete

11-14-05, 02:56 AM

Cris your conclusion 1 in your first post in this thread , is ONLY valid if christians agree that it is an evil act of God to send people to hell (you define under "question" in your first point : hell as ethernal damnation since it is the opposite of heaven - in your question) )
If Christians do not find it evil of God to send humans to Hell - then Conclusion 1 and 3 are both wrong !!!

You can not run away from that one ................

Cris

11-14-05, 03:14 AM

Cris

11-14-05, 03:24 AM

Paraclete,

your headline is :" Proof that the Christian God can not exist " so that MUST be your main claim !!!!Attention grabber. Read the Proposal at the beginning of the thread -

Proposal:

Christianity cannot claim that God is omniscient and also claim that humans have free will. The claims form a paradox, a falsehood.

there are really a lot of different so called christian churches where God is perceived different - incredible but true . If you mean the catholic perception of God then say so !!I believe all main sects of Christianity share the same basic definitions of their God – i.e. omniscient, omnipotent, omni-benevolent. They have taken these early assumptions and definition from early Catholic records. Now I’d be interested if you can show any main sect has different definitions or does not agree with these rather basic ideas.

You claim that according to the bible hell means permanent death, where the souls cease to exist - please inform me where in the bible is that written !!!!!!!!!’fraid you’d ask – came out of a long debate here on the issue – all centered around what Revelations meant. I’ll have to dig again.

And in your answer to philosopher´s stone about souls feeling pain - you claim that going to heaven means coming back to the earth again - that sounds not like the bible to me.Not the layman’s perspective, but Revelations has it. It was very controversial when we discussed it and I didn’t agree with it until a bit later.

And before you edited your posting again ,then you claimed that you did not even understand my logic in conclusion 3 - I am not surprised Cris , I am not surprised !!!!!!!!!That window was but a few seconds. Not quote sure what you are surprised by though. Your logic or my initial non-understanding.

Marlin

11-14-05, 03:26 AM

Marlin - using my RSV I cannot see that either of those references have any relevance. I.e. "some time", "after a time". Are you saying those references to time and the references to "day" in Genesis all mean "season"?

The question we are discussing is, does the word "day" in Genesis chapter 1 have alternate meanings besides "one 24-hour period of time"? Or does it just have one meaning?

The answer is, the word for "day" in Hebrew has several meanings, and thus, the Genesis creation account can be interpreted as having seven "periods of time" wherein God created the world, rather than seven 24-hour days. This is to prove that an old-earth creation story may be supported by the Genesis account.

Here is what Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible has to say about the definition of the Hebrew word for day:

"day (24 hours); daytime (in contrast to night); by extension: an indefinite period of time; an era with a certain characteristic, such as "the day of the Lord" and the prophetic "on that day";" etc.

philosopher´s stone

11-14-05, 03:26 AM

Cris - I think you fail to see the gravity of your situation.

It clearly follows both logical and philosophical from the whole construction of your very first post on this thread - that your first and third conclusion will be wrong if
God is not perceived as "unjust, evil , perverted " for sending "individuals " to hell .....

Try to to read your first post very carefully - cris .....

philosopher´s stone

11-14-05, 03:35 AM

I only mean it logically and philosphically - If Paraclete finds any kind of "ammo" in finding some "christians " who do not perceive God being evil for sending individuals
to hell - then your first and third conclusion is flawed !!!!!!!!!

philosopher´s stone

11-14-05, 03:37 AM

Your paradox is still good though - cris !!!!!!!
It is a Paradox !!!

Cris

11-14-05, 03:51 AM

Paraclete,

Cris your conclusion 1 in your first post in this thread , is ONLY valid if christians agree that it is an evil act of God to send people to hell (you define under "question" in your first point : hell as ethernal damnation since it is the opposite of heaven - in your question) )

If Christians do not find it evil of God to send humans to Hell - then Conclusion 1 and 3 are both wrong !!!

You can not run away from that one ................I don’t see that it is important or necessary for Christians to agree on what is evil or not. For the sake of this argument the position must be independent of their opinions. If you have a point then it hinges on what is meant by omni-benevolence which I have taken to mean “all-good”, i.e. cannot do harm - and causing billions of people to cease to exist is the worst harm possible, surely, i.e. evil. As for “eternal damnation”, read “permanent death”. But either works well as a suitable example of evil and doesn’t change the logic of the argument. Heaven means life and hell means death – those are the opposites.

Cris

11-14-05, 04:01 AM

philo,

that your first and third conclusion will be wrong if
God is not perceived as "unjust, evil , perverted " for sending "individuals " to hell .....The argument doesn't rest on Christian opinions, but should specifically exclude them. In absolute terms, and the key to the argument, is the apparent arbitrary choice by the god of letting some to live and the others to die without giving them any chocie of their destinies.

Would you not consider the action of anything that arbitrarily causes the existence of billions or trillions of people to cease as evil?

Marlin

11-14-05, 04:11 AM

Cris, where do you get the idea that evil people cease to exist after death? That is false doctrine.

finewine

11-14-05, 04:12 AM

KennyJC

11-14-05, 07:42 AM

I read somewhere that the word for "day" in Genesis can also be translated as "era" or "unspecified period of time."

Ah how convenient, but I'll give you that one.

Lets move on to the next one then, Adam and Eve never existed, in fact we evolved from the simplest of organic molecules. Chistian creation never happened therefor there can not be a Christian God.

philosopher´s stone

11-14-05, 09:06 AM

Cris , you ask me , if God´s action - which YOU believe is ending large numbers of individuals existence - is evil or not.

Any opponent with rhetorical skills could answer like this :
1) I do NOT agree that God ends the existance of individuals - according to my belief and many others the souls are immortal and have a happy time in hell , not feeling pain !!
And your claim that God ends the existance of individuals by ceasing their souls, are to my best knowledge, not founded in the Bible .....

That was one way to answer it , Cris , and do not get me wrong - I do not believe in anything myself - I am simply playing the devils advocate/lawyer in a philosophical play of words. This is like a chessgame with word for me - nothing less nothing more !!

The other way a rhetorical skilled opponent could answer your question :
2)Yes , I do agree that God ceases the existence of people - but that is not evil by God.
Let us take an example : an individual with a mortal uncurable painfull disease - many christians in my country think that euthanasia is acceptable - and in Holland it is legal - so there might be such a thing as ceasing an individual - without it beeing evil !!!!!
God might think that for instance your life with mental and religious agony searching for a true answer (you are searching for a church - and under your name it says that
you also are searching for immortallity ) - might be a mortal painfull uncurabel condition - and puts you out of misery together with trillions other individuals !!

I am only making an example of how the answers could be to your question - NOTHING
personal !!!!
Only a chessgame of words and logic !!!!!
Peace !!

Cris

11-14-05, 11:35 AM

philo,

God might think that for instance your life with mental and religious agony searching for a true answer (you are searching for a church - and under your name it says that
you also are searching for immortallity ) - might be a mortal painfull uncurabel condition - and puts you out of misery together with trillions other individuals !!Now add in the rationale that the god designed and created everything. If we are somehow faulty that can only be because of its faulty design. But it is meant to be perfect and can do no wrong - so we cannot become faulty. In that scenario the choice to keep some and destroy others appears no more than the god's pleasurebale whim. I would suggest that to destroy people for pleasure is evil.

Cris

11-14-05, 11:41 AM

philo,

I do NOT agree that God ends the existance of individuals - according to my belief and many others the souls are immortal and have a happy time in hell , not feeling pain !!The idea that people are happy in hell is not a common belief. The primary concept of hell is an ultimate punisment, either eternal suffering or permanent death, doesn't matter which for this argument. I could imagine extreme mental anguish to be an appropriate punishment if you want to maintain your idea that pain is not possible.

Cris

11-14-05, 11:49 AM

Marlin,

Cris, where do you get the idea that evil people cease to exist after death? That is false doctrine. Do you understand the two deaths issue? Hell is the grave where we all go and the second death is where those judged unworthy are thrown into the lake of fire for permanent destruction.

Basic Christian doctrine - accept Jesus as your savior and you will achieve eternal life, otherwise you will die, and here it is spiritual death.

(Q)

11-14-05, 11:51 AM

BVS

God is obviously beyond the physical plane, and will never ever leave physical evidence as to His existence

Then, if no physical evidence is available, how would anyone know a god exists?

His consciousness is infinite, and the dwarfed vision of men cannot even begin to perceive His divine state. Humans have free will, and God is omniscient.

Those statements contradict your argument. How do you know if no physical evidence is available?

Godless

11-14-05, 11:55 AM

according to my belief and many others the souls are immortal and have a happy time in hell , not feeling pain !!

That is quite a belief, now all you really have to do is prove that such a thing as a soul exist? What is a soul?. What do you mean by this term?

Godless

Cris

11-14-05, 12:02 PM

Finewine,

Hi and welcome to sciforums.

You minimalize GOD into your own understanding and box him into your finite understanding known as human intelligence.No, it is simple logic applied to irrational Christian mythology.

It is quite easy for GOD to be omniscient and man to have free will if you do not lock yourself into the confinement of time.If you believe it so then please explain how.

Think on that if you will in your intellectual wisdom.I have and it makes no difference to the logic. If you believe there is a problem then please explain.

It is such a shame that you should think yourself so much greater than GOD that you can say he is NOT worth your attention when HE in fact loves you so greatly that you are worth HIS greatest and most unswerving attention to give HIS very life for you, and you are but a miniscule bacterium compared to HIM.If he is evil as I have demonstrated he must be if he exists then I am vastly superior to him.

Obviously, this is important to you and you give it your attention. Why is that?Surely the demonstration of the probable non-existence of the Christian god must be important to Christians. It should dramatically affect their life beliefs. It makes no difference to my outlook since I already find Christian claims unbelievable.

TruthSeeker

11-14-05, 02:44 PM

If God took day 7 off, that would mean the first 6 days took 4.5 billion minus 2 million= 4.498 billion years. So each of the first 6 days were 4.498 billion divided by 6 = 749,667,000 million years. That would mean that God must still be off duty and resting because his 7th day still has 747,667,000 years to go.
Aaaaaaaahhh...!!!
THAT explain why the world is in such a deplorable state! God is off duty and resting!!! :p :D

Yaba Daba!:m:

TruthSeeker

11-14-05, 02:50 PM

Marlin

11-14-05, 03:18 PM

“ Cris, where do you get the idea that evil people cease to exist after death? That is false doctrine.

Do you understand the two deaths issue? Hell is the grave where we all go and the second death is where those judged unworthy are thrown into the lake of fire for permanent destruction.

Basic Christian doctrine - accept Jesus as your savior and you will achieve eternal life, otherwise you will die, and here it is spiritual death.

Yes, I understand that for the wicked, there is a second death, a spiritual death. However, this doesn't end their existence; it simply puts them in a state of separation from God. They die pertaining to righteousness. But their spirits go on, and as 1 Cor. 15:21-23 tells us, "as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive."

Marlin

11-14-05, 03:22 PM

Here is a web page explaining spiritual death:

Spiritual Death (http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/afterlife/spiritualdeath.htm)

Cris

11-14-05, 04:58 PM

Marlin,

Mormonism doesn't really help with issues about Christianity or the bible.

The bible talks of two deaths - the first is the grave (hell) where we all go when we die. Everyone is then resurected and for those who fail judgement they will expereince the second and final death - the lake of fire. Those that live will inherit the earth.

That's an oversimplifcation of a very long thread here where we had a well grounded decent Christian biblical scholar - he was incredibly irritating but pulled many biblical texts together without sectarian interpretation. In the end I found his perspective on the mythology convincing.

Marlin

11-14-05, 05:07 PM

Mormonism doesn't really help with issues about Christianity or the bible.

More ironic words haven't been spoken, since Mormonism IS true Christianity.

TruthSeeker

11-14-05, 05:29 PM

More ironic words haven't been spoken, since Mormonism IS true Christianity.
Oh yeah! Sure! Considering that it was created thousands of years after the Bible was put together and it completely ignore and mix many different parts of it..... :rolleyes:

Marlin

11-14-05, 05:31 PM

Oh yeah! Sure! Considering that it was created thousands of years after the Bible was put together and it completely ignore and mix many different parts of it..... :rolleyes:

Mormonism, or rather, the true Church of Jesus Christ, has existed before the world began, eternally.

TruthSeeker

11-14-05, 05:34 PM

*cough cough....

You only say that because you want to have many wives and f*** many girls at the same time..... :rolleyes:

Marlin

11-14-05, 06:00 PM

*cough cough....

You only say that because you want to have many wives and f*** many girls at the same time..... :rolleyes:

Nope. I only want one wife. Ever.

And the Church hasn't practiced polygamy since 1890. And it excommunicates those who practice it. ...rolleyes yourself. :rolleyes:

Cris

11-14-05, 06:27 PM

Marlin,

More ironic words haven't been spoken, since Mormonism IS true Christianity. LOL. Dream on kiddo.

Marlin

11-14-05, 06:29 PM

Marlin,

LOL. Dream on kiddo.

You'll find out for yourself someday, Cris.

TrueCreation

11-14-05, 07:11 PM

Truecreation - yes, I've seen your post and read it - thinking of a suitable reply. I have something slightly differnt and trying to think how it would fit.

Your'e right this is a very old thread.
Thanks, I look forward to your response.

-Chris Grose

Cris

11-14-05, 07:30 PM

Marlin,

You'll find out for yourself someday.Nope. I already know for sure about LDS. If you take a look at the big picture of world religions then LDS is just a minor perversion. Its attempt at rationalizing Christianity is creative but futile.

macabre

11-14-05, 08:10 PM

Sorry, I didn't read the whole thread, and maybe I should have but here it goes. God knowing everything and us having free will are not a contridiction. God doesn't determine what we are going to do, He just knows what we will do. God knows what choices we will make but it is up to us to make the choices. God did not decide them for me.

KennyJC

11-14-05, 08:46 PM

Nobody ever answers any of my replies which are solid facts which say at the very least, religion is false.

If you are inclined to believe in a God, why not believe in a God, rather than believing in a religion? There is a dramatic difference between the two, and I wish people would click to that.

I for one am on the fence as to wether or not a 'God' exists, but I also have the common sense to know that no religion developed by mankind represents our god (IF there is one). Why can't people see that? People can function quite well as athiest or agnostic - It seems people have the most problems thinking for themselves as theists, so why waste more of your short life on a fairy tale?

Cris

11-14-05, 08:53 PM

Macabre,

It's very simple - if every action you will ever make is known well before you are born then where is your free will to do anything other than those pre-determined actions?

Marlin

11-14-05, 09:04 PM

Marlin,

Nope. I already know for sure about LDS. If you take a look at the big picture of world religions then LDS is just a minor perversion. Its attempt at rationalizing Christianity is creative but futile.

Gee, for someone who doesn't even "know for sure" that there is a God, how can you "know [anything] for sure"? What are your criteria for "knowing for sure" about anything?

KennyJC

11-14-05, 09:19 PM

The same goes to anyone who knows for sure there is a God, many think 7 day creation and Adam and Eve are scientific fact.

As someone who neither disbelives or belives, I think there is only one solution, to explore our universe and expand our minds. Christianity has historically and to the presant day, been against this.

Cris

11-14-05, 09:25 PM

Marlin,

Gee, for someone who doesn't even "know for sure" that there is a God, how can you "know [anything] for sure"? What are your criteria for "knowing for sure" about anything? That's difficult but for Mormonism it is extremly easy - it is such an obvious fraud - it doesn't need a second thought.

Marlin

11-14-05, 09:40 PM

Marlin,

That's difficult but for Mormonism it is extremly easy - it is such an obvious fraud - it doesn't need a second thought.

Remember those words when you come before the throne of God to be judged. It is His religion, He restored it through Joseph Smith, and He will show you that it's true.

Nisus

11-14-05, 09:56 PM

If Cris, truly and absolutly did not believe in God he would not be posting. He'd be off doing other things then trifling with the non-existant God. Or concepts. But it's the antagonizing inability to quench the thirst for truth that lies in the center of his soul--that keeps him here--momentarily he's freed from the hunger and thirst, gripping to the logic and ideas of no God, but the fabric and fiber of his immortal spirit will not let him rest. Neither in time or in eternity, until this doubt is resolved.

The murmuring and simple doubt; That he could be completely and entirely wrong. From there, only one of two things can happen. He either summons God, or God summons him.

In the end every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess.

Marlin

11-14-05, 10:00 PM

Amen.

Cris

11-14-05, 10:20 PM

Marlin,

Remember those words when you come before the throne of God to be judged. Don't be silly no worthwhile god is going to be using a throne. What an infantile notion.

It is His religion, Again a silly idea. A real god wouldn't use such a dumb idea as religion.

He restored it through Joseph Smith, LOL - How can you be so naive and gullible as to be so totally brainwashed by a proven charlatan?

and He will show you that it's true. Dream on - that is all you have.

Marlin

11-14-05, 10:25 PM

Cris, time will tell. I'm completely confident that the LDS Church is true. You'll find out eventually.

Cris

11-14-05, 11:18 PM

Nisus,

If Cris, truly and absolutly did not believe in God he would not be posting. I am lazy. My background is science, but science is hard. The religion forum offers me very easy pickings since religion is such a dumb thing.

He'd be off doing other things then trifling with the non-existant God. How can one trifle with something non-existent?

But it's the antagonizing inability to quench the thirst for truth that lies in the center of his soulIt is not a search for truth that keeps me here but the comedy of religion.

but the fabric and fiber of his immortal spirit will not let him rest.Don’t be silly – there are no such things as souls.

I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism. -- Albert Einstein

Neither in time or in eternity, until this doubt is resolved.I have no doubt about the idiocy, childishness, and fallacy of religions like Christianity, but I live in hope that someone here might present something credible and believable. If I am at fault it is because my eternal optimism allows me to hope that reason and common sense will eventually prevail, and current religions don’t come close.

"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. -- Albert Einstein

The murmuring and simple doubt; That he could be completely and entirely wrong. Now you are dreaming. That someone could so totally dismiss the utter foolishness that you hold so true is apparently beyond your comprehension.

From there, only one of two things can happen. He either summons God, or God summons him.Again don’t be so silly – the gods of the so called revealed religions are pure fantasy and quite absurd.

The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. -- John Adams

I can hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine. -- Charles Darwin

TruthSeeker

11-14-05, 11:29 PM

Cris, time will tell. I'm completely confident that the LDS Church is true. You'll find out eventually.
If that was true, I would kill myself.

...
...
Wait.... that wouldn't work in this case... :o :(

TruthSeeker

11-14-05, 11:32 PM

Nope. I only want one wife. Ever.

And the Church hasn't practiced polygamy since 1890. And it excommunicates those who practice it. ...rolleyes yourself. :rolleyes:
What is Mormonism without poligamy!? It's like Christmas with no Santa!
I mean.... that's what DEFINES Mormonism...
No fun!

...
No 72 virgins waiting for you in heaven...?

Yaba Daba :m:

Marlin

11-14-05, 11:40 PM

Doo.

TruthSeeker

11-16-05, 01:45 AM

Exactly.

Marlin

11-16-05, 01:48 AM

What is Mormonism without poligamy!? It's like Christmas with no Santa!
I mean.... that's what DEFINES Mormonism...
No fun!

...
No 72 virgins waiting for you in heaven...?

Yaba Daba :m:

So the Mormons are sinners if they practice polygamy, and "no fun" when they outlaw the practice?

Doo, indeed.

Cris

11-16-05, 03:41 AM

But why would polygamy be considered sinful? I admit I don't know if there is a biblical reference on this but I don't remember one off-hand.

Having many wives seems emminently sensible.

Marlin

11-16-05, 04:07 AM

But why would polygamy be considered sinful? I admit I don't know if there is a biblical reference on this but I don't remember one off-hand.

Having many wives seems emminently sensible.

It's a double standard. Just like the Pharisees of Jesus' and Paul's day, some self-righteous people venerate the ancient prophets and blow raspberries at the modern ones. In other words, it's perfectly okay for Old Testament prophets to have many wives, because after all, they lived long ago. But introduce the element of time and immediacy and it's suddenly the worst, most sinful abomination ever practiced, one in which only lecherous and adulterous people would consider practicing.

I don't see TruthSeeker condemning Father Abraham for polygamy, yet he practiced it and was not condemned for it by God.

Jenyar

11-16-05, 06:28 AM

That's because the issue is not that it was sinful (it certainly has no reason for being exceptionally abominable), but that it was a novelty propagated under the banner of revelation, and accepted as such in specific contradiction to the New Testament.

It's simply easier for Mormons to treat it as an attack on their morality (and for anti-Mormons to use it that way) than it is to see it as an example of what Christians consider the danger of Mormonism: that novelty is justified by revelation and ancient precedent, rather than responsibly in recognition of the work of the Spirit (who has been an active and constant companion to Christianity since Jesus breathed on his apostles).

Since it was a central doctrine of Mormonism that has been retracted under pressure, it inevitably casts a shadow on other novelties. We see it as an issue of credibility rather than morality.
'The real reason I cannot be in communion with you is... that to accept your Church means not to accept a given body of doctrine but to accept in advance any doctrine that your Church hereafter produces'. - CS Lewis

Marlin

11-16-05, 06:42 AM

That's because the issue is not that it was sinful (it certainly has no reason for being exceptionally abominable), but that it was a novelty propagated under the banner of revelation, and accepted as such in specific contradiction to the New Testament.

Likewise, Christianity was propagated under the banner of teachings and revelations, and accepted as such in specific contradiction to the Old Testament regarding the Law of Moses and circumcision. The first century Jews certainly saw Christianity as being in great contrast, perhaps even blasphemic, to their laws and scriptures.

It's simply easier for Mormons to treat it as an attack on their morality (and for anti-Mormons to use it that way) than it is to see it as an example of what Christians consider the danger of Mormonism: that novelty is justified by revelation and ancient precedent, rather than responsibly in recognition of the work of the Spirit (who has been an active and constant companion to Christianity since Jesus breathed on his apostles).

Since it was a central doctrine of Mormonism that has been retracted under pressure, it inevitably casts a shadow on other novelties. We see it as an issue of credibility rather than morality.

Well, it needn't be seen that way. God said that if the saints were not allowed to practice polygamy peacably by the U.S. Government, they wouldn't be responsible to do so as a result. Polygamy may be reinstated after Christ returns.

Jenyar

11-16-05, 10:15 AM

Likewise, Christianity was propagated under the banner of teachings and revelations, and accepted as such in specific contradiction to the Old Testament regarding the Law of Moses and circumcision. The first century Jews certainly saw Christianity as being in great contrast, perhaps even blasphemic, to their laws and scriptures.
It's a false analogy, because neither Joseph Smith nor any of his followers are Jesus Christ. If Jesus had not been resurrected, his teachings would have proven themselves false, and none of its consequences would have followed. It would not have been possible to understand circumcision as being of the heart, because the old covenant would still be in place. It's the resurrection that allows me to say that baptism is of the heart - not merely an external sign of repentance, like John's baptism, but something God himself did (Romans 6:3) with the Spirit. We practice water baptism as a sign of the new covenant, just like Jews practiced circumcision as a sign of the old covenant (Col. 2:11-12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Col.%202:11-12;&version=31;)).

The teachings and revelations only had authority because they were grounded on Christ and his atonement, not because they brought anything new. The apostles exercized their duty of unlocking the gospel exactly as Jesus intructed them to. No tradition may set aside the commands of God, but any tradition is not necessary for upholding God's commands is man-made. Anything more places an unneccesary burden on non-Jews (Acts 15:28-29; Rev. 2:24).
Col. 2:20-23
Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: "Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.
And what was God's command, as revealed in Jesus? "Love one another" (John 15:12). This is why God revealed to Peter: "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean". Christ had purchased the right for all men to approach Him, cleaning them with his blood. It was in response to the work of the Spirit that gentiles were also baptized with water (Acts 10).

Well, it needn't be seen that way. God said that if the saints were not allowed to practice polygamy peacably by the U.S. Government, they wouldn't be responsible to do so as a result. Polygamy may be reinstated after Christ returns.
What's the point? "The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are considered worthy of taking part in that age and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage" (Luke 20:34).

Marlin

11-16-05, 03:32 PM

It's a false analogy, because neither Joseph Smith nor any of his followers are Jesus Christ.

It is a good analogy, IMHO. The doctrines and principles revealed to Joseph Smith were directly from revelation from Jesus Christ. Joseph restored the true church of Christ under Christ's direction, so the analogy is true.

The teachings and revelations only had authority because they were grounded on Christ and his atonement, not because they brought anything new. The apostles exercized their duty of unlocking the gospel exactly as Jesus intructed them to.

So did Joseph Smith.

What's the point? "The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are considered worthy of taking part in that age and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage" (Luke 20:34).

Yes, they will not marry in the resurrection. If they are married while in mortality in the temple, then their marriage will last for time and all eternity.

Nisus

11-16-05, 04:41 PM

Nisus,
I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism. -- Albert Einstein

"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. -- Albert Einstein

Quoting Einstein will only get you this far--

"Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the Old One. I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice."

A letter to Max Born, December 12, 1926, according to Einstein: The Life and Times, p. 414. ISBN 0-380-44123-3. This quote is commonly paraphrased as “God does not play dice with the universe.” , and other slight variants.

Also Attributed to Einstein are the following quotes ..

"Before God we are all equally wise — and equally foolish.

God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically.

I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."

Like I was saying...Quoting Einstein will only get you this far--Juxtaposed with his Theistic quotes. At any rate, his genius props up your suppositions, but also cuts you low to the ground.

I'm not as interested in what smart people said years ago, as I am interested in what they say now.

I have no doubt about the idiocy, childishness, and fallacy of religions like Christianity, but I live in hope that someone here might present something credible and believable. If I am at fault it is because my eternal optimism allows me to hope that reason and common sense will eventually prevail, and current religions don’t come close.

Hmm, at least according to Christ we can be ressurected, and also repent of our sins. According to you we're all basically F :bugeye: :eek: *#@ d. Lie down, and stay down? This doctrine my friend is as empty as sin. And if you posess some sort of superior knowledge than that of your bretheren with regards to our collective deception, then it must be a blessing for you; But I believe your campaign to convince us of our own worthlessness will perish right along with all these hopeless ideas you sustain and propogate.

Now you are dreaming. That someone could so totally dismiss the utter foolishness that you hold so true is apparently beyond your comprehension.

Utter foolishness is just as savory as the hollow and lifeless doctrines that you give birth to. If we're all destined to be dust and return to chaos and dirt, then any classification of any sort as to the thoughts of men is equally worthless.... :bugeye: is it not?

The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. -- John Adams

I can hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine. -- Charles Darwin

Looks like these fellows focused all their energies on condemnation and overlooked Grace and Salvation. I wouldn't follow Christ if his doctrine were hopeless as these men paint it to be.... No one would. I'm sorry that you can't see the light that escapes your comprehension.

Cris

11-16-05, 05:24 PM

Nisus,

...Quoting Einstein will only get you this far--Juxtaposed with his Theistic quotes.

"Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the Old One. I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice."

A letter to Max Born, December 12, 1926, according to Einstein: The Life and Times, p. 414. ISBN 0-380-44123-3. This quote is commonly paraphrased as “God does not play dice with the universe.” , and other slight variants.

Also Attributed to Einstein are the following quotes ..

"Before God we are all equally wise — and equally foolish.

God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically.

I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."

Einstein wasn't referring to a Christian style god. His religious perspective was pantheistic - i.e. the universe was a god that revealed itself through the laws of physics. Bear that in mind when you see such quotes - you will find that all his quotes are then quite consistent with his assertion that he is an atheist where Christianity is concerned.

At any rate, his genius props up your suppositions, but also cuts you low to the ground.Not so as you will realise if you study his religious perspective. I also quoted Einstein deliberatly in the hope that you would fall into that trap.

Cris

11-16-05, 05:52 PM

Nisus,

Hmm, at least according to Christ we can be ressurected, and also repent of our sins. It is still fantasy and has no value unless you can show it otherwise.

According to you we're all basically F *#@ d. Lie down, and stay down? No, it means we are on our own and there is no crutch to lean on.

This doctrine my friend is as empty as sin.Sin means nothing in this context. And all the evidence indicates this position is fact. I.e. you cannot demonstrate the existence of gods, souls, an afterlife, resurrections, heaven, hell, etc. These are all worthless fantasies.

And if you posess some sort of superior knowledge than that of your bretheren with regards to our collective deception, then it must be a blessing for you;Nothing superior is needed beyond not being gullible enough to believe fantasies are true.

But I believe your campaign to convince us of our own worthlessness will perish right along with all these hopeless ideas you sustain and propogate.You have things reversed again. It is the Christian who claims people are worthless and sinful and need redemption – that is the overwhelming Christian position, the reason why you believe you need a savior. I have made no statements claiming people are worthless, quite the reverse. I perceive us as having incredible potential to improve ourselves through technology and science, as I have extolled many times in these forums. If we can remove the blight and parasitic influences of religions like Christianity then we could make much faster progress.

Utter foolishness is just as savory as the hollow and lifeless doctrines that you give birth to.Which I haven’t. So your argument is lost.

If we're all destined to be dust and return to chaos and dirt, then any classification of any sort as to the thoughts of men is equally worthless.... is it not?We are not destined for anything, that is a religious concept. What we do and achieve is up to us. Our purpose is what we choose for ourselves.

I wouldn't follow Christ if his doctrine were hopeless as these men paint it to be.... No one would. I'm sorry that you can't see the light that escapes your comprehension.To believe you will achieve immortality and gain access to a heavenly paradise is the biggest con trick in the history of mankind. That somehow the ugliness of death is really a magical gateway to perfection. This is the essential evil nature of religions, that they convince the gullible that death is their best hope. If the devil were to exist then one couldn’t imagine a better scheme for him to devise than to have people believe in Christianity - the epitome of baseless false hope.

Marlin

11-16-05, 05:54 PM

I also quoted Einstein deliberatly in the hope that you would fall into that trap.

Now that is just nasty.

Cris

11-16-05, 05:57 PM

Marlin.

Now that is just nasty. I know, but so many Christians attempt to claim that Einstein was really on their side when he really despised their perspective.

Marlin

11-16-05, 05:59 PM

I think the whole "let's trap people in their words" thing in the name of a cause is reprehensible and despicable.

Nisus

11-16-05, 06:09 PM

Nisus,

Einstein wasn't referring to a Christian style god. His religious perspective was pantheistic - i.e. the universe was a god that revealed itself through the laws of physics. Bear that in mind when you see such quotes - you will find that all his quotes are then quite consistent with his assertion that he is an atheist where Christianity is concerned.

I'll interpret them how I will, others also. No need for debate. They're colorful quotes. Taken from different shades of his life. I don't think either side totally supports or reduces theism. Since they are relative to the time he spoke them. I'm sure being a scientist, his ideas were subject to change.

Not so as you will realise if you study his religious perspective. I also quoted Einstein deliberatly in the hope that you would fall into that trap.

Well given that there isn't a timeline associated with these quotes I will just deduce that his thoughts on God, evolved alongside with his thoughts on the universe.

You can justify yourself, I suppose, under the context of your own perspective.

But I see no trap or snare =p Just your opinion.

Nisus

11-16-05, 06:44 PM

It is still fantasy and has no value unless you can show it otherwise.

No value? I assume you are speaking for yourself.

What people determine valuable and beneficial to their own lives, is relative to the person.

Just as equally as they cannot prove, you cannot disprove. So neither is absolute.

No, it means we are on our own and there is no crutch to lean on.

Well since people can think for themselves and believe in what they want, many people find satisfaction and use religion as a crutch. Which either way it doesn't really matter how they get to the end, Cris, your point is the end we face, doesn't doesn't have any facet of discrimination, and that all of us are subject to the self same destiny.

I simply disagree.

Sin means nothing in this context. And all the evidence indicates this position is fact. I.e. you cannot demonstrate the existence of gods, souls, an afterlife, resurrections, heaven, hell, etc. These are all worthless fantasies.

"Sin" I used, hoping you would recognize the religious conotations that the word has. Comparing your ideas and associating them to what I consider, hell, spiritual death, because to me your ideas are destitute and lonely.

Nothing superior is needed beyond not being gullible enough to believe fantasies are true.

You don't think people doubt or question? You don't think any religious people doubt or question? Wonder or ask why? We do, we look at everything with the same perspective or close to the same as you do at a point in time, we just don't embrace them to their lonesome end.

If I have a choice to believe, or not believe in God, setting all religion aside-- I would still choose to belive in God, because I like the idea. It's facinating to me, it inspires me. Though you find this idea of little worth, I find it to be of value.

As long as you are going to deal with humans and freedom of will you have to factor in that there will always be people that believe in God, or some form of a divinity or deity. You can't eradicate this nature of ours.

You have things reversed again. It is the Christian who claims people are worthless and sinful and need redemption – that is the overwhelming Christian position, the reason why you believe you need a savior. I have made no statements claiming people are worthless, quite the reverse. I perceive us as having incredible potential to improve ourselves through technology and science, as I have extolled many times in these forums. If we can remove the blight and parasitic influences of religions like Christianity then we could make much faster progress.

You don't understand Christ at all in my opinion. Nor his doctrines. Because I see them in a totally different light, then what you just said.

Which I haven’t. So your argument is lost.

I really never felt I was arguing.

We are not destined for anything, that is a religious concept. What we do and achieve is up to us. Our purpose is what we choose for ourselves.

I meant it in the most simple application, where we end up and what becomes of us. Death is our end, according to my interpretation of what you say. So if we're all just destined to a simple death and nothing becomes of us, I don't see why you are so opinionated.

To believe you will achieve immortality and gain access to a heavenly paradise is the biggest con trick in the history of mankind. That somehow the ugliness of death is really a magical gateway to perfection. This is the essential evil nature of religions, that they convince the gullible that death is their best hope. If the devil were to exist then one couldn’t imagine a better scheme for him to devise than to have people believe in Christianity - the epitome of baseless false hope.

I don't believe I have acheive immortality, I already feel that I know I am immortal. Though I know I can die physically, I've yet to experience it. So long as I can think, I will be alive, flesh or no flesh.

Cris

11-16-05, 06:57 PM

Marlin,

I think the whole "let's trap people in their words" thing in the name of a cause is reprehensible and despicable. Absolutely agree. Why do Christians do it so often then?

Marlin

11-16-05, 07:02 PM

Marlin,

Absolutely agree. Why do Christians do it so often then?

Human nature, maybe? Can we really paint with that broad a brush, though? Some Christians do, some don't. Some atheists do, some don't. Too broad a generalization.

Cris

11-16-05, 07:04 PM

Nisus,

To be fair - Einstein's perspectives are a tricky issue. At the height of his time to come out and declare oneself an atheist would have been social, politcial, and career, suicide. As with many public figures what they say in public is often very different to their private perspectives. I've researched Einstein a great deal and he was fairly consistent with his quotes, but I think he knew very well how people would mis-perceive them. He had a sense of humor.

Moving on ....

Godless

11-16-05, 07:45 PM

"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."
Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Peter Carr, Aug. 10, 1787)

"But a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in Church and State."
Thomas Jefferson (in a letter to S. Kercheval, 1810)

"I have never seen the slightest scientific proof of the religious theories of heaven and hell, of future life for individuals, or of a personal God."
-- Thomas Edison

Moved on I did.

Godless

Cris

11-16-05, 08:35 PM

Nisus,

No value? I assume you are speaking for yourself.No, I was seeing this in terms of the entire human race. If everyone chose to believe that fantasies were true then that sounds like a recipe for extinction, or simple mass suicide, as some religions groups finally decide.

What people determine valuable and beneficial to their own lives, is relative to the person.Understood but it wasn’t a relative consideration. But I do fully appreciate that those who have trouble dealing with the stress of every day life, or who have trouble facing their inevitable non-existence will look to religion to give them a sense of hope. The effect can be soothing and can result in less stress. Others of course are racked by the guilt that religions often inspire.

Just as equally as they cannot prove, you cannot disprove. So neither is absolute.But I wasn’t claiming a disproof on this. My point here is that your beliefs are fantasies. That is a factual observation and will remain so unless you can prove your claims as true. In the same way that the Lord of the Rings was a fantasy unless you can show it was true.

Well since people can think for themselves and believe in what they want, many people find satisfaction and use religion as a crutch.I understand, but why not deal with life as it actually is rather than behave like a cripple?

Which either way it doesn't really matter how they get to the end, Cris, your point is the end we face, doesn't doesn't have any facet of discrimination, and that all of us are subject to the self same destiny.To a point. But while the religionist will accept this as inevitable and look to a supernatural exit, which I see as a defeatist and fatalistic perspective, I and many like me are actively looking to solve the problems of involuntary death through science and technology. It is the very real difference between “there is nothing we can do so let’s not try” and “how do we solve this problem”.

Comparing your ideas and associating them to what I consider, hell, spiritual death, because to me your ideas are destitute and lonely.There is nowhere that says that truth must be pleasant. But creating and believing in the fantasies of gods so you can feel happier is surely just simple delusion.

You don't think people doubt or question? You don't think any religious people doubt or question? Wonder or ask why? We do, we look at everything with the same perspective or close to the same as you do at a point in time, we just don't embrace them to their lonesome end.I understand. It takes tremendous courage to accept that the truth is not pleasant, and few people face that – hence two thirds of world take the perceived happier route and believe in gods instead.

If I have a choice to believe, or not believe in God, setting all religion aside-- I would still choose to belive in God, because I like the idea. It's facinating to me, it inspires me. Though you find this idea of little worth, I find it to be of value.I understand it very well. I prefer to seek truth instead.

As long as you are going to deal with humans and freedom of will you have to factor in that there will always be people that believe in God, or some form of a divinity or deity. You can't eradicate this nature of ours.I am hopeful that through science and technology that will change and people will come to see that a belief in a god is as meaningless as believing that the world is flat. The major breakthrough is likely to be the full understanding of how the brain operates and the final elimination of any doubt concerning the soul concept. Without that concept theism will simply be irrelevant.

You don't understand Christ at all in my opinion. Nor his doctrines. Because I see them in a totally different light, then what you just said.In Christianity it is necessary to demean each person so that they will accept the need for saving. It is a fundamental Christian tenet that everyone is a sinner. I’m sure you will agree with this. Having established that then the next phase is to offer a solution – hence the glowing wonderful loving Jesus with wondrous moral principles holding a heavenly paradise as a reward and solution to humanities sinful nature.

It is a sales trick. Create the illusion of a need and then sell an unnecessary solution. You have been hooked, stung, and sold.

I really never felt I was arguing.LOL – I meant in the debating sense.

Death is our end, according to my interpretation of what you say. So if we're all just destined to a simple death and nothing becomes of us, I don't see why you are so opinionated.Because I sense there is a solution that we could realize sooner if religion wasn’t in the way.

I don't believe I have acheive immortality, I already feel that I know I am immortal. Though I know I can die physically, I've yet to experience it. So long as I can think, I will be alive, flesh or no flesh.Unfortunately no one has yet shown that anyone has ever survived death in any form. And given that countless billions of people have died one would think that if there was an afterlife that there would be some indication, although I agree that is not necessarily so.

Jenyar

11-17-05, 11:29 AM

It is a good analogy, IMHO. The doctrines and principles revealed to Joseph Smith were directly from revelation from Jesus Christ. Joseph restored the true church of Christ under Christ's direction, so the analogy is true.
Maybe you can explain why Joseph Smith revised his early visions to fit his later "revelations"? This wasn't necessary for anything Jesus or the first apostles said.

In the earliest "official" account of his first vision, given to the Church in 1832, he said he "saw the Lord" and was forgiven of his sins, but before that he told people (Willard Chase (1827), Martin Harris (1827) and Peter Bauder (1830)) only of a single spirit or angel. In a 1835 diary entry, he mentions two unidentified "personages" and many angels - the sonship of Jesus is affirmed, but he is not identified as any of the angels present. (In the same year he writes in his Lectures on Faith that God the Father is a spiritual presence, while Jesus Christ has a tangible body of flesh).

The version that is used today was written in 1838 but first published in 1842, and includes for the first time the fact that it was the Father and Son who appeared (despite his earlier revelation that "without [the authority of the priesthood] no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live": D&C 84:22). Among all the first vision accounts, it is only Orson Pratt's 1840 account (and two later ones based on it) that includes the promise that "true doctrine the fulness of the gospel, should, at some future time, be made known to him". Some of Orson Pratt's other writings were retracted because of "inaccuracies", as you know.

So not all Joseph Smith's revelations, by his own admission, came from Jesus himself. The Book of Mormon, revealed by the angel Mormoni, was supposedly translated (the translating ability being a gift from God (http://www.irr.org/mit/1833boc-cs-p10.html)). Revelations in the original Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price had been revised (i.e. words weren't added as new revelations, but into existing ones). Christians are not asked to pray about any other book than the Book of Mormon for accepting Mormonism.

The gospel of Jesus, on the other hand, came directly from God - Him being the Word of God..

So did Joseph Smith.
Then there is no reason to believe that the "restoration" he brought would be more successful than the church Jesus himself established.

Yes, they will not marry in the resurrection. If they are married while in mortality in the temple, then their marriage will last for time and all eternity.
Which is the age that will end when Jesus returns, and the living and the dead are gathered judgement. Hence: no "reinstatement" of marriage, or polygamy, after the resurrection. "That age" starts with the resurrection, and the resurrection starts when Christ returns (1 Thess. 4:16-17; Matt. 25:31-33).

Nisus

11-17-05, 12:03 PM

Maybe you can explain why Joseph Smith revised his early visions to fit his later "revelations"? This wasn't necessary for anything Jesus or the first apostles said.

You need to reference documentation of the said "early visions" so they can be compared in contrast with the "latter" visions. Else no one can plainly discern for themselves if any revisions were actually made.

Which is the age that will end when Jesus returns, and the living and the dead are gathered judgement. Hence: no "reinstatement" of marriage, or polygamy, after the resurrection. "That age" starts with the resurrection, and the resurrection starts when Christ returns (1 Thess. 4:16-17; Matt. 25:31-33).

Upon Jesus' arrival to the earth, there will be a First Ressurection.

For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: (1 thes 4:16)

This is part of the first ressurection--then also;

Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we eever be with the Lord. (1 thes 4:17)

Those that aren't dead but are living righteously, will take part in the First Ressurection also, only they will be changed into immortals, rather than rise from the dead.

Then Christ appears before all flesh still living on the earth, and Satan is bound one thousand years.

AND I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.

And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years (Rev 20:1-2)

Only the righteous will dwell upon the earth with Christ...

And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. (Rev. 20:4-5)

The wicked, are not ressurected till the thousand years are over; they have a separate ressurection.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

So for 1,000 years of peace, you think that no one can be married in this amount of time??

The Thousand years will be spent undoing, all the wickedness that Satan did. Cities, homes, nations will be rebuilt under a new Government, Christ's. People that didn't live with the gospel on earth, and didn't know Jesus, will be taught the gospel.

Families will be united, in everyway possible, not only through marriage but forgiveness. And spirits will progressively be released from torment and prison as they accept and learn the commandments.

TruthSeeker

11-17-05, 01:27 PM

So the Mormons are sinners if they practice polygamy, and "no fun" when they outlaw the practice?

Doo, indeed.
Yes! Ugly Mormons! They make no sense!

Yaba Daba! :m:

Marlin

11-17-05, 06:07 PM

Maybe you can explain why Joseph Smith revised his early visions to fit his later "revelations"? This wasn't necessary for anything Jesus or the first apostles said.

In the earliest "official" account of his first vision, given to the Church in 1832, he said he "saw the Lord" and was forgiven of his sins, but before that he told people (Willard Chase (1827), Martin Harris (1827) and Peter Bauder (1830)) only of a single spirit or angel. In a 1835 diary entry, he mentions two unidentified "personages" and many angels - the sonship of Jesus is affirmed, but he is not identified as any of the angels present. (In the same year he writes in his Lectures on Faith that God the Father is a spiritual presence, while Jesus Christ has a tangible body of flesh).

The version that is used today was written in 1838 but first published in 1842, and includes for the first time the fact that it was the Father and Son who appeared (despite his earlier revelation that "without [the authority of the priesthood] no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live": D&C 84:22). Among all the first vision accounts, it is only Orson Pratt's 1840 account (and two later ones based on it) that includes the promise that "true doctrine the fulness of the gospel, should, at some future time, be made known to him". Some of Orson Pratt's other writings were retracted because of "inaccuracies", as you know.

So not all Joseph Smith's revelations, by his own admission, came from Jesus himself. The Book of Mormon, revealed by the angel Mormoni, was supposedly translated (the translating ability being a gift from God (http://www.irr.org/mit/1833boc-cs-p10.html)). Revelations in the original Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price had been revised (i.e. words weren't added as new revelations, but into existing ones).

Here is a website explaining the differences in the accounts of the First Vision:

The First Vision (http://www.fairlds.org/apol/brochures/firstvision.pdf)

Did you know that Paul related his vision of Christ in different versions at different times as well?

Christians are not asked to pray about any other book than the Book of Mormon for accepting Mormonism.

Sure they are. The standard works and the words of the modern prophets are some of the things we are to gain testimonies of through personal revelation, not just the Book of Mormon.

The gospel of Jesus, on the other hand, came directly from God - Him being the Word of God..

So did Mormonism.

Then there is no reason to believe that the "restoration" he brought would be more successful than the church Jesus himself established.

Except for the fact that God told Joseph Smith that the Restoration would endure and not be taken from the earth ever again until Christ returns.

Which is the age that will end when Jesus returns, and the living and the dead are gathered judgement. Hence: no "reinstatement" of marriage, or polygamy, after the resurrection. "That age" starts with the resurrection, and the resurrection starts when Christ returns (1 Thess. 4:16-17; Matt. 25:31-33).

Modern revelation makes it clear that celestial marriage will endure, if the parties are worthy of exaltation, throughout eternity.

Nisus

11-17-05, 06:49 PM

No, I was seeing this in terms of the entire human race. If everyone chose to believe that fantasies were true then that sounds like a recipe for extinction, or simple mass suicide, as some religions groups finally decide.

Anyhow people, many people find value in Faith and Religion. And the day the Entire Human Race agrees upon anyone thing; will be an interesting day indeed.

As for belief and faith being a recipe for extinction, or simple mass suicides; yea in some cases. In general however, people are comforted by their faith in afterlife, whatever form it may be. People are comforted by faith in Heaven, Nirvana, higher peace. Hoping for better things isn't going to prove our complete and utter destruction.

What you refer to as "Fantasy" you'd have to be more specific, but even in specific situations, you'll find you're unable to scientifically prove things like-- there is no God, or Christ never existed.

If you use the word fantasy to condescend, upon peoples faith in things not seen, that's just hypocritical.

Understood but it wasn’t a relative consideration. But I do fully appreciate that those who have trouble dealing with the stress of every day life, or who have trouble facing their inevitable non-existence will look to religion to give them a sense of hope. The effect can be soothing and can result in less stress. Others of course are racked by the guilt that religions often inspire.

But I wasn’t claiming a disproof on this. My point here is that your beliefs are fantasies. That is a factual observation and will remain so unless you can prove your claims as true. In the same way that the Lord of the Rings was a fantasy unless you can show it was true.

? You don't don't what my beliefs are. If you want to bring up a "claim" be specific, and we can address it. The Lord of the Rings was written as a fantasy, a tale for entertainment. And i've not requested you to accept any particular thing as Truth.

History is subject to change, until every last shred of possible evidence is disclosed that exists upon the foundations of this planet. Don't be suprised if many scientific theories or concepts you have of the past/present/future, are simply interpretations or fantasy of mortals.

I understand, but why not deal with life as it actually is rather than behave like a cripple?

You'd have to ask that question to the person that you perceive is subject to this application or being "cripple". It doesn't ride very well as a generalization since faith and hope and religion is ultimately very personal.

To a point. But while the religionist will accept this as inevitable and look to a supernatural exit, which I see as a defeatist and fatalistic perspective, I and many like me are actively looking to solve the problems of involuntary death through science and technology. It is the very real difference between “there is nothing we can do so let’s not try” and “how do we solve this problem”.

Well good luck in your endeavors. Everyone can benefit from good medicine and such.

There is nowhere that says that truth must be pleasant. But creating and believing in the fantasies of gods so you can feel happier is surely just simple delusion.

You could very well be very delusioned in many of your own beliefs/ideas. Fantasies of science so you can feel happier, or...? Is this not almost essentially the same hope as a thiest?

I understand. It takes tremendous courage to accept that the truth is not pleasant, and few people face that – hence two thirds of world take the perceived happier route and believe in gods instead.

Interesting perspective. Starting to feel that your condemnation upon the human race is much more vile than any misinterpreted passage from the Bible.
You honestly think that 2/3 of your human family are so mislead and deluded?

I understand it very well. I prefer to seek truth instead.

I don't think anyone person would tell you they honestly or earnestly seek to be deceived.

I am hopeful that through science and technology that will change and people will come to see that a belief in a god is as meaningless as believing that the world is flat. The major breakthrough is likely to be the full understanding of how the brain operates and the final elimination of any doubt concerning the soul concept. Without that concept theism will simply be irrelevant.

You will not live to see a day when "people will come to see that a belief in a god is as meaningless..." seeking after that hope, is about as rational as a suicide bomber strapped with c-4, in my opinion. The only result is self-destruction.

And you say we believe I believe in fantasies?

In Christianity it is necessary to demean each person so that they will accept the need for saving. It is a fundamental Christian tenet that everyone is a sinner. I’m sure you will agree with this. Having established that then the next phase is to offer a solution – hence the glowing wonderful loving Jesus with wondrous moral principles holding a heavenly paradise as a reward and solution to humanities sinful nature.

I don't know why you interpret it that way. You would probably find a more fruitful experience in considering Jesus' words for yourself rather than surrendering to any feeling that you are demeaned or worthless.

It is a sales trick. Create the illusion of a need and then sell an unnecessary solution. You have been hooked, stung, and sold.

That application is way too simple for me to consider it reasonable.

Because I sense there is a solution that we could realize sooner if religion wasn’t in the way.

...think how Aristotle felt. Now is the best time ever in the history of humanity to be heard. If you have an idea, now is the best time to teach it. If you think religion is that powerful right now, you've already been self-defeated, because it's nowhere as influencial over governments/science as it was in the dark ages.

Unfortunately no one has yet shown that anyone has ever survived death in any form. And given that countless billions of people have died one would think that if there was an afterlife that there would be some indication, although I agree that is not necessarily so.

There are many testimonies of after-life/near-death. You probably right them ALL OFF as delusions. My Grandfather had one as well as my sister. My grandfather was electrocuted with so much current knocked out the cities electricity, and burned holes through his shoes. And lived to tell a very interesting story. My sister was choked to death in an alley, and had a very interesting experience outside of her body. Those are people I know personally.

(Q)

11-17-05, 07:45 PM

Hoping for better things isn't going to prove our complete and utter destruction.

It most certainly will if those 'things' are pure fantasies.

you'll find you're unable to scientifically prove things like-- there is no God, or Christ never existed.

No, you are unable to show there IS a god or that Christ DID exist. If I told you I had an invisible flying pink dragon in my attic, you'll be demanding me to prove its existence, I wouldn't be asking you to disprove it.

The Lord of the Rings was written as a fantasy, a tale for entertainment.

It does not state that anywhere in the book, as it also does not state that anywhere in the bible.

Don't be suprised if many scientific theories or concepts you have of the past/present/future, are simply interpretations or fantasy of mortals.

Then we would also have to admit that computers, internet, fiber optics, medicines, etc. were also fantasies.

Cris

11-17-05, 08:24 PM

Nisus,

Hoping for better things isn't going to prove our complete and utter destruction.But putting trust in imaginary gods to save us when the next asteroid hits will ensure our extinction. Putting trust in an imaginary afterlife rather than finding solutions to involuntary death is the greatest evil of religion.

What you refer to as "Fantasy" you'd have to be more specific, but even in specific situations, you'll find you're unable to scientifically prove things like-- there is no God, or Christ never existed.You’ll find I don’t claim gods do not exist. But the concept of gods is fantasy because you cannot prove they are real. The default state for something so incredulous is “fantasy”. It is not opinion but simple factual observation. Similarly for a Christ although I do tend to assert that he is mythological based on the research I have read.

If you use the word fantasy to condescend, upon peoples faith in things not seen, that's just hypocritical. No, just factual.

? You don't don't what my beliefs are. If you want to bring up a "claim" be specific, and we can address it.You believe a god exists, true? If so then that belief is a fantasy, i.e. it is not based on observation or detection but on creative imagination only.

The Lord of the Rings was written as a fantasy, a tale for entertainment. And i've not requested you to accept any particular thing as Truth.It was created from the imagination and so were the bible stories since there is nothing to indicate otherwise.

History is subject to change, until every last shred of possible evidence is disclosed that exists upon the foundations of this planet.I think you mean the opposite surely. History cannot be changed – it’s been and gone. Our ability to investigate it though is something else.

Don't be suprised if many scientific theories or concepts you have of the past/present/future, are simply interpretations or fantasy of mortals. It is part of science to accept that theories can adapt when new discoveries are made. Science begins by observations and detection – fantasies do not.

You could very well be very delusioned in many of your own beliefs/ideas. Fantasies of science so you can feel happier, or...? Is this not almost essentially the same hope as a thiest?No because I don’t know they can be achieved or will ever be true. Whereas religions assert absolute truths and religionists believe them true, without any track record of any religious idea being shown truthful. That is the difference with believing in baseless religious fantasies and hoping that science can solve problems because of its past success rate. I have a basis for my hopes you do not.

You honestly think that 2/3 of your human family are so mislead and deluded?Yes easily. Most believed the world was flat because they were told it was. Most people in the world do not think for themselves but accept ideas told to them by others. Just look at religious beliefs in any given country – they are not because of individual research or objective evaluation but primarily because of culture and customs. Had you been born in an Islamic country you would almost certainly be extolling the virtues of Allah right now.

I don't think anyone person would tell you they honestly or earnestly seek to be deceived.But many are prepared to believe what the are told without any verification.

You will not live to see a day when "people will come to see that a belief in a god is as meaningless..." seeking after that hope, is about as rational as a suicide bomber strapped with c-4, in my opinion. The only result is self-destruction.

And you say we believe I believe in fantasies?Neuroscience is progressing at an exponential rate and Moore’s law is continuing unabated. We will have computing power equivalent to the human brain in a few years and after that it will double in power every 18 months or sooner. AI is not far away and artificial self-awareness soon after. I calculate these things should occur in my lifetime. These developments will place a serious dent in religious beliefs. Anti-aging research is also making great strides forward. A new book just published (The Fantastic Voyage, live long enough to live forever) indicates we have about twenty years further research before we can substantially slow and start reversing the aging processes. After that people will begin to experience longer and longer lifespans, and the longer they live then the more research will be conducted to make them live longer. To achieve this you simply need to stay healthy for a couple more decades.

Whatever you think about the timescales, technology and science are inexorably moving in these directions. The brain will be understood, the disease of aging will be resolved, brain implants and enhancements have begun already. The days of mankind as you know it are about to change. The fundamentals of religious beliefs are about to be swept aside – i.e. the inevitability of death, that consciousness comes from a spiritual soul, and that god is made in man’s image (or visa-versa).

“ Originally Posted by Cris
It is a sales trick. Create the illusion of a need and then sell an unnecessary solution. You have been hooked, stung, and sold.
”
That application is way too simple for me to consider it reasonable.Understood. No one likes to admit they have been conned.

If you think religion is that powerful right now, you've already been self-defeated, because it's nowhere as influencial over governments/science as it was in the dark ages.Agreed, except in the USA.

There are many testimonies of after-life/near-death. You probably right them ALL OFF as delusions.None of them have been shown to be anything else.

My Grandfather had one as well as my sister. My grandfather was electrocuted with so much current knocked out the cities electricity, and burned holes through his shoes. And lived to tell a very interesting story. My sister was choked to death in an alley, and had a very interesting experience outside of her body. Those are people I know personally. They didn’t die otherwise they would not be here to tell you. Anything claimed from the memories of a brain undergoing severe trauma is useless as meaningful or reliable testimony.

Quote me a story where someone’s brain had significantly decayed and then they came back to tell you what it felt like.

Godless

11-17-05, 11:40 PM

You believe a god exists, true? If so then that belief is a fantasy, i.e. it is not based on observation or detection but on creative imagination only.

Sorry to intrude Chris, but his beliefs are based on tradition. If he had been born in the times of Creek mythology his god would be Zeus. His beliefs are derived from his upbringing, the traditional familiar religion parents followed. I.E. I was born into a Catholic family, my first experience with religion was Catholism. I moved on, others just accept their religious enviorenment without question or research to its claims.

Anyhow people, many people find value in Faith and Religion. And the day the Entire Human Race agrees upon anyone thing; will be an interesting day indeed.

The hole of human race agrees on surviving. Faith & Religion have histrorically shown to be more harm to the world than any good. Many of your mayor wars were based on religion, the scape from the Dark Ages, were the scape of religious political power over science n politics.

Faith is nothing more than false allegations believed by ingnorant masses.

"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet."
Napoleon Bonaparte

"Philosophy is questions that may never be answered.
Religion is answers that may never be questioned. ."
Unknown

Godless

Cris

11-18-05, 01:09 AM

Godless - well OK - then the original idea was the fantasy and the followers are simply lemmings then.

Godless

11-18-05, 08:41 AM

I think that religions and the god concept are derived from our ancestral evolution, these people are lemmings in our oppinion perhaps. But in reality they are just mentally ill. Mysticism is a desease of the mind, those whom still believe in what we today consider fary tales are being mislead by the one's who make a living supporting these fary tales. Mysticism exist today still because the bicameral mind still has not fully developed in many of these individuals. Thus the belief in gods, ghosts, devils and the such are remnants of the bicameral mentality.

Ever hear of Dr. Julian Jaynes?

click (http://www.julianjaynes.org/bicameralmind.php)

'this way you'l understand where I'm coming from with "bicameral mind" Ok'

Godless

Nisus

11-18-05, 11:59 AM

But putting trust in imaginary gods to save us when the next asteroid hits will ensure our extinction. Putting trust in an imaginary afterlife rather than finding solutions to involuntary death is the greatest evil of religion.

Mass extinction, asteroids, the more and more you speak you sound like a religion. Are you "Creating the illusion of a need and then selling an unnecessary solution"? So now we have cause to fear over a hypothetical situation?

Your thought processes implimented to anticipate the future are identical to religion. Much of it based in what you do not see. Don't worry about asteroids too much I think NASA and other people have that covered.

Since you want to "eradicate" theism... rather than purposing that we could co-exist, I'm really starting to see you as a scientific radical. A little faith would help you realize we are more than capable of existing together and fighting off challenges together.

The beauty of being able to believe and think what we want is a huge part of being free. Anyone that opposes freedom of thought and faith, is in opposition to true freedom.

You’ll find I don’t claim gods do not exist. But the concept of gods is fantasy because you cannot prove they are real. The default state for something so incredulous is “fantasy”. It is not opinion but simple factual observation. Similarly for a Christ although I do tend to assert that he is mythological based on the research I have read.

Well then under that description of fantasy, you should know, A good duration of human life is spent in fantasy. Fantasy of the future, of the unseen. Both in the scientific world and amongs laymen. Living every moment to the next only proceeding forth as long as I have "factual observations" seems way too tedious of a lifestyle for me. Thank heavens for freedom.

No, just factual.

I said condescending on people's faith in the unseen is hypocritical. Because when brought under the same scrutiny, I see your beliefs as fantasy, and also your hopes for a world where people aren't free to be religious, without your persecution; I see that as hypocritical. Live and let live.

[QUOTE=Cris]
You believe a god exists, true? If so then that belief is a fantasy, i.e. it is not based on observation or detection but on creative imagination only.

As I've alluded to before, a great part of your life is based on "creative imagination only" it's part of the wonders of the human mind. From things as simple as leaving your house and imagining your job is still there when you arrive, to Archetecture, Books, Fantasy is wonderful.

Are you opposed to the fact that people believed they could fly before it was actually possible? Or is it only when they believe in a "god" that it becomes so ludicrous to you?

I see how accepting faith is difficult for you. But just because it's difficult for you doesn't mean it's hazardous to the human race, and needs to be annihalated.

Religion/spirituality/idea, has always existed and will always exist so long as we have freedom to think for ourselves and govern ourselves. Which governing oneself is really the first and last great responsibility in every individual human life.

It was created from the imagination and so were the bible stories since there is nothing to indicate otherwise.

There are many indications. All of which you fail to receive on every hand. There are historical sites as well as multiple testimonies, but you write them all off. That's your choice. Your opinion. With so much historical evidence of where these people lived out there lives, you have no way to disprove their testimonies either. Testimonies which in the first case weren't meant to be left as scientific evidence. They weren't thinking-- "oh and by the way make sure you gather all the physical evidence from the scene so that when it's brought up under critisism 2,000+ years from now it's more credible". They are a compilation of events that in a simple sense, any normal person would say "wow you'd have to see that to believe it". You totally miss the point. At any rate-- I can't convince you of it's value.

I think you mean the opposite surely. History cannot be changed – it’s been and gone. Our ability to investigate it though is something else.

What? History always changes right along with new evidence that is brought forth. Same with science. That's why there are revisions of text books every year, to keep them up to date with current knowledge and information. As for the actual occurences, now those are completed yes. But the knowledge of them-- and the knowledge of their influence-- and the cyclical consequence-- That is always new/changing.

It is part of science to accept that theories can adapt when new discoveries are made. Science begins by observations and detection – fantasies do not.

You are greatly mistaken. Most faith is a living thing. A inspiration invoked in the face of adversity to overcome challenges. As new and original as fresh thought itself. Why do we push ourselves through this ? Because we believe in X-- or X --- or X----many instances circumstantial. It's not oh, because I believe in Frodo, or Dumbo, or obvious fantasy.

Seems to me you've never experienced true faith. Most the times it's never even in an object or God, just hope you can make it, to something better.

Granted, I see your perspective that human imagination has invented dogma after dogma, precept after precept, god after god; don't be mistaken into thinking I don't acknowledge this. But people really fundamentally are more attracted to the ASPIRATION, than they are details. The hope in a better world really.

No because I don’t know they can be achieved or will ever be true. Whereas religions assert absolute truths and religionists believe them true, without any track record of any religious idea being shown truthful. That is the difference with believing in baseless religious fantasies and hoping that science can solve problems because of its past success rate. I have a basis for my hopes you do not.

Once again you don't even know what I hope in. And that it's capable of changing according to circumstance and need. I have no desire to cover this ground again. Alot of what you call "baseless religious fantasies" stems to actual historical figures. Some having such a great influence in their societies that they are in a sense "deified". No need to completely right off every one of these cases. But no need to blindly accept it either. Look for the truth you can gain.

Had you been born in an Islamic country you would almost certainly be extolling the virtues of Allah right now.

I grew up an athiest/agnostic. I'm sure if I was born in an Islamic country I would have grown up an athiest as well.

But many are prepared to believe what the are told without any verification.

Well we're on the dawn of a new age. Where education and information is becoming more readily available. It's not that many people in the past didn't want to verify things, it's they didn't have the opportunity such as we have now. Time are changing though.

AI is not far away and artificial self-awareness soon after. I calculate these things should occur in my lifetime. These developments will place a serious dent in religious beliefs.

I disagree. Religion has found a way to adapt to change, obviously. There will always be new spiritual / religious idea.

The fundamentals of religious beliefs are about to be swept aside – i.e. the inevitability of death, that consciousness comes from a spiritual soul, and that god is made in man’s image (or visa-versa).

Well I welcome change. Religion will also change. It already has ... but it won't cease to exist.

Understood. No one likes to admit they have been conned.

Once again you know nothing of my heart or beliefs. Jumping the gun again with your fingerpointing judgements.

Agreed, except in the USA.

What? I live in california, we've one of the greatest efforts in stem cell research. You should know that.

None of them have been shown to be anything else.

Oh many-a-soul sounded just like you before they had one of these experiences.

They didn’t die otherwise they would not be here to tell you. Anything claimed from the memories of a brain undergoing severe trauma is useless as meaningful or reliable testimony.

You work with too many absolute statements. And you are overly confindent and self-absorbed in your illusions of superiority.

It's a long fall from the Top.

And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted. (Matt. 23: 12 )

Jenyar

11-18-05, 12:35 PM

You need to reference documentation of the said "early visions" so they can be compared in contrast with the "latter" visions. Else no one can plainly discern for themselves if any revisions were actually made.
Sorry, I meant to include the following sources:

Wikipedia: First Vision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Vision#A_Chronology_of_Various_First_Vision_ Accounts)
Joseph Smith's first vision: a harmony (http://www.wasatchnet.net/users/ewatson/harmony.htm) (harmony is assumed here)
Institute for Religious Research (http://www.irr.org/mit/First-Vision-Accounts.html) (a critical site, but I couldn't find the text of the earliest accounts of the vision among Mormon sites)
Saints without halos: Smith's First Vision (http://www.saintswithouthalos.com/dirs/d_1st_v.phtml) (unafilliated site about Mormon history - very objective and unbiased, includes all relevant material)

Upon Jesus' arrival to the earth, there will be a First Ressurection.

(1 thes 4:16)

This is part of the first ressurection--then also;
The first resurrection is the resurrection (from the "first" death) of Christ's body (who is called the "firstborn from the dead" in Col. 1:18 and Rev. 1:5), in which a Christian takes part when he is baptized and takes communion. That's why Jesus said "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die" (John 11:25-26).
1 Cor. 15:22-23
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.
The second death (the "lake of fire", Rev. 20:14) has no power over "those who have part in the first resurrection" (Rev 20:6), because they're already dead! (Romans 6:5-8; Col. 3:3; 2 Cor. 4:10; 1 Cor. 15:20-22 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom.%206:5-8;%20Col.%203:3;%202%20Cor.%204:10;%201%20Corinthi ans%2015:20-22;&version=31;)). These are the people who have been included in Christ when they believed the gospel that comes by hearing (Eph. 1:13-14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%201:13-14;&version=31;)). They bear the anointing of the Holy Spirit, God's seal of ownership (2 Cor. 1:21-22), and are those "who through faith are shielded by God's power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time" (1 Peter 1:5). In Revelations they are represented by the 144 000 (12 tribes x 12 apostles x 1000 "completeness") marked by the Lamb and his Father (Rev. 7:4; 14:1), but not by the beast (Rev. 20:4) - they are revealed as being a great multitude who've had their robes cleansed by the blood of the Lamb.

(1 thes 4:17)
Those that aren't dead but are living righteously, will take part in the First Ressurection also, only they will be changed into immortals, rather than rise from the dead.
This refers to any Christian who is still alive at the time Jesus returns, "we ... who are left till the coming of the Lord" (Paul may have believed some of them would be alive to see it, but now it must obviously refer to anybody who is alive then). Those who have died in Christ will come with Jesus (or "rise first"), imperishable, and believers who are alive will meet them "in the air". So those who have not "slept" (a euphemism for physical death) will also be changed into spiritual, imperishable bodies (1 Cor. 15:52). At that moment death, the "last enemy", will finally have been destroyed - "swallowed up in victory".

Then Christ appears before all flesh still living on the earth, and Satan is bound one thousand years.

(Rev 20:1-2)

Only the righteous will dwell upon the earth with Christ...

(Rev. 20:4-5)

The wicked, are not ressurected till the thousand years are over; they have a separate ressurection.
Yes, the second resurrection is of everyone who has died without receiving God's mark of ownership. They are everyone who has been marked by the beast: everyone on earth, except those whose names have been written in the book of life (Rev. 13:8). They are resurrected to be judged along with the remaining enemies of God (Gog and Magog, who are unceremoniously defeated), and will be thrown in the lake of fire along with Satan, the beast and the false prophet.

In Rev. 20, the two resurrections coincide on what is usually called judgement day, the day of the Lord, or the last day. Jesus only returns once: to gather his people and judge mankind. Jesus first coming was to save from the world those who believe (John 12:47 and 1 Cor. 1:21) and announce its judgement (John 12:31); His second coming brings its final judgement (Acts 17:31; Matt. 25:31; John 16:8), when all will be resurrected by his voice - some will rise to live, some will rise to be condemned (John 5:29).

So for 1,000 years of peace, you think that no one can be married in this amount of time??

The Thousand years will be spent undoing, all the wickedness that Satan did. Cities, homes, nations will be rebuilt under a new Government, Christ's. People that didn't live with the gospel on earth, and didn't know Jesus, will be taught the gospel.

Families will be united, in everyway possible, not only through marriage but forgiveness. And spirits will progressively be released from torment and prison as they accept and learn the commandments.
There is nothing of this in the Scriptures, so I can't comment on it. I can only tell you what scripture says. Yes, people will live on as usual during the 1000 years, and there will be enough people left - in number "like the sand on the seashore" (Rev. 20:8) - to be deceived afterwards. You haven't accounted for that fact.

It is clear that after the 1000 years, judgement takes place, and that this is when death and hades is destroyed by the second death (Rev. 20:14). The event coincides with Jesus' second coming described above, when "the last enemy" is destroyed. I refer you back to 1 Cor. 15:
1 Cor. 15:22-26
"For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.
That means Christ is already reigning in heaven (his kingdom is not of this world), and everyone who belongs to Him already have part in that kingdom - the kingdom of Daniel 2:44 that will never be destroyed or left to other people. This is the kingdom that the first Christians were receiving (Heb. 12:28), that was preached since John (Luke 16:16), that came upon them (Matthew 12:28), and exists within us (Luke 17:21). Those who spread the gospel and serve God are the priests of the 1000 year reign, the "kingdom of priests" of Rev. 1:6, 5:10 and 1 Peter 2:5&9. The 1000 years reign belongs to Christ, and He is reigning even now in the kingdom of heaven. When Jesus returns, the last trumpet will sound, and He will give the kingdom of the world over to God, and rule over all as God (1 Cor. 15:28; Rev. 11:15-17; Matt. 24:30-31).

It's this heaven and earth that is being kept for judgement and destruction by fire, and it is during this time that a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day (2 Peter 3:7-8). The days between the Christ's coming and return are the last days (Hebrews 1:2), the time of the outpouring of his Spirit (Acts 2:17) and of the scoffers (2 Peter 3:3). The world will be frustrated and a prisoner of sin until death's sting is finally removed; It is "under the control of the evil one" (1 John 5:19), the prince of this world, until he is destroyed. Jesus was present when Satan was hurled down to earth (Luke 10:18), and since then the devil "is filled with fury, because he knows that his time is short" (cf. Rev. 12:9-12). But once Satan and death have been destroyed, the new age will have begun - and there will be no more marriage. Even now, some "have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:12).

Like in the days of Noah, people will be "eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage" as usual (Luke 17:24-35), until the day of the Lord surprises them like a thief.

Nisus

11-18-05, 01:12 PM

Jenyar,

I don't see any inconsitancies in Joseph's Testimony. I understand he didn't rehearse one account verbatim everytime he related his experience. But expounding upon certain aspects of the experience altogether, according to different circumstances he found himself in.

Granted they would be different use of words, because it wasn't a written testimony, it was the testimony of his heart.

Pity they killed him for claiming to have seen God, and for teaching and testifying of Jesus Christ.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yea I feel we are in the same accord as far as the Millenium. There isn't a whole lot of scriptural data that relates all the details of what will happen.

Yes I know after 1,000 years satan will be loosed. For the battle of Gog and Magog. But that is after the work was completed in the 1,000 years. He is only loosed to gather his followers for the final confrontation.

Cris

11-18-05, 02:33 PM

Nisus,

Your thought processes implimented to anticipate the future are identical to religion. No not really. Your expectation of doom is supernatural fantasy mine are based evidence, i.e. extinction of the dinosausr, we are bombarded with meteors of various sizes every day, it is inevitable that a large one will penetrate eventually. This has been published in science journals for some time. This is definitely nothing like religious fantasy.

Since you want to "eradicate" theism... rather than purposing that we could co-exist, I'm really starting to see you as a scientific radical. A little faith would help you realize we are more than capable of existing together and fighting off challenges together.Faith is never required. Religionists only move forward when science shows them the way.

The beauty of being able to believe and think what we want is a huge part of being free. Anyone that opposes freedom of thought and faith, is in opposition to true freedom.But believing fantasy is true and trying to convince others is intrusive upon others freedoms.

Well then under that description of fantasy, you should know, A good duration of human life is spent in fantasy. Fantasy of the future, of the unseen. Both in the scientific world and amongs laymen. Not quite, while holding fantasies is fine, asserting them as true without evidence is irresponsible and certainly not science.

Living every moment to the next only proceeding forth as long as I have "factual observations" seems way too tedious of a lifestyle for me. But asserting that your fantasies are actually true rather than understanding they are mere speculations is delusional.

I said condescending on people's faith in the unseen is hypocritical. Because when brought under the same scrutiny, I see your beliefs as fantasy, and also your hopes for a world where people aren't free to be religious, without your persecution; I see that as hypocritical. You are making the same mistake again. I hold many speculations about what might or might not happen, it is often how science makes progress. But there is a significant difference between offering a speculation as a speculation and asserting that one is true without evidence as is the case for religions.

Live and let live. Only if your activities do not interfere with my freedoms.

As I've alluded to before, a great part of your life is based on "creative imagination only" it's part of the wonders of the human mind. From things as simple as leaving your house and imagining your job is still there when you arrive, to Archetecture, Books, Fantasy is wonderful.Fantasy is fine until you assert it is true, then you need some support, which religions do not offer.

Are you opposed to the fact that people believed they could fly before it was actually possible? Or is it only when they believe in a "god" that it becomes so ludicrous to you?Same issue – speculation versus baseless assertions.

I see how accepting faith is difficult for you. No I am quite sure you do not understand since you still insist your perspective is appropriate. Blind faith is simply irrational and I see no long term value to that perspective.

But just because it's difficult for you doesn't mean it's hazardous to the human race, and needs to be annihalated.But yes it is. Our survival depends on rational actions. Faith is the opposite and is hence dangerous.

Religion/spirituality/idea, has always existed and will always exist so long as we have freedom to think for ourselves and govern ourselves. Thinking for ourselves is one thing, thinking rationally is another. Irrational thought though has no place in government.

Which governing oneself is really the first and last great responsibility in every individual human life.And fine if based on rational thinking. Religion does not qualify.

Most faith is a living thing. A inspiration invoked in the face of adversity to overcome challenges. As new and original as fresh thought itself. Why do we push ourselves through this ? Because we believe in X-- or X --- or X----many instances circumstantial.Again you are confusing imaginative speculations which are the basis for future investigations and discoveries with religious faith and fantasy which is none of that. The religious perspective is that these fantasies are absolute truth now. This is radically and totally different to the investigative and imaginative aspects of science and discovery that do not begin by asserting their ideas are true at the outset.

It's not oh, because I believe in Frodo, or Dumbo, or obvious fantasy.But you do say that you believe in a god which is an obvious fantasy equal to that of Frodo. Both ideas were written by men and neither has any factual basis. Both have equal weight as fantasies. And you cannot demonstrate otherwise.

Seems to me you've never experienced true faith.Believing something as a certainty without any factual basis. Wow I certainly hope not. It’s such a dumb thing to do.

But people really fundamentally are more attracted to the ASPIRATION, than they are details. The hope in a better world really.That’s fine, but don’t assert these imaginative ideas as truth until such claims can be demonstrated as such.

Alot of what you call "baseless religious fantasies" stems to actual historical figures. Some having such a great influence in their societies that they are in a sense "deified". No need to completely right off every one of these cases. But no need to blindly accept it either. Look for the truth you can gain.But at the basis of all that are the assertions for the supernatural that remain without demonstrable substance. The underlying ideas are still baseless fantasy, despite whether there were historical figures or the many testimonies. To this date no one can demonstrate that anything supernatural has occurred, can occur, or will occur.

You work with too many absolute statements. And you are overly confindent and self-absorbed in your illusions of superiority.No, I simply have an overwhelmingly strong case which you are unable to challenge effectively.

Nisus

11-18-05, 04:25 PM

No, I simply have an overwhelmingly strong case which you are unable to challenge effectively.

I'm not challenging you. The facts challenge you. Reason, logic, and humanity challenges you.

Christianity: 1.9 billion
Islam: 1.3 billion
Hinduism: 1 billion
Buddhism: 400 million
Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
Primal-Indigenous: 300 million
African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
Sikhism: 23 million
Spiritism: 15 million
Judaism: 14 million
Bahá'í: 7 million
Jainism: 4.2 million
Shinto: 4 million
Cao Dai: 4 million
Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million
Sant Mat / Surat Shabd Yoga : 2 million
Tenrikyo: 2 million
Unification Movement: 1.5 million
Neo-Paganism: 1 million
Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
Rastafari movement: 600 thousand

Cris 1

Gustav

11-18-05, 04:38 PM

damn, thats pathetic

Cris

11-18-05, 04:52 PM

Nisus,

Meaningless. Truth isn't determined by a majority vote. Argumentum ad Populum. A logical fallacy.

And still not one of them can present a proof that anything supernatural exists, could exist, has ever existed, or will exist. Or can you show otherwise?

Nisus

11-18-05, 04:57 PM

What are you asking me for proof for? I'm not telling you to believe anything, and I havn't.

You're the one throwing a fit because you can't live in a world with religion. Now you wanna genocide it, or whatever. This is your burden not mine.

Laika

11-18-05, 04:58 PM

I haven't been following this thread and it's twenty pages long so I'm not going to catch up now. Please forgive me if I go over ground that's already been covered.

Nisus, are you arguing for the truth of Christianity on the basis of force of numbers? If so, that's the craziest thing I've read all day. Presumably you believe that at one time the Sun was actually pulled across the sky in a chariot, simply because of the beliefs of the majority.

If I've misinterpreted the thrust of your argument I am sorry.
If not... WOW!

Nisus

11-18-05, 05:06 PM

?? Read first, comment later.

Laika

11-18-05, 05:16 PM

?? Read first, comment later.

Read twenty pages worth? No, I don't think I will.

Just give me a clue... Are you arguing for Christianity on the grounds of strength of numbers?

Nisus

11-18-05, 05:32 PM

Read Nisus/ Cris posts.

It's mainly predicated upon the "abolishment" of religion. How Cris' disdain for religion, is pivoted against the freedom of religious faith. The numbers aren't contrasted to prove the veracity of any particular sect of theism/polytheism---Just a notion as to how many people believe what.

Laika

11-18-05, 05:34 PM

Thank you. I will make a start just on the post from you and Cris.

Nisus

11-18-05, 05:37 PM

The bible commentary is another discussion, so just focus on the cris/nisus stuff so you don't get confused heh.

Cris

11-18-05, 06:57 PM

Nisus,

What are you asking me for proof for? I'm not telling you to believe anything, and I havn't.So the value of billions of people believing something they don't know is true is what? That they feel happy and that truth isn't important?

Now you wanna genocide it, or whatever. What?

This is your burden not mine. Not sure what burden you mean here.

Cris

11-18-05, 07:06 PM

Nisus, Laika,

Read Nisus/ Cris posts.

It's mainly predicated upon the "abolishment" of religion. How Cris' disdain for religion, is pivoted against the freedom of religious faith. Well no that was Nisus's particular twisted erroneous argument.

My perspective is that religious belief is fantasy since no religionist can show otherwise. And that to beleive fantasies are true so that one can be happy rather than deal with reality and solve real problems is a long term hazard for the human race.

Laika

11-18-05, 07:16 PM

My perspective is that religious belief is fantasy since no religionist can show otherwise.

I agree wholeheartedly. I also agree that... to beleive fantasies are true so that one can be happy rather than deal with reality and solve real problems is a long term hazard for the human race.

However, I don't think that believing in a deity and believing in the need to solve real problems are mutually exclusive. I am not religious in the slightest, but I do know at least a couple of religious scientists. It seems to me that religious belief can be compartmentalised and does not preclude rational thought in other areas.

Cris

11-18-05, 08:01 PM

Laika,

Agreed - I also have religious friends and coleagues who do not mix their religious beliefs with their work.

But as a group or national mentality I percieve an issue when a large proportion believe religion is true which results in an inevitable dampening effect on an otherwise more scientific oriented path. The background belief that a god is the ultimate source and answer must cause a degree of apathy towards more aggressive problem solving. E.g why really work hard to solve a problem if you believe that a god did it anyway.

Nisus

11-19-05, 01:37 PM

So the value of billions of people believing something they don't know is true is what? That they feel happy and that truth isn't important?

Wow, you inside really wish it was this simple? I think you'd have to ask these billions of people not me.

The value of people's faith and hope in the unseen, is on a personal level. Something you fail to comprehend over and over again, because hope and faith can't be counted or alloted to a scientific methodology, you say it's of no worth.

I'm not even defending my faith, I'm just defending the right to have it, and the value I find in it.

E.g why really work hard to solve a problem if you believe that a god did it anyway.

I hope you won't let one thought stop you from solving a problem. Even a hypothetical thought since you havn't attributed that to anyone person right now.

Day and night scientists around the world solve problems.

So you want people to forsake their freedom to live out a normal life and believe what they want---
So they can become scientists and solve all of the worlds "problems"?

So you think it's alright in this world for a kid to want to become a fireman. An astronaut. A lawyer. But the moment he wants to become a preacher, or a pastor or a priest, he becomes detrimental to the progresses of science?

Live and let live, I say again. You should stop limiting yourself to thinking
"oh we can't get stuff done because of religion" and start thinking "this is what I want to get done" because now is the time and age to get things done.

People have ALWAYS challenged religion. That's part of the reason why it always changes. Religion in itself challenges religion (protestant reformation??)....I just think you as an athiest, would have so many better things to do, than challenge religion.

You ever heard of http://www.godpart.com/ "The GOD Part of the brain"?

This man says it is "Truth" that people have evolved to become "spiritual animals"

Now you are stuck in a paradox, asking, why don't people just believe truth. When it is truth that has made us to believe in things not seen. And faith and religion, is inherant and intrinsic to our organism.

The populations of religions in the world was so you would see what your "case" is up against. I said it is your burden, not mine, because you challenge them. And when you challenge peoples personal beliefs, in this context saying they are parasitic, need to be abolished simply because they are detrimental (in your opinion) to the progress of science, you also challenge their right to think for themselves-- and to what extent they wish to think or not think.

So let's get back to the meat of discussion. I'm not defending "fantasy"-- though you keep pivoting me against it. It's your buzz word I guess to get people to think on such simple terms--when I'm trying to show you the bigger picture.

(Q)

11-19-05, 02:13 PM

Just a notion as to how many people believe what.

The evidence YOU provided from that list should give you some indication as to the validity of your beliefs.

Don't forget Nisus, centuries of having a religious mindset will not be irradicated overnight. We'll probably see a swing from one religion to another over the generations as people become more educated and religions lose more ground. Eventually though, religion will become a shining example of the ignorance mankind once held.

People like Cris will be remembered as pioneers in that irradication; prophets, so to speak. ;)

Gustav

11-19-05, 02:23 PM

But the moment he wants to become a preacher, or a pastor or a priest, he becomes detrimental to the progresses of science?[/B]

that depends. here in the usa we have our own unique set of problems.
on the one hand......

*The Vatican's chief astronomer said Friday that "intelligent design" isn't science and doesn't belong in science classrooms, the latest high-ranking Roman Catholic official to enter the evolution debate

*1996 statement by Pope John Paul II that evolution was "more than just a hypothesis. link (http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/nation/11/19Vatican.html)

on the other....

*"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God. You just rejected him from your city," Robertson said on his TV show. link (http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/index.php?ntid=62118&ntpid=0)

tell me again why the "preacher, or a pastor or a priest" could not possibly be a threat?

the plot to brainwash kids (http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051113/GPG0101/511130510/1207/GPGnews)

Nisus

11-19-05, 02:44 PM

The evidence YOU provided from that list should give you some indication as to the validity of your beliefs.

Just which one of my beliefs need validity? If they need validity then they would fail to be beliefs, child.

Don't forget Nisus, centuries of having a religious mindset will not be irradicated overnight. We'll probably see a swing from one religion to another over the generations as people become more educated and religions lose more ground. Eventually though, religion will become a shining example of the ignorance mankind once held.

A shining example of your hope, in something post-mortem. You know it's not abnormal for humans to hope certain things happen after death. Many people call this: Religion. Hope and Faith in things not seen. Like unto your hope in the erradication of religion.

You rag on people for believing in things after death, then you express your hope that religion will be "erradicated". It's not going to happen. Not even after your death.

That's a nice tid-bit of your own belief/fantasy.

People like Cris will be remembered as pioneers in that irradication; prophets, so to speak. ;)

Just about anybody can gain this status today. Even people that drink poison and cut off their nuts. In this application, truth lies in the eye of the beholder.

Nisus

11-19-05, 02:56 PM

tell me again why the "preacher, or a pastor or a priest" could not possibly be a threat?

Some people feel there is an obligation on our own part, as humans, to help those that are less fortunate. A fundamental teaching of Christ's, is service and charity to others. Helping out the poor, the broken hearted, and the homeless and needy.

Many religous teachers are involved in a collaborative effort, to comfort people that stand in need of comfort, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and simply help other people.

Disaster relief. Humanitarian aid--- funded principally by religious organizations.

What is so Threatening about that?

After you're done abloshing religion, you can deal with the moral consequences.

KennyJC

11-19-05, 03:13 PM

After you're done abloshing religion, you can deal with the moral consequences.

But as you will notice when you look around the world, secular countries you will see religion is not needed to force people to have morals and to have a healthy society. If you want to dispute that then I would have a go in the "Most Americans will be non-Christians by the year 2035 CE" thread.

You will notice that the theist argument of a Godless society being a chaotic one doesn't hold water as it appears to be the other way around... Perhaps thats why theists never reply to such threads which make that point.

(Q)

11-19-05, 03:22 PM

If they need validity then they would fail to be beliefs, child.

Hence, become fantasies, dad.

You know it's not abnormal for humans to hope certain things happen after death.

Wishful thinking is a warm and fuzzy kind of thing, but useless in life, or death.

you express your hope that religion will be "erradicated". It's not going to happen. Not even after your death.

Unfortunately, you're right, religion will not be "eradicated" in my lifetime, but most certainly will go the way of the dodo in the future.

That's a nice tid-bit of your own belief/fantasy.

A fantasy that will thankfully someday be a reality. One day our children will live free of the ignorance, oppression and fear religion propagates. On that day, humanity will finally take its first step forward.

geeser

11-19-05, 03:30 PM

What is so Threatening about that?nothing, however that is the sheeps clothing, as religion is behind the most evil of atrocities, torture, wars, ethic cleansing, etc.
not until we eradicate religion from the human mindset, will we ever get peace.
man has morals, it's religion thats will change them for the worst, making the gulible man do very evil deeds indeed.
we certainly need a change, or humanity may not survive, religion is killing us, literally!.

Cris

11-19-05, 03:31 PM

Nisus,

The value of people's faith and hope in the unseen, is on a personal level. Something you fail to comprehend over and over again, because hope and faith can't be counted or alloted to a scientific methodology, you say it's of no worth.Not quite. I have indicated how I can see that religious beliefs can make people feel happy, but then a placebo pill can make people feel less pain. The point is that neither approach has any underlying substance. The danger of religious belief is the apathy that results from the expectation of a supernatural protector. If this were just a few people then I would not be concerned but when it encompasses some two thirds of the world population then my long term survival is threatened and that is unacceptable.

I'm not even defending my faith, I'm just defending the right to have it, and the value I find in it.Understood. But there are too many who have the same apathy and that adversely affects me. I will continue to point out your delusions and hope you will eventually see reason.

Day and night scientists around the world solve problems.But only a few of them when compared to the size of the world population, and most them are secular and atheist.

So you want people to forsake their freedom to live out a normal life and believe what they want---
So they can become scientists and solve all of the worlds "problems"?Loss of freedom has nothing to do with this. There is only one overwhelming problem – death. Religions think they have fixed that by creating the fantasy of an afterlife. You are going to die – you should be concerned.

But the moment he wants to become a preacher, or a pastor or a priest, he becomes detrimental to the progresses of science?Almost – detrimental to the survival of mankind.

Live and let live, I say again. You should stop limiting yourself to thinking
"oh we can't get stuff done because of religion" and start thinking "this is what I want to get done" because now is the time and age to get things done.We are making progress despite the resistance of religion, it could simply be a lot faster without religion.

People have ALWAYS challenged religion. That's part of the reason why it always changes. Religion in itself challenges religion (protestant reformation??)....I just think you as an athiest, would have so many better things to do, than challenge religion.If you have a thorn in your skin do you simply accept it or take action to have it removed. Religion is a significant thorn in the side of humanity, and needs to be removed. But keep this in perspective; the vast majority of my life does not revolve around religion and its eradication.

You ever heard of http://www.godpart.com/ "The GOD Part of the brain"?

This man says it is "Truth" that people have evolved to become "spiritual animals"Yes, there have been several threads here discussing the issues. It is closely linked to epilepsy. It appears to be a human feature equal in value to the appendix. I.e. redundant to anything of value.

Now you are stuck in a paradox, asking, why don't people just believe truth. When it is truth that has made us to believe in things not seen. And faith and religion, is inherant and intrinsic to our organism.LOL – very funny. But then many people are genetically susceptible to cancer and other diseases. We should treat something that causes religious delusions to be equally considered a disease and eradicate it like any other. The best advice and treatment I can offer to those who suffer from the god disease is to read books on logic daily, before and after meals.

…. you also challenge their right to think for themselves-- and to what extent they wish to think or not think.No. Once again you have everything reversed. It is exactly the need to have people think for themselves that I am advocating. I am not trying to teach them what to believe or any particular doctrines, but that they should learn to think rather than blindly believe what they are told by antiquated religions based on ancient baseless mythologies. Most people prefer to be sheep and lemmings, it is an easy route to take and the reason why there are so few atheists and other free-thinkers – people who do question the dominant institutions and think for themselves.

So let's get back to the meat of discussion. I'm not defending "fantasy"-- though you keep pivoting me against it. It's your buzz word I guess to get people to think on such simple terms--when I'm trying to show you the bigger picture.It represents a more accurate picture of the atheist position; the objection to baseless theist claims that they find unbelievable, and not that gods do not exist. But the big picture in religion is that it is all fantasy, a belief of something based entirely on a creatively derived solely imaginative concept. You can jump through as many hoops as you like in attempts to rationalize it or show it has other values, but the real base of religion is absolutely nothing.

Gustav

11-19-05, 04:14 PM

Some people feel there is an obligation on our own part, as humans, to help those that are less fortunate. A fundamental teaching of Christ's, is service and charity to others. Helping out the poor, the broken hearted, and the homeless and needy.

Many religous teachers are involved in a collaborative effort, to comfort people that stand in need of comfort, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and simply help other people.

Disaster relief. Humanitarian aid--- funded principally by religious organizations.

What is so Threatening about that?

After you're done abloshing religion, you can deal with the moral consequences.

i have no problem with charity. give the masses all the loaves and fishes they want. just dont do it with my tax dollars. (http://www.uua.org/actions/immediate/01no_tax.html) get a frikkin second job and pay for this shit yourself. or wait for my goddamn handout

what i find threatening is how you want to legislate your perverted way of life into what is clearly a secular nation with liberty and justice for all

your efforts contravene all that is just and humane about this country. freedoms have been granted to you christians as citizens. to then go and introduce legislation that clearly attempt to undermine this country and its values is practically treasonous.

lets take a look at your evil antics (http://www.christianlaw.org/outlook2k5.html)

Gay Marriage Controversy

you want to discriminate against homosexuals.

Ten Commandments

you want to post ancient biblical crap in public buildings an an attempt to influence opinion

Partial Birth Abortion

you meddle in medical procedures

State Funds for Divinity Studies

my tax dollars so you can bugger little boys

Pledge of Allegiance

there is no god

Hate Crimes Legislation

you want the freedom to beat and kill fags

Employee Diversity Policies

you want the freedom to beat and kill fags

kill all gays (http://www.pflagdetroit.org/Holy_War_OnGays.htm)

Gustav

11-19-05, 04:15 PM

you should be ashamed

Nisus

11-19-05, 04:48 PM

This is impressive, i've created "no small stir" amongst this athiest circle, and now i'm surrounded.

After you're done abolishing today's religion, you can deal with tommorow's. And after tommorow's, the day after that. But after carefully considering all of your words, i've yet to see any evidence (works) of your own personal convictions, as to your efforts to dissolve mankind of religious faith.

I see why you dislike it, but I don't see what you are doing to rid our world of this "evil". If you think it is so detrimental, so serious, where is the cure? How will it affect the rising generation of children, and will they carry this same conviction as you? What will you do to teach those, who still want to believe in God? Laugh at them? Mock them? Scorn them? Ridicule them? Feed them to lion's for your entertainment? Because they choose to believe in somethings that can't be seen?

Shall I have to show you then Why I love my family, Proof of my conviction, evidence of my hopes? To assure you that it's not fantasy?

Well in your quest to erradicate the world of religion, you should know this...

NOW faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

The world is growing at an alarming rate, Now carry on now, hurry, you must rid it, from the evil of religion.

You can follow that god; and I will follow Christ.

Nisus

11-19-05, 04:57 PM

you should be ashamed

I support none of those things. Why are you falsely accusing me?

Ex. 20: 16

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Gustav

11-19-05, 06:21 PM

I support none of those things. Why are you falsely accusing me?

Ex. 20: 16

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

pardon.
i humbly beg your forgiveness :(

Gustav

11-19-05, 06:23 PM

nisus

This is impressive, i've created "no small stir" amongst this athiest circle, and now i'm surrounded.

chill. i get a bit melodramatic. it is kinda fun

After you're done abolishing today's religion, you can deal with tommorow's. And after tommorow's, the day after that. But after carefully considering all of your words, i've yet to see any evidence (works) of your own personal convictions, as to your efforts to dissolve mankind of religious faith.

religion is primarily an expression of the confusion faced by humans when inquiring into the nature of their own consciousness. academia now include consciouness as a field of study. physicists continue to make progress in discovering the underpinnnings of the universe. we will eventually get to the bottom of all things. i accept no arbitrary limitations on our potential. we will all be gods

know this. religion is on its way out. humans have learnt how to reason for themselves. it is now a simple matter of logic to choose the ethical course of thought and action. transgressions of law are punished in this life, not the next

I see why you dislike it, but I don't see what you are doing to rid our world of this "evil". If you think it is so detrimental, so serious, where is the cure? How will it affect the rising generation of children, and will they carry this same conviction as you? What will you do to teach those, who still want to believe in God? Laugh at them? Mock them? Scorn them? Ridicule them? Feed them to lion's for your entertainment? Because they choose to believe in somethings that can't be seen?

you lack a coherent thought process. why would a world without religion affect those that never even heard of it in the first place? how can anyone believe in a god when its existence is never affirmed in the first place. the ridicule will thus be moot. the coliseum will be empty.

my activism need not concern you. all that matters is what i bring to the table here in sciforums. thats it

Shall I have to show you then Why I love my family, Proof of my conviction, evidence of my hopes? To assure you that it's not fantasy?

looky here nisus
i am sure you are a decent human being so do your part. keep your relationship with god to yourself. allow the same for your family. then do the same for the rest of us. you are free to worship and go to heaven. let us similarly be free to bugger each other up the ass

i beg of you......reign in the fundamentalist wackos

Nisus

11-19-05, 06:37 PM

you're in the religion tab btw...and in america we're still free to speak

Time is ticking, and you're still sitting on your hands--

Jenyar

11-19-05, 06:43 PM

I don't see any inconsitancies in Joseph's Testimony. I understand he didn't rehearse one account verbatim everytime he related his experience. But expounding upon certain aspects of the experience altogether, according to different circumstances he found himself in.

Granted they would be different use of words, because it wasn't a written testimony, it was the testimony of his heart.
If you say so, but a few of those testimonies were co-authored by other Mormons. Something done with an agenda is by nature not "from the heart", but calculated "according to different circumstances" like you say. Compare them with the testimonies he gave to non-Mormons, and you start to see the discrepancies I'm talking about.

Pity they killed him for claiming to have seen God, and for teaching and testifying of Jesus Christ.
On the contrary. He was on trial for treason and incitnig violence. It is true that he was unpopular for polygamy and preaching polytheism, but the events surrounding his trial shows the hostility was political: Jospeh Smith declared martial law in Nauvoo after he burned the local press, and his opposition saw this as an act of treason against the state of Illinois. You can see all acounts here (http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/josephsmithsdeath.htm). Below is a quote from one of his letters from jail that might give a clue for the mob's motives:
So it is with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; we have the revelation of Jesus, and the knowledge within us is sufficient to organize a righteous government upon the earth, and to give universal peace to all mankind, if they would receive it...
More information about the criticsm against him can be found in the Nauvoo Expositor, and it is easy to see from it that the problem wasn't his testimony of Jesus, but the way he played this religious card socially and politically: see Wikipedia: The Death of Joseph Smith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Joseph_Smith%2C_Jr.#Incidents_leading_to_ the_event).

Nisus

11-19-05, 07:01 PM

If you say so, but a few of those testimonies were co-authored by other Mormons. Something done with an agenda is by nature not "from the heart", but calculated. Compare them with the testimonies he gave to non-Mormons, and you start to see the discrepancies I'm talking about.

Okay so you're talking about discrepancies but you've not given me an example. You want me to just take your faith on it?

On the contrary. He was on trial for treason and incitnig violence.
I don't believe that man would have done such a thing. Your sources of information seem to differ from mine. I try to keep with mainstream accepted and known information, not anti-propaganda.

You should really give specific examples, and stop talking about things like this, without referenced and published documents.

Jenyar

11-19-05, 07:34 PM

Okay so you're talking about discrepancies but you've not given me an example. You want me to just take your faith on it?
You only have to compare what Smith told Mormons (in official publications), and what he told non-Mormons (his earliest accounts). Like I said, I could not find the non-Mormon accounts on any Mormon site, which might explain why you are so convinced of its harmony. They seem to have been sanitized.

Of course, I cannot prove what has been embellished and what hasn't, but if placed in the greater context of his life and his surroundings, the accounts given to people who had no vested interest in his claims seem more congruous than the ones modified to fit the circumstances.

I don't believe that man would have done such a thing. Your sources of information seem to differ from mine. I try to keep with mainstream accepted and known information, not anti-propaganda.
He did it by burning the press and calling martial law (he had a local army of 5000 at his disposal). This is mainstream accepted infromation. Read the links I provided.
You should really give specific examples, and stop talking about things like this, without referenced and published documents.
I give the links for a reason. I don't want to cut and paste whole accounts if I don't have to. Reading them in full allows you to come to your own conclusions as to their context. I recommend the wikipedia link if you don't want to do too much reading. (It's not anti-Mormon, either.)

Gustav

11-19-05, 07:37 PM

..and in america we're still free to speak

if only that were all you were doing ;)

Godless

11-19-05, 07:39 PM

Pardom mua! but atheist are not sitting on their hands, we are few. But then it does say "the meek shall inheret the earth" :)

Freedom From Religion Foundation (http://www.ffrf.org/index.php)

Debunking Jesus Christ (http://www.bare-jesus.net/etricksindex.htm)

Jesus never Existed (http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/index.html)

Institute for the Secularisation of Islamic society. (http://www.secularislam.org/Default.htm)

That's to name just a few of organizations that are trying to educate & erradicate religious beliefs.

Godless

Cris

11-19-05, 07:40 PM

Nisus,

NOW faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.Like bad food this keeps coming up so it is time to kill it.

"faith is the substance" - no - faith is a baseless beleif.

"things hoped for" - in religion it is the desire to live forever and I can relate to that.

"the evidence of things not seen" - no it is the opposite - if such things have not been seen then there can be no evidence.

But it is a nice phrase from an aesthetic perspective and gives the appearance of great wisdom but at the same time is total gibberish.

Cris

11-19-05, 07:43 PM

And more recently we have created the Secular Coalition of America as a lobby group in Washington to fight for the non-religion position.

http://www.secular.org/

Gustav

11-19-05, 07:59 PM

the coliseum will be empty.

tho staffed and ready to open at the drop of a hat

Nisus

11-21-05, 11:46 AM

Time is still ticking, what have you all done to destroy Faith? --- Defeat today's Faith then roll up your sleeves for tommorow's.

Cris

11-21-05, 12:46 PM

Nisus,

Time is still ticking, what have you all done to destroy Faith? --- Defeat today's Faith then roll up your sleeves for tommorow's. Superior education is the primary mechanism to displace religious faith. An increasing knowledge base will help but people need to be taught how to think to know how to use it. It will take time, but technology and better communications will help. Will there remain some who insist on being irrational? Most likely but their numbers shoud gradually decrease as improved education kicks in.

Will this happen? I'm optimistsic.

Nisus

11-21-05, 01:48 PM

Who are your teachers? Are they delivering their message with the same effort as those of diverse religions, who are even now as we speak, knocking the doors of people all around the world in every country? Sharing the messages of God, and Faith in every country around the world?

Interesting that you say that because, it's quite the opposite, missionary efforts around the world are reaching unprecedented success.

Your athiest ideals, lack leadership. Funding. Organization, establishment. Most importantly a FAITHFUL collective of individuals, zealous of your cause. I'm sorry but the truth is, the more easier life becomes to live...

the lazier humans will become. The more glutonous, the more uneducated and addicted to pleasures of the world.

We will see an increase in education. We will see and increase in technological advancements---medicines--but they will be unparalleled with the increase of apathy towards life itself, and you won't need athiesm to destroy faith... you've got gambling,
prostitution, drugs, Las Vegas, Hollywood, Babylon, and Amsterdam--that already stand as shining distractions to the human race.

I know the resolves of my Church (and many other churches) are firm and unshaken, and so long as a free world exists, our people will prosper and continue to believe in God. And the numberless posts that can be accumulated for years and years upon forums and books that can be pressed and printed preaching athiesm, will never destroy faith.

Selfishness will consume and destroy the entire human race before the power of Faith is challenged by unbelief. And if faith were to ever lose, it would lose to sin and decadence--the real challenge against religion and faith, Not Athiesm.

(Q)

11-21-05, 02:17 PM

We will see an increase in education. We will see and increase in technological advancements---medicines--but they will be unparalleled with the increase of apathy towards life itself, and you won't need athiesm to destroy faith... you've got gambling,
prostitution, drugs, Las Vegas, Hollywood, Babylon, and Amsterdam--that already stand as shining distractions to the human race.

You're quite confused. Atheism does not promote gambling, prostition, drugs, etc.

And you'll find that it is theists who hypocritically believe in their gods while entertaining those vices. Atheism has no need for such things as they value mankind and nature, and see those vices as irrational and unreasonable placebos.

Lucidfox

11-21-05, 02:21 PM

I read bits and pieces of this thread and thought I'd share my own opinion. Yes, we all do have free will. We choose what clothes we wear, we choose what to eat, etc. And yes, God knows everything. But despite this, God loves us so much that he allows us to do as we wish while trying to give us guidance through various methods, like if someone was gonna hang himself then God could make it so the rope mysteriously breaks. Just because God knows everything we do that doesn't mean God will change every aspect of our lives. Also, don't you think that God would have the power to alter future events? If God saw that someone was gonna commit a sin God could get involved to try to stop that person from sinning. God doesn't like to interfere with our lives but he still gets involved through one way or another if he needs to. It's up to us to either accept of deny God's guidance or help.

Nisus

11-21-05, 02:24 PM

Q,

I didn't say you promoted it... you're confused.

I said that those things are a greater threat to Christianity and faith and the progress of the human race.

They are a greater threat to us than you ever wish Athiesm could be. They are a greater threat to the progress of humanity, than religion could ever be.

Cris gets on the soapbox about how religion is so detrimental, and should be erradicated while I guess he supposes that these other things are of lesser consequence to the greater good of humanity.

(Q)

11-21-05, 02:32 PM

They are a greater threat to us than you ever wish Athiesm could be. They are a greater threat to the progress of humanity, than religion could ever be.

They are equally a threat to humanity as religion, if not less. If it was irrational and illogical thought processes from theists that originally caused those problems, which they most likely did, then atheists will resolve them, given the chance.

Nisus

11-21-05, 02:38 PM

Wow, that was by far the stupidest thing i've ever read on sciforums. Congratulations.

Nisus

11-21-05, 02:46 PM

2nd is how Gustav initially responded to me with the "gay Hate" thing.

Godless

11-21-05, 03:29 PM

I live in Las Vegas! Gamblers are the most religious people the Casinos know of, they are always PRAYING to hit the BigOne!. ;)

Godless

Nisus

11-21-05, 03:34 PM

:( seems like they've found a new god...

(Q)

11-21-05, 04:23 PM

Nisus

Wow, that was by far the stupidest thing i've ever read on sciforums. Congratulations.

You're welcome. But I can't help but wonder why I'm stupid yet you're the once who believes in imaginary beings?

Nonetheless, it appears if that is the best response you can muster, then there is nothing I said you can find to refute.

Nisus

11-21-05, 05:34 PM

I would like to comment, and teach you something. But I think you would learn more on just reading what you said, and finding the flaws in your own reasoning.

You will benefit more from realizing for yourself, why you're wrong, then from me pointing it out to you.

If I point it out to you, you will just bring up something equally foolish. So in intrest of preserving for you the opportunity to learn from your own mistakes, you should go back and read what you said;

..

(Q)

11-21-05, 08:18 PM

If I point it out to you, you will just bring up something equally foolish. So in intrest of preserving for you the opportunity to learn from your own mistakes, you should go back and read what you said

But that's what this forum is all about, me making extraordinarily ridiculous claims and you pointing out the flaws.

So, point out the flaws. :D

Cris

11-22-05, 01:18 PM

Nisus,

Who are your teachers?Generally the better educated and the more intelligent. Statistics indicate that such people tend to be less inclined towards religious beliefs.

Are they delivering their message with the same effort as those of diverse religions, who are even now as we speak, knocking the doors of people all around the world in every country? Sharing the messages of God, and Faith in every country around the world?I’m not sure that this matters too much. A single truth once discovered will destroy all of that. E.g. the declaration that the world was a sphere destroyed the flat Earth concept virtually overnight. As science delivers more knowledge and makes more discoveries then the effects of those spreading irrational concepts will simply evaporate. Remember there is no substance behind religious beliefs – they are selling a vacuum and that cannot withstand time and real knowledge.

Your athiest ideals, lack leadership. Funding. Organization, establishment. Yup, appealing to the logic in us rather than irrational emotions of religionism is an uphill struggle, not helped of course by thousands of years of persecution and suppression. Fortunately in those countries that now support freedom we now see the non-religious making far more progress in these recent years.

the lazier humans will become. The more glutonous, the more uneducated and addicted to pleasures of the world. Yes I agree and the reason why religions will continue to exist for a while – they offer the easy way out rather than deal with reality.

We will see an increase in education. We will see and increase in technological advancements---medicines--but they will be unparalleled with the increase of apathy towards life itself,Not sure why you would say that. Science and technology offer several massively important factors – less poverty, superior health, longer to open ended lifespans, significant standards in the quality of life, and the opportunities to eventually explore the rest of the universe with all the fascination that that promises. Without abject poverty and poor standards of life that have plagued humanity these past 2 or more thousand years, religions will have little on which to base their appeal.

and you won't need athiesm to destroy faith... you've got gambling,
prostitution, drugs, Las Vegas, Hollywood, Babylon, and Amsterdam--that already stand as shining distractions to the human race.I find it curious that prison populations in the USA have the same proportion of religious to non-religious as in the outside. Clearly claiming a religious belief doesn’t appear to make any difference to practices in morality.

I know the resolves of my Church (and many other churches) are firm and unshaken, and so long as a free world exists, our people will prosper and continue to believe in God.Such is the strength of 2000 years of perfected indoctrination and emotionalism. I’d still prefer truth rather than religious delusions. Truth doesn’t need a massive support group; it stands on its own.

Nisus

11-22-05, 01:27 PM

Nice opinions, but you still aren't even in the least bit convincing. Your ideas hold no ground and no effect in the process of time--nobody really cares about athiesm, like I said people are more into 50 cent and stuff like that.

People have a trend of following a trend. Until you make Athiesm somehow appealing to masses of people--it's going to continue to be of no consequence in the greater scheme of social developments.

You actually have alot of faith-- to look past all the things that stand in opposition to your religious ideals. Though your "heaven" is a world without religious faith---you'll never see that place Cris. That fantasy is as Disney as i've ever heard.

KennyJC

11-22-05, 01:36 PM

Nisus: It's funny how your normal name calling only stops when it's to go over classic theist lines such as lack of faith is a faith, and lack of faith makes no change to society/makes society worse.

Well actually (like I have to keep saying whenever a theist brings up the argument), lack of belief actually makes a lot of difference to a society which explains why free secular societies are much healthier than non-secular states.

People have a trend of following a trend

Isn't that why you got a Christian membership card? :D

Nisus

11-22-05, 01:58 PM

FO sho

Cris

11-22-05, 02:25 PM

Nisus,

Some centuries ago the world was ruled by religion - it was known as the dark ages. To even voice the idea that a god might not exist was often met with death. Today, even though a third of the world claim a belief in a Christian god, very few actually practice Christian doctrines. The fundamentalist believers such as you are most definitely in a minority. The rest simply don't know anything better and if presented with some evidence to the contrary will switch overnight. Remember Christianity has no substance as a basis, it is built on fantasy only, and that can easily change.

Today atheism is open in many parts with many around the world claiming this non-supernatural perspective, something that would have been unthinkable just a few decades ago, when even in some states it was illegal for an atheist to be a member of a jury or be a witness in court.

But still many atheists do not openly declare their position even when they feel strongly. In the USA especially there is still a stigma associated with the term. But organizations like secular humanism and the Brights network are growing at phenomenal rates. The term atheism is being sidelined by many and that might not be such a bad thing.

And no one should care about atheism, the issue should always be the irresponsible irrationality of theism and that can be opposed by many groups.

You actually have a lot of faith-- to look past all the things that stand in opposition to your religious ideals.As Kenny points out it is curious that religionists who claim faith is so vital and essential and valid that they then use it as a weapon against those without faith and claim they have an equally valid faith. If you claim faith is an indication of truth and you claim I have faith then aren’t you saying that my perspective is equally valid as yours? The problem of course is that the two concepts are mutually exclusive.

I do not have blind faith that religions will eventually become insignificant and will become sidelines. I certainly hope that they will but the evidence of history and world trends in countries with higher education and standards of life is on my side. Fortunately Christianity is declining as a proportion of world population; unfortunately Islam with its high birth rate is growing. That even worse barbaric religion presents all of us with a new challenge – Islam is still at the Dark Ages stage that Christianity welcomed some centuries ago.

Though your "heaven" is a world without religious faith---you'll never see that place Cris. That fantasy is as Disney as i've ever heard.Dream on kiddo. I have no faith to equal the blindness of your religious delusions.

Godless

11-23-05, 11:28 AM

The declining factors of Christianity and the uprising of secularism.

The percentage of American adults who identify themselves as Christians dropped from 86% in 1990 to 77% in 2001. This is an unprecedented drop.
Confidence in religious institutions has hit an all-time low.
There appears to be a major increase in interest in spirituality among North Americans. However, this has not translated into greater church involvement.
Mainline denominations have been losing membership for decades in the U.S.; conservative denominations have been growing.
At the present rates of change, Islam will become the dominant religion in the world before 2050 CE.
At the present rate of change, most Americans will be non-Christians by the year 2035 CE.
The numbers of "unchurched" people has increased rapidly in the U.S. These are individuals who have not attended church in recent months.
Agnosticism, Atheism, secularism are growing rapidly.
Interest in new religious movements (e.g. New Age, Neopaganism) is growing rapidly. In particular, Wiccans are doubling in numbers about every 30 months.
The influence of the central, program-based congregation is diminishing as more cell churches are being created.
Many Christians have left congregations and formed house churches - small groups meeting in each other's homes.
Ref (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_tren.htm)

Godless

Gustav

11-23-05, 11:55 AM

Many Christians have left congregations and formed house churches - small groups meeting in each other's homes.

Godless

:eek:

...to sacrifice gays in horrific blood rituals, practice pedophilia and swap wives

genep

11-25-05, 12:54 PM

If you understand how quantum-gaps work you will need no proof that god cannot exist because it is SELF-evident.

try http://quantum-philosophy.blogspot.com/

Cris

11-25-05, 01:28 PM

Hmm - reads like mystical gibberish.

jay_7

12-14-05, 02:15 AM

Try reading this: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/destined.html

Cris

12-14-05, 02:36 AM

Jay,

Hi and welcome to sciforums.

Thanks for the link, but the article doesn't even recognize or appear to comprehend the paradox of omnisience vs free will.

The Devil Inside

12-14-05, 04:26 AM

cris,

a few posts back you said that "statistics" show that secularist are generally more intelligent than religious folks.

references?
thanks

Godless

12-14-05, 11:57 AM

a few posts back you said that "statistics" show that secularist are generally more intelligent than religious folks.

Intellegence is unmeasurable, and certainly it would take few intellegent characters in ancient past to write their life story and make it into some religion. The gullible ones are who believe without question though. It's not intellegence but gullibility, to believe without question anything is bit ingnorant don't you think? Yet many people have done just that, for thousand's of years, so what do you think?. Are atheist, secularist, humanist, agnostic smarter because they question?. They don't just accept with blind faith that ancient stories depict some god, they question all religions not just the christians. That's not intellegence that's curiosity and not willing to believe anything on "blind faith" alone.

But if you want statics check here (http://uberkuh.com/node/244?PHPSESSID=e404e0d2c49c27c46fac725b8b6feeab)

Godless

Uberkuh

12-15-05, 12:02 AM

Yes, and only an intelligence as big as mine can conceive that DOG proves GOD (http://uberkuh.com/node/353) .

beyondtimeandspace

12-15-05, 01:46 AM

Proof that the Christian god cannot exist.

Unlikely.

Omniscience vs. Human Free will. A Paradox.

Well at least you got that part right.

Omniscience: Perfect knowledge of past and future events.
Free will: Freedom to choose between alternatives without external coercion.
Paradox: Statements or events that have contradictory and inconsistent properties.

Sure.
Sounds good.
Nope. A paradox is an apparent contradiction. But that's fine, let's not quibble over semantics.

Proposal:

Christianity cannot claim that God is omniscient and also claim that humans have free will. The claims form a paradox, a falsehood.

Well, given that your definition of paradox is correct, and the claims of Christianity concerning God's omniscience and humanity's free will do form a contradiction, then sure, this would fly. But, since a paradox is only an apparent contradiction, and as far as I know a paradox is ALL those claims form, but are not actually contradicting, then I suppose I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Let's see your reasoning.

Reasoning:

If God is omniscient then even before we are born God will have complete knowledge of every decision we are going to make.

Yup.

Any apparent choice we make regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior is predetermined. This must be true to satisfy the assertion that God is omniscient. Effectively we have no choice in the matter. What we think is free will is an illusion. Our choices have been coerced since we exist and act according to the will of God.

Ah... see now this here I don't agree with at all. To satisfy that God is omniscient, our choices must be foreknown. This does not in any way mean that they are predetermined. You've made quite a leap here, and it is a most important and significant leap. Why? Because the rest of your argument rests on that leap. If anything, I suggest you lay out a nice, crisp, clean argument that shows that foreknowledge implies predetermination.

I'd respond to the rest of this post, but clearly there is no need, since I am not yet satisfied with this crux upon which the rest rests.

jay_7

12-15-05, 01:54 AM

http://www.meaning-of-life.info/IsThereaGod.html

Thanks for the welocme :D Btw if you take the time to reas the site above im pretty sure that it will give you mroe understanding that the christian God can exsist, please read the whole site above, theres a section that explains the part about having no free will, and that there actually is free will.

Cris

12-15-05, 02:59 AM

Beyond,

To satisfy that God is omniscient, our choices must be foreknown.OK.

This does not in any way mean that they are predetermined.How so?

If outcomes are known before they occur then they have clearly been predetermined. How or by whom is not the issue. Just that if foreknowledge exists then predetermination is a necessary corollary.

I suggest you lay out a nice, crisp, clean argument that shows that foreknowledge implies predetermination.Done as requested.

beyondtimeandspace

12-15-05, 03:20 AM

I don't see how it is so clear. I don't see how it is a necessary corollary.

Cris

12-15-05, 03:26 AM

Jay,

Btw if you take the time to reas the site above im pretty sure that it will give you mroe understanding that the christian God can exsist, please read the whole site above, Thanks for the reference. I can use that. It is a good example of irresponsible indoctrination typically aimed at children and the gullible. Philosophically it is considerably unsophisticated and repeatedly makes huge errors in logical reasoning.

The predestination section hinges on the issue of "before" not having any meaning to a god. But that is irrelevant since humans are governed by time and "before" does exist for them. So the problem remains - if our actions are known before we have made them then our actions will have necessarily been predetermined.

Cris

12-15-05, 03:27 AM

beyond,

I don't see how it is so clear. I don't see how it is a necessary corollary. Why not?

beyondtimeandspace

12-15-05, 03:57 AM

I simply don't see it. Call me stupid or mentally blind. Either way, if this argument is going to be acceptible, then you're going to have to show that what you're positing is true.

Mosheh Thezion

12-15-05, 04:04 AM

Free will, is generally.. nonexistant... ie.. your tendency to make a specific decision is based on all your knowledge and experiences....

thus a crack addict will deside differently than a wall street investor...

their decisions in any matter... are already desided before the question was asked.

Its called habitual pattern of Thought.. as taught by the founder of the self realization fellowship.... (im not a member, but i agree with, and respect the Genius of the founder..)
-MT

Prince_James

12-15-05, 04:11 AM

Cris, mind if I throw in my two cents here?

There are three reasons why Free Will and a God akin to the Christians cannot exist side by side. This first reason is thus:

Free-will is necessarily destroyed by an omniscient, perfect being, having foreknowledge since the "dawn of Eternity" of one's actions. Why? Because choice requires the capacity to choose otherwise. If before one has even taken the choice, the answer is known as an ontologically-impossible-to-be-otherwise-than-truth-reality, then one simply has no choice whatsoever. Even before the -conditions- for the actions have come into -being-, the answer was known to God -perfectly-.

The second reason as followed:

The Christian God is said to be the source and creator of all things. By being said source, and having known even then what would result from it, he is not only the source, but the -actor- in all things. He has laid down a destiny of his own "choosing" and all things are a result of that primal cause which could not have ended up otherwise, as it is the Will of God.

The third (and last) reason is stated as:

Even God himself cannot be free. God has perfect knowledge of his own actions similarly since eternity and thus, in order to avoid destroying his perfection and omniscience, must act in complete accords to his own knowledge, and in fact, can do nothing but. God is as much a "victim" of his omniscience as any being.

beyondtimeandspace

12-15-05, 05:40 AM

Free-will is necessarily destroyed by an omniscient, perfect being, having foreknowledge since the "dawn of Eternity" of one's actions. Why? Because choice requires the capacity to choose otherwise. If before one has even taken the choice, the answer is known as an ontologically-impossible-to-be-otherwise-than-truth-reality, then one simply has no choice whatsoever. Even before the -conditions- for the actions have come into -being-, the answer was known to God -perfectly-.

This is where the difficulty comes in. The paradox arises when you consider God as an entity existing in the temporal, as we do. However, the conditions for the actions come into being simultaneously from all eternity in the experience of God. Thus, God's knowledge of our actions, to God, is not foreknowledge, but rather simply knowledge from experience of the real. Our actions then determine God's knowledge, not the other way around. We always think of God in anthropomorphic terms, as a being in the past, present or future. So, when we talk about the knowledge of God as omniscience, we can't help but to think of God's knowledge from our own standpoint, as foreknowledge. He knew before I did it. Well, no. God knows as you're doing it, because God knows all at once, because God experiences all at once. Thus God did not know before you did it. God knows it now. That's the only way it can be understood, because God is not a temporal being. God is an eternal being.

You might say, how can you say that about God? Only the same way I can say that God is omniscient. We ARE talking about the Christian God. This is an aspect of the Christian God. His knowledge is not a predeterminant of our actions. He knows our actions, because we do our actions. We do our actions because we choose our actions. We do not choose our actions because God knows our actions.

The second reason as followed:

The Christian God is said to be the source and creator of all things. By being said source, and having known even then what would result from it, he is not only the source, but the -actor- in all things. He has laid down a destiny of his own "choosing" and all things are a result of that primal cause which could not have ended up otherwise, as it is the Will of God.

Again, you're speaking of God in terms of temporality. The Christian God is not temporal. Thus, this argument is meaningless.

God's choice, God's act, God's experience, and God's knowledge arise and occur simultaneously from eternity.

The third (and last) reason is stated as:

Even God himself cannot be free. God has perfect knowledge of his own actions similarly since eternity and thus, in order to avoid destroying his perfection and omniscience, must act in complete accords to his own knowledge, and in fact, can do nothing but. God is as much a "victim" of his omniscience as any being.

Again, God is eternal, His choices, and His action, and His knowledge of His actions are not met out in any kind of temporal sequence, they are actuated simultaneously, eternally.

Godless

12-15-05, 12:06 PM

Again, God is eternal, His choices, and His action, and His knowledge of His actions are not met out in any kind of temporal sequence, they are actuated simultaneously, eternally.

You are contradicting yourself. It's a matter of semantics I know, but still contradiction.

We always think of God in anthropomorphic terms, as a being in the past, present or future.

"His" actions, "His" choices...etc..This is clearly anthropomorphic of a being that it's very existence is questionable.

This is where the difficulty comes in. The paradox arises when you consider God as an entity existing in the temporal, as we do. However, the conditions for the actions come into being simultaneously from all eternity in the experience of God. Thus, God's knowledge of our actions, to God, is not foreknowledge, but rather simply knowledge from experience of the real. Our actions then determine God's knowledge, not the other way around.

Rubbish; for a being with no identity, said to be unknowable it certainly has many advocates who stipulate it's behavior. :bugeye:

Godless

Cris

12-15-05, 12:45 PM

beyond,

I simply don't see it. Call me stupid or mentally blind. Either way, if this argument is going to be acceptible, then you're going to have to show that what you're positing is true. Ask yourself this question. When you come to make a difficult decision that even you do not know what you will choose until the last second, but your decision has been known since the beginning of time, will you be able to choose anything else other tham what is known you will do? Where is the difference between what you think is a freewill choice and pre-programmed action?

jay_7

12-15-05, 05:18 PM

cris,

There was no beggining, there was a beggining of our universe, but not God. Hes always there, and where he is very different than this uiniverse.
God knows all becauses its like its happening all at one time, i cant really explain what i mean but if hes not in a time limit then everything happening in this universe hed know at once, he didnt choose what we done, he just knew it. Just like we predict weather, we dont change it, we just predict it.

You have to remember God is not in this universe, hes hasnt got the limitations we have.

Btw, it isn't pre-dertimened. God isnt in time remember, he cannot be before or after, hes in the present.

beyondtimeandspace

12-15-05, 05:33 PM

Godless, you believe I am contradicting myself because you think Eternality has to do with existing forever without beginning and without end, in time. Temporality and Eternality are opposites in my view. Temporality referring to sequenced, timed existence, Eternality referring to non-sequenced, non-timed existence (ie, the Eternal Now, simultaneous existence).

Yes, I do speak of God in anthropomorphic terms, it's next to impossible to do otherwise. However, I understand when I'm doing so, and why. God is not male, God is non-gendered. This is obvious and clear. "He" "Him" is inclusive language (except in the liberal, politically correct sense), and can be used to denote the male, the female, and the non-gendered, or neutral. This is how I use the term, and I understand it as such.

Some people say God is unknowable. I disagree. If He was, then nothing could be said of Him. God is knowable, to a point. God can only not be known in full. This is manifestly true since God is infinite, and while we can talk about properties and characteristics of an infinite thing, we, being finite, can never know that infinite thing in full. It's difficult to know even finite things in full. At any rate, I do not stipulate God's behaviour. This is the Christian God we're talking about right? I'm simply setting forth what is said of the Christian God.

Cris, think about it like this: My actions are known since the end of time. The difference between free will and pre-programming is consciousness. While even conscious entities are pre-programmed, being conscious allows one to change.

finewine

12-15-05, 05:57 PM

I will say that Christ is either a liar, a lunatic, or Lord. Every person must make that decision. It does not matter if you cloud the issue with human intellectual wisdom that is foolishness to GOD. The bottom line is what do you think of Christ.
And if you do a serious intellectual search and study of ALL historical facts on him, you will come to the same conclusion as C.S.Lewis. He is Lord.
and then you make your choice. You say I will follow or you say I will not follow.
People who go to hell will choose to do so, not because GOD sends them there but because they want to listen to the wisdom that tickles their ears and agrees with what they want to think and consider truth. It is truth to you because you believe it not you believe it because it is truth. Each his own choice. You will die one day, that is an absolute truth.
I would say Christians are extremely intelligent. They can see beyond the little universe of time and space to a much bigger eternity of things.
Unbelievers lock themselves into that little universe so that they do not have to be accountable to an absolute truth of right and wrong and acknowledge GOD does exist. To acknowledge that GOD does exist means then you have to be accountable to HIS truth of right and wrong so they lock themselves into that infinite universe they can control so they can be their own little god.
Enjoy your reign.

jay_7

12-15-05, 07:04 PM

Heres a bit of a section that may help people understand this topic a bit more.. i'm not sure, but here it is:

"PREDESTINATION

The idea of predestination has been argued about for a long time. Some Christians stress that God has knowledge of everything, therefore He knows before He creates us who is going to heaven and who is going to hell. The feeling is that we may be trapped by God's foreknowledge.

Catholics stress that we are made in the image and likeness of God, and possess free will, like He does, and we have absolute complete control to shape the outcome of our own lives.

We have difficulty reconciling these viewpoints because we exist in a material world of time, and God does not. We try to apply our rules of temporal order to Him, and this cannot work. With God there is no past, present or future. Those are words that indicate relative time, and He exists outside of time. He simply is.

How can He know what we are going to do before we do it, even though we have complete freedom of choice? The error in our language is the word "before." That word does not apply to God. So that question is meaningless.

Note that if preachers who believe in predestination actually practiced what they preach, they would not preach at all. What would be the use? Nothing that they could do would affect anyone's destiny. They would not bother to baptize you, because if you were pre-ordained to go to heaven you would go there no matter what, and if your were pre-ordained to go to hell you would go there no matter what.

We should not bother to try to figure out just how God can do things. We are like ants trying to build a computer. Just trust that what He told us about how we must lead our lives is true.

" Source: http://www.meaning-of-life.info/IsThereaGod.html

Cris

12-15-05, 10:15 PM

Jay,

How can He know what we are going to do before we do it, even though we have complete freedom of choice? The error in our language is the word "before." That word does not apply to God. So that question is meaningless. Your problem comes precisely because it is claimed God is outside of time and “before” doesn’t apply. This implies he knows every instant of time from the beginning to the ultimate end, all at the very instant of creation. Now from our perspective we didn’t exist at the point of creation and would not have made any choices at that time, but since God knows them then we can have no say on what we are going to do – all our actions would have been predetermined at the moment of creation, right?

We should not bother to try to figure out just how God can do things.Standard Christian propaganda and agnosticism – i.e. God is unknowable. The problem comes when Christians choose to say they know the apparent nice things but say he is unknowable when faced with difficult questions. That is simple dishonesty.

We are like ants trying to build a computer.Except that ants wouldn’t even realize the computer exists. In our case the theists propose a fantasy but can’t explain how it works or show it has any truth and when faced with paradoxical properties claim inscrutable mysticism.

Just trust that what He told us about how we must lead our lives is true. Trouble is no one can demonstrate that it exists or has ever existed to even have said anything. And faced with paradoxical issues like omniscience vs freewill there seems even less reason to believe it exists.

Cris

12-15-05, 10:30 PM

Jay,

There was no beggining, there was a beggining of our universe, but not God. I think you are saying an infinite god created the universe. That is the standard theist myth. How do you know the universe had a beginning?

Hes always there, and where he is very different than this uiniverse. How do you know? What’s your evidence?

God knows all becauses its like its happening all at one time, i cant really explain what i mean but if hes not in a time limit then everything happening in this universe hed know at once, he didnt choose what we done, he just knew it.So he does know what we are going to do before we do it then, right? So we are powerless to do anything except what he knows we will do right?

Just like we predict weather, we dont change it, we just predict it.We predict it because we have learnt how to measure the causes and effects that lead to a particular pattern. But we don’t control those original causes. With an omnipotent and omniscient creator it would create the initial causes which would cause everything to follow in a precisely predictable manner. I.e. The creator would have predetermined everything that was to follow.

You have to remember God is not in this universe, hes hasnt got the limitations we have.And that is the very property that would cause the inevitability of predetermination.

Btw, it isn't pre-dertimened. God isnt in time remember, he cannot be before or after, hes in the present. Not quite, he would be at all points of time instantly. But for us there is a before and after.

jay_7

12-15-05, 10:41 PM

Godless

12-15-05, 10:47 PM

So? You have no more proof that he doesnt exist then i do that he does exist. This thread proves nothing. Its just based on a God within our universe. Anyway, if there is a God, then who knows what he can do. Just because us humans can't understand, doesnt mean its not possible. Trust me, dont bother trying to prove any points, becauses theres none that can prove he isnt real. Ive considered it alot of times, so im not ignorant, but i sitll believe in God. Also, why would God want to provide us this evidence of how he is all knowing, because if he did, then it wouldn't be a test of faith anymore, because it would be almost certian God is real, and just about everyone would believe. Next time you think of things this way, look at the big picture, we don't know all.

A good cop out! :rolleyes:

When ever one makes an assertion, the one making the claim & or assertion is burdened with providing the evidence for such a claim. You have not done this, it's not in the shoulders of non-believers to provide you evidence that your claims don't exist, we are not making those wild ass claims & or assertions.

Godless

Cris

12-16-05, 12:12 AM

Jay,

So? You have no more proof that he doesnt exist then i do that he does exist.Well not quite. Note that the issue in this thread is that the Christian God Cannot exist, not so much a proof that it doesn’t exist. But more importantly I do have countless thousands of years of evidence where no one has been able to show that god fantasies have any basis in reality. How much longer would you say we wait until we finally declare the idea as absurd? In contrast can you present any evidence that a god exists?

This thread proves nothing. Its just based on a God within our universe. It’s largely irrelevant where the alleged god actually resides. This thread offers theists a difficulty that arises when they heap impossible super power onto their fantasies. The fun is watching them jump through hoops trying to escape very simple logic.

Anyway, if there is a God, then who knows what he can do. Ahh I am pleased – you have said “if”, which implies you have doubt. That is progress. But whatever a god might be it will still be constrained by logic.

Just because us humans can't understand, doesnt mean its not possible.But more importantly nothing indicates that gods are possible.

Trust me,Why? What are your qualifications that might make you trustworthy?

dont bother trying to prove any points, becauses theres none that can prove he isnt real.Well I admit that trying to prove a fantasy has no reality is a challenge because those offering the idea can always change the fantasy accordingly. But I am content that you cannot offer a single shred of evidence to show that such a being might exist or could exist.

Ive considered it alot of times, so im not ignorant, but i sitll believe in God.You can consider it as long as you like but unless you can show some evidence you have nothing more than an irrational fantasy.

Also, why would God want to provide us this evidence of how he is all knowing, because if he did, then it wouldn't be a test of faith anymore, because it would be almost certian God is real, and just about everyone would believe.LOL – you should read the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy – that is part of their proof that he doesn’t exist – it is a comedy like your statement. So tell me why something that wants to be believed doesn’t simply introduce itself clearly and plainly so there would be no doubt?

Remember that “religious faith” has no value – it is simply belief without proof.

Next time you think of things this way, look at the big picture, we don't know all.Yet Christians claim they do know that their god exists, why don’t they simply admit that they really don’t know? And why would looking at the big picture include believing that a fantasy is real?

jay_7

12-16-05, 12:36 AM

Well not quite. Note that the issue in this thread is that the Christian God Cannot exist, not so much a proof that it doesn’t exist. But more importantly I do have countless thousands of years of evidence where no one has been able to show that god fantasies have any basis in reality. How much longer would you say we wait until we finally declare the idea as absurd? In contrast can you present any evidence that a god exists?

Well the bible for starters. You dont have to believe it, doesnt bother me at all.

It’s largely irrelevant where the alleged god actually resides. This thread offers theists a difficulty that arises when they heap impossible super power onto their fantasies. The fun is watching them jump through hoops trying to escape very simple logic.

Yeah, its also fun watch athiest saying there can't be something like a God, and then believing the universe just happened.

Ahh I am pleased – you have said “if”, which implies you have doubt. That is progress. But whatever a god might be it will still be constrained by logic.

Nah, no progress at all. :) Its human nature to have doubts.

But more importantly nothing indicates that gods are possible.

And nothing indicates that a God isnt possible. But a God could be possible, because even scientest said themselves that they think this universe is within a multiuniverse. Which in my belief would consist of heaven and God. The universe couldn't have created itself, everything in this world is made by soemthing, why would everything be made by something except the unvierse itself? Its far too finly tuned to of been created by chance.

Why? What are your qualifications that might make you trustworthy?

What i mean was trust me that trying to prove me any points that you think suggest a christian God isnt possible won't mean anything to me.

Well I admit that trying to prove a fantasy has no reality is a challenge because those offering the idea can always change the fantasy accordingly. But I am content that you cannot offer a single shred of evidence to show that such a being might exist or could exist.

Your point? Faith is something atheist dont have. Also, the Bible could be considered some proof. And if you bother to think of the possibility the universe couldnt appear from nowhere, or even do any research or see what others have to say, you might have it too.

You can consider it as long as you like but unless you can show some evidence you have nothing more than an irrational fantasy.

No problem, i've asked you to do some research, or even look at the other side of the story. Doesn't brother me. :)

LOL – you should read the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy – that is part of their proof that he doesn’t exist – it is a comedy like your statement. So tell me why something that wants to be believed doesn’t simply introduce itself clearly and plainly so there would be no doubt?

That means nothing to me.

Remember that “religious faith” has no value – it is simply belief without proof.

Exactly what the bible tells us to do, have faith. Also, you are atheist without having proof God isnt real, i mean there is a bible, but you still choose to have faith God isnt real.

Yet Christians claim they do know that their god exists, why don’t they simply admit that they really don’t know? And why would looking at the big picture include believing that a fantasy is real?

Ok, i admit i dont know. I do have ideas though, like the multiuniverse that consist this world, according to scientest. But i also admit that i nearly have complete faith. Why would i look at the big picture? Because you have to look outside your beleifs, which i have done, i've considered God not being real, but yet i've chosen to believe in him. Its no fantasy, well to me anyway. It's like every other descision you make in life, you always have to consider the other outcome.

jay_7

12-16-05, 12:56 AM

Cris before you reply, ive edited my above post a bit, so you might want to edit your reply.

Godless

12-16-05, 01:16 AM

The universe couldn't have created itself, everything in this world is made by soemthing, why would everything be made by something except the unvierse itself?

I'm a sticler for details; You admit that you believe in that which can't be proven, god; furthermore you claim that a universe couldn't have just come to be by natural means itself, it has to have a creator. What about god?. Nothing could create itself, why is your god absolete from this logic?. Everything in existence is made of something or created by a higher being, according to your dogma, what stops your god from being created by a superior god?

Godless

jay_7

12-16-05, 01:23 AM

I'm a sticler for details; You admit that you believe in that which can't be proven, god; furthermore you claim that a universe couldn't have just come to be by natural means itself, it has to have a creator. What about god?. Nothing could create itself, why is your god absolete from this logic?. Everything in existence is made of something or created by a higher being, according to your dogma, what stops your god from being created by a superior god?

Godless

Can i ask you to read this please: http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0002.html

Its long, but it may explain it a bit better then i can.

Cris

12-16-05, 01:31 AM

Jay,

Well the bible for starters. You dont have to believe it, doesnt bother me at all.What is there in the bible that represents evidence for the existence of a god?

.. its also fun watch athiest saying there can't be something like a God,Which you can’t refute by showing a god actually exist.

.. and then believing the universe just happened.I don’t believe any such thing. You have been reading your Christian website again. Remember that that site is all heavily biased propaganda and indoctrination. I particularly liked the analogy with a rock suddenly appearing. The simplest explanation is that the universe is infinite, since from physics we see that matter and energy is never created or destroyed. No need to create the fantasy of a god and all the resultant supernatural gibberish that goes with it.

Nah, no progress at all. Its human nature to have doubts. The Christian asserts that a god exists, if you have doubts then you are an atheist.

And nothing indicates that a christian God isnt possible.You mean like fairies, unicorns, and flying pigs, right? Again without some evidence all these things are fantasy. Are you comfortable believing a fantasy as true?

“ Why? What are your qualifications that might make you trustworthy? ”

You werent suppossed to take that away from the sentence i put it in, you just seperated my sentence.It was a request for trust – the context didn’t require the clause.

Your point?That your belief in a god is irrational. Are you content being irrational?

Faith is something athiest dont have.This is a good thing, since faith has no value.

Also, the Bible could be considered some proof.Why?

And if you bother to think of the possibility the universe couldnt appear from nowhere,But as I have said I don’t believe it appeared from nowhere, it most likely has always been here. However, in quantum physics quantum events have been observed where matter does appear spontaneously, so indeed there may be some support for a universe appearing spontaneously. However, I’m not keen on that prospect just yet.

..or even do any research or see what others have to say, you might have it too.You mean like Guth, Linde, Reinhardt, etc. Bubble universes, multi-verses, cyclic universes, etc. Nothing leads me to support the idea that religious faith has any value or that gods need, might, could, or should exist.

No problem, i've asked you to do some research, or even look at the other side of the story.What makes you think I haven’t?

Doesn't brother me. Clearly it does otherwise you wouldn’t try to unnecessarily convince me otherwise.

“ LOL – you should read the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy – that is part of their proof that he doesn’t exist – it is a comedy like your statement. So tell me why something that wants to be believed doesn’t simply introduce itself clearly and plainly so there would be no doubt?
”

That means nothing to me.You perhaps need to read more then, but you missed the question -

Tell me why something that wants to be believed doesn’t simply introduce itself clearly and plainly so there would be no doubt?

Exactly what the bible tells us to do, have faith.Why do what the bible says? Can you not think for yourself?

Also, you are athiest without having proof God isnt real,Atheists generally don’t claim that gods do not exist. The essential atheist position is a disbelief in the claims made by theists. Try following some of the links given at the start of this forum that explains what is meant by atheism.

It is usually the onus of the person making the claim to offer proof before their claims can be accepted. You are making the claim that a god exists and you do indeed have the onus to prove your claim.

i mean there is a bible,Can you show the bible is anything more than mythology?

but you still choose to have faith God isnt real.No that is not correct. Read the link on atheism first to understand your error.

Ok, i admit i dont know. Ok that is healthy, that is also the primary atheist position.

But i also admit that i nearly have complete faith. ”Nearly” isn’t quite the same. It looks like you haven’t been looking very long and/or you haven’t really examined any alternatives and you certainly do not understand the atheist position yet or their arguments. The websites you quoted really are quite immature and if you are basing your beliefs on those statements then you are in real trouble.

Why would i look at the big picture? Because you have to look outside your beleifs, which i have done, i've considered God not being real,No, I don’t believe you. I think you have listened/read what Christians say about atheism and have judged atheism in that heavily biased light. From your arguments here you clearly display an almost complete ignorance of the atheist position.

but yet ive chosen to believe in him.But not based on any reasoned rational arguments.

Its no fantasy,, well to me anyway.Objectively it is fantasy. Without an evidential basis it is simply fantasy.

It's like every other descision you make in life, you always have to consider the other outcome.Then please do so. Your posts so far indicate you have barely begun.

Cris

12-16-05, 01:32 AM

Jay,

Cris before you reply, ive edited my above post a bit, so you might want to edit your reply. Sorry - too late. I'll re-read your post.

leopold99

12-16-05, 02:00 AM

instead of arguing specifics maybe someone needs to explain what is gods nature. in my opinion god would have to be unnatural. the only forces in nature are natural ones.

jay_7

12-16-05, 02:05 AM

Nature to this unvierse. God isnt in this universe, and he is not human.

Btw cris, im replying to you now

Cris

12-16-05, 02:13 AM

Jay,

The universe couldn't have created itself, Latest quantum theories suggest that at least at that micro level matter can spontaneously come into existence. But I suspect the universe is infinite, and hence never needed to be created.

everything in this world is made by soemthing,No it isn’t. Physics indicates that matter and energy can’t be created or destroyed. And everything made by man is always an adaptation of something else; nothing is ever created from scratch.

why would everything be made by something except the unvierse itself?If you follow that line of reasoning then you must also explain what created God. And then who created the creator of the creator, ad infinitum. Inventing a god to explain the existence of the universe doesn’t offer any explanation but simply pushes the question out another stage, in an infinite series.

At some point we have to accept that something infinite must exist otherwise nothing could have ever begun. Since physics indicates nothing is created or destroyed then the simplest explanation (Occams Razor) is that the universe is infinite. In this light there is no credible justification to invent a supernatural realm with gods etc.

Its far too finly tuned to of been created by chance.This is a basic logical fallacy, and classic Christian propaganda. The universe continues to function because of its basic laws, if it were otherwise it would either not exist or would be radically different. But your argument is also often applied to the existence of life and man. Here the fallacy assumes that the universe was designed to suit life and man, whereas the more rational conclusion is that man developed because of the conditions offered by the universe. Had the universe been different then either life would not have developed or life would have had very different characteristics.

The Christian argument is similar to claiming that a pie dish was designed to fit the shape of the pie when in reality the shape of the pie is because of the shape of the dish.

jay_7

12-16-05, 02:32 AM

I don’t believe any such thing. You have been reading your Christian website again. Remember that that site is all heavily biased propaganda and indoctrination. I particularly liked the analogy with a rock suddenly appearing. The simplest explanation is that the universe is infinite, since from physics we see that matter and energy is never created or destroyed. No need to create the fantasy of a god and all the resultant supernatural gibberish that goes with it.

The universe cannot be infinite, even if it was, how did the gases etc get there to create the universe with the big bang? That brings me to what scientist accordingly suggest that another multiuniverse create this one, which goes along with what the Bible says itself, that God is in another universe without our physical laws and out of time. Oh and that christian site makes alot more sence then your first post of this thread. :rolleyes:

The Christian asserts that a god exists, if you have doubts then you are an atheist.

Not neccesarily. I believe in God, but its impossible to completly believe in something you have no proof of. We dont even have proof that we exist, we knwo we most likely do, but theres still doubt.

You mean like fairies, unicorns, and flying pigs, right? Again without some evidence all these things are fantasy. Are you comfortable believing a fantasy as true?

Thats a bit different to God. :rolleyes: ill pass on this question.

That your belief in a god is irrational. Are you content being irrational?

No, i dont believe in God because of what i have read on these sites. I've believed long before i even got the internet, based on other things, i also went to church all the time. Its jsut been the past month which the subject has interested me about how the universe came about and how it must have been God, well to me anyway.

This is a good thing, since faith has no value.

Nah, is does. Its actually known that christians can be a bit more generous, and mroe willing to help the poor. And if you believed in God like me, faith would have a value.

Why?

But as I have said I don’t believe it appeared from nowhere, it most likely has always been here. However, in quantum physics quantum events have been observed where matter does appear spontaneously, so indeed there may be some support for a universe appearing spontaneously. However, I’m not keen on that prospect just yet.

As i said before. The universe cannot be infinite, even if it was, how did the gases etc get there to create the universe with the big bang? That brings me to what scientist accordingly suggest that another multiuniverse create this one, which goes along with what the Bible says itself, that God is in another universe without our physical laws and out of time. Oh and that christian site makes alot more sence then your first post of this thread.

You mean like Guth, Linde, Reinhardt, etc. Bubble universes, multi-verses, cyclic universes, etc. Nothing leads me to support the idea that religious faith has any value or that gods need, might, could, or should exist.

I base my faith more on my belief God does exist because of what the teachings in the bible are, and how it makes alot of sence along with life, than do by believing because i think there must be a God that created it because it seems impossible, but it certainly helps. A universe seems impossible to have existed forever. But with something like God outside time, it is possible to exist forever, because theres no time. It's a difficult concept but i found it more convincing then a bunch of gases causing a big bang thats infinite. And it all seems like a bit of a plot if you ask me, so it seems God is very likely to be involved in all this, i believe.

What makes you think I haven’t?

Oh never mind, jsut try view it in a different perspective. I think i may see it in a different way you do.

Clearly it does otherwise you wouldn’t try to unnecessarily convince me otherwise.

I like telling others what i think, thats pretty much why. Not that i care about you been an atheist.

You perhaps need to read more then, but you missed the question -

Tell me why something that wants to be believed doesn’t simply introduce itself clearly and plainly so there would be no doubt?

I told you, because then it wouldnt be a test of faith.

Why do what the bible says? Can you not think for yourself?

I can actually, and everything in the bible is pretty much what you would want to do, isnt it? Like forgiving others, being nice, not killing etc.

Atheists generally don’t claim that gods do not exist. The essential atheist position is a disbelief in the claims made by theists. Try following some of the links given at the start of this forum that explains what is meant by atheism.

It is usually the onus of the person making the claim to offer proof before their claims can be accepted. You are making the claim that a god exists and you do indeed have the onus to prove your claim.

Ok then. Do you believe in God? If not, then that doesnt really apply to you.

Can you show the bible is anything more than mythology?

No, but everything seems resonable and doesnt seem fake.

No that is not correct. Read the link on atheism first to understand your error.
Ok.

Ok that is healthy, that is also the primary atheist position.

No its human, it is healthy, but still doesn't mean i dont believe in God.

”Nearly” isn’t quite the same. It looks like you haven’t been looking very long and/or you haven’t really examined any alternatives and you certainly do not understand the atheist position yet or their arguments. The websites you quoted really are quite immature and if you are basing your beliefs on those statements then you are in real trouble.

As i said above, my faith isn't based on what ive read on all these sites, this is just extra information i've come accross, to understand more on how God could be all knowing and live outside of time, and answer alot of questions for me. I dont have ignorance, ive looked at it from your point of view, but that hasnt made me stop my beliefs, your saying you think im ignorant jsut because i haven't switched 'sides' yet.

No, I don’t believe you. I think you have listened/read what Christians say about atheism and have judged atheism in that heavily biased light. From your arguments here you clearly display an almost complete ignorance of the atheist position. [

But not based on any reasoned rational arguments.

No no no. I believe in God because thats what i believe, i know all the cirumstances to be athiest, but i believe in God, that doesnt make me ignorant.

Then please do so. Your posts so far indicate you have barely begun. Nah, ive believed for ages. And you have only read why i believe in God in a scientific way, not in my emotional way.

jay_7

12-16-05, 02:44 AM

Latest quantum theories suggest that at least at that micro level matter can spontaneously come into existence. But I suspect the universe is infinite, and hence never needed to be created.

But how, if there was no sound, life, gases, or anything to cause those, it isnt possible. I reckon the Bible makes more sence on this one, a God would make alot more sence as to why something could appear from nothing or be enternal. Which is why i repeatdly keep bringing it up because God is enternal, and Cris, if not eveything was created and cannot be destroyed, hwo did it get there? Something with intellegence would have to do that.

No it isn’t. Physics indicates that matter and energy can’t be created or destroyed. And everything made by man is always an adaptation of something else; nothing is ever created from scratch.

Seems impossible, but God exist, thats how it would have occured.

If you follow that line of reasoning then you must also explain what created God. And then who created the creator of the creator, ad infinitum. Inventing a god to explain the existence of the universe doesn’t offer any explanation but simply pushes the question out another stage, in an infinite series.

As the Bible says, God has no beggining, or end, hes enternal and outside time. This is something us humans will never know until we die.

At some point we have to accept that something infinite must exist otherwise nothing could have ever begun. Since physics indicates nothing is created or destroyed then the simplest explanation (Occams Razor) is that the universe is infinite. In this light there is no credible justification to invent a supernatural realm with gods etc.

I talked a bit about this above.

This is a basic logical fallacy, and classic Christian propaganda. The universe continues to function because of its basic laws, if it were otherwise it would either not exist or would be radically different. But your argument is also often applied to the existence of life and man. Here the fallacy assumes that the universe was designed to suit life and man, whereas the more rational conclusion is that man developed because of the conditions offered by the universe. Had the universe been different then either life would not have developed or life would have had very different characteristics.

How did these laws come about? Sounds God like to me.

The Christian argument is similar to claiming that a pie dish was designed to fit the shape of the pie when in reality the shape of the pie is because of the shape of the dish.

Yeah, God created us to be put on a dish (universe), and put us here to be eatin. (tested: of faith and compassion)

TW Scott

12-16-05, 03:17 AM

jay_7

12-16-05, 03:21 AM

Your very faulty reasoning assumes that God directly makes our decisions based on God's Omniscience. Think about this concept for just a moment and your who argument falls apart. God knows what you are going to do before you do it, but it is still you that made the choice. God did not influence the choice, although God certainly could if God wanted to, but even with the influence it is still you that chose to do it.

An example: Your friend knows that you will bet on hard seven, becuase you always do. He tries to convince you that perhaps hard eight would better. Now no matter what choice you make it was with free will.

Exactly.

Godless

12-16-05, 04:09 AM

God knows what you are going to do before you do it, but it is still you that made the choice.

The one with faulty argument is you. You don't get it.

If god "knows" before hand of a decision it's predetermined. Thus no free will exists, if god is to be omniscient. And by that same account god himself is stuck in the same dilema, if a being is omniscient there's nothing that it can do to change an outcome, that has already been predetermined.

have a nice read if you care to understand the paradox. (http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/foreknow.htm)

Godless

jay_7

12-16-05, 04:39 AM

Look at it this way, just pretend one day we improve our weather predicting skills, such as being able to predict what will happen next by the behavior of clouds and such, and we predict tommorows weather, well just because we knew it, doesnt mean weather doesn't have free will. And we wont have it exactly predicted anyway, we arent that smart. But remember, this is God we are talking about, we dont know the concept of his universe, and what he can do. Just because God knows all, doesnt mean we have no free will. Hes universe isnt the same concept as ours, you have to remember that. And no doubt God can process alot of information and have accurate preditions. Some say if he already knows, why doesnt he keep us in heaven instead of wasting hes time and putting us here, well here it is, it would be unjust for God to do so, and just tell a soul your gonig to heaven and hell because you did this without them even getting to perform the experiment.

Basically my conclusion is he only knows all because hes able to access every bit of information in todays world, right at this present moment, and he knows how everyone thinks, acts etc, and then he processes all the information in hes brain/soul and can receive completly accurate results. Just like we can predict the weather, but hes God, so he can do it perfectly.

Anyway, the Bible says hes all knowing, but does it say he knows the future? He may be all knowing to the past and present only?

Prince_James

12-16-05, 05:15 AM

BeyondTimeAndSpace:

This is where the difficulty comes in. The paradox arises when you consider God as an entity existing in the temporal, as we do. However, the conditions for the actions come into being simultaneously from all eternity in the experience of God. Thus, God's knowledge of our actions, to God, is not foreknowledge, but rather simply knowledge from experience of the real. Our actions then determine God's knowledge, not the other way around. We always think of God in anthropomorphic terms, as a being in the past, present or future. So, when we talk about the knowledge of God as omniscience, we can't help but to think of God's knowledge from our own standpoint, as foreknowledge. He knew before I did it. Well, no. God knows as you're doing it, because God knows all at once, because God experiences all at once. Thus God did not know before you did it. God knows it now. That's the only way it can be understood, because God is not a temporal being. God is an eternal being.

Two things:

1. Why does an eternal being have to have an existence throughout an eternity which half of it has not come into existence yet? What makes eternity and non-temporality the same?

2. What proof can you present of the non-temporality of this hypothetical deity? This presumes the capacity to truly be outside time. Tell us, how is this accomplished? Moreover, may God act? If so, he must do so in time, as all actions require an alteration from a prior existence, which in and of itself, necessitates time.

You might say, how can you say that about God? Only the same way I can say that God is omniscient. We ARE talking about the Christian God. This is an aspect of the Christian God. His knowledge is not a predeterminant of our actions. He knows our actions, because we do our actions. We do our actions because we choose our actions. We do not choose our actions because God knows our actions.

Well, actually, this is only part of some views of Christanity's God. In Calvinism - and in religious thought of other sects before Calvinism - God has precisely the sort of prescience I speak of. Calvin's theo-philosophy is centred around the notion of absolute determinism rooted from God's omniscience.

Moreover, we ought to consider the viability of libertarianism in philosophy even from a non-God perspective here. Even without omniscience, there are convincing arguments to demonstrate that free-will is quite baseless.

Again, you're speaking of God in terms of temporality. The Christian God is not temporal. Thus, this argument is meaningless.

Well, as noted above, I do not think this is yet substantiated. Also, clearly God is capable of understanding the temporal, and has to act in a temporal manner (Genesis' creation account), thus it would seem impossible that he was non-temporal.

Again, God is eternal, His choices, and His action, and His knowledge of His actions are not met out in any kind of temporal sequence, they are actuated simultaneously, eternally.

Again, see above.