Proof that the Christian god cannot exist

[beyondtimeandspace]

Ahh... there we are. Thank you Godless, your link was very nice. It put what I tried to say at the start clearly. The problem that Cris makes in his original argument is a modal error. That is, his argument is invalid, as his conclusion doesn't follow necessarily from his premises.

As for the temporality/non-temporality of God. That God interacts with the temporal does not necessitate Him as a temporal being. As I have stated, the eternal nature of God means that His actions, knowledge, thoughts, and whatever else, are simultaneous, thus God's actions at any point in the temporal sphere, occur at once, in the eternal sphere.

Thanks for the lesson in Calvinism, but I was quite aware of that. If you want to be specific about the particular Christian "God" that we're talking about, then please do, it would make things much easier. As it is, I don't believe in the Calvinistic God. I also do not believe in the Temporal God. This is because I believe both in the omniscience of God and free will. Hence, belief in either of those Gods would represent a logical inconsistency on my part, however less for God's omniscience and more for God's immutability.

In my religious studies, I have seen God named omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, immutable, infinite, omnijust, omnibenevolent, truth, existence itself, pure being, pure spirit, pure act, eternal. While most of these attributes (and others that have slipped my mind just now, as I'm struggling to keep my eyes open), can be accounted for by various other means, mostly having to do with God as an infinite being, three of these attributes caused me the most difficulty. They are: pure act, omnipotence and immutable.

While most would probably look at those three and wonder how they can cause any kind of logic problems, I don't, or didn't. The difficulty came from breaking the terms down and understanding the root dualities of two of them, with respect to the third. That is, broken down, the two represent actuality and potentiality. Omnipotence means that God is capable of anything. To have a power means you are capable of something specific. To have all powers means you are capable of every possible action. However, to be capable of something means that you can do it potentially. In other words, there is the possibility of your doing it.

This causes a problem if God is said to be Pure Act. Of course, being Pure Act would make complete sense if God is Pure Being. However, temporal entities, as beings, are neither pure act, nor pure potential. They move from potentiality to actuality, potency to activity. To be possible, is to be potential. To be real, is to be actual. Change occurs in the movement from potentiality to actuality.

So if God is omnipotent, that is, contains all possibility, is fully potent, not lacking in any form of potential, but also Pure Act, that is, purely actual, fully real, perfect reality, but at the same time immutable, unchanging, then how is it that He interacts with people, how is it that He exists sequentially (moving from one moment to the next)?

The only way to reconcile all of these different, seemingly contradictory aspects of God, was to realize the full meaning of that final quality belonging to Him: eternality. The temporal is a sequenced existence, which is why anything existing in the temporal experiences time, past-present-future, sequenced events. The eternal is holistic existence, anything existing in the eternal experiences perfecton, totality, fullness, pure simultaneity, present, the "Eternal Now."

This then allows for omnipotence, immutability, Pure Act, as well as interaction, since interacting with temporal entities would still be experienced by an eternal being eternally, simultaneously, at once. All relationships known, experienced, made, acted upon, reacted upon, at the same time, at once, always, forever, unchanging, now.

There is precedent for asserting such an existence. That precedent is the duality of sequence and holism, potential infinity and actual infinity, partial and complete, evolution and perfection. The very thinking device utilized by every human being operates upon this basic duality. One hemisphere operates on logic, sequence and is responsible for science, reading of symbols, mathematics, any sequenced function. The other hemisphere operates on intuition, holism and is responsible for religion, art, the big picture, and holistic function.

Though you may not find this precedent convincing, I believe it is simply a basic underlying reality of existence. Thus, if there is a temporal, and there clearly is, there is also an eternal.

At any rate, the knowledge that even a temporal person has of the future is a result of the choices made in the future. That someone knows what those choices will be, doesn't mean those choices are predetermined. Consider it like this: if I didn't choose to do what God knows, then God wouldn't know it.

[jay_7]

From the paradox that starts this thread, it clearly follows that BOTH free will of humans and omniscience of god can exist - but only if god has created humans that are destined for hell - in else god is evil ........
If you believe in both free will of humans and omniscience of god - then you must accept that god is evil ....

No, not at all. It wouldn't be just for God to not perform the experiment, and tell the souls that they would be going to hell, without letting them sit the test. It's like this, just say a teacher knew you were going to fail your test based on what she knew you knew, then she got give you a D without letting you sit the test. That would be unjust, same thing goes for God.

For more on this, read: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/destined.html

Perhaps we are just guineapigs or dancing puppets (robots) for god .....

Nah. :) As beyond said, you have to understand the concept of enternal.

[Godless]

No problem.

However there's a fundamental flaw of this article which I chose to overlook. For obvious reason it assumes that a god exists. Now lets take a stab at with the reasoning of an atheistic stance. Shall we?

click (http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/freewill.html)

the imposibility of god. (http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/cd_impossible.html)

Christian god logical? (http://www.geocities.com/inquisitive79/rebutgodlogic.html)

Excuse for not putting all the above findings in my own words, but basically my ideas are arrived from these. My time is limited.

Off to work.

Godless

[jay_7]

LOL. Here we go again, how many times will we explain this to you, i see no point in argueing, if your gonig to keep bringing up the same point, over and over, not matter what.

Here it goes again, Gods created souls, he knows them as well as a parent knows their children, he knows what descisions we'll make based on our hearts, and with that knowledge, he can have precise results. Another point being, you don't know what other possibilitys of knowing what will happen can be. Your basing this as if he was in our universe, which he is not, this is a typical thing for an atheist to do.

-------
Oh and also. Ive been looknig into this more, and i've found that, somebody who lived 1000 years before Christ, wrote about that Jesus is coming in the future, thsi is all in the old testament, which was written BEFORE Christ. When the old testament was completed 400 years B.C. this man had quoted exactly what Jesus said before it even happened. Now, just because he knew this, this ordinary human did not have any effect on what happened in the future, but he knew what was going to happen. Its not impossible to know the future, and still have no free will. Sorry for my lack of explaining, take a read of this: http://www.carm.org/dialogues/proof.htm
It's a discussion somebodys having with an atheist in a chatroom. He talks a little about it better then i do.

[beyondtimeandspace]

Godless, I really hope those links aren't the sum of the arguments that have caused you to hold your present position on the matter?

First, none of them address the argument I've presented, and I presume that is because mine isn't one most Christians use. That's fine. While many would say God is "outside of time," most don't actually know what they mean by that.

At any rate, your first link makes the same modal error. Despite what you think, assuming the existence of God has nothing to do with the method of modal logic used in the article you posted that I addressed last night. If it does, please enlighten me.

The second article is probably the strongest one. However, there are several ideas which he does not address, and several others that he does, but clearly does not fully understand. However, I won't discuss them here, I don't have time. If I were to offer a rebuttle to his arguments, I'd send him an email like he's asked. At any rate, I like his arguments the best, because they're the most challenging of the three links.

The third link is just terrible. It's so full of holes and logical errors I wouldn't even know where to begin. I realize you'll say "point them out please," but I don't feel like writing an essay on the matter. Furthermore, I simply don't have time, like you.

Anyway, to offer a simple and brief summary, none of these articles offer rebut to the argument I've put forth, namely that of Eternality - holism. As such, I disregard them as proofs against the Christian God, despite that many of the arguments they present I do agree with, given their understanding of the Christian God.

Again, another way of considering this, though not so much from a temporal perspective: "You've already made the choice. Now you must understand why." - The Oracle

[KennyJC]

LOL. Here we go again, how many times will we explain this to you, i see no point in argueing, if your gonig to keep bringing up the same point, over and over, not matter what.

Here it goes again, Gods created souls, he knows them as well as a parent knows their children, he knows what descisions we'll make based on our hearts, and with that knowledge, he can have precise results. Another point being, you don't know what other possibilitys of knowing what will happen can be. Your basing this as if he was in our universe, which he is not, this is a typical thing for an atheist to do.

I do love the way idiotic fundies construct posts.

First there is the "LOL" as if to say "well duh, it is so stupid of you not to understand this simple fact", then they go on to say "well obviously God created souls and knows what we will do based on the organ that pumps blood around our body!".

[The Devil Inside]

i just now started reading this thread...
cris you started the thread, so this question is directed toward you and you alone:
by the title, i assume you see a difference in the G-d of christians, and the G-d of abraham?

just wondering. :)

[(Q)]

Your basing this as if he was in our universe, which he is not, this is a typical thing for an atheist to do.

And, would it be typical of a theist to know so well that which resides outside of our universe?

[Godless]

And, would it be typical of a theist to know so well that which resides outside of our universe?

Their unreconigsable falasy is making assumptions of something they know nothing about. Like assuming such an existence of another dimension where supposedly this god resides, (outside of time, outside of our universe, out of sight yet determines men's outcome.) :confused:

There's no following any logic here. Oh! yes modal logic. What if it exist, what if it's true, best not take any chances.

Fear I tell ya! fear is what keeps fundies and theist in line, fear of death, fear of hell, fear of the unknown, fear of living by one's own volition.

Godless

[Godless]

Godless, I really hope those links aren't the sum of the arguments that have caused you to hold your present position on the matter?

Na! it was a quick qoogle search. However I've been an atheist longer than some people here have been alive.

I was once a believer, I was once a Christian, Catholic, Babtist. But I saw no evidence of such a being called god, I felt nothing, other than fooling myself to believe such tripe, I got laid more often. Perhaps I should go back :D And just keep my real opinions to myself. But too bad I'm determined to be honest. :( For this honesty I've lost good opportunities, good jobs, and I sure as hell can't be a politician! :rolleyes:

Godless

[jay_7]

Your basing this as if he was in our universe, which he is not, this is a typical thing for an atheist to do.

And, would it be typical of a theist to know so well that which resides outside of our universe?

Yes, but your forgetting the point of this thread. Cris is saying he claims that he has proof that a Christian God cannot exist, while also suggesting himself that God lives outside time, which indicates even he thinks Gods outside another universe, now as you claim, there may not be another universe, which completly wrecks this argument. Theres no point really arguing from ehre though, theres no proof in the first post.

[Godless]

The "concept" of God is usually defined by a lack of a definition. God is usually said to be unlimited in power, knowledge, and goodness and unknowable to us mere mortals; but these are all traits that are defined by a lack of something.

"God" is not a concept at all because it subsumes no particulars. Unlike a real concept, there is nothing in reality to which one can refer to and say, "That is God." To be unlimited in power, omnipotence, is a contradiction. To be unlimited in goodness, omnibenevolence, is taken without any standard of good. Regarding God, it is said that God is good. What is good? God's will. What characterizes God's will? Goodness. That circle is without substance and meaningless. Some people claim that all these objections are silly because God is simply unknowable. How do they know that God is unknowable?

The notion of God is nothing but a big mixture of contradictions and nothingness. There is no meaning behind the word and no concept to even define.

We view with mirth the ancient Greeks and Egyptians and other peoples with their pantheons of various Gods controlling various aspects of the world. We laugh at contemporaries who claim to have been visited by aliens or seen Bigfoot. Some even laugh and deride those scientists who make claims with only a little evidence in support of their views. But what is truly ridiculous is the people who then turn around and say, "the belief in God is perfectly fine" either because someone they know believes it or because a large portion of the population believes it. Truth is not a social phenomenon. Reality is absolute and can only be understood through reason.

What is disappointing is not so much all of the faithful, but all those who sanction faith in others. To accept without comment this ridiculous self-contradicting life destroying nonsense in one's peers and give it a sort of spiritual relativism sanction, to claim that each can believe whatever he wants, that one spiritual belief is just as valid as another -- that is what perpetuates the evil of faith-based religions and notions.

The belief in God and the acting on that belief is evil. It divorces one's knowledge and actions from reality, with consequences ranging from the trivial (wasting one morning a week) to the disastrous (crusades, having unwanted children, Israelis and Arabs slaughtering each other over a patch of desert, wasting one's entire life working for a purpose not one's own, etc.)

Importance of philosophy (http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Mystical_God.html)

Godless

[jay_7]

"God" is not a concept at all because it subsumes no particulars. Unlike a real concept, there is nothing in reality to which one can refer to and say, "That is God." To be unlimited in power, omnipotence, is a contradiction. To be unlimited in goodness, omnibenevolence, is taken without any standard of good. Regarding God, it is said that God is good. What is good? God's will. What characterizes God's will? Goodness. That circle is without substance and meaningless. Some people claim that all these objections are silly because God is simply unknowable. How do they know that God is unknowable?

How do we know? Because we don't! :D

The notion of God is nothing but a big mixture of contradictions and nothingness. There is no meaning behind the word and no concept to even define.

Gods good, which makes hes will good. Asking what makes God good and answering "Gods will" doesnt say anything really. What makes a good person a good person? Their good will, and what makes their will good? God. So now that truns into Gods will is good, because God is good. He just is.

We view with mirth the ancient Greeks and Egyptians and other peoples with their pantheons of various Gods controlling various aspects of the world. We laugh at contemporaries who claim to have been visited by aliens or seen Bigfoot. Some even laugh and deride those scientists who make claims with only a little evidence in support of their views. But what is truly ridiculous is the people who then turn around and say, "the belief in God is perfectly fine" either because someone they know believes it or because a large portion of the population believes it. Truth is not a social phenomenon. Reality is absolute and can only be understood through reason.

That doesnt rule out Gods possibility, we jsut simply laugh because of the unknown.

What is disappointing is not so much all of the faithful, but all those who sanction faith in others. To accept without comment this ridiculous self-contradicting life destroying nonsense in one's peers and give it a sort of spiritual relativism sanction, to claim that each can believe whatever he wants, that one spiritual belief is just as valid as another -- that is what perpetuates the evil of faith-based religions and notions.

Doesnt do any harm. Religion actually makes people good, not bad, the bad comes from those who arent willing to have faith.

The belief in God and the acting on that belief is evil. It divorces one's knowledge and actions from reality, with consequences ranging from the trivial (wasting one morning a week) to the disastrous (crusades, having unwanted children, Israelis and Arabs slaughtering each other over a patch of desert, wasting one's entire life working for a purpose not one's own, etc.)

Its not evil, i don't see how it is. If anything it actually gives us knowledge and guidelines.

[Godless]

Thanks Jay_7 for making a complete ass of yourself.

Doesnt do any harm. Religion actually makes people good, not bad, the bad comes from those who arent willing to have faith.

Crusades, dark ages, flat earht, heliocentric theory vs geocentric.

Many soldiers have used Bible verses to justify horrific destruction against their enemy. Such beliefs can comfort the minds of men to do virtually any kind of atrocity against men, women, and children of the enemy. The Crusaders of the 12th century, slaughtered or tortured anyone who stood in their way. The Bible's words gave them their justification. Dark bible (http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/darkbible3.htm)

Yea! these people sound like real nice people :rolleyes:

Godless

[jay_7]

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/notkill.html

Look. Ive stated by opinions & views. So has everyone else, and the first post of this thread has been proved wrong and theres no longer need for debate. Thanks for the good debate ;) its up to you to find your faith. Im not going to take part in this anymore.

Cya :)

[TW Scott]

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

I understand where you think there is a paradox. The operative word is think. Now if you know your sister well enough to know that she will refuse a proposla from Jerk A, does that mean you have taken her free will? No. The same goes with God. He knows you so well he knows which freewill choice you would make before you make it. Nothing is predetermined. he didn't say yes or no for you. He just knows that you will make that choice.

[Medicine*Woman]

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/notkill.html

Look. Ive stated by opinions & views. So has everyone else, and the first post of this thread has been proved wrong and theres no longer need for debate. Thanks for the good debate ;) its up to you to find your faith. Im not going to take part in this anymore. Cya :)
*************
M*W: You are the only thing that has been proven wrong. You don't "debate," you post worthless website links. You came to a scientific website to prove a point which you were unable to do. Run along home now, son. You couldn't play with the big boys after all.

[jay_7]

*************
M*W: You are the only thing that has been proven wrong. You don't "debate," you post worthless website links. You came to a scientific website to prove a point which you were unable to do. Run along home now, son. You couldn't play with the big boys after all.

lol I suggest stop talking if you dont even contribute to the argument in a logical way.

[The Devil Inside]

lol she has 2660 posts...she has had alot more to say (whether i agree with it or not) than you have here, mister 62 posts. show some respect for others if you want it yourself.

[jay_7]

She disrespected me way before i disrespected her.

[The Devil Inside]

*shrug* but she never told you to stop posting. even though i (almost) completely disagree with every single thing she has to say, the fact that she has been here THAT long, warrants a little respect...dont you think?
maybe im just talking out of my ass though, too.

[(Q)]

Jay

theres no proof in the first post.

There is nothing wrong with Cris' opening post. It is irrefutable and you agree with him.

[Godless]

I understand where you think there is a paradox. The operative word is think.

I know my sister well enough, yet I can't predict what she'll do.

As for god, hell he don't exist, and if it did, it would be bound by it's own omniscience.

If you are all-knowing, you know your future actions, what choices you will make, and you cannot change them otherwise your knowledge would be wrong, and you wouldn't be all-knowing. An omniscient being has no free will to choose actions; all its actions are predetermined. Vexen (http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/god_has_no_free_will.html)

Thus this follows thinking, don't ya think?.

She disrespected me way before i disrespected her.

Boo Hoo!. Get used to it, atheist mainly get kicked out of fundies forums!.

Godless

[jay_7]

I know my sister well enough, yet I can't predict what she'll do.

As for god, hell he don't exist, and if it did, it would be bound by it's own omniscience.

Vexen (http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/god_has_no_free_will.html)

Thus this follows thinking, don't ya think?.



Boo Hoo!. Get used to it, atheist mainly get kicked out of fundies forums!.

Godless

Its difficult for us being in time to understand this concept. You have to remember God has no time, so this matter of knowing before hand doesnt make sence. I think this may be a ok way to explain it: Try and picture it as you have your own universe in a box at home right now, and the computer thats connected to it says whats going to happen, by prediciting and and estimating precise results that are completly accurate, but the computer is for the universe you own, not YOUR home, so it doesnt predict what you (the creator) are going to do, just whats going to happen in your box which consist fo the universe.

Or, i was reading this about time travel: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/time/through.html

If it's like they say, life is a blink of an eye in the travel of light speed/time, then of coarse God can know all. And that hes universe can be enternal without time.

[beyondtimeandspace]

Concerning the vexen link,

1. "An Omniscient (all-knowing) Being Does Not Have Free Will."

God's actions and God's knowledge arise simultaneously. Vexen understands this concept as revealed later on in his 4th argument concerning God's free will and time. God's knowledge does not necessarily mean that God does not have free will.

2. "A Perfect God Has No Free Will"

Just because God cannot choose to act imperfectly, does not mean He cannot choose between two perfect acts. Furthermore, free will is not the ability to choose between two or more options. Any animate creature does that. Free will is the capacity to consciously and deliberately, with awareness, move your will in a given direction (figuratively speaking of course). Even if God only had one choice, He still chooses it consciously, deliberately, with awareness. A single option does not negate the possibility of free will.

3. "A Moral God has No Free Will"

See previous answer. Also, God did not create morality. Moral choice is simply acting in accord with one's own nature. God has nature, therefore morality has existed eternally as a principle of God's nature. Moral choice only exists with the freely willing. So, the argument is moot, since if God were amoral, then that would necessarily mean He is not free of will. Likewise, if God were not free of will, then God would be amoral. The two go hand in hand. However, how is one to say that God is amoral? By arguing that He created morality? But I have indicated that that is not the case.

4. "God exists outside of time... where there is no free will"

The sequenced steps taken in time by which free will operates in time are taken simultaneously, immediately in the eternal. Eternality does not negate the possibility of free will.

5. "How can a creator of free will have free will?"

God did not create free will. Humans are freely willing creatures, but that does not mean that free will was created when humans began to exist. Free will is an aspect of God's nature that has existed eternally. This is part of the Image of God, which humans have.

[Godless]

Good answers BT&S. But some points contradict your previous assumptions of god, and some fallcies as well. Let's see how I do; lets try not to take over this thread like we once did ;)


God's actions and God's knowledge arise simultaneously.

Correct me if I'm wrong but this assumption contradicts omnisciece, if an entity be omnisciet it's knowledge is already stablished, nothing new would arise, nothing to be learnt that is already known.

Just because God cannot choose to act imperfectly, does not mean He cannot choose between two perfect acts.

There's no such thing as two perfect acts to an all knowing being. It's one act which ever may be has to be perfect, no choice can be made between two, this would sugest that one act is more perfect than the other. The choice it makes has to be the better of the two.

Free will is the capacity to consciously and deliberately, with awareness, move your will in a given direction (figuratively speaking of course).

This assumption would limit the entity god, by having a free will similar to that of a mere human, this entity is nothing like human this would suggest it's characteristic be nothing like a human; thus it's incapable of free will such as ours, furthermore I recall you mentioned we shouldn't think of "god" as an entity but some sort of spirit what have you; I recall telling you "that what you call god, is called nature on my part". (forgive my memory lapse) :(

God did not create free will.

Then god did not create humans, nor the universe, nor anything that exists. If this entity be the creator of all, all it created even free will!.

Godless

[jayleew]

Na! it was a quick qoogle search. However I've been an atheist longer than some people here have been alive.

I was once a believer, I was once a Christian, Catholic, Babtist. But I saw no evidence of such a being called god, I felt nothing, other than fooling myself to believe such tripe, I got laid more often. Perhaps I should go back :D And just keep my real opinions to myself. But too bad I'm determined to be honest. :( For this honesty I've lost good opportunities, good jobs, and I sure as hell can't be a politician! :rolleyes:

Godless

Good, that is a step in the right direction.

There is a God and God has proven it to me every time I question his existence. But, if you aren't honest with him and play make believe, it does little good for anyone. Being honest with your true feelings about God's existence, and questioning his existence is healthy part of being real with God and coming to answers, but more answers always equals more questions. Recently, my faith was tried. And God lifted me up in the midst of all my doubts. It wasn't anything anyone said that strengthed my faith, it was God alone who put me in the circumstance to see the answers.

You think you have crossed over and can never go back. That's a lie that I told myself. Instead, you have crossed over into knowledge and logic. So, how can you believe when you have reason and logic?

Who knows how long you have, but if you want, God can prove himself majestically. I guarauntee it, because if he can do it for me, he can for anyone. Amazing.

Good luck with your new brain! I am glad you are honest with it now!

[Katazia]

Jay 7 -

You have to remember God has no time, so this matter of knowing before hand doesnt make sence.But time does exist so for something outside of time it will be easier to see before and after a particular point in time.

Kat

[Katazia]

Jayleew –

There is a God and God has proven it to me every time I question his existence.Has anyone else witnessed your interaction, or is it all in your head?

Being honest with your true feelings about God's existence, and questioning his existence is healthy part of being real with God and coming to answers, but more answers always equals more questions.With such frequent doubts real honesty would be to admit you don’t know whether God exists or not.

Recently, my faith was tried. Translation: You experienced a moment of realism.

And God lifted me up in the midst of all my doubts. Translation: You gave in to familiar comfort feeling of insanity.

It wasn't anything anyone said that strengthed my faith, it was God alone who put me in the circumstance to see the answers.Translation: Facing reality would be too much for me to handle.

Instead, you have crossed over into knowledge and logic.Which means you admit to preferring the opposite; ignorance and illogic.

So, how can you believe when you have reason and logic? Because any belief would then have a factual basis, unlike yours which is baseless.

Kat

[Godless]

Hey Jaylee!

There is a God and God has proven it to me every time I question his existence.

In my field of study I find this to be delusional.

You think you have crossed over and can never go back.

Go back to being delusional? No thanks. There was never a "crossing over" it was more of a realization. Blame it on education, blame it on reason. Reason killed god, logic made him imposible.

Good, that is a step in the right direction.

Thanks I've never been so honest until I became an atheist. I made a right step in the right direction, not by questioning the existence of this entity, but by realizing that I don't need a crutch to walk a straight path. I can walk on my own, my own volition, and my own set of values. Not that of an ancient religious rhetoric, of which the value it preaches, are the most broken.

Godless

[jayleew]

Jayleew –

Has anyone else witnessed your interaction, or is it all in your head?


I have had only one "interaction" with God (which a reasonable man might say that I am experiencing halucinations), the rest of the evidence for me is from my experience of living life, and witnessing the unlikely occur in accordance to a focused direction, usually unexpectedly. That is the evidence that matters. I'd rather see God's handiwork lifting me up, than to see God's face, eyeing from above.

Hypothetical question:
If there was only one god and it was the Christian's god, who hid himself from all but those who sought him, could this god prove his existence in the same manner among a diverse-minded people and still remain anonymous from the reasonable skeptics?


With such frequent doubts real honesty would be to admit you don’t know whether God exists or not.

Yes. If I were to dismiss the experiences as coincidences as just that. That would be fine for awhile...and it was. I was agnostic during that time. But, there comes a point when there are so many that are focused, building upon the same destiny, that there is only one logical conclusion. It would be unreasonable to think otherwise.


Translation: You experienced a moment of realism.

Maybe. Or, maybe God hid himself from a sinner who stopped asking for a sign.


Translation: You gave in to familiar comfort feeling of insanity.

No comfort was involved. Realizing God brings humility, which is not particularly comfortable...that is why many are still lost in their own sins. It's easier to keep doing those drugs then to face the problem.



Which means you admit to preferring the opposite; ignorance and illogic.


Yes, it is illogical for anyone to believe in God without seeing for themselves. You say I am illogical, and from your point of view, I agree with you. At the same time, I have evidence that would be illogical to discount as coincidence.

[jayleew]

Go back to being delusional? No thanks. There was never a "crossing over" it was more of a realization. Blame it on education, blame it on reason. Reason killed god, logic made him imposible.


Good point. And it is the same reason and logic that you can realize God with.


Thanks I've never been so honest until I became an atheist. I made a right step in the right direction, not by questioning the existence of this entity, but by realizing that I don't need a crutch to walk a straight path. I can walk on my own, my own volition, and my own set of values. Not that of an ancient religious rhetoric, of which the value it preaches, are the most broken.


Well, I have to respect you for your position. Myself, I strive for a perfect path. The most moral path. Sure, I'm a hypocrite at times...who isn't...and we all pay a price for our sins, regardless of if they are forgiven or not. That is why I need a savior, because a perfect life is impossible on our own volition.

[Godless]

Good point. And it is the same reason and logic that you can realize God with.

wrong! It is with "reason" that I became atheist. It's with logic that I killed him/her/it.

An Atheist Manifesto (http://www.truthdig.com/dig/item/200512_an_atheist_manifesto/)

Myself, I strive for a perfect path. The most moral path.

There's no such thing. Morality is subjective, morals are what drove me away from organised religion. Read your Christian history. What is moral about massacre of thousands of innocent people who denied your god? There's no morality in christianity. It's quite the opposite, and history has proven that.

That is why I need a savior, because a perfect life is impossible on our own volition.

I don't dwel in the posibility of a perfect life, I know that's just a fantacy made up to fool the masses of what organised religion can accomplish. It has been 2500 years and basically all we've seen from organised religion is wars, crusades, inquisitions, zealots like Kores, Rev Jim Johnes, Osama bin Ladden, Bush, Catholic preast who seduce children..Damn boy can't you see that there's no morality to your god or it's religion?


Godless

[Katazia]

Jayleew –

But, there comes a point when there are so many that are focused, building upon the same destiny, that there is only one logical conclusion. It would be unreasonable to think otherwise.And there lies, perhaps the real crux of the entire religious nightmare. What you claim as a major factor for your belief is a fundamental fallacy in logic. It is the idea that something must be true because so many others believe it. The oft quoted example of the flat Earth should give you some insight to the utter stupidity of your position. Or put another way; you believe because someone else believes and they believe because you believe. It is perfectly circular with no sign of truth at any aspect. In other words you admit to being little different to a mindless sheep.

Kat

[beyondtimeandspace]

Good answers BT&S. But some points contradict your previous assumptions of god, and some fallcies as well. Let's see how I do; lets try not to take over this thread like we once did ;)


Oh, I don't know... taking over the last thread was fun. :)


Correct me if I'm wrong but this assumption contradicts omnisciece, if an entity be omnisciet it's knowledge is already stablished, nothing new would arise, nothing to be learnt that is already known.

I will correct you. You are right, an omniscient entity's knowledge would already be established. "Arise" is a semantic that I'm limited by. They (God's actions and God's knowledge) "arise" from all eternity simultaneously. That is, both God's actions and God's knowledge have always been. As an eternal being, God's actions don't take place in a sequenced order, neither individually nor as a set. This is the nature of the holistic.


There's no such thing as two perfect acts to an all knowing being. It's one act which ever may be has to be perfect, no choice can be made between two, this would sugest that one act is more perfect than the other. The choice it makes has to be the better of the two.

I suppose this kind of depends on your definition of perfection. I do believe the Vexen link provided a good definition of perfection: completeness, wholeness, totality, fullness. Therefore, any action which is itself complete, can be said to be perfect. However, because actions necessarily arise from entities with natures, the action must also be complete with respect to the nature of the being performing it. Hence, any action, which is itself complete, with respect to the nature of God, would be perfect. In this sense alone would I agree that there can only be one action, GIVEN that God is the only conscious, freely-willing entity in existence. However, God is not, and thus there is interaction between God and these other conscious entities, which means that there may arise many actions that are perfect with respect to the nature of God, and with respect to the context of the engaged entity. However, of course, God's actions arise from eternity, and God is said to be pure act, which means that ALL of God's actions are performed form eternity, including that actions which are interactions with the temporal. At any rate, concerning God's action and free will, what you quoted was not my full answer to the question.

This assumption would limit the entity god, by having a free will similar to that of a mere human, this entity is nothing like human this would suggest it's characteristic be nothing like a human; thus it's incapable of free will such as ours...

Actually, God does not have a quality similar to humans (free will), but rather, humans have a quality similar to God. Will is a principle. Will is effect, which is also cause. Free will can be effect and cause, but can also be simply cause. God's free will is Cause only. For example, there is cosmic will (bear in mind that this is merely a term I made up to convey a specific idea(, but that will is not free, no choices are made, there is merely mechanical cause and effect relationships taking place. There is also limited free will. This is the kind of free will that humans have. It is not perfectly free, I don't think I need to demonstrate that. This means it can merely be effect and effective (causal), like cosmic will. However, because it is free, it also means that it can be also solely causal. That is, it can act according to its own deciding. Only an intelligent entity can do this. Only an intelligent entity can have free will. Furthermore, intelligence can only exist in a freely-willing entity. God's free will is perfect, unlimited. That is, God's will is causal only. It is not affected, and it does not act as a result of effect. Of course, this is how God is First Cause. God is purely holistic, with pure free will. The universe is purely sequential, with non-free will. Humans (and any intelligent creatures) are a blend of the two, partly holistic, partly sequential, with imperfect free will.


Then god did not create humans, nor the universe, nor anything that exists. If this entity be the creator of all, all it created even free will!.


See answer above. Free will is an intrinsic part of God's nature. Humans were created, and imbued with free will. However, God did not create free will when He created humans. If anything could be said, it would be that God created human free will, which is different than God's free will, being imperfect, rather than perfect. However, I wouldn't necessarily agree with this.

...furthermore I recall you mentioned we shouldn't think of "god" as an entity but some sort of spirit what have you; I recall telling you "that what you call god, is called nature on my part". (forgive my memory lapse) :(

I wouldn't think of God as a "being" as such (technically). God is furthermore, not a spirit, as such (ahh technicalities). However, when speaking of God it is easier to understand him as such. Just as in mathematics, it is easier to treat a very large number as infinity, merely for the sake of simplicity. However, just as in mathematics, it should be understood that we're not talking about a being, as such. Beings are created things, but more simply, beings are things. God is neither created, nor a thing, and thus not a being.

Existence, Identity and Consciousness are axioms of speech, which allow us to know with certainty that those three things are true. That is, all sentences acknowledge the fact that: A) Things exist (both statically and actively). B) Things have identity (specifically, specially and naturally). C) There is a consciousness that knows, understands, refers to those existing specifics. I say there are more than merely three axioms. Truth is an axiom, for example. Another axiom is intelligence. However, let's move on.

"I AM" is the name given to God for the exact reason that it contains specifically and ONLY those axioms. In saying "I AM" God declares (or, at the very least, as you would believe, humans declare this to be true of God) that He is existence (becuase He does not specify a particular way that He exists), He is identity (because He does not specify a particular form that He exists as), He is conscious (if not consciousness), and that He is truth (because the sentence itself is expected to be true, because it is the most basic truth that can be spoken by any conscious entity, and because it is the ultimate truth of reality in its simplest form, purely axiomatic).

The universe can be said to be existence (tentatively), can be said to have identity (but not to be identity), as a universal identity (containing all identities... again... tentatively), but cannot be said to be consciousness, cannot be said to be conscious, but can only be said to contain conscious entities. In this way, the universe itself cannot be said to be axiomatic. So, the point being made here is that what you call "nature" I do not call God. There is a distinguishment to be made, a subtle one, but an important one. Both God and the universe may be said to contain all principles of reality (tentatively), but only God can be said to BE all principles of reality.

[Godless]

Oh, I don't know... taking over the last thread was fun.

Yes indeed it was fun debating without the insults of difference of opinions. Though I do sometimes get overheated at plainly ingnorant discussions like the one on the "Masterbation is for loosers" thread. Oh! well and the fact that it's mostly allowable here to use ad-hominems and personal attacks on opinions makes it fun to build character and strengthen one's stance. :cool:

But then we find characters such as you who intellegently enough discuss in a good manner and one can see that your not a blithering idiot. That I enjoy.

So here goes my rebutal;

They (God's actions and God's knowledge) "arise" from all eternity simultaneously. That is, both God's actions and God's knowledge have always been.

Thus to me this means predetermined acts. i.e. if god's knowledge & actions have always been known to him, then the future is predetermined. So is it's will, and our will have been known to "god" from begining of time, thus to postulate an omniscient being contradicts free will, when this entity has full knowledge of what will occur from begining of time, then it can't change it's mind because to do so would render god not omniscient. With perfect knowledge means to me that it's consciousness had its mind set from begining of time thus the paradox Chris talks about. If omniscient being exists, no free will.


As an eternal being, God's actions don't take place in a sequenced order, neither individually nor as a set. This is the nature of the holistic.

This sounds like non-sequirtus to me, by reading it this entity can be at all times at the same time, and change it's mind accordingly to each situation in any frame of time. That's not logical, and it's certainly not a emperical observation of the nature of existence that a beign, which it's existence is questionable in the first place can do these outrageous feats. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary emperical proof (borrowing from Carl Sagan)

Only an intelligent entity can do this. Only an intelligent entity can have free will. Furthermore, intelligence can only exist in a freely-willing entity.

The only entity with consciousness known to man to do this is man himself.

The christian god, an entity with no identity of itself can't possibly posses intelegence. This is a contradiction to the law of identity. This entity has not shown itself to exist, it's mere existence has to be accepted as a matter of faith, and faith alone on the rhetoric of ancient nomads who created this god in the first place to give hope to its people that they were the chosen ones of this god. Their ingnorance was not to question this rhetoric, but accept without knowledge if the elders claims held water. Thus through traditional values bestowed upon its people the god concept has survived in humanity for better or worst.

That is, God's will is causal only. It is not affected, and it does not act as a result of effect. Of course, this is how God is First Cause.

The first cause argument has been shown many times to be fallacious.
I'll let the Infidels to rebutal this one for me here (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/cosmological.html).

Moving on;

The universe is purely sequential, with non-free will.

I don't think that the universe is sequential, thus no begining. But an eternally existent phenomena. Big Bang never happened (http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology-Big-Bang-Theory.htm)

A new theory has arised agaist the big bang, and this being the modern guy that I am, is more acceptable to me, than a point of origin to the universe. The big bang theory is an acceptable theory of theist, thus giving them further reason that an entity caused the universe to happen. The church has historically been wrong to accept theories it formally knows nothing about, nor study further and accept without emperical evidence. Thus the flat earth, was shown to be wrong, and the infamous geocentric vs heliocentric theory of which the church believed the earth to be the center of universe, and the sun revolve around us. Today we know different.

Existence, Identity and Consciousness are axioms of speech, which allow us to know with certainty that those three things are true. That is, all sentences acknowledge the fact that: A) Things exist (both statically and actively). B) Things have identity (specifically, specially and naturally). C) There is a consciousness that knows, understands, refers to those existing specifics. I say there are more than merely three axioms. Truth is an axiom, for example. Another axiom is intelligence. However, let's move on.

I agree that existence, identity & consciousness are axioms. Truth is subjective thus not an axiom, intelligence is not an axiom but a study of epistemology, intelligence is sought out, learnt, gathered, but not an axiom to the true meaning of the word.

An axiom is an irreducible primary. It doesn't rest upon anything in order to be valid, and it cannot be proven by any "more basic" premises. A true axiom can not be refuted because the act of trying to refute it requires that very axiom as a premise. An attempt to contradict an axiom can only end in a contradiction. click (http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Axiom.html)

"I AM" is the name given to God for the exact reason that it contains specifically and ONLY those axioms. In saying "I AM" God declares (or, at the very least, as you would believe, humans declare this to be true of God) that He is existence (becuase He does not specify a particular way that He exists), He is identity (because He does not specify a particular form that He exists as), He is conscious (if not consciousness), and that He is truth (because the sentence itself is expected to be true, because it is the most basic truth that can be spoken by any conscious entity, and because it is the ultimate truth of reality in its simplest form, purely axiomatic).

The bible was writen by primitive men, their mentality was undergoing a mental evolution, thus the mind was becoming self aware. "I Am" is a formal way of saying I exist as an idividual. Moses I think was not only delusional but also schizophrenic, thus it was only his imagination were he heard the voice say. I am it was his self consciousness that he heard. The little voice inside everyone's head. You know by now I refer to Dr. Julian Jaynes theory of origins of consciousness.

I'll finish this latter, as I've got to brush up on some details to my next post. Ok!.

Godless

[TW Scott]

wrong! It is with "reason" that I became atheist. It's with logic that I killed him/her/it.

An Atheist Manifesto (http://www.truthdig.com/dig/item/200512_an_atheist_manifesto/)

Okay here is logic for you. If there is no God why is the no Major civilization that doesn't beleive in gods? And using the line about explaining the unexplainable and societal control do not work. If there was no God there would have been one civilization that did not believe in gods.


There's no such thing. Morality is subjective, morals are what drove me away from organised religion. Read your Christian history. What is moral about massacre of thousands of innocent people who denied your god? There's no morality in christianity. It's quite the opposite, and history has proven that.

don't dwel in the posibility of a perfect life, I know that's just a fantacy made up to fool the masses of what organised religion can accomplish. It has been 2500 years and basically all we've seen from organised religion is wars, crusades, inquisitions, zealots like Kores, Rev Jim Johnes, Osama bin Ladden, Bush, Catholic preast who seduce children..Damn boy can't you see that there's no morality to your god or it's religion?


Godless[/QUOTE]

Classic Strawman, people waged wars, they may have used a perverted view on religious beliefs, but it was still people. according to your observations I would have to believe all Atheists are child molesting murderers because I have heard of a few who were. See how ridiculous that sounds.

Religion has also given us comfort in times of great upheaval and peril. Religion makes the common people better. It gives them the answers science can not. Belief in a supreme being is a common thread that ties all our cultures together. It may not be the same being, but the idea is the same. People have known for millenia that there has to be something else beyond what our feeble minds can comprehend. What's so hard to understand about that.

[Godless]

Okay here is logic for you. If there is no God why is the no Major civilization that doesn't beleive in gods?

Study anthropology this will give you the answer you seek. Ingnorance of the unknown created the idea of gods. The god did it factor. I can't explain it therefore god did it!. There has been throughout human history hundreds of gods which explains the evolutionary steps to self realization. God's take an anthropormophic atributes ascribed by humans to something they have no evidence for. Furthermore this fallacious argument of the many believing in fary tale don't make them right. The earth was found not to be flat as the many believed, and not the center of the universe as so many believed as well. thus the many dont make it so.

Nuf logic for ya?

Classic Strawman, people waged wars, they may have used a perverted view on religious beliefs, but it was still people.

Correct advocates of a non-existent entity to manipulate the masses to commit atrocities. This is not strawman but fact!. Read your history.

Talk about pervertion, read your own freaking bible as well. Start here (http://www.evilbible.com/BiblicalIntolerance.htm)

Religion has also given us comfort in times of great upheaval and peril.

False hopes.

Religion makes the common people better.

Go to your county jail, and ask how many there believe in god! :eek:

Belief in a supreme being is a common thread that ties all our cultures together.

Nonsese our cultures are at each other's throat there's no commonality in their beliefs and the zealots actually murder, promote wars, and even rape children. Catholic preasts. What a shame you still believe in this rhetorical bull shit!.

People have known for millenia that there has to be something else beyond what our feeble minds can comprehend.

The only one here to have shown a feeble mind is YOU! :bugeye:

Godless

[Jenyar]

Study anthropology this will give you the answer you seek. Ingnorance of the unknown created the idea of gods. The god did it factor. I can't explain it therefore god did it! There has been throughout human history hundreds of gods which explains the evolutionary steps to self realization. God's take an anthropormophic atributes ascribed by humans to something they have no evidence for. Furthermore this fallacious argument of the many believing in fary tale don't make them right. The earth was found not to be flat as the many believed, and not the center of the universe as so many believed as well. thus the many dont make it so.

Nuf logic for ya?
And modern man just happens to be "enlightened"? If all cultures developed gods to explain away what they couldn't, how do you explain human progress? Or do you think it's only unbelievers who enquired further?

Here's a theory I did find in anthropology. Civilizations that believed in an intelligent Creator could imagine an ordered universe - one that made sense even though the sense wasn't immediately apparent - as opposed to a random chaotic universe that operates on chance. That prompted them to look for the underlying sense and structure, to find out what God did and try to understand discrepancies like suffering and death. Cultures whose gods resembled nature and refelcted every human quality (i.e. only the immediately apparent) could not fathom that there would be more than there seemed to be, and didn't "civilize" correspondingly. These cultures might have developed great skills and craft (the god of wine blessed the good winemaker etc.), but no deep science, no unified theories.

[Godless]

Here's a theory I did find in anthropology. Civilizations that believed in an intelligent Creator could imagine an ordered universe

Well this is a rationalization; If you would have searched further you would know that today, we know that our universe is not an ordered existence but a chaotic existence. click (http://www.icra.it/Research_area/research_area2.htm)

That prompted them to look for the underlying sense and structure, to find out what God did and try to understand discrepancies like suffering and death. Cultures whose gods resembled nature and refelcted every human quality (i.e. only the immediately apparent) could not fathom that there would be more than there seemed to be, and didn't "civilize" correspondingly.

Like Christianity who opposed reason, and history proves us through the "Dark Ages" when church had complete political power, and human advancement became almost at a hult. Read your godamn history! man... :rolleyes:

how do you explain human progress

Read and learn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance)

Dark Ages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages)

Glad to be of service read a little will ya.

Godless

[nameless]

Logic and reason (of which, there appear to be a couple of inherently fatal errors in the original proposition BTW), will and can only take this so far;

"The brain "tends to search for and hold onto the most rewarding view of events, much as it does of objects," -www.edge.org. "It is much more rewarding to attribute death to God's will, and to see in disasters hints of the hand of God." The "most rewarding view" not the most logical!

"We humans are naturally gullible — disbelieving requires an extraordinary expenditure of energy. It is a limited resource. I suggest ranking the skepticism by its consequences on our lives. True, the dangers of organized religion used to be there — but they have been gradually replaced with considerably ruthless and unintrospective social-science ideology." - http://www.edge.org/

[Godless]

True, the dangers of organized religion used to be there — but they have been gradually replaced with considerably ruthless and unintrospective social-science ideology."

The only thing that made organised religion not so dangerous is the fact that they hold no political power, at least on this hemisphere of the earth. However the dangers of organised religion still exists, just by looking at the M.E. were zealots Islamic radicals comit suicide in public places with the hope of taking as many innocence with them, believing they are bound to be in heaven after their sacrifice.

On another note as well, the psychologicaly damage done to patrons who have false hopes, and foisted quilt complex from organised religion gradually become mentaly disturbed with delusion and in rare instances schizophrenic.

click ref. (http://www.smw.ch/archive200x/2004/25/smw-10322.html)

Godless

[Mythbuster]

"A believer is a bird in a cage. A freethinker is an eagle parting the clouds with tireless wing."

[Godless]

The rest of my rebutal;
The universe can be said to be existence (tentatively), can be said to have identity (but not to be identity), as a universal identity (containing all identities... again... tentatively), but cannot be said to be consciousness, cannot be said to be conscious, but can only be said to contain conscious entities.

The universe is part of an existence, the only identity to the universe is that we know it's there, I agree that the universe is an inanimate phenomenon with no cosnciousness and that there exists beings which evolved into consciousness. However the universe since it contains our being and we exists with it, it's an axiom. Unless you were to contradict that we don't exist in this universe. (So, the point being made here is that what you call "nature" I do not call God.) OK.

Both God and the universe may be said to contain all principles of reality (tentatively), but only God can be said to BE all principles of reality.

That my friend is certainly an extreme assumption.

Consciousness exists as a specific type of existent with a specific identity. To claim that it does any thing other than what we see it doing is completely arbitrary and without merit. Making the claim "existence requires consciousness" is as valid as the claim "existence requires this table" or "existence requires a large maple tree." - arbitrary, without any basis in reality, without any evidence, and also quite absurd.
Interdependence Theory (http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Mystical_InterdependenceTheory.html)

The accepted notion of a god, is that it's a primacy of consciousness. This is a canard.
*(The primacy of consciousness theory asserts that consciousness somehow creates reality. Sometimes it takes the form of a divine consciousness that creates reality, and sometimes it takes the form of each individual consciousness creating their own personal reality.

In either case, there is a contradiction. To be conscious is to be aware (of something.)

One can not be aware without something to be aware of. In other words, a consciousness without anything to be conscious of is not a consciousness. Nor can a consciousness be aware of itself and claim to be independent of existence, because if a consciousness is aware of itself, then it must itself exist and be an existent.*
click (http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Mystical_PrimacyOfConsciousness.html)

Godless

[Godless]

**"A believer is a bird in a cage. A freethinker is an eagle parting the clouds with tireless wing." **

I like this guy! ;)

[nameless]

"A believer is a bird in a cage. A freethinker is an eagle parting the clouds with tireless wing."
Beautifully said.
Regarding 'tireless', though;
We humans are naturally gullible — disbelieving requires an extraordinary expenditure of energy. It is a limited resource.
perhaps 'mighty' instead of tireless? well thew'd? relentless? IRON!
"I Am the Ankh! I Am the Bird with Iron Feathers!"
Ahhh the power of poetry!

[beyondtimeandspace]

Thus to me this means predetermined acts. i.e. if god's knowledge & actions have always been known to him, then the future is predetermined. So is it's will, and our will have been known to "god" from begining of time, thus to postulate an omniscient being contradicts free will, when this entity has full knowledge of what will occur from begining of time, then it can't change it's mind because to do so would render god not omniscient. With perfect knowledge means to me that it's consciousness had its mind set from begining of time thus the paradox Chris talks about. If omniscient being exists, no free will.

You're still missing the point. Yes, God knows everything at the beginning of time. Yes, God can never change His mind. Yes, God has full knowledge of what is occurring. Yes, God's mind is set from the beginning of time. Yes, I understand the paradox of the language I'm using between past and present tenses. I'm doing that purposely.

Here is a way to consider it:

There are possible worlds and there are actual worlds. The actual worlds are what are. Time is the sequenced movement between actual worlds. What determines what possible worlds are actual, is choice. There are two kinds of entities. The holistic and the sequenced. Sequenced entities experience actual worlds sequentially. Holistic entities experience actual worlds holistically. Hence, the sequenced entities experience actual worlds one at a time, in sequence, while holistic entities experience actual worlds simultaneously, holistically.

Aristotle made this distinction when he defined the two infinities: actual infinity and potential infinity. An actual infinite is a complete set, it is perfect, holistic. A potential infinite is an incomplete set, and tends toward the infinite, thus operating by sequence. Really, the universe is potentially infinite. It operates in sequence, or time. Moving from one possibility, or possible world, to the next, probably endlessly. It is impossible for an actual infinite to exist within the universe, as is clear because of the many contradictions that arise. The universe itself is actually not a thing that can be talked about. Things exist in the universe, but "universe" is actually merely a conceptual categorization of reality. That is, it is the sum of existing things. Thus, we can say it is potentially infinite, sequential, since all existing things are in a constant state of flux.

Since the universe, itself, is merely a categorization, and not a specific thing, but contains things, it can be said that it has had a beginning. This is because all things have beginning. If the universe is a summation of existing things, and all things have beginning, then the universe also had a beginning. While one may argue that energy/matter has always existed, and therefore the universe has always existed, that could only be true if you argued that the universe is the summation of energy/matter. This I might go along with, though I find it interesting that many people argue that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, and yet other people say that in a vaccuum matter appears to pop into existence from nowhere. I say the matter isn't closed yet.

However, moving on. All things have beginning, so whether you wish to argue that the universe is infinitely old based on the energy/matter argument, you must still recognize the fact that things have beginning. Thus it stands to reason that some force caused things to come into being. You're left with two options: 1. The energy/matter itself has consciousness and caused itself to form things. 2. There is some outside intelligent force that caused matter/energy to form into things. Or, I suppose you could also simply reject the statement that there was an origin to things and say that things, like matter/energy have always existed.

However, no matter what stand you take, you're lacking in empirical evidence, thus to hold a position one way or the other means you're asserting a stance based on purely on abstract logic. You, of course, will argue that there is not empirical evidence for a conscious universe, nor empirical evidence for a conscious extra-universal being, thus your stance is more logical. However, I would argue that it seems contradictory to say that a universe of things, all of which have beginning, did not have beginning. I would argue that it seems contradictory to say that a universe that operates on the principle of cause and effect didn't have an original cause. Others might argue that the universe did have a beginning, but that it has had many beginnings and operates on another universal principle of cycles, and thus, though having many beginnings (and endings), is itself infinitely old. Some would argue that it is cyclic, but that it did have a beginning, and that the cycles are births and deaths of the universe, but merely universal cycles along an endlessly spiralling time-line.

In the end, what we're left with are theories, all drawing from what we know and experience. What matters, what makes one person take one stance over another, is his own personal experiences. You, for example, find it necessary to have empirical evidence otherwise you won't believe it to be true. I am someone who doesn't put so much emphasis on empirical evidence, but do consider it very important. What we both share in common is our devotion to logic, because no matter what stance we take, we both recognize that humans are intelligent creatures for whom it is fully natural and good to make use of. Thus, for people like you and I, it is immoral to disregard the use of the mind. However, I would hope that you recognize that the mind operates both logically and intuitively (again, this duality of sequence and holism). Thus, while I am devoted to logic, I do accept intuition as a viable source of knowledge. This is why I do not place extreme emphasis on empirical evidence, because though intuition also makes use of the evidence it is presented with, it is the logical mind that desires to examine every bit of it, so as to understand each step in the process of reaching the conclusion.

Thus, because I choose to make the stand that there exists a first cause, a universal beginning, an actual infinite, a purely holistic reality, an eternal, I must understand the meaning of such a stance as certainly as I can. Those attributes that I then attribute to this actual infinite are logical progressions, logical results of attempting to understand that reality. Yes, they do seem paradoxical, but that is because when trying to understand them, most people approach the matter as though they were considering a temporal reality, something belonging to sequence, to the universe. This is the error.

If there is an holistic reality, then all of reality already exists: past, present and future. This is because past, present and future are merely categories utilized by the logical mind, within a logical or sequential setting. Some would say that this definitely means predestination. However, predestination implies a predestinator. What, or who, was the predestinator? It cannot be said to be knowledge, since knowledge does not determine what is, knowledge only recognizes what is. If God knows all of time, from all eternity, then it is not God's knowledge that has determined all of time, God's knowledge is only a recognition of what is. Thus, to say that God is omniscient, is to say that all of time already is, already exists, but it says nothing more.

What then is the predeterminator? Could you argue that the first cause was the predeterminator, since then everything following that is an indirect result of it, thus making God the predeterminator (assuming one holds God as the first cause)? If so, then you have already assumed that humans do not have free will, as we have no ability to alter the course set by the first cause.

What then is the predeterminator? I answer that there is no predeterminator. Rather, what is, is determined by choice. Thus, humans are responsible for reality as it is (at least after humans came into existence). Thus, while I say, I am existing now, and my choices will determine a small part of the future, what I'm really saying is that the choices I make now, are what have determined the future that already exists. Then, one might say that the future is predetermined, but only as far as it is individuals, us, you and I, who determine(d) it.

This keeps both human free will in tact, the eternality and unchangability of God in tact, as well as His omniscience.

...ancient nomads who created this god in the first place to give hope to its people that they were the chosen ones of this god. Their ingnorance was not to question this rhetoric, but accept without knowledge if the elders claims held water.

That is was created by those nomads is assumptive, along with the reasons you ascribe to that creation.

The first cause argument has been shown many times to be fallacious.

Fallacious in what way? I've read the rebuttle. Aquinas never claims the first cause argument to be a proof. He merely says that it is a good reason for believing in a God. As for the "possibly multiple first causes" (or multiple gods) argument, I've already indicated why that wouldn't be the case. I've set up reality with a basic duality, the incomplete and the complete, the partial and the whole, the imperfect and the perfect, the logical and the intuitive, the sequential and the holistic, the potentially infinite and the actually infinite, the temporal and the eternal. The nature of the actual infinite, as a first cause to the potential infinite is such that it can only allow for the singular, rather than the plural. There can not have been multiple "gods" as they would all have been eternal, actually infinite, perfect, complete, etc.. and thus all identical and unified, effectively making them a single unit, rather than a group.

Concerning the need for an origin of God, again, the duality of the real should be explanation enough. If the God is eternal, and unchanging, then all of existence is eternal. Thus, though the universe had a beginning, it has also always existed. The reason the universe logically needs a beginning is because things have beginning, sequence also has beginning. Holistic existence could not have a beginning, because that would imply that it is not holistic, but rather incomplete, imperfect. Because the universe changes, it can be seen to not be complete, holistic, actually infinite. It is sequenced, tending toward the infinite, potentially infinite. I do not say that the universe has a beginning because it needs explanation. I say it has a beginning because that is its nature. God does not have a beginning because that is the nature of God.


I don't think that the universe is sequential, thus no begining. But an eternally existent phenomena.

I believe reality is eternal, but the universe, as the sum of existing things, must necessarily be temporal, sequential. I don't know how you could possibly deny this. But please, I'd like to hear your argument (sorry, didn't read the link before writing this. I might take a look when I'm done).

The bible was writen by primitive men, their mentality was undergoing a mental evolution, thus the mind was becoming self aware. "I Am" is a formal way of saying I exist as an idividual. Moses I think was not only delusional but also schizophrenic, thus it was only his imagination were he heard the voice say. I am it was his self consciousness that he heard. The little voice inside everyone's head. You know by now I refer to Dr. Julian Jaynes theory of origins of consciousness.

This is conjecture, so I'm not going to say anything concerning it. I'll let the issue of axioms and the "I AM" drop for now, for the sake of staying on topic. The topic, of course, being the contension that omniscience precludes free will.

[beyondtimeandspace]

The rest of my rebutal;

The accepted notion of a god, is that it's a primacy of consciousness. This is a canard.
*(The primacy of consciousness theory asserts that consciousness somehow creates reality. Sometimes it takes the form of a divine consciousness that creates reality, and sometimes it takes the form of each individual consciousness creating their own personal reality.

In either case, there is a contradiction. To be conscious is to be aware (of something.)

One can not be aware without something to be aware of. In other words, a consciousness without anything to be conscious of is not a consciousness. Nor can a consciousness be aware of itself and claim to be independent of existence, because if a consciousness is aware of itself, then it must itself exist and be an existent.*
click (http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Mystical_PrimacyOfConsciousness.html)

Godless

Accepted. My rebuttle:

God's consciousness and being arise eternally simultanseously. Thus, God has always been aware of Himself. Moreover, all of existence has existed eternally, thus God has always been aware of existence. At the same time, God's actions also arise simultaneously with His consciousness and being, this including God's creative actions. Thus God's being, God's consciousness, God's creative actions, and God's creation (existence aside from His own being), all arise simultaneously, eternally.

As for the primacy of consciousness. That primacy only exists in regards to the existence of His creations, not His own existence. If we were to align God temporally (and this, of course is going to be problematic, but just for the sake of understanding), God exists, God is conscious of Himself, God is conscious of all possibility, God chooses, God acts, God creates, Universal Existence begins. Anyway, God is eternal, not temporal, so all of these things occur at once, eternally.

[Jenyar]

Well this is a rationalization; If you would have searched further you would know that today, we know that our universe is not an ordered existence but a chaotic existence. click (http://www.icra.it/Research_area/research_area2.htm)
And yet we had to delve through an incredibly ordered system to find that out. So ordered that we could even predict the existence of elements that had never been found. That a chaotic system could harbour so much order on the surface is something that physicists are still working on. Why are they still working on it? Because they're convinced there's an explanation, something to understand.

Like Christianity who opposed reason, and history proves us through the "Dark Ages" when church had complete political power, and human advancement became almost at a hult. Read your godamn history! man... :rolleyes:
Did you even read your own links?
Most modern historians dismiss the notion that the era was a "Dark Age" by pointing out that this idea was based on ignorance of the period combined with popular stereotypes: many previous authors would simply assume that the era was a dismal time of violence and stagnation and use this assumption to prove itself.
...
Ironically, while Petrarch's concept of a "Dark Age" corresponded to a mostly "Christian" period following pagan Rome, the neutral use of the term today applies mainly to those cultures least Christianized, and thus most sparsely covered by the Church's historians.
...
In modern times, the term "Dark Ages" is still used in popular culture. Petrarch's ideological campaign to paint the Middle Ages in a negative light worked so well that "Dark Ages" is still in popular use nearly 700 years later.

[jayleew]

wrong! It is with "reason" that I became atheist. It's with logic that I killed him/her/it.

An Atheist Manifesto (http://www.truthdig.com/dig/item/200512_an_atheist_manifesto/)




I agree with you that logic does kill the existence of God. I know what that's like. I know what it's like to defy your reason to be a believer. It sucks....it's unnatural. It is lunacy to be unreasonable. What I am saying is that when God proves himself, you don't have any other choice than to believe because of the reasons he reveals. I only wish you could understand, but you must experience God for me to prove him. I know you have at some point, but logic has killed God. And the thing is, God will not reveal himself to those who do not need God.


There's no such thing. Morality is subjective, morals are what drove me away from organised religion. Read your Christian history. What is moral about massacre of thousands of innocent people who denied your god? There's no morality in christianity. It's quite the opposite, and history has proven that.


You're right. Morality is subjective. History has proven that people are the opposite of moral, regardless of being a Christian or not. Christianity, and the teachings of Christ, are the true way to live. Humility, peace, and love are the primary qualities.

Massacre of thousands of innocent people? Which event are you referring to? If morality is subjective, then why is that not a moral action? It depends on the circumstance, doesn't it? We also must define innocent.

When I said, "moral" I did not mean morality like right and wrong. I mean the most pure way to live. An unadulterated life of love, peace, and harmony that ends in the best situation for all parties involved. A combination of utlitarian morality and something else...


I don't dwel in the posibility of a perfect life, I know that's just a fantacy made up to fool the masses of what organised religion can accomplish. It has been 2500 years and basically all we've seen from organised religion is wars, crusades, inquisitions, zealots like Kores, Rev Jim Johnes, Osama bin Ladden, Bush, Catholic preast who seduce children..Damn boy can't you see that there's no morality to your god or it's religion?


Morality is subjective. Nobody's perfect. Nobody gets a free pass.

My God is merciful and loving, but morality is subjective. For instance, I don't think the Isrealites thought God was very moral when they were being swallowed up by the Earth. Nor did Sodom think God was moral when they were destroyed with Brimstone. Nor did the people think God was moral when it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, and all but Noah and his family were drowned. Who is to say what is moral? The maker of the universe offers only the best solution for all in every situation.

Anything which follows God's commands is moral. That's not to say that anyone who follows God is moral, but if they are in fact following God (and not just proclaiming it), it is moral. Killing is a moral act if God commands it. Except, that is usually not the best solution to problems and not a concept Jesus condones. There is only one time that I can remember that God asked a group to kill. He was punishing the Isrealites and allowed an invasion. Then, after that, the army that invaded was punished because they didn't kill by God's command.

[jayleew]

Jayleew –

And there lies, perhaps the real crux of the entire religious nightmare. What you claim as a major factor for your belief is a fundamental fallacy in logic. It is the idea that something must be true because so many others believe it. The oft quoted example of the flat Earth should give you some insight to the utter stupidity of your position. Or put another way; you believe because someone else believes and they believe because you believe. It is perfectly circular with no sign of truth at any aspect. In other words you admit to being little different to a mindless sheep.

Kat

Yo, I didn't mean people. There is no one on this Earth that is able to prove God's existence to anyone, and anyone who believes just because the pastor on Sunday preaches, is being set up for a fall. I WAS a mindless sheep. When reason came in, I stopped believing in God, but I did have a hope. And through time and many different experiences, God proved himself. Sure, I have doubts of God because I am naturally a skeptic, but I also don't have a choice but to believe because of my experiences of God.

Jayleew:But, there comes a point when there are so many that are focused, building upon the same destiny, that there is only one logical conclusion. It would be unreasonable to think otherwise.

I meant so many experiences.

If it smells like a pig and looks like a pig, that doesn't mean it's a pig. But, if it smells like a pig, looks like a pig, weighs approximately like a pig, eats what a pig eats, sounds like a pig, tastes like a pig, etc. It's more than likely a pig.

There are so many experiences I've had, so many coincidences, that are focused, building upon the same destiny, that there is only one logical conclusion. It would be unreasonable to think otherwise.

[jayleew]

"A believer is a bird in a cage. A freethinker is an eagle parting the clouds with tireless wing."

Critical thinking is an important part of life. I am sure we all have felt the negative effects of gullibility. But, at what point does a "freethinker" believe in anything? Should they?

[jayleew]

You're still missing the point. Yes, God knows everything at the beginning of time. Yes, God can never change His mind.

God saw the sinful acts of the Isrealites and told Moses that he would destroy all of them and make a new nation of Moses. God planned to do that. Then, Moses petitioned to God to spare them, and that God ought to kill him too if he was going to kill the Isrealites. Then, God changed his mind. He said, very well, for your sake I will not destroy them. God knows all hearts and all powerful. He has all the gifts, including prophecy. But that instance right there proves many things about God, but definitely is an example of him changing his mind.




Since the universe, itself, is merely a categorization, and not a specific thing, but contains things, it can be said that it has had a beginning. This is because all things have beginning. If the universe is a summation of existing things, and all things have beginning, then the universe also had a beginning. While one may argue that energy/matter has always existed, and therefore the universe has always existed, that could only be true if you argued that the universe is the summation of energy/matter. This I might go along with, though I find it interesting that many people argue that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, and yet other people say that in a vaccuum matter appears to pop into existence from nowhere. I say the matter isn't closed yet.

If energy has always existed, how can there be a beginning to life? Life has not always existed, therefore energy has not always existed.

I think Moses meant that God created energy the first day, because light as we know it was created on the fourth day.


I believe reality is eternal, but the universe, as the sum of existing things, must necessarily be temporal, sequential. I don't know how you could possibly deny this. But please, I'd like to hear your argument (sorry, didn't read the link before writing this. I might take a look when I'm done).


Good point.

[Sarkus]

If energy has always existed, how can there be a beginning to life? Life has not always existed, therefore energy has not always existed.
LOL! Genius comment! :D
How did you reach these conclusions?

[jayleew]

LOL! Genius comment! :D
How did you reach these conclusions?

Think about it before you hastily read and respond to surface arguments. Why didn't energy create life an infinite number of years ago, since energy is infinite? On the same token, if energy is eternal, how could the universe have a beginning? If if the universe is eternal, why isn't the Earth eternal?

[Mythbuster]

Think about it before you hastily read and respond to surface arguments. Why didn't energy create life an infinite number of years ago, since energy is infinite? On the same token, if energy is eternal, how could the universe have a beginning? If if the universe is eternal, why isn't the Earth eternal?

Arguments like these contradict evolution.

[ArtofWar]

Think about it before you hastily read and respond to surface arguments. Why didn't energy create life an infinite number of years ago, since energy is infinite? On the same token, if energy is eternal, how could the universe have a beginning? If if the universe is eternal, why isn't the Earth eternal?

Because the Earth will one day Transfer it's energy beyond it's mean and therefore living out it's end. Planets live and they die, some planets never host life, does that mean that they never lived? The bottom-line is that energy in form is inevitable to change, but that does not constitute the idea of energy no longer existing.

[jayleew]

Because the Earth will one day Transfer it's energy beyond it's mean and therefore living out it's end. Planets live and they die, some planets never host life, does that mean that they never lived? The bottom-line is that energy in form is inevitable to change, but that does not constitute the idea of energy no longer existing.

But, if the universe did not have a beginning, how could any planet exist? What I mean is that if energy is eternal, it has been around forever. If that is so, then there should be an infinite number of Earth's and alien lifeforms. Because of that, life has been around for an infinite number of years. Our current evidence doesn't support this theory because we can age everything around us, so either we lack evidence, or the theory that energy is has always been around is false. If you say we lack evidence, that is like me telling you there is a God and not providing any evidence and telling you that you haven't found it yet.

[fess]

If god exists in the popular form, then it is all-powerful, all-knowing, eternal. yada, yada. Being god, it cannot be subject to any laws, such as logic or reason. If it was, then those laws would be greater that it.
So, god is not subject to logic & reason, so therte is no point in talking about it since it's nature would be totally unpredictable and thus unknowable.

[(Q)]

Our current evidence doesn't support this theory because we can age everything around us, so either we lack evidence, or the theory that energy is has always been around is false.

You are right, energy has not always been around.

[ArtofWar]

But, if the universe did not have a beginning, how could any planet exist? What I mean is that if energy is eternal, it has been around forever. If that is so, then there should be an infinite number of Earth's and alien lifeforms. Because of that, life has been around for an infinite number of years. Our current evidence doesn't support this theory because we can age everything around us, so either we lack evidence, or the theory that energy is has always been around is false. If you say we lack evidence, that is like me telling you there is a God and not providing any evidence and telling you that you haven't found it yet.

Not sure what you mean. Planets exist through constant formation or configuration of smaller particles that create an even larger entity. Who says that a planet in it's curent state is at its apex?

Our current evidence doesn't support this theory because we can age everything around us, so either we lack evidence, or the theory that energy is has always been around is false.

things age in their current form but does that mean that their energy has aged? No it does not! Scientists state that all matter in our universe is 6-8 Bill years of age, which means your new born of two weeks consists of 6 bill year old matter. That being said they are only talking about matter that was created during or after the galaxy was created not the energy in iteself!

So simply stated under the conservation of energy rule, you are as old as the universe which is into infinity. So therefore you do not age perpetualy, because for you there was no 'real' begining.

[jayleew]

Our current evidence doesn't support this theory because we can age everything around us, so either we lack evidence, or the theory that energy is has always been around is false.

You are right, energy has not always been around.

I agree with that, but for other reasons.

Do you have any scientific proof because the law of conservation of energy says that energy is conserved in a system such as the universe. For it to have been conserved, that means it would have always had to existed, because energy exists.

[(Q)]

For it to have been conserved, that means it would have always had to existed, because energy exists.

We would have to know whether or not energy existed before the big bang. But, that would be meaningless to us because energy was created from the big bang.

[jayleew]

Not sure what you mean. Planets exist through constant formation or configuration of smaller particles that create an even larger entity. Who says that a planet in it's curent state is at its apex?



things age in their current form but does that mean that their energy has aged? No it does not! Scientists state that all matter in our universe is 6-8 Bill years of age, which means your new born of two weeks consists of 6 bill year old matter. That being said they are only talking about matter that was created during or after the galaxy was created not the energy in iteself!

So simply stated under the conservation of energy rule, you are as old as the universe which is into infinity. So therefore you do not age perpetualy, because for you there was no 'real' begining.

If the universe is infinitely old, there should be an infinite number of life supporting planets, and life on other planets. We have found neither, yet. How can we say the universe is 6-8 billion years old and that energy is constant. If there was only energy before the universe, then how long did energy exist before the universe? Do you understand what I'm saying? If energy was around infinitely before the universe, then what in the heck caused the universe to exist if energy was perfectly happy by itself for an infinite number of years.

I am disputing the notion that energy always existed, but doing a poor job about it. Perhaps Q can help.

IMO, energy is constant today, but was not always constant, and it is illogical to believe that something can come from nothing. If energy has always been constant, then the universe is infinitely old, and there should be abundant life forms on other planets.

[ArtofWar]

I agree with that, but for other reasons.

Do you have any scientific proof because the law of conservation of energy says that energy is conserved in a system such as the universe. For it to have been conserved, that means it would have always had to existed, because energy exists.

I believe you just answered your own question. The universe exists because of the rules of attraction. the same rules that apply here on earth on the micro bio level. Before matter assembled to form an absolute body and exploded into the universe as we know it, matter just aimlessly existed or not. this is why some scientists belive that the universe will contract and expand continuously and not forever Accelerate as many others believe including Albert Einstein who concluded this in his 4th theory of relativity before scrapping it.

[jayleew]

For it to have been conserved, that means it would have always had to existed, because energy exists.

We would have to know whether or not energy existed before the big bang. But, that would be meaningless to us because energy was created from the big bang.

I hate to dig up old bones, but why does the Christian god not fit the big bang theory? What could cause the creation of energy that resulted in a universe, and by chance, life?

[c7ityi_]

But, that would be meaningless to us because energy was created from the big bang.

yay, energy from nothingness just like that!! typical to ye physicists, ye make theories but no explanation.

How can we say the universe is 6-8 billion years old and that energy is constant.

if you're stupid, it's possible to say anything!

If there was only energy before the universe, then how long did energy exist before the universe? Do you understand what I'm saying?

yes, you just showed that the big bang theory is a big joke and you're right.

IMO, energy is constant today, but was not always constant, and it is illogical to believe that something can come from nothing.

if you study this "something" you call the universe, you'll realize that it consists of "nothing" (infinity and stuff), so no wonder you can get something from nothing. infact, the universe is created in the presence rather than in the past. the "creation" is continuous, like a tv broadcast, it allows the picture to be there.

[KennyJC]

I hate to dig up old bones, but why does the Christian god not fit the big bang theory? What could cause the creation of energy that resulted in a universe, and by chance, life?

Have you read the bible?

If Christians have burried their heads in the sand and taken on 2,000 year old wisdom and discared todays knowledge, then the Christian God is not compatible with what we have discovered about the universe so far.

I know the people that wrote the bible did not have the technology we have today, but Christians need to decide if we are to take their philosophy as truth, or if they want to change/modernize their views of God.

Since Christians don't keep slaves despite the fact the bible says so, I'm guessing you have already modernized to some degree, yet still hold on to the fact the Earth is 6,000 years old, Adam and Eve and 7 day creation.

At it's core fundamental roots, the Christian God can not possibly exist. So that raises the question if modernized Christianity is still the same thing. Certainly, the more time that passes and the more we learn, Christianity will continue to seem all the more redundant.

[KennyJC]

I just think, whenever I hear a Christian championing the existence of A God... they are not necessarily making a good case in describing the existence of their own God.

[Mythbuster]

Here's another paradox:

God exists in everywhere, yet can't be found in anywhere. A multiplying zero with infinity.

[Godless]

yay, energy from nothingness just like that!! typical to ye physicists, ye make theories but no explanation.

Yay a god from nothingness just like that!! typical to ye theists ye make theoris but no explanation!. :bugeye:

Godless

[jay_7]

Yay a god from nothingness just like that!! typical to ye theists ye make theoris but no explanation!. :bugeye:

Godless

This universe isnt outside time, God is.. how many times will we go threw this. Hmm.... 50 times?

[Godless]

When scientist theorized the BB theory. The church was oppose to it. But Christian scientists embraced it as a point of origin. Their bible god said let their be light. This they postulate was what started the big-bang to occur.

However the BB theory is estimated to have occured about 20 billion years ago. This is in contradiction to new renegade scientist findings.

**Spherical Universe within an Infinite Eternal Space.
Very briefly, matter, as Spherical Standing Waves, determines the size of our finite spherical universe within an infinite Space. Huygens' Principle explains how other matter's out waves combine to form our matter's spherical In-Waves, which then deduces both Mach's Principle and the redshift with distance (without assuming Doppler shifts due to an expanding universe - thus there was no Big Bang).
This also explains how matter interacts with all other matter in the universe (why we can see stars) as matter is the size of the universe, though we only 'see' the high wave amplitude wave-centers / 'particles'.
Finally, I wish to emphasize that the work contained in these essays is very important (as theories of the Cosmos also affect the rest of human knowledge and also tend to affect the attitudes of Society), and are the genuine and sincere work of intelligent and knowledgeable Scientists who I think care greatly about the Truth.
Geoff Haselhurst, 2005**

The Big Bang never happened (http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology-Big-Bang-Theory.htm)

Godless

[Godless]

**This universe isnt outside time, God is.. how many times will we go threw this. Hmm.... 50 times?**

How do you know? Who tell's you, fellow theists. You believe because you have FAITH on the assumptions of others, not because there's any evidence that an existence exists outside of time. This is just circular logic, you can't explain it, so theists make up shit as they go!.

[jay_7]

When scientist theorized the BB theory. The church was oppose to it. But Christian scientists embraced it as a point of origin. Their bible god said let their be light. This they postulate was what started the big-bang to occur.

However the BB theory is estimated to have occured about 20 billion years ago. This is in contradiction to new renegade scientist findings.

**Spherical Universe within an Infinite Eternal Space.
Very briefly, matter, as Spherical Standing Waves, determines the size of our finite spherical universe within an infinite Space. Huygens' Principle explains how other matter's out waves combine to form our matter's spherical In-Waves, which then deduces both Mach's Principle and the redshift with distance (without assuming Doppler shifts due to an expanding universe - thus there was no Big Bang).
This also explains how matter interacts with all other matter in the universe (why we can see stars) as matter is the size of the universe, though we only 'see' the high wave amplitude wave-centers / 'particles'.
Finally, I wish to emphasize that the work contained in these essays is very important (as theories of the Cosmos also affect the rest of human knowledge and also tend to affect the attitudes of Society), and are the genuine and sincere work of intelligent and knowledgeable Scientists who I think care greatly about the Truth.
Geoff Haselhurst, 2005**

The Big Bang never happened (http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology-Big-Bang-Theory.htm)

Godless

It says the Big Bang never happened, and that the Universe is infinite, but that means that energy just came into existence out of nowhere, this makes less sence then Godless saying God came out of nowhere, its more logical to say a God always existed then energy always existing and forming everything hear today! I dont think the above article really meant anything, just made the atheist side of this argument more idiotic. :rolleyes:

[jay_7]

**This universe isnt outside time, God is.. how many times will we go threw this. Hmm.... 50 times?**

How do you know? Who tell's you, fellow theists. You believe because you have FAITH on the assumptions of others, not because there's any evidence that an existence exists outside of time. This is just circular logic, you can't explain it, so theists make up shit as they go!.

:) Just like you. The Bible says the God exist outside time.

You say energy appeared from nowhere because you choose to believe that God does not exist, and you find any argument to prove that, which you don't. You say you choose more logicial things then God, but hows believing the universe is infinite more logicial then God?

[Godless]

Just like you. The Bible says the God exist outside time.

The bible dear, is not a scientific document.

You say energy appeared from nowhere because you choose to believe that God does not exist

I dont say shit! The evidence provided states that the big-bang never happened, this implication is only stating that the universe is either A: lots older than thought out to be, B: Eternally existing, thus energy appears to be eternally existing also.

you could postulate that a god then has been eternally existing as well, but then this would contradict the "let their be light" command and the whole genesis would collapse to what it really is. An allegorical mythical notion with no basis in reality!

You say you choose more logicial things then God, but hows believing the universe is infinite more logicial then God?

LOL.. How can you believe that a god is logical?

You have no evidence, but base your belief on the FAITH of others.

**The notion of God is nothing but a big mixture of contradictions and nothingness. There is no meaning behind the word and no concept to even define.

We view with mirth the ancient Greeks and Egyptians and other peoples with their pantheons of various Gods controlling various aspects of the world. We laugh at contemporaries who claim to have been visited by aliens or seen Bigfoot. Some even laugh and deride those scientists who make claims with only a little evidence in support of their views. But what is truly ridiculous is the people who then turn around and say, "the belief in God is perfectly fine" either because someone they know believes it or because a large portion of the population believes it. Truth is not a social phenomenon. Reality is absolute and can only be understood through reason.**Importance of Philosophy (http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Mystical_God.html)

Godless

[jay_7]

The bible dear, is not a scientific document.

I didnt say it was, the bible is what, not how. Anyway, the bible reveals many things that scientest did not know until lately.

Examples being:

"
In Mark 9:46, Jesus Christ says about hell: "Where THEIR WORM dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."

Jesus said explicitly — THEIR worm — not a worm, or the worm — but THEIR worm. The Bible teaches that Christians will one day have a body like the Lord Jesus Christ. Could it be, as some Bible students teach — that men and women in hell take on the form of their father, Satan (John 8:44)? In Revelation 12:3, Satan is described as a red dragon. Could Jesus Christ be referring to the body lost men and women will have for eternity?

The earth’s crust on land is normally 50 miles thick. You’d have to go down 50 miles before the edge of the fire. But in parts of the ocean floor, the earth’s crust is less than a mile thick.

Scientists recently discovered cracks on the ocean floor where fire was leaking out. Do you know what they found around these fire-breathing vents in the crust? Eight-foot long worms, found no other place in the world! The book, The Deep Sea, by Joseph Wallace (p.39), reads, "Perhaps the strangest of ocean creatures recently discovered are Riftia, the giant tube WORMS. Measuring up to 8 feet in length, the worms are ONLY FOUND NEAR DEEP SEA VENTS."
"

For more on this, check out: http://www.av1611.org/hell.html
May be a little ridiculas too you, but i want to see your thoughts on it.

I dont say shit! The evidence provided states that the big-bang never happened, this implication is only stating that the universe is either A: lots older than thought out to be, B: Eternally existing, thus energy appears to be eternally existing also.

you could postulate that a god then has been eternally existing as well, but then this would contradict the "let their be light" command and the whole genesis would collapse to what it really is. An allegorical mythical notion with no basis in reality!

Yes, even if the energy/the universe is enternal, it doesn't eliminate the fact of something living outside the box (universe), energy could be enternal, but as jaylee said, why didnt it form billions of years ago other then how ever old the universe is. Also, the universe has time, something that has time is temporal, unlike Gods universe, enternal.


LOL.. How can you believe that a god is logical?

How can you believe energy existing infinite in a universe with time is logical? And that it all just 'happened' and caused everything we have today, including intelligent life, in my point of view, something of intelligence is behind it.

You have no evidence, but base your belief on the FAITH of others.

Dont tell me what i do, you know nothing about me and what i base it on, ive always believed in God for more reasons then your've heard here, ive believed before i even looked into all this.


But what is truly ridiculous is the people who then turn around and say, "the belief in God is perfectly fine"

Whats more ridiculas to me is 'the universe came from nowhere!'

[Godless]

***Whats more ridiculas to me is 'the universe came from nowhere!' ***

What is more rediculas to me is that god came from nowhere!!!!!! & created a universe out of nothing!!!!!

Godless

[Godless]

Scientists recently discovered cracks on the ocean floor where fire was leaking out. Do you know what they found around these fire-breathing vents in the crust? Eight-foot long worms, found no other place in the world! The book, The Deep Sea, by Joseph Wallace (p.39), reads, "Perhaps the strangest of ocean creatures recently discovered are Riftia, the giant tube WORMS. Measuring up to 8 feet in length, the worms are ONLY FOUND NEAR DEEP SEA VENTS."

Rubbish!. You are trying to tie in of what an illiterate said 2000 years ago, to findings of today. The bible is very contradictory, and caries so many inconsistencies that even the Catholic church admits some parts of the bible should be taken as allegorical!. :bugeye:

This pice of trash document further stipulated that the earth was the center of the universe, and that the sun revolved around the earth. This was merely a generalization without any evidence to back it up. Just like I.D., Flat earth, and all the other BS written by Hebrew nomads who wanted to scape from bondage.

Godless

[jay_7]

***Whats more ridiculas to me is 'the universe came from nowhere!' ***

What is more rediculas to me is that god came from nowhere!!!!!! & created a universe out of nothing!!!!!

Godless

You already said that, but God being something outside time makes more sence then something inside time living enternaly.

[Godless]

**You already said that, but God being something outside time makes more sence then something inside time living enternaly.**

Basically here you are saying (TO HELL WITH REASON) I have faith!!.

There's no proof you can provide that an existence exists outside of time, this is what is rediculous, in order to exist it has to have an identity, be self aware, and have something to be aware off, if outside of time (a misconcept)BTW. It don't have nothing to be aware off, no identity, and no self awareness., i.e. NON-EXISTENT!!.

Godless

[jay_7]

**You already said that, but God being something outside time makes more sence then something inside time living enternaly.**

Basically here you are saying (TO HELL WITH REASON) I have faith!!.

There's no proof you can provide that an existence exists outside of time, this is what is rediculous, in order to exist it has to have an identity, be self aware, and have something to be aware off, if outside of time (a misconcept)BTW. It don't have nothing to be aware off, no identity, and no self awareness., i.e. NON-EXISTENT!!.

Godless

Yes, but if God is outside time in a different universe, the concept would be entirely different, which of coarse we wouldn't understand.

[(Q)]

I hate to dig up old bones, but why does the Christian god not fit the big bang theory? What could cause the creation of energy that resulted in a universe, and by chance, life?

Gods are pure fantasy and fit only ones imagination. No one knows the cause although there are speculative theories based on known physics.

[(Q)]

yay, energy from nothingness just like that!! typical to ye physicists, ye make theories but no explanation.

There are explanations, but you're too stupid to understand them.

[Mythbuster]

What kind of theory is this ?

http://img285.imageshack.us/img285/334/universe2web1eb.gif

It's like the 1001 jokes to tell your mother. :p

[c7ityi_]

Yay a god from nothingness just like that!! typical to ye theists ye make theoris but no explanation!. :bugeye:

Not really, since God is nothingness.

There are explanations, but you're too stupid to understand them.

Hm. Is that so :)

[Katazia]

Jay_7 -

It says the Big Bang never happened, and that the Universe is infinite, but that means that energy just came into existence out of nowhere,No, it simply means energy has always been present. A big bang implies energy came from nowhere. The infinite universe concept negates the need for a beginning event of any type.

Kat

[ArtofWar]

Yes, even if the energy/the universe is enternal, it doesn't eliminate the fact of something living outside the box (universe), energy could be enternal, but as jaylee said, why didnt it form billions of years ago other then how ever old the universe is. Also, the universe has time, something that has time is temporal, unlike Gods universe, enternal.


How can you believe energy existing infinite in a universe with time is logical? And that it all just 'happened' and caused everything we have today, including intelligent life, in my point of view, something of intelligence is behind it.


If you have a hard time believing that energy "always is, and always will be" then under what grounds can you state that a God is eternal? Also if you truly believe in the latter then you will need to explain to all of us as to what, How and when God was created?

Please stop quoting the bible, it only makes your argument less appealing

[TW Scott]

LOL.. How can you believe that a god is logical?

You have no evidence, but base your belief on the FAITH of others.

Godless

The same as you. You base your belief that God does not exist on the faith of others. You have no evidence. No proof. You have nothing.

[jay_7]

If you have a hard time believing that energy "always is, and always will be" then under what grounds can you state that a God is eternal? Also if you truly believe in the latter then you will need to explain to all of us as to what, How and when God was created?

Please stop quoting the bible, it only makes your argument less appealing

God wasnt created, and theres no matter of when, hes outside time.

[Katazia]

TW Scott -

The same as you. You base your belief that God does not exist on the faith of others. I've looked back a way at these messages but I could not see where Godless has claimed that God does not exist. Perhaps you could show me please?

Kat

[Katazia]

jay 7 -

God wasnt created, and theres no matter of when, hes outside time. God is an idea created by humans, or do you know something that no one else knows that would contradict that?

Kat

[Katazia]

c7ityi -

God is nothingnessThat could perhaps mean the space between somethings or the concept of null. Either interpretation leads to the conclusion of powerlessness and irrelevance.

Kat

[Mythbuster]

God wasnt created, and theres no matter of when, hes outside time.

Natural forces causes things to happen without decision or choice.

Got it ?

[c7ityi_]

That could perhaps mean the space between somethings or the concept of null. Either interpretation leads to the conclusion of powerlessness and irrelevance.

Nothingness is the only thing that has infinite power. It is the source of the energy of the world: magnetism!

[Mythbuster]

So does temperature ! No sun = Very cold.

[jayleew]

Rubbish!. You are trying to tie in of what an illiterate said 2000 years ago, to findings of today. The bible is very contradictory, and caries so many inconsistencies that even the Catholic church admits some parts of the bible should be taken as allegorical!. :bugeye:

This pice of trash document further stipulated that the earth was the center of the universe, and that the sun revolved around the earth. This was merely a generalization without any evidence to back it up. Just like I.D., Flat earth, and all the other BS written by Hebrew nomads who wanted to scape from bondage.

Godless

I don't agree with the Bible providing information stipulating that the Earth was the center of the universe and the sun revolved around the Earth. But, if even if it did, the universe is infinite, so every point is the center. It is all a matter of perspective what revolves around what, depending on where you place the center of the universe.

[jayleew]

Rubbish!. You are trying to tie in of what an illiterate said 2000 years ago, to findings of today. The bible is very contradictory, and caries so many inconsistencies that even the Catholic church admits some parts of the bible should be taken as allegorical!. :bugeye:


What parts? There are abstract stories told by the people to illustrate points. They are called parables. It is a common practice in philosophy. Is that what the Catholic church refers to?

Without going into what I think of the Catholic church, as I was a Catholic...let me just say that I don't trust anyone including my own pastor enough to believe anything without my own investigation, but least of all, the Catholic diocese.

[jayleew]

Jay_7 -

No, it simply means energy has always been present. A big bang implies energy came from nowhere. The infinite universe concept negates the need for a beginning event of any type.

Kat

But, if the universe is infinite, and energy is and always has been constant, where are all the other Earths and the other life forms on other planets? If the universe always was, then it is infinitely old, and so there are infinite number of hospitible planets. I guess we'll find out someday, just like when we find out there is a god. :rolleyes: In the absence of evidence, every possibility has an equal chance of being true. With an infinite number of possibillities, the chances of there being life on other planets approaches zero.

So, it is more likely that the universe is not infinitely old, and that energy was not always constant.

[jayleew]

If you have a hard time believing that energy "always is, and always will be" then under what grounds can you state that a God is eternal? Also if you truly believe in the latter then you will need to explain to all of us as to what, How and when God was created?


Get real, if I knew that then that would mean that I could just create my own universe.

We don't understand God, it's possible that he was also created and actually not eternal, for all we know. That helps the Mormon's case, if it was true.

[jayleew]

The same as you. You base your belief that God does not exist on the faith of others. You have no evidence. No proof. You have nothing.

They have the theory of the origin of species which is based on the fact of evolution. Big hairy deal. :D Darwin's theory doesn't explain how life was created, just the origin of species. That is a common misconception.

[jayleew]

jay 7 -

God is an idea created by humans, or do you know something that no one else knows that would contradict that?

Kat


If I had kept a journal of my life's journey and shared it, it would be evidence of an external hand on my life; an infinite number of coincidences that have guided me in a single destiny, regardless of the waywardness of my choices (the more wayward, the more of life's trials experienced). God has mapped out a life for me that is abundant. It is up to me to choose to follow the map. I cannot deny his existence because it looks like, feels like, smells like, sounds like, etc God.

[Godless]

If I had kept a journal of my life's journey and shared it, it would be evidence of an external hand on my life; an infinite number of coincidences that have guided me in a single destiny, regardless of the waywardness of my choices (the more wayward, the more of life's trials experienced). God has mapped out a life for me that is abundant. It is up to me to choose to follow the map. I cannot deny his existence because it looks like, feels like, smells like, sounds like, etc God.

Jaylee I've basically posted much of my life on this forum, those that have been here awhile, know that I was a drug addict, crack cocain, weed, alcohol. Sex, Drugs & Rock&Roll. That was my lifestyle. I was a christian then also! :rolleyes: Not a good one, I went to church seldom, and went through two nervous break-downs, How I regain myself, was through much reading of philosophy, psychology, and all sorts of books. After my second nervous breakdown, someone gave me a book to read. It was "Count of Monte Cristo" by Dumas, from there I continued reading and reading, Till I bought a novel By Ayn Rand. Little did I know that she was a philosopher. That started my path from fiction books to philosophy, psychology. A year after my 20th birthday I proclaimed my atheism. When I bought my first computer in El Paso Texas, I found other atheist through the internet. Fact is Sciforums has been one of the longest boards I've been on, (five years) and have less then 3000 posts, though on m way! ;) The reason I have merely 2k+ posts is because I still read philosophy, books and internet.

Basically I've been through hell too, and back again. And no god helped me get out of doing drugs, getting a damn good job, and moving were I want to live. Las Vegas Nevada. Everyday here is like a vacation to me ( on my days off) I'm happy here, though I'm not rich, nor a heavy gambler. I love the neon lights, and the atmosphere of this place. I had my second nervous breakdown here.

Godless

[jayleew]

Jaylee I've basically posted much of my life on this forum, those that have been here awhile, know that I was a drug addict, crack cocain, weed, alcohol. Sex, Drugs & Rock&Roll. That was my lifestyle. I was a christian then also! :rolleyes: Not a good one, I went to church seldom, and went through two nervous break-downs, How I regain myself, was through much reading of philosophy, psychology, and all sorts of books. After my second nervous breakdown, someone gave me a book to read. It was "Count of Monte Cristo" by Dumas, from there I continued reading and reading, Till I bought a novel By Ayn Rand. Little did I know that she was a philosopher. That started my path from fiction books to philosophy, psychology. A year after my 20th birthday I proclaimed my atheism. When I bought my first computer in El Paso Texas, I found other atheist through the internet. Fact is Sciforums has been one of the longest boards I've been on, (five years) and have less then 3000 posts, though on m way! ;) The reason I have merely 2k+ posts is because I still read philosophy, books and internet.

Basically I've been through hell too, and back again. And no god helped me get out of doing drugs, getting a damn good job, and moving were I want to live. Las Vegas Nevada. Everyday here is like a vacation to me ( on my days off) I'm happy here, though I'm not rich, nor a heavy gambler. I love the neon lights, and the atmosphere of this place. I had my second nervous breakdown here.

Godless

You were a Christian. And still God did not prove himself to you in your time of need. Who failed you? Yourself, your church leader, other Christians around you, or God? It doesn't matter, to you it is illogical that we are even talking about God, we may as well be talking about the tooth fairy while we're at it.

You have not experienced God's surprising existence, but it sounds like you have done well for youself. I hope and pray that God suprisingly shows up in your life, like he did for me...so that you can change the people around you into something better. For now, you are proof that God does not exist, but your story is not over...

The Count of Monte Cristo carries a great parallel of how life is. He did all those things without God and for himself. Like in the story, you may not know God exists until the end of your story. Your life reminds me of the "count".

[Godless]

You were a Christian. And still God did not prove himself to you in your time of need.

It was my search of spirtualism that led me to drugs. It was the faith I had in others that made me try it.

I've been a Catholic, my parents religion I'm latin. I became Christian in my mid-teens, and finally I became a Babtist after my first nervous break-down. I became an atheist stoped doing drugs apx. 1 year, and started again. After my second nervous break-down here in Las Vegas. I had the conviction to quit basically on my own. I say basically cause I did see a shrink. (about a week) And then I was determined to quit drugs on my own. It's been 11 years, I'm still drug free, and drink only sociably very seldom. No god, needed, but devotion to self, strength of mind and a dedication for knowledge. I've never been to a universty & I'm a high-school drop out!. I'm very much self educated.

It doesn't matter, to you it is illogical that we are even talking about God, we may as well be talking about the tooth fairy while we're at it.

At least the tooth fairy did leave me some money! ;)

As for god, it don't help even babies who are innocent, children get raped daily, people die miserably and poor, reality shows that a benevolent being is a contradiction.

You have not experienced God's surprising existence, but it sounds like you have done well for youself.

I have experienced life with belief, faith, devotion to an entity I know nothing about, but was told that it exists, and that it is truth. I've grown up! I took a different path, one that led me to where I am today, when I turned my back to blind faith, superstition and mythology.

I hope and pray that God suprisingly shows up in your life, like he did for me...so that you can change the people around you into something better.

Well I did meet Jesus he was the guy who used to sell me some pretty good herb. :D (many latinos are named Jesus) I used to joke with him. Your dope is the best, afterall your Jesus!!.

People around me change, we all change. Some for better some for worst. But I don't consider better those that entrust blind faith.

For now, you are proof that God does not exist, but your story is not over...

No! for now I'm just a guy who has made a better life without the notion of belief in god! ;)

Godless

[Katazia]

Jayleew –

If I had kept a journal of my life's journey and shared it, it would be evidence of an external hand on my life; an infinite number of coincidences that have guided me in a single destiny, regardless of the waywardness of my choices (the more wayward, the more of life's trials experienced). God has mapped out a life for me that is abundant. It is up to me to choose to follow the map. I cannot deny his existence because it looks like, feels like, smells like, sounds like, etc God.Your statement reveals your ignorance of statistical mathematics. You are merely a member of a set that will experience a range of good fortune and bad fortune that conforms to a normal random distribution.

To justify your claim that something extraordinary might be occurring you need to demonstrate you are significantly outside the normal random bell curve. Can you do that? Before that Occams’s razor should prevail and you cannot reasonably assume that anything supernatural is operating.

Kat

[Katazia]

jayleew,

But, if the universe is infinite, and energy is and always has been constant, where are all the other Earths and the other life forms on other planets? If the universe always was, then it is infinitely old, and so there are infinite number of hospitible planets. You have confused infinite time with infinite size. Neither need we assume that the universe holds a stable state. A cyclic model of bang/collapse/bang is also infinite but of finite size.

I guess we'll find out someday, just like when we find out there is a god.There is nothing to indicate we will ever discover gods.

In the absence of evidence, every possibility has an equal chance of being true.I do not see that anyone has shown that gods are possible. Your statement is without foundation.

With an infinite number of possibillities, the chances of there being life on other planets approaches zero.This is false since your preceding premises were invalid.

So, it is more likely that the universe is not infinitely old, and that energy was not always constant.Similar faulty reasoning.

Kat

[jayleew]

Katazia,


Is this faulty logic?

In the absence of evidence, every possibility has an equal chance of being true. So, with an infinite number of possibilities, that thing that lacks evidence has a probability of being true that is less than one and approaches zero.

That is used to prove the non-existence of God, how is that faulty? If it is faulty, then there could be a God!!

It also can be used to disprove the existence of aliens.

So, since there are no other life forms, time is infinite, and energy constant today, then there was a time when no energy existed. Let me explain:

We know since we exist, that the universe is capable of creating life with energy and matter.

If energy and matter had existed an infinite number of years ago, then life would not have waited an infinite number of years to create life today. Rather, it created life on other planets an infinite number of years ago and we are not alone.

In the absence of evidence, every possibility has an equal chance of being true. So, with an infinite number of possibilities and no evidence of aliens, the probability of there being aliens has chance that is less than one and approaches zero.

Since we most likely are alone, then energy and matter most likely did not always exist.

[Godless]

Since we most likely are alone, then energy and matter most likely did not always exist.

The earth is but one of billions of planets and that's just in this galaxy. As a galaxy, the Milky Way is actually a giant, as its mass is probably between 750 billion and one trillion solar masses, and its diameter is about 100,000 light years.

We've have barely begun to map out the universe of other galaxies that exists, but it's estimated to be 200 billion other galaxies if not smaller larger than the milky way.

To make the above coment is nothing more than pure ingnorance of the vast size of the universe. We are not alone, but far apart. Consciousness if it exists in other parts of the universe are just like ours. In fact the only unifying theory of the universe is consciousness itself. To be conscious is to be aware of all that exists, and that which is known to exist is limited by our knowledge. We got a long, long way to go. Just to make the assertion that intellegent life on this galaxy alone does not exist. But that is doubtfull. Considering the vast size of the Milky Way.

Godless

[KennyJC]

That is used to prove the non-existence of God, how is that faulty? If it is faulty, then there could be a God!!

It also can be used to disprove the existence of aliens.

That is a bad analogy.

We know the existence of life on other planets is possible because they will have to be governed by the same laws that made it possible for millions of species of life to appear on this planet.

All that is needed for life to exist in this universe are a few lucky occurrances to make the conditions comfortable for life to evolve.

They estimate 70 billion trillion stars just in the visible universe alone. That is a huge number compared to just our star alone, and we have no idea how many stars exist outside the visible universe.

There is plenty of scope to believe in the existence of extra terrestrials. There is even reason to believe such primitive life exists on Mars which may be found one day. Nothing to suggest a God exists though.

[jayleew]

To make the above coment is nothing more than pure ingnorance of the vast size of the universe. We are not alone, but far apart. Consciousness if it exists in other parts of the universe are just like ours. In fact the only unifying theory of the universe is consciousness itself. To be conscious is to be aware of all that exists, and that which is known to exist is limited by our knowledge. We got a long, long way to go. Just to make the assertion that intellegent life on this galaxy alone does not exist. But that is doubtfull. Considering the vast size of the Milky Way.

Godless

Sure it seems an awful lot of wasted space, but there is no scientific data suggesting that there is life on other planets. So logically, there is none in the absence of evidence. There is a hypothesis that life exists on other planets, but no conclusion. Yes, we have a lot to explore, but if we are objective, we must see only the evidence. Everything else is speculation or pseudoscience.

Why should we believe there is life on other planets if we don't have evidence of any?? That is optimistic at best.

[jayleew]

That is a bad analogy.

We know the existence of life on other planets is possible because they will have to be governed by the same laws that made it possible for millions of species of life to appear on this planet.

All that is needed for life to exist in this universe are a few lucky occurrances to make the conditions comfortable for life to evolve.

They estimate 70 billion trillion stars just in the visible universe alone. That is a huge number compared to just our star alone, and we have no idea how many stars exist outside the visible universe.

There is plenty of scope to believe in the existence of extra terrestrials. There is even reason to believe such primitive life exists on Mars which may be found one day. Nothing to suggest a God exists though.

Sure, it's possible. Anything is possible. But just because it is possible, doesn't make it true. Sure, a few lucky occurrences for life to evolve. That is why if energy has always existed, then chances are, given infinity, that few lucky occurrence has happened. But, we don't have any evidence of that!! Hypothesis, experiment, conclusion...not hypothesis, conlcusion, experiment!!

I'm devolping a way to make gold out of water because you can, I just am working on it. I'll let you know when I finish. It's the same thing! In the absence of evidence, every possibility has an equal chance of being true, so the only thing is true is that which has evidence. So, there is no life on other planets, there is no god, and pigs cannot fly. Same logic. Why is that so hard to understand?

[KennyJC]

So, there is no life on other planets, there is no god, and pigs cannot fly. Same logic. Why is that so hard to understand?

I'm not saying we should all pressume there is no God. Despite the fact I am atheist/agnostic I understand that it is not THAT crazy to imagine a 'God'. But there is nothing to go on.

But there is a difference between the likelihood of 'aliens'. We know other stars exist, we know other planets exist, we know organic molecules are widespread throughout the universe. Through science, we have found more and more evidence that there is likely to be life elsewhere in the galaxy/universe, therefor I feel it is relevant to search for life on other planets via the means of science.

Perhaps one day science will reach a level of advancement far beyond what we have today, that will make it possible to find evidence of creation, but for the moment is a question of faith only.

[jayleew]

I'm not saying we should all pressume there is no God. Despite the fact I am atheist/agnostic I understand that it is not THAT crazy to imagine a 'God'. But there is nothing to go on.

But there is a difference between the likelihood of 'aliens'. We know other stars exist, we know other planets exist, we know organic molecules are widespread throughout the universe. Through science, we have found more and more evidence that there is likely to be life elsewhere in the galaxy/universe, therefor I feel it is relevant to search for life on other planets via the means of science.

Perhaps one day science will reach a level of advancement far beyond what we have today, that will make it possible to find evidence of creation, but for the moment is a question of faith only.

I was unaware of organic molecules found. I will have to do some research. Do you have any reference of this evidence?

[KennyJC]

I thought it was common knowledge that organic molecules were to be found in interstellar dust clouds and meteorites such as amino acids and carbohydrates etc

Do you have any reference of this evidence?

http://www.google.com

[dkb218]

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


No being Christian and knowing that the message of that group of people is flawed, I tend to agree with you.

However since I believe that GOD is and Jesus is but a messenger of GOD, your conclusion the GOD cannot exist is flawed.

I'm not saying we should all pressume there is no God. Despite the fact I am atheist/agnostic I understand that it is not THAT crazy to imagine a 'God'. But there is nothing to go on.

Look within yourself - Look around yourself - Just look. If you want to see the proof that GOD is, you'll find it. Seek and Ye shall find...The proof is out there for those who wish to see it.

That's the beauty of the proof of GOD.

[GeoffP]

Great...another assertion based on dead air.

Geoff

[(Q)]

Look within yourself - Look around yourself - Just look. If you want to see the proof that GOD is, you'll find it. Seek and Ye shall find...The proof is out there for those who wish to see it.

I've looked everywhere and found only nature with no evidence or proof of any gods.

Where did you find your proof exactly and what proof did you find?

[Katazia]

dkb218,

Look within yourself - Look around yourself - Just look. If you want to see the proof that GOD is, you'll find it. Seek and Ye shall find...The proof is out there for those who wish to see it.

That's the beauty of the proof of GOD. It is the nature of irrational thought that permits the conviction of truth without foundation. By that mechanism of self-delusion one can be convinced of anything by anything.

It is not that you have found a proof for God but that you interpret what you see according to what you want and in this case it is a vacuous ideal.

Kat

[Godless]

Why should we believe there is life on other planets if we don't have evidence of any?? That is optimistic at best.

The FACT of the matter that you so carelessly overlook is that there is evidence. Earth is a planet that contains life. This is evidence that that life exists in this universe! WE are it. What we stipulate, that since life developed here on this planet, is that there is life in other planets as well. Our awareness of these other existents is only limited by our knowledge. That is we don't know jack! compared to other civilizations that perhaps are billions of years more advanced then us. We are a primitive civilization that still believe in mystical notions such as gods, devils and ghosts, we are uncivilized for our continuation of wars, human tourture and mayham. We are lacking in technological means and advancement, largely blamed on our mysticism.

Imagine if you will that some nut today believed to be Jesus? He would be considered a lunatic. Now go back a few thousand years, and hey! he is lord!. Now imagine if you will; That Jesus were born 2000 years ago, but his civilization was as advanced as early 20th century. With automobiles and primitive airplanes. Do you think these people would have thought of him, as some kind of messiah? No! he would be considered a nut. What I'm trying to convey here to you, is that in Jesus's time, the human race was very mystical, were very ingnorant about nature and existence. The more knowledge a civilization aquires the further away from mystical notions it gets!. And that's a fact.

Godless

[c7ityi_]

We are lacking in technological means and advancement, largely blamed on our mysticism.

What do you mean by "lacking"? What more technology do we need? In my opinion, we wouldn't need the technology we have today, most of it is pointless.

Humans don't know what drives them. They keep their bodies merely to satisfy the flesh. They're worthless, don't you think? That's what all mankind is.

No! he would be considered a nut.

What people think is irrelevant in front of the truth. If Jesus returned today, he wouldn't talk to people the same way he did when he was here last time. He wouldn't talk about "God". He was talking about the self when he talked about "God". But I doubt Jesus has a reason to come back, he already showed us the way and now we can handle the rest on our own.

There is only one truth. God.

Yes.

Me.

[jayleew]

The FACT of the matter that you so carelessly overlook is that there is evidence. Earth is a planet that contains life. This is evidence that that life exists in this universe! WE are it. What we stipulate, that since life developed here on this planet, is that there is life in other planets as well. Our awareness of these other existents is only limited by our knowledge. That is we don't know jack! compared to other civilizations that perhaps are billions of years more advanced then us. We are a primitive civilization that still believe in mystical notions such as gods, devils and ghosts, we are uncivilized for our continuation of wars, human tourture and mayham. We are lacking in technological means and advancement, largely blamed on our mysticism.

You are hasty and grabbing for a rebuttal because you are starting to mudsling.

You are getting to the point of the matter.

Here is the first argument: There is life on this planet, so the universe can create life. No problems with that logic. You can even speculate that life can be elsewhere.

Now, the second argument: Energy and matter are infinitely old. The universe can create life. So, there is an infinite number of lifeforms and hospitible planets across the wide universe, that are infinitely old civilizations, infinitely older or newer than ours. Fine, it is logical, right?

Now, the third argument: In the absence of evidence, every possibility has an equal chance of being true. There is no evidence of ETs. So, the chance of ETs existing are less than one and approaching zero.

This third argument conflicts with the second argument. This makes the second argument invalid. Only the first and third arguments are true, which questions the premises of the second argument. The first premise of the second argument is true, so it is the second premise of the second argument that is false.

Unless we find some evidence of life elsewhere, then energy and matter are not infinitely old. Science assumes nothing, and if we are scientific about the matter, we would not assume that life exists elsewhere just because of the first argument.



Imagine if you will that some nut today believed to be Jesus? He would be considered a lunatic. Now go back a few thousand years, and hey! he is lord!. Now imagine if you will; That Jesus were born 2000 years ago, but his civilization was as advanced as early 20th century. With automobiles and primitive airplanes. Do you think these people would have thought of him, as some kind of messiah? No! he would be considered a nut. What I'm trying to convey here to you, is that in Jesus's time, the human race was very mystical, were very ingnorant about nature and existence. The more knowledge a civilization aquires the further away from mystical notions it gets!. And that's a fact.

Godless

The Jews believed that Jesus was the Messiah? I guess that's why they killed him. :rolleyes: Your argument that in Jesus's time the human race was very mystical is not true with thoses premises. On the contrary, the most scholarly thought Jesus was a blasphemous dog.

You have not provided any evidence that the more knowledgable a civilization aquires, the further away from mystical notions it gets. On the contrary, we as a people, are still mystical. Whether it is astrology, wicca, or God. We are no less mystical of a civilization than 2000 years ago. People are fascinated by the spiritual no less than before. John Edwards and Sylvia Brown are two people who capatalize on that. It is also what sells those tabloids.

But, what does this have to do with what we are talking about?

[Sarkus]

Here is the first argument: There is life on this planet, so the universe can create life. No problems with that logic. You can even speculate that life can be elsewhere.

Now, the second argument: Energy and matter are infinitely old. The universe can create life. So, there is an infinite number of lifeforms and hospitible planets across the wide universe, that are infinitely old civilizations, infinitely older or newer than ours. Fine, it is logical, right?

Now, the third argument: In the absence of evidence, every possibility has an equal chance of being true. There is no evidence of ETs. So, the chance of ETs existing are less than one and approaching zero.

Your conclusion of this "third argument" is flawed....

I agree that in the absence of evidence, every possibility is equally likely.
And I agree that we have no evidence of ETs.

Now in that absence of evidence, what are all the possibilities?
In my mind, the possibilities range from "a complete lack of other life in the Universe", all the way to "Lifeforms on every planet we haven't seen" - and the range of life-forms range from one-celled animals all the way to gaseous life-forms and an infinite number of other life-forms.

Of all these infinite possibilities - only ONE possibility states: "no life-forms anywhere else in the Universe!"

So the chance of this being true is 1/infinity = ZERO!!
So the logical conclusion to reach is: "There IS some form of life on some planet somewhere else in the Universe.".


But that's only if you follow the logical thinking that you have begun above. :D

However, I also think that the initial statements are erroneous.
The first argument is only true in the ABSOLUTE LACK OF EVIDENCE.
The second argument is misleading - as ET is just another name for a lifeform that happens to reside not on Earth.
We DO have evidence of life-forms.
We DO have evidence of the conditions in much of the Universe.
We Do have far more evidence than "the absolute lack of evidence" so as to negate the use of the first argument to reach a logical conclusion in this instance.

[jayleew]

Your conclusion of this "third argument" is flawed....

I agree that in the absence of evidence, every possibility is equally likely.
And I agree that we have no evidence of ETs.

Now in that absence of evidence, what are all the possibilities?
In my mind, the possibilities range from "a complete lack of other life in the Universe", all the way to "Lifeforms on every planet we haven't seen" - and the range of life-forms range from one-celled animals all the way to gaseous life-forms and an infinite number of other life-forms.


Good point. There are only two possibilities. There is life, or there is not life. In the absence of evidence. I guess that would be 50/50.

But that's only if you follow the logical thinking that you have begun above. :D


We DO have evidence of life-forms.
We DO have evidence of the conditions in much of the Universe.
We Do have far more evidence than "the absolute lack of evidence" so as to negate the use of the first argument to reach a logical conclusion in this instance.

Call the press if you believe we found life. :rolleyes: Please provide references to anything that is not common knowledge.

[Godless]

What do you mean by "lacking"? What more technology do we need? In my opinion, we wouldn't need the technology we have today, most of it is pointless.

Then sell your fucking computer! :D


Humans don't know what drives them. They keep their bodies merely to satisfy the flesh. They're worthless, don't you think? That's what all mankind is.

:rolleyes: More christian teaching?

What people think is irrelevant in front of the truth.

What truth?
That humans are worthless, your life is meaningless, are these the truths tought to you by christians? No wonder they are pathetical.

You are hasty and grabbing for a rebuttal because you are starting to mudsling.

What mudslinging? That you display here your ingnorance for others to judge you by?. That mudslinging?.

But I doubt Jesus has a reason to come back, he already showed us the way and now we can handle the rest on our own.

I seriously doubt that your Jesus even existed. There's no evidence of his existence, other than an ancient fables written by nomads. There were many Jesus in jesus' time click (http://jesusneverexisted.com/surfeit.htm)

Now, the third argument: In the absence of evidence, every possibility has an equal chance of being true. There is no evidence of ETs. So, the chance of ETs existing are less than one and approaching zero.

Now Ta teach a lesson in logic: In the absesnce of evidence, every possibility has an equal chance of being true. there is no evidence of GOD. So, the chance of GOD existing are less than one and approaching ZERO! :p

Unless we find some evidence of life elsewhere, then energy and matter are not infinitely old. Science assumes nothing, and if we are scientific about the matter, we would not assume that life exists elsewhere just because of the first argument.

Unless we find some evidence of god somewhere, then energy and matter are infinitely old. Science assumes nothing, and if we are scientific about the matter, we would not assume that god exists elsewhere just because theist claim and make assumptions of this argument!.

The Jews believed that Jesus was the Messiah?

Which one, there were many read the link!

You have not provided any evidence that the more knowledgable a civilization aquires, the further away from mystical notions it gets.

Evidence? Are you that densed? We are not burning people cause some one believe them to be witches. There's nos such thing as hanging or beheading a person for not agreeing with your views of god. These are just a small example of your religions humble but misserable beginings! Today I can be an atheist, and not be treated like a criminal, I can speak against the church, or any religious leader, and not arrested. These are my evidence that life has been geting better, because of secularization. Scientists are free to discover new uses for matter, like the computer in front of you, without being called heretics, doctors can cure with medicine without being called witches. Seriously can you be that densed?

On the contrary, we as a people, are still mystical. Whether it is astrology, wicca, or God. We are no less mystical of a civilization than 2000 years ago.

This statement is not entirely true! You assume because you yourself are mystical, but I hate to burst your buble; most see the tabloids as Bull Shit. They buy into it as a form of entertainment. And yes there's still lots of people like yourself, that believe any bull shit, that some mystical jack ass pulls out of his ass, like some freak who walked on water, stoped the sun from coming down, or parted the Red Sea, then after the preacher you listen to tells ya all this BS, he asks you for money!!. Most of his congregation are poor as hell, like in South America, but the asshole lives in a fine house & drives a luxury car, all paid for by the gullibility of mystics like yourself, who basically have no clue that they are being taken!.

Godless

[jayleew]

Now Ta teach a lesson in logic: In the absesnce of evidence, every possibility has an equal chance of being true. there is no evidence of GOD. So, the chance of GOD existing are less than one and approaching ZERO! :p



That is good enough logic for anyone who does not have evidence. My life's experiences are evidence. Although, I cannot submit a journal because I did not take it down. So, there is no evidence for the existence of a god.


Unless we find some evidence of god somewhere, then energy and matter are infinitely old. Science assumes nothing, and if we are scientific about the matter, we would not assume that god exists elsewhere just because theist claim and make assumptions of this argument!.

Fair enough, but we're not following the thread at the moment. We're talking about energy and the illogical argument which is that it always existed.


Which one [Jews], there were many read the link!


The question I posed was rhetorical. Most of the Jews did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah.


Evidence? Are you that densed? We are not burning people cause some one believe them to be witches. There's nos such thing as hanging or beheading a person for not agreeing with your views of god. These are just a small example of your religions humble but misserable beginings! Today I can be an atheist, and not be treated like a criminal, I can speak against the church, or any religious leader, and not arrested. These are my evidence that life has been geting better, because of secularization. Scientists are free to discover new uses for matter, like the computer in front of you, without being called heretics, doctors can cure with medicine without being called witches. Seriously can you be that densed?

Don't be so hasty with your perception and call me dense. Perhaps we are miscommunicating.

Just because mysticism is not socially accepted, doesn't mean that there is not the same amount of people who still believe in the mystical, supersticious, and spiritual. IMO, we are no different as far as our mystical beliefs than 2000 years ago. It is now not socially acceptable behavior, but as far as a civilization, we have not changed much...if at all.


This statement is not entirely true! You assume because you yourself are mystical, but I hate to burst your buble; most see the tabloids as Bull Shit. They buy into it as a form of entertainment. And yes there's still lots of people like yourself, that believe any bull shit, that some mystical jack ass pulls out of his ass, like some freak who walked on water, stoped the sun from coming down, or parted the Red Sea, then after the preacher you listen to tells ya all this BS, he asks you for money!!. Most of his congregation are poor as hell, like in South America, but the asshole lives in a fine house & drives a luxury car, all paid for by the gullibility of mystics like yourself, who basically have no clue that they are being taken!.

Godless

I hope that most people see the tabloids as BS, and IMO most people do. But, that is just one small example. A larger example is the religious and supersticious. Millions are sucked into John Edwards, Sylvia Brown, and other television shows that talk about ghosts and goblins. There are witches, occult, and all sorts of nut jobs. A gallup poll in 2001 showed that 95% of Americans believe in God. Combined with the other mystics, more than 95% of the population are mystical. I'd say that we are pretty much the same as 2000 years ago, but socially acceptable behavior contains much of the mystical practices of sacrifice and beheadings. But, make no mistake, they still occur today.

[c7ityi_]

Then sell your fucking computer! :D

Impossible, I'm a human and I like computers.

:rolleyes: More christian teaching?

No. Don't defile the name of Christ by calling me a Christian.

What truth?

Truth can't be destroyed by people's words. If Christ was born on earth today and people would call him a lunatic, it wouldn't matter if he really WAS Christ.

Not everyone who calls himself "Christian" IS a true Christian (follower of Christ) There are many who say that they follow God, but they follow satan. Truth is not affected by what people say.

I seriously doubt that your Jesus even existed. There's no evidence of his existence, other than an ancient fables written by nomads. There were many Jesus in jesus' time click (http://jesusneverexisted.com/surfeit.htm)

Whether he "existed" or not is pretty irrelevant. The important is that Christ, the higher self, is a psychological truth. Christ has been on earth many times, in many forms. The New Testament is partly based on the life of Jesus.

Because people are earthly, they can only understand earthly things, so they think the stories in the Bible are not true. Of course they are ridiculous if you watch from an earthly perspective.

[Mythbuster]

What is brainwash? I assume you mean the literal acception of knowledge. Well, each child has to literally learn and accept what is being tought. How can there otherwise be a start for knowledge? We're all brainwashed. Teach a toddler that an apple is called a banana and so be it.

The human brain is capable of things we have yet to properly study simply because we do not possess the means to do so. Though there is extensive work being done on the human brain every day around the world, there are still many unanwered questions about how it works and why. One thing we do know however, is that the brain is perfectly capable of burrowing beliefs and biases into your subconscious and using them to make your day to day decisions.

One study I read about recently had to do with politics. When asked politically-related questions, most people thought for about 300 milliseconds before issueing a response. This suggests to most that there is little thought involved in answering the question at all, and that most of the answers that you or I may give have been stored away in our brains for quite some time. Only when you are inclined to do so yourself will you reevaluate your actual thoughts on the matter, increasing your response time and possibly rearranging those beliefs and biases buried deep in your head.

Where am I going with this? Well, it seems to me that this is also perfectly applicable to religious beliefs, where, if you notice, people are more than ready to respond whe you ask them the simple question, "Do you believe in God?"

The challenge here is to plant these premade ideas into someone's head so that their first impulse when asked certain questions is the one you want. Religion, as we all know, is very, very good at this. In many cases, a religious person has very little doubt in their faith thanks to these beliefs that have worked their way down into the depths of their minds. Because of this subconscious trigger, I believe overly religious people are "programmed" to respond in a way favorable to their respective faith. In order to plant this seed of blind faith different religions have different methods.

The Bible is an excellent example, and its purpose is entirely to teach the word of a god. The work is extensive and thorough, giving the reader something to reference for any given situation. If the Bible is studied extensively enough, I believe that these seeds are sewn, and that the hair trigger response to many questions will be found within its pages. This is why biblical quotes are so widespread, because they are applicable to nearly anything one can imagine depending on how the book itself is interpreted. This is where they made their mistake--they did not test their theories.

In a way, one could call this brainwashing, as predetermiend answers are intentionally planted in the subject's head, usually at a young age. Also, those who "find God" are typically in extreme situations, searching for a way to cope with their present situation and finding solace in the teachings of a religion. Where there were doubts and confusion before there is now confidence and certainty thanks to the ability to quickly respond to a question with what the subjects believes to be a valid answer. Whether this is a good or bad thing is subject to opinion.

The longer you take to respond, the more uncertain you are, and thus the more uncomfortable you may become with both the question and the person asking it. Religion gives you the foundation to rifle answers with hardly a thought, giving you confidence and clarity. Because the brain is put at ease, religion can be accepted as a perfectly lovely thing, and may even be not healthy for the mind. It depends on how you look at it.

From pure superstition to fear.

[Godless]

Whether he "existed" or not is pretty irrelevant. The important is that Christ, the higher self, is a psychological truth. Christ has been on earth many times, in many forms. The New Testament is partly based on the life of Jesus.

This is exactly why it is called myth. :rolleyes:

Godless

[c7ityi_]

What people call it is irrelevant in front of the truth. Besides, "myth" doesn't necessarily mean false, it sometimes means half-true. The other half is just the part which people no longer have the brains to understand. Just because something SEEMS irrational doesn't mean it IS so. I've also seen the Bible through earthly eyes.

[Mythbuster]

What people call it is irrelevant in front of the truth. Besides, "myth" doesn't necessarily mean false, it sometimes means half-true. The other half is just the part which people no longer have the brains to understand. Just because something SEEMS irrational doesn't mean it IS so. I've also seen the Bible through earthly eyes.

You want Myth ? Ill give you Myths ! :D

http://www.jcnot4me.com/images/Universe-2-web.gif
http://www.truechristian.com/confessionbooth.html
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v198/Roarey_Raccoon/biblewarninglabel4hz.jpg

[c7ityi_]

That's what religions look like from an earthly perspective. "They have eyes, but they don't see"

[Mythbuster]

"They have eyes, but they don't see"
leviathan seems to be a sea monster from the bible.

http://img206.exs.cx/img206/9412/seamoster8id.jpg
The monster was made by men when the time they tough that the earth was flat. And soon whe find out it was a:
http://www.mzoo.com/images/gsquid.jpg

[c7ityi_]

How do you know what the word leviathan means? That word is way too cool to be something "false". I've heard that leviathan often means serpent in the Bible. It's probably often not meant to be a physical creature.

And if it now has any significance, prophets knew that the earth was round. The sons of God also knew it over 30000 years ago.

[Mythbuster]

How do you know what the word leviathan means? That word is way too cool to be something "false". I've heard that leviathan often means serpent in the Bible. It's probably often not meant to be a physical creature.

And if it now has any significance, prophets knew that the earth was round. The sons of God also knew it over 30000 years ago.

Oh yeah and when Jesus went on the top of a mountain, and from it's top, he could see all the kingdom of planet Earth. This could ONLY occur if the Earth were small and flat. Think about it if the world were Round, he coudn't heve seen what's on the on the other side of the planet, regardless of how high the supposed mountain was. In fact, verses like this used to be used by the church to PROVE the earth is flash. If the bible is right about this mountain, then Columbus and NASA are WRONG about the earth being round.

http://www.jcnot4me.com/images/Universe-2-web.gif

[c7ityi_]

Oh yeah and when Jesus went on the top of a mountain, and from it's top, he could see all the kingdom of planet Earth. This could ONLY occur if the Earth were small and flat. Think about it if the world were Round, he coudn't heve seen what's on the on the other side of the planet, regardless of how high the supposed mountain was.

You only understand the physical, so you interpret everything from that angle. According to your interpretation, Jesus would have also had to have a pretty good "vision" to see ALL the kingdoms of the earth. But that's not how it was. Satan showed Jesus this in a vision.

He never was on a "mountain" (at least not a physical one), when he saw that vision. Jesus said: "Recognize what is before you, and what is hidden from you will be revealed to you; for there is nothing hidden that will not be made manifest."

In fact, verses like this used to be used by the church to PROVE the earth is flash.

How stupid of them. But whatever people say and do cannot change the truth. Not even 7 years in jail could take away the truth that Giordano Bruno knew. In vain they burned him. Galileo let them burn his writings because he knew that they could not burn the truth of God.

It's ironic. Like in the days of Jesus, those who call themselves followers of God are the followers of satan, and those who are hated and laughed at, are the ones who follow God.

[Katazia]

C7ityi –

You only understand the physical, so you interpret everything from that angle. No one has ever shown there is anything else other than the physical so it makes no sense to make assertions from any other perspective.

How stupid of them. But whatever people say and do cannot change the truth. Not even 7 years in jail could take away the truth that Giordano Bruno knew. In vain they burned him. Galileo let them burn his writings because he knew that they could not burn the truth of God.You are correct that those evil Christian acts cannot hide the truth that Christianity is an abomination.

Kat

[c7ityi_]

No one has ever shown there is anything else other than the physical so it makes no sense to make assertions from any other perspective.

No one has ever shown that there is anything other than the spiritual. Everything is in the mind.

You are correct that those evil Christian acts cannot hide the truth that Christianity is an abomination.

A Christian is someone who follows Christ. If someone who calls himself a Christian does evil, he is not a Christian; instead, he is the follower of satan, the father of lies.

"Not everyone who says to Me, "Lord, Lord," shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven." - Matthew 7:21

[TW Scott]

Oh yeah and when Jesus went on the top of a mountain, and from it's top, he could see all the kingdom of planet Earth. This could ONLY occur if the Earth were small and flat. Think about it if the world were Round, he coudn't heve seen what's on the on the other side of the planet, regardless of how high the supposed mountain was. In fact, verses like this used to be used by the church to PROVE the earth is flash. If the bible is right about this mountain, then Columbus and NASA are WRONG about the earth being round.

http://www.jcnot4me.com/images/Universe-2-web.gif

Small problem. You are thinking too literal. Jesus was not bound by our mortal perceptions. He probably decided to use his omniscience at that moment. That would negate the need for the earth to be flat.

[Godless]

Even till this day there are pathetic idiotic theist who believe the earth is flat! :rolleyes:
The Flat Earth Society (http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm)

Do check out their assertions of evidence. Have a nice laugh.

Godless

[Katazia]

C7ityi –

No one has ever shown that there is anything other than the spiritual. Everything is in the mind.We know we are physical. The spiritual doesn’t exist.

A Christian is someone who follows Christ.A Christian is someone who follows one of some 30,000 different variations of an ancient superstitious idea derived from even more ancient mythologies. There never was a Christ that could be followed.

If someone who calls himself a Christian does evil, he is not a Christian; instead, he is the follower of satan, the father of lies.Many people have suffered and have been murdered by and because of Christianity; that makes it an evil regime that must be destroyed.

Kat

[purple_hairstreak]

A gallup poll in 2001 showed that 95% of Americans believe in God. Combined with the other mystics, more than 95% of the population are mystical. I'd say that we are pretty much the same as 2000 years ago, but socially acceptable behavior contains much of the mystical practices of sacrifice and beheadings.

Sorry to shatter your illusions, but there is a world outside America :(

[KennyJC]

1 in 5 Americans also believe the Sun revolves around the Earth. I believe that survey wasn't even conducted in the bible belt!

[Mythbuster]

1 in 5 Americans also believe the Sun revolves around the Earth. I believe that survey wasn't even conducted in the bible belt!

http://www.choiceshirts.com/images/A5/74/A5748D-md.jpg

[Katazia]

jayleew -

Popular belief is only evidence that the idea is popular not that it has any truth.

Kat

[c7ityi_]

1 in 5 Americans also believe the Sun revolves around the Earth.

In my country, I've sometimes heard people say that Americanos are stupid. I would guess there's like 20% christians in my country, dunno...

[Godless]

In my country, I've sometimes heard people say that Americanos are stupid.

Lets not get political.

Religious people overall are inept to make political desicions that would serve them better. That's why the powers that be manipulate them with religious rhetoric so that they in turn would vote for the most religious leaders. Why else do you think an inconpetent jackass is still in the white house?.

Godless

[c7ityi_]

Why else do you think an inconpetent jackass is still in the white house?.
why do you think he's incompetent?

[cole grey]

First, God would not be omnipotent if God couldn't give control of some situation or another to someone else. God would be forced to act, which doesn't line up with the idea of an all-powerful God.
Second, the future doesn't create the past, no matter how compelling, so a confluence of events which leads to an event which God had foreknowledge of is not created by that foreknowledge - the event is caused by the precursors.
If you want to use this logic for an argument you have to explain how the big bang could only have "banged" into what we know as the now, and there were no other possibilities. The idea that everything is foreordained by God is a possibility, I suppose, but far from necessary -only if it were would your argument be of any value - but of course, if everything were foreordained by God, this argument would be pretty silly.



p.s. bush has done so much damage and accomplished so much for his people (not all the american people, just in case you don't catch my drift), I don't see how anyone could call him incompetent.

[jayleew]

Sorry to shatter your illusions, but there is a world outside America :(

No there isn't. In fact, there is no America either. Just my street. :rolleyes:

Give me a break and don't be so hasty with written communication, looking for anyway to exploit my words to create smoke clouds and mirrors and muddle the issue. All you are doing to distracting us from the issue. Read the discussion, and you will find that we were talking specifically about America.

[Kerry Shirts]

Katazia:
We know we are physical. The spiritual doesn’t exist.

I guess then, from this, I am safe to conclude you haven't studied your Einstein? :cool:

[Kerry Shirts]

Katazia:
No one has ever shown there is anything else other than the physical so it makes no sense to make assertions from any other perspective.

Oh yes they have. Quantum physics has shown there is something other than the physical..........Einstein showed there is something other than the physical. What do you think E=MC[2] means? Is energy physical? Matter, as we know it literally disappears at light speed, hence matter is simply slowed down energy, whatever *that* is!

Thoughts are not physical, but they certainly are *real* and absolutely influence, effect, and change the physical world........

[(Q)]

Einstein showed there is something other than the physical.

Seems you might have it bass ackwards there.

What do you think E=MC[2] means?

Energy is equivalent to mass.

Is energy physical?

Absolutely!

Thoughts are not physical

Yes, they are. Neurons firing.

[KennyJC]

Why do fundies constantly wish for something non-physical within the universe? They even resort to trying to call aspects of the physical world non-physical. It's really quite sad that they seek mystery and comfort in this way.

[Kerry Shirts]

A friend of mine, Blake Ostler, has noted something interesting on mind not being physical which is what I was getting at with the thoughts idea of not being physical.

It seems to me that what we need is not matter with mind (panpsychism) , but a solid form of emergentism where the properties of mind emerge from a certain function and organization of material neural states. Thus, mind is not panpsychic per se, but inherently such that a certain function and organization of matter gives rise to the properties of mind. The best anlaogies we have for the properties of mind are the function of computer software programs which organize the hardware in certain ways to produce outcomes. It also seems obvious that the properties of mental subjectivity (self awareness) and ability to think increase and become more complex as the underlying organization of the neural network of the brain becomes more complx e(e.g., dendrytes that branch from axons). Thus, a snail has more properties of mind than a rock, and a dog more than a snail, and a chimpanzee more than a dog largely because of the neural complexity of the respective central nervous and brain systems of the animals. However, it is still difficult to account for what Chalmers refers to as the "tough problem," the problem of explaining subjective awareness that we have awareness.

The result of this observation is that the properties of mind supervene on material states but are not identical to material states. It may be a form of epiphenomenalism except that there is a feed-back loop that then makes the material states of the brain subject to the downward casusation of the mind. It is admittedly this downward causation that is the toughest part of any mind-body theory to explain -- but the theory of emergent properties does a better job than any other in my view. So what I propose is close to panpsychism in the sense that matieral inherently has the capacity to create the properties of mind when organized in certain ways. However, mere matter sans the functional orgainzation doesn't have properties of mind.

This view is also dualist in a certain sense but strongly materalism because mind supervenes on material states. Mind is not identical to matter, but it is necessary for matter to give rise to the properties of mind.

[Katazia]

Kerry -

In discussions such as these energy and matter are considered physical or perhaps more accurately material as opposed to the religious assertions of immaterial entities. Alternatively we could refer to the physical and material entities as natural to contrast with the supernatural environment of religions.

Explain how a thought is not physical. It is simply a label we give to a physical activity within the brain.


Kat

[c7ityi_]

It's stupid to say that the universe is material since no one knows what matter is.

[Kerry Shirts]

No, I don't think it's stupid, I think it's just incomplete. We know what matter is in conjunction with energy at light speed, for one thing. On the Quantum level the idea of matter becomes ***very*** difficult, I will agree with you there.

[KennyJC]

It's stupid to say that the universe is material since no one knows what matter is.

It doesn't 'matter' if we have a God-like understanding of what 'matter' is. That is what we call it, and that is what we define anything that resembles matter.

[c7ityi_]

On the Quantum level the idea of matter becomes ***very*** difficult, I will agree with you there.

it doesn't become difficult at all...
it's just hard to observe it...
but an atom behaves just like a solar system...
all particles have two magnetic poles and they rotate...

causes can't be seen...
the presence can't be seen...
the observer can't be seen...
that's why physicists will not find the truth...

they haven't found themselves yet...
they don't believe in themselves...
they don't know themselves...
they don't know that everything is made of the self...

matter is not physical...
because separation does not exist...

at quantum level...
matter behaves like the mind because it is...

[Godless]

matter is not physical...

If matter is not physical, why don't you speed a car to a wall, and if you survive, tell the cop it was not there. Matter is not physical!. :rolleyes:

Godless

[c7ityi_]

godless...

it sounds like you equate physical with real...
physical only means: something separate from the self.

you have to go a bit deeper...
ask what electrons and quarks are made of...
you'll find that the world is made of nothing...
the self...

if a car drives to a wall, it breaks because it wants to...
it doesn't want to merge with the wall...
only the self is real...

electricity...
magnetic energy...
self...

separation is only mental...

[jayleew]

jayleew -

Popular belief is only evidence that the idea is popular not that it has any truth.

Kat

Please make sure that if you are going to join a conversation, to start from the beginning of the conversation. It was on page 30 or so, so not that much reading.

I agree with you. Now, the evidence I provided was evidence to counter a claim that we are somehow less mystical people than the Jews 2000 years ago. That reason has put away popular mystical ideas such as God, astrology, and the supernatural. The gallup poll only represents those that believe in God. There are other people who are mystical who do not.

Godless wanted to know why in the world people would even believe in God. I answered him, and that is where this conversation is stemming from.

[Renrue]

c7ityi_,

I hate to butt in at this point and on about not the main topic, but I must say you are just speaking babble. I hear better things come from crackheads (no offense, was a joke).

it sounds like you equate physical with real...
physical only means: something separate from the self.
That's an opinionated fact to yourself. Saying something like that to Godless is preaching.

you have to go a bit deeper...
ask what electrons and quarks are made of...
you'll find that the world is made of nothing...
the self...
There is a theory that all subatomical particles are formed by energy, because we know matter and energy are the same thing. The theory goes that very small energy rings and strings came together to form quarks and electrons and et cetera. Now, it's just a theory, but what the word theory means is up to you.

if a car drives to a wall, it breaks because it wants to...
it doesn't want to merge with the wall...
only the self is real...
Are you smoking pot? You sound like a pot head. :m: The car is not alive, it does not "want" nor is it "alive." It breaks into the wall because it's atom versus atom, and the molecular structure of the car is opposing the molecular structure of the wall. One is bond to break, if not both. No, you're right, it doesn't want to "merge" with the wall, it happened due to the laws of the Universe.

electricity...
magnetic energy...
self...
Can you please stop overusing ellipsis? That just makes you less credible. :m:

separation is only mental...
You know what? I give up, give me some of that pot you got.


[Renrue]

[Godless]

Renrue; He aint got pot, he just hit a wall with his head, since his head didn't want to merge with the wall, it's a bit sore, and since it knocked the hell out of him, he sounds a bit high. ;)

[Kerry Shirts]

Actaully, there are MANY physicists now who would argue the same thing c7ityi is saying, truly! Yes it's weird, but then Quantum is hardly normal! It has totally blown the walls outta the house and took the roof off. I have LOTS of references on this.

[Godless]

Stick around quantum is hardly the begining. The universe is infinite as big as it is infinite small. When were done figuring out part of quantum physics, there be something even smaller to talk about, and on, and on, and on....

Godless

[c7ityi_]

That's an opinionated fact to yourself. Saying something like that to Godless is preaching.

but i read it in a dictionary...

There is a theory that all subatomical particles are formed by energy, because we know matter and energy are the same thing. The theory goes that very small energy rings and strings came together to form quarks and electrons and et cetera. Now, it's just a theory, but what the word theory means is up to you.

but no physicist knows what energy is... it's just an empty word... it cannot explain the stuff we see...

that's right... it's made of emptiness...

Are you smoking pot?

i don't know... i don't know what pot is...

The car is not alive, it does not "want" nor is it "alive."

yeah... but the atoms are alive... there is a will... otherwise the electrons would have no reason to spin around the nucleus... the world can only be explained if there is a deep will within matter... crystals form following certain mathematical laws... matter is solid... magnets have two poles... there is a will... like in humans, but they're not aware of anything...

and surely... everything must be alive... there can be no line... since we're made of atoms... and we're alive... it means that atoms are alive...

It breaks into the wall because it's atom versus atom, and the molecular structure of the car is opposing the molecular structure of the wall.

magnetic repulsion...

No, you're right, it doesn't want to "merge" with the wall, it happened due to the laws of the Universe.

yes... and why are the laws the way they are... it can only be explained by a deep unconscious will... nothingness... self... the only existence...

Can you please stop overusing ellipsis?

impossible... i don't know what ellipsis is...

You know what? I give up, give me some of that pot you got.

you can't unite with something outside you... you have to look inside... everything is inside you...

[Renrue]

but i read it in a dictionary...
Christianity is also in the dictionary, but doesn't mean it's the facts of life.

but no physicist knows what energy is... it's just an empty word... it cannot explain the stuff we see...
Therefore, you cannot explain the stuff either. So maybe we should not talk. The self? Empty. Nothing? Empty. See? Empty. Why don't I play the same game with you.

that's right... it's made of emptiness...
1.
1. Holding or containing nothing.
2. Mathematics. Having no elements or members; null: an empty set.
2. Having no occupants or inhabitants; vacant: an empty chair; empty desert.
3. Lacking force or power: an empty threat.
4. Lacking purpose or substance; meaningless: an empty life.
5. Not put to use; idle: empty hours.
6. Needing nourishment; hungry: “More fierce and more inexorable far/Than empty tigers or the roaring sea” (Shakespeare).
7. Devoid; destitute: empty of pity.

If it's there, then it's not emptiness, or it would be null and we are too. Null cannot make. By your logic, we aren't here, but I'm sure I'm typing right now.

i don't know... i don't know what pot is...
Weed, reefer, marijuana.

yeah... but the atoms are alive...
We define "life" in biology as an organism that reproduces and consumes in order to sustain energy. Atoms do none of that; ego, they are not alive. Sure they move, but that's not life. Viruses move, but we don't consider them LIVING.

there is a will... otherwise the electrons would have no reason to spin around the nucleus... the world can only be explained if there is a deep will within matter...
will1 n. The mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action.
They move alright, but it's not "WILL."

crystals form following certain mathematical laws... matter is solid... magnets have two poles... there is a will... like in humans, but they're not aware of anything...
Matter is also liquid, gaseous, and plasma. Just because they move doesn't mean it's alive, get over it.

and surely... everything must be alive... there can be no line... since we're made of atoms... and we're alive... it means that atoms are alive...
I don't think you understand the difference between life and movement. You're merely stating that if it moves, it is living. So, all you're doing is blahing nonsense that you made up yourself.

magnetic repulsion...
Laws of Universe makes the world go round and round.

yes... and why are the laws the way they are... it can only be explained by a deep unconscious will... nothingness... self... the only existence...
Just because we can't explain it doesn't mean you can make up answers. You don't even know, nay do I, but am I making up answers?

impossible... i don't know what ellipsis is...
ellipsis n. pl. A mark or series of marks (... or * * *, for example) used in writing or printing to indicate an omission, especially of letters or words.
Now you know.

you can't unite with something outside you... you have to look inside... everything is inside you...
Okay, everything is inside me. Meaning nothings outside. How are you here? If everythings in me, why do you exist? Shouldn't you be inside me? Why are there stuff outside? Why's this computer outside? Are my guts flying out?


[Renrue]

[Cris]

Renrue,

Hi and welcome to sciforums.

I wish you luck with C7's gibberish.

[Cris]

Godless,

The universe is infinite as big as it is infinite small.Hmm, don't think either is necessarily or likely true. Infinite in time most probably, but its size could be finite and I don't think it is possible to become infinitely smaller, surely at some point one would dissapear.

[c7ityi_]

Therefore, you cannot explain the stuff either. So maybe we should not talk. The self? Empty. Nothing? Empty. See? Empty. Why don't I play the same game with you.

Words are not empty if you understand the things they are associated with. Definitions can be wrong.

If it's there, then it's not emptiness, or it would be null and we are too. Null cannot make. By your logic, we aren't here, but I'm sure I'm typing right now.

Nothingness is the only "thing" that can create. It's the only infinity. When you study this somethingness you'll find that it's actually nothingness. There is nothing other than the present, and present has no duration, so it is nothing.

You're sure you're typing because you don't know everything.

Weed, reefer, marijuana.

duendy says that it's ok to take drugs like LSD and marijuana and stuff but I've never taken.

We define "life" in biology as an organism that reproduces and consumes in order to sustain energy. Atoms do none of that; ego, they are not alive. Sure they move, but that's not life. Viruses move, but we don't consider them LIVING.

For me, viruses are living. Just because things don't reproduce and consume doesn't mean they're not alive. Everything is alive, to some degree.

will1 n. The mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action.
They move alright, but it's not "WILL."

What moves them if not will then? That definition of "will" doesn't really matter. "Will" can be unconscious too. When the "self" (existence) is in a rock, it can't express itself as much as when it's in a plant, animal or human body. But rocks still hold themselves together.

Matter is also liquid, gaseous, and plasma. Just because they move doesn't mean it's alive, get over it.

Nothing is dead.

I don't think you understand the difference between life and movement. You're merely stating that if it moves, it is living.

That's right. What else would create movement if not "life" (the self)?

Laws of Universe makes the world go round and round.

What makes the laws of the universe the way they are? The self. It makes everything alive with its existence.

Just because we can't explain it doesn't mean you can make up answers. You don't even know, nay do I, but am I making up answers?

but i really know.

ellipsis n. pl. A mark or series of marks (... or * * *, for example) used in writing or printing to indicate an omission, especially of letters or words.
Now you know.

fun.

Okay, everything is inside me. Meaning nothings outside. How are you here? If everythings in me, why do you exist?

I'm you. The same self. The same existence. Just in a different body. Hence... I also appear to be different. But when we realize we're not the body... we'll all be alike and united.

Shouldn't you be inside me? Why are there stuff outside? Why's this computer outside? Are my guts flying out?

It's because you refuse to accept that they are inside you. You say: I am me, they are outside me. That way, you remain conscious. Without that feeling, you couldn't remain something, you would be nothing. You defend your person because you want to remain it, the same way, atoms also defend themselves from uniting with some other matter, but not consciously.

It's just mental. When you realize that there is only one self, you'll see that you're within everyone. Omnipresent. Just like God. Because that's what God is: the self.

You can't say: "things are outside me". Outside what? What is this "me"? If you think it's your body, then cut off your hand and it will appear to be outside you. So... you are not the body. You are the existence.

[c7ityi_]

I wish you luck with C7's gibberish.

Gibberish is what you don't understand.

[Renrue]

c7ityi_,

Somehow, I think you are just messing with me now. So, there is really no point in continuing. All your doing is just making me play along, while you type nonsense where it brings into an infinite loop of you going "everything is nothingness" or "once you realize..."

I see through your phoney scam. I saw it before, but was doubting whether you were playing or serious. Obvious now, I am the jackass that fell into the trap. :(


[Renrue]

[Cris]

c7,

Gibberish is what you don't understand. Nope, gibberish is either something unintelligible, or in your case pretentious and needlessly obscure language.

[Mythbuster]

Omniscient as defined by webster" having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight" You are Mistakenly taking the idea that if god knows everything, it means everythign is determined by god. If you're aware in advance that a war is going to break out tommaow does it mean you can do anything about it?
Then you step to the belief that we're doing what god sees we will do which means we're forced into what we will do. It makes soem sense if you think that god is Time. What is time? Anotehr field of space. Since god is time in a sense that everywhere and anywhere at once. God's seeing the world being born and being destroyed at teh same time. Also there's a thing with free-will. Everyone is predictable. There is a mistaken conclusion that free will equates to you ahve control over your will. No you don't you do as you feel and what you feel is sometimes not logicly what you think. And teh choice of either is proly free will as you see it. And based on you prior actions you'll do as you've done before depdant on the various variables of the situation. Read people and you'll udnerstand once you've read most people accuratly you can predict their action to a decent accuracy. Also there is some confusion on my part about how god is omni. To help clear this up i will restate. Go exist at all points and therefore knows and sees everything. Then it's a mistake to conclude that knowing equates power to change. i don't need to touch anything else i think..

[c7ityi_]

I saw it before, but was doubting whether you were playing or serious. Obvious now, I am the jackass that fell into the trap. :(

"Trap"? Strange. Somehow it feels like you're playing. But if you really think I was not serious, I can tell you that I was (although, just because I say so, doesn't mean it IS so... and this doesn't have to mean it is NOT so)

[Godless]

Viruses are living entities.

Chris:
*Hmm, don't think either is necessarily or likely true. Infinite in time most probably, but its size could be finite and I don't think it is possible to become infinitely smaller, surely at some point one would dissapear.*

The above was stated as a cliche, for the vast sice of the universe, and quantum dynamics...

Not literally infinite, which is a word that is sometimes not well understood.

Abstractly though infinitely large, and infinitely small exist.

Mythbuster; Hey! good definition of what god truly is. Time is god. I like that. NOT an entity but an existing phenomenon, the ever changing of always moving.

Godless

[Cris]

Mythbuster,

You are Mistakenly taking the idea that if god knows everything, it means everythign is determined by god.It does if he planned it that way.

If you're aware in advance that a war is going to break out tommaow does it mean you can do anything about it?Set off a chain reaction of nuclear bombs and destroy all the combatants before they fight?

Then you step to the belief that we're doing what god sees we will do which means we're forced into what we will do.Depends if you see him as a dispassionate observer or merely checking that his plan is proceeding as determined.

It makes soem sense if you think that god is Time. What is time? Anotehr field of space. Since god is time in a sense that everywhere and anywhere at once. God's seeing the world being born and being destroyed at teh same time.It is quite important that that idea is kept in mind since if he does have a plan and is interested in every detail then he has no need to proceed with the plan unless it is exactly what he wants and he can check all that at the instant of creation. What follows then must be perfectly pre-determined.

Also there's a thing with free-will. Everyone is predictable. There is a mistaken conclusion that free will equates to you ahve control over your will. No you don't you do as you feel and what you feel is sometimes not logicly what you think. And teh choice of either is proly free will as you see it. And based on you prior actions you'll do as you've done before depdant on the various variables of the situation.You should probably think that through a little more carefully since it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

Read people and you'll udnerstand once you've read most people accuratly you can predict their action to a decent accuracy.So how about the person who is to be born 5000 years from now, how accurately can you predict their actions?

Also there is some confusion on my part about how god is omni. To help clear this up i will restate. Go exist at all points and therefore knows and sees everything. Then it's a mistake to conclude that knowing equates power to change. i don't need to touch anything else i think. You should make sure you understand the difference between knowing future events and seeing them – two very different conditions. And I don’t think your attempt at clarification actually clarified anything. I am now confused as to what you mean.

[Mythbuster]

Thanks Cris, it's clear now.

[Renrue]

c7ityi_,

You are definitely just being a jerk-arse. You question ellipsis and 'pot.' The only reason to do so and not know what they are is because you question EVERYTHING to make people constantly try to make a point. True, if you did not know, you didn't even bother to look it up. And you contradict yourself as well.
you can't unite with something outside you... you have to look inside... everything is inside you...
If you do have it all in you, then obviously knowledge is something you have. If you have no gained the attributes you claim is possible, than your philosophy is wrong because you are unable to attain what you preach.

It is obvious you are kidding around. I say we just ignore c7ityi_ from now on. I can assure you all he is just being a total twit.

Plus, people who are serious actually look into a dictionary and examine another's post. You have not thouroughly examined my post at all if you are going to question what an ellipsis is. Because you do not examine anyone else's post, we are wasting our time and you are just fooling around.


[Renrue]

[c7ityi_]

The only reason to do so and not know what they are is because you question EVERYTHING to make people constantly try to make a point.

The reason I asked that is because I wanted to.

And you contradict yourself as well.

Contradictions exist only in your mind.

If you do have it all in you, then obviously knowledge is something you have.

Of course. But there is something that limits people from knowing everything. The body.

Because you do not examine anyone else's post, we are wasting our time and you are just fooling around.

I have never wasted time in my life.

[jayleew]

Godless,

Hmm, don't think either is necessarily or likely true. Infinite in time most probably, but its size could be finite and I don't think it is possible to become infinitely smaller, surely at some point one would dissapear.

Well, that depends on what you define as the universe. Are we talking about anomoly to anomoly on the other side of the universe? Or, are we talking about the nothingness in which the anomolies exist? Does the universe have the potential to be infinitely large? The nothing (space) is pretty perplexing thing, isn't it? In our tactile world, it is a difficult concept to grasp nothingness.

[Cris]

jayleew,

Yup good point.

[Mythbuster]

You are Mistakenly taking the idea that if god knows everything, it means everythign is determined by god.

It does if he planned it that way.[/quote]
That was not implied in your theory.


If you're aware in advance that a war is going to break out tommaow does it mean you can do anything about it?

Set off a chain reaction of nuclear bombs and destroy all the combatants before they fight?


CAn You do that right now? No.

Then you step to the belief that we're doing what god sees we will do which means we're forced into what we will do.

Depends if you see him as a dispassionate observer or merely checking that his plan is proceeding as determined.

You're Applying Human ideals and thoughts to something that is not human. You never imply God created that plan but that we ahve free will in some form. .. Again if You know the Blueprints to a building does that mean you can change the blueprints?

It is quite important that that idea is kept in mind since if he does have a plan and is interested in every detail then he has no need to proceed with the plan unless it is exactly what he wants and he can check all that at the instant of creation. What follows then must be perfectly pre-determined. Following that line of thought it makes sense. You see God as some type of mirco-manager. Let me try something..
Free will is the furfilling of fate. If you did something that you would not do due to the variables surrounding it you would not be yourself. Free will isn't like fliping a coin. It's not random.

Also there's a thing with free-will. Everyone is predictable. There is a mistaken conclusion that free will equates to you ahve control over your will. No you don't you do as you feel and what you feel is sometimes not logicly what you think. And teh choice of either is proly free will as you see it. And based on you prior actions you'll do as you've done before depdant on the various variables of the situation.

You should probably think that through a little more carefully since it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

Simply put you ahve free will, but you can't control your free will. What you do is determined by what you ahve done before, affected now by the variables of the situation. I can want to draw something all i want but for my past experinces and the way my mind works i unable to force myself to draw. I want to draw my my will says i shouldn't and won't.

Read people and you'll udnerstand once you've read most people accuratly you can predict their action to a decent accuracy.

So how about the person who is to be born 5000 years from now, how accurately can you predict their actions?

That doesn't apply to my arguement. If i were here 5000 years from now and met the person you're talking about yes with enough information i can predict what they will do in a situation. But since i can't be here 5000 years from now that's not possible. Now i'm a tad bit confused..


Also there is some confusion on my part about how god is omni. To help clear this up i will restate. Go exist at all points and therefore knows and sees everything. Then it's a mistake to conclude that knowing equates power to change. i don't need to touch anything else i think.

You should make sure you understand the difference between knowing future events and seeing them – two very different conditions. And I don’t think your attempt at clarification actually clarified anything. I am now confused as to what you mean.

You're appling human concepts to udnerstand soemthing not human. I can know i'm going to die tomarow and how but i can't see it. True because of time. But infinite understanding and awareness equates to seeing if god sees as a human does.

Everyone is free of course to hold their own points of view, but the issue here is whether your view represents truth or not. Your statements really just represent an unsupported assertion; you have not addressed the problem of the paradox.

If the Christian god is omniscient then you will have the exact same analogous attributes as a computer program. Everything you do in your life and everything you are going to do has already been pre-determined (programmed by God). The computer program has absolutely no choice as to how it behaves once it has been started. In the same way if God created you according to his universal plans and if he has perfect knowledge of all future events then he has effectively programmed you to carry out those events. You have absolutely no free choice in the matter. Hence free will is a complete illusion, and Christianity is a mockery since it depends on free will to make that choice of being saved or not.

The only way free will is possible is if your future choices are unknown, i.e. have not been pre-programmed. In which case God cannot be omniscient and is hence severely limited in his capabilities, to the point where he cannot be a God according to Christian definitions.
.. I ahve addresed the Paradox. I believev that your logic is flawed adn does not take in to account all the differing variables. I'll touch lightly on teh Tabula rosa theory. You are asserting that god created our program, directly. How you act and precive things is how you respond to situations. That is determined by other situations. And Yes we don't ahve choice in our actions. Do you? Can you do something that you would not do? Can you not do anything you will not do. Not jsut ot prove something but as a normala ction. Everyhitng you do is determined by you, and more or less your sub concious not you the one who formulates and acts. It's hard ot explain. But you can't make anyone do anything they don't want to do. You seem to smash concious decison mkaing with unconcious.

And i'll say it again Your paradox is a bloody paradox. You keep on saying that if someone else knows what you're going to do it's pre-determined in teh sense that you ahve no choice. Wrong you ahve a choice and you chose what was predicted and seen or known. That doesn't mean you're being forced into anything.

But i muct argue that evil does not exist in that sense. It is seen as evil by society. If i killed a thousand people i wouldn't consider myself evil. Just a killer. I kill people. so what. It's not evil. It may be wrong in your eyes to take someone else's life. And i see how you can reason that. But i don't give a f***. So reallyit's back to perspective. And funnily enough i grew up in one of the "seedier" section of LA. Also you mistake that someone who kills becuase of a social background amkes him a serial killer. Is he jsut some bum emotionly driven to kill or is he one of those few who are born as such. Those are the onese you never hear about those who jsut kill without emotion and without care. The people they usualy find are jsut killers not real Serial killers..I think serial has something to do with the randomness of the murders? But i think that's been warped into including patteren killers. w/e that had nothing to do with the discusion.

[Cris]

Mythbuster,

It does if he planned it that way.
That was not implied in your theory.Do you mean the opening post? That is now 4.5 years old and we’ve discussed many variations since then.

“ “ If you're aware in advance that a war is going to break out tommaow does it mean you can do anything about it? ”

Set off a chain reaction of nuclear bombs and destroy all the combatants before they fight?
”
CAn You do that right now? No.Ahh you are referring to me directly. But really your hypothetical isn’t the same as certainty.

Depends if you see him as a dispassionate observer or merely checking that his plan is proceeding as determined. ”

You're Applying Human ideals and thoughts to something that is not human.And why assume it doesn’t hold the same values as humans?

You never imply God created that plan but that we ahve free will in some form.Sure I have in several threads.

.. Again if You know the Blueprints to a building does that mean you can change the blueprints?What’s your point and how does that relate to timeless omniscience?

You see God as some type of mirco-manager.Doesn’t perfect knowledge imply every detail?

Free will is the furfilling of fate.I don’t think so. Aren’t these opposite concepts? One is either free or compelled by a predetermined fate. They are mutually exclusive.

If you did something that you would not do due to the variables surrounding it you would not be yourself. You are confusing freedom to do anything with typical actions. These are different.

Free will isn't like fliping a coin. It's not random. So if I choose to flip a coin and follow the outcome is that my free will operating or the randomness of a coin flip?

Simply put you ahve free will, but you can't control your free will. What you do is determined by what you ahve done before, affected now by the variables of the situation. I can want to draw something all i want but for my past experinces and the way my mind works i unable to force myself to draw. I want to draw my my will says i shouldn't and won't.That’s known as causal determinism and is a very different and more complex debate. This thread has been largely concerned with epistemic determinism.

That doesn't apply to my arguement. If i were here 5000 years from now and met the person you're talking about yes with enough information i can predict what they will do in a situation. But since i can't be here 5000 years from now that's not possible. Now i'm a tad bit confused..Omniscience also pertains to future contingents not just what you already know.

You're appling human concepts to udnerstand soemthing not human.And why assume such concepts would not apply?

I can know i'm going to die tomarow and how but i can't see it.If you can’t see it then you can’t know it?

You are asserting that god created our program, directly.It’s a scenario consistent with perfect knowledge and the desire to achieve a certain result.

You keep on saying that if someone else knows what you're going to do it's pre-determined in teh sense that you ahve no choice. That is indeed the classic proposal that has been offered by many famous philosophers for millennia.

Wrong you ahve a choice and you chose what was predicted and seen or known. That doesn't mean you're being forced into anything.Unless all the conditions and variables that led to your actions were intimately designed so you would take the action you think is from your free will; something possible given the concept of an omniscient and omnipotent creator with a predetermined final outcome.

[Mythbuster]

Cris you right about your theory. Today on wiki added this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox

[cole grey]

mythbuster,

I know you can't be dumb enough to have used that to say cris is shown to be right about the question, when the wikipedia entry specifically points out that there are many disagreements relating to definitions, etc.

[Mythbuster]

Not quite. Logic is a system of deduction used to argue valid conclusions. Not just the conclusions we as people can come up with, but anything that can be determined by reason. And in this case it seems the rules of logic force us to accept that God is not omnipotent.

(A) God is omnipotent
If (A)God is omnipotent, then (B)God can lift anything.
If (A)God is omnipotent, then (C)God can make anything.
If (C)God can make anything, then God can make a rock so big that (~B)he can't lift it.

A
A=>B
B
A=>C
C
C=>~B
~B

B^~B => ~A (By negation introduction)

(Note ~A is the negation of A, that is, it means God is not omnipotent)

It seems that by the rules of logic, we're not allowed to assume God is omnipotent because to do so would result in a contradiction. This means we have to change our definitions of both God and omnipotence, Otherwise the rules of logic won't apply at all, and the world would be rendered incoherent.

There's competing claims here. God's very existence on the one hand, and the fundamental rule of logic that contradictions are unacceptable.

The way the paradox works is that you can't simply claim God transcends logic, because for logic to have any real meaning it has to apply all the time, everytime. God either exists and logic doesn't or logic exists and God doesn't. You can't hold God goes beyond the system like some people would be inclined to say.

[Kalypso]

Cris, what is the proper response to people who say "You can't understand god or god's logic" when this paradox is presented?

[Nisus]

This paradox is a False Dilemna

[Mythbuster]

Omnipotence falls under the line of Infinity anyways. It's not quantitative.

[The Devil Inside]

omnipotence can not be measured. G-d would create the rock, and lift the rock. at teh same time, G-d would NOT create the rock, and therefore, there is nothing to lift.

with infinite possibilities, G-d could create the rock, and not create it at the same time.

G-d IS outside our flawed perceptions. logic is absolute in the physical world, that much i believe. but i do not believe G-d to be a physical entity, so why should i apply the limitations of a physical being onto it?

sounds dumb to me. in fact, it goes against LOGIC to do so.

[Mythbuster]

omnipotence can not be measured. G-d would create the rock, and lift the rock. at teh same time, G-d would NOT create the rock, and therefore, there is nothing to lift.

with infinite possibilities, G-d could create the rock, and not create it at the same time.

G-d IS outside our flawed perceptions. logic is absolute in the physical world, that much i believe. but i do not believe G-d to be a physical entity, so why should i apply the limitations of a physical being onto it?

sounds dumb to me. in fact, it goes against LOGIC to do so.

It can't do that. Logic gives us a roadmap for our knowledge. Without that roadmap, we'd wander around lost. Logic being a map means it utilizes what we already know.

[KennyJC]

omnipotence can not be measured. G-d would create the rock, and lift the rock. at teh same time, G-d would NOT create the rock, and therefore, there is nothing to lift.

with infinite possibilities, G-d could create the rock, and not create it at the same time.

G-d IS outside our flawed perceptions. logic is absolute in the physical world, that much i believe. but i do not believe G-d to be a physical entity, so why should i apply the limitations of a physical being onto it?

sounds dumb to me. in fact, it goes against LOGIC to do so.


If God is outside our logic then how come you can describe him?

True, our perceptions may be limited and flawed, but they are our only hope of finding any answers... rather than just blatant guessing.

[Mythbuster]

omnipotence can not be measured. G-d would create the rock, and lift the rock. at teh same time, G-d would NOT create the rock, and therefore, there is nothing to lift.

with infinite possibilities, G-d could create the rock, and not create it at the same time.

G-d IS outside our flawed perceptions. logic is absolute in the physical world, that much i believe. but i do not believe G-d to be a physical entity, so why should i apply the limitations of a physical being onto it?

sounds dumb to me. in fact, it goes against LOGIC to do so.

Now he goes agens't logic. Hun ? :rolleyes:

[Mythbuster]

If God is outside our logic then how come you can describe him?

is a very important question.Since outside logic...god is everything at the same time to us. he exists and not exists,he gives u pleasure and at that very instant also pain.He kills and does not kill us at the same time.Such a thing cant possibly effect us since such a thing to us is 'non-sense'.

So to b brief logic may have limits but we are and everything realted to us is limited within logic.So we shouldnt be even bothered about whats outside logic.



This whole omnipotence paradox is very similar and probably just the opposit of a paradox that I myself invented(as i told u...This post belongs to a genius).
The paradox is called 'nothingness paradox'.Its kinda like this.
Define an entity to be anything that can b defined or in other words that has some distinguishable propertie(s).
Define 'nothing' to b something that is not an entity.
But we just defined 'nothing'.Then is 'nothing' an entity?By definition it is not.But if it is not then it must be.

You want to know how I resolve it?By simply assuming that the concept of such such a 'nothing' is meaningless.Such a thing does not exist.
thats the whole way I will resolve this 1 by saying that the very idea of 'absoulute omnipotence' is meaningless.Such a thing does not exist.

There are many such paradoxes which are very popular...as u might know
such as
tell me whether the statement "this statement is false" is true or false.I will argue that for this kind of statements....the very concept of asserting a true value is as meaningless as asking whether the question "whats the time?" is true or false.

similarly 'a barber in a town shaves all those and only those who do not shave themselves.'"Does the barber shave himself?".I will argue that such a barber satisfying those criteria cannot possibly exist since in the particuase of barber's shaving himself 'logic breaks'.
Did any1 note how similar these 'self indicating' statements are to the singularity of a black hole?In the singularity ...all rules of physics break down...however the the difference is that at the singularity there can be logical rules governing but not in the paradoxical cases above.

Here is 1 very similar paradox that I was not able to resolve-'The RUSSEL's Paradox'
Let T =the set of all such sets that does not contain itself as 1 of its elemnts.
Does T contain itself?If it does..it doesnt,if it doesnt it does.
The problem here is bcoz of 2 things-1,'common sense tells you we can define such a set' and the 2,'T has an infinity of elements'.

I dont know how experts resolve this......all I know is that it changed mathematians' very way of looking at 'set theory'.

[Mythbuster]

Very nice question KennyJC.

[The Devil Inside]

kenny,
as stated in numerous posts of mine:
you cannot start a sentence with the words "G-d is", and end that sentence having said anything meaningful.

i stand by this statement. that doesnt mean it is necessarily true, only true according to my personal studies and experiences.

i am not dogmatic.

[cole grey]

One can say "this question shows that your answer doesn't exist"
or one can say, "that is a dumb question".
Either statement is just as valid.

Does a dog have the buddha nature? Mu.
Mu = saying, "that is a badly phrased question."

[Mythbuster]

All I can say to this is, our logic is our own and not some omnipotent being's. We have our own words, they are useless and meaningless in terms of discussing things on a different level than us. A triangle equalls 180 degrees. 180 is a number created by humans, a triangle equals 180 degrees, but no one but humans say so. Can god make a stone that he himself cannot lift, The answer is (based on christian belief yes) can he lift the unliftable stone(yes but why because he is omnipotent, but if he is omnipotent how come he didnt create a stone that he could not lift, because the word we use as omnipotent is only described in our human terms) Omnipotent is our word not some imense being's. That is confusing but thats why this is a conundrum . And yes I am aware I rambled on for a paragraph but I tried my best to make it meaningful rambling

[cole grey]

the word "unliftable" doesn't apply.
That is a problem with you if you try to apply an incorrect term to God.

You could just as easily say-
the answer to question A is both yes and no
therefore God can't know whether the answer to the question is yes or no
therefore God can't be omniscient
therefore God can't exist

You should be able to see the error in the above chain of statements (it happens in statement #2 when a HUMAN incorrectly assumes the answer must be yes or no).

The same problem applies when a statement about paradox is used as a statement about God's omnipotence.

Can God create a rock that he can't lift is not a yes or no question, just as the answer to question A is not.

[Godless]

Not only the word "unliftable" but the whole concept is erroneous to use.

When I first started discussing the integrity of the god-concept held by Christians with my Christian friends and Christians on the Internet, I often brought up a point that seems very popular among atheists. However, it occurred to me one day that my point had no merit. The point I would bring up would be that of the heavy rock dilemma. If God is omnipotent, can He create a rock that even He cannot lift? At first it seems like a damning question, but it is not. An atheist may see this question as forming a paradox, but I assert that paradox is false. The perceived paradox is understood in the following manner: if God is all powerful he can do anything; yet, if God can create a rock that he cannot lift, he would no longer be all powerful. The paradox is false, because an important question that is hidden in the heavy rock query is overlooked. Quick Word: Atheists should not ask the heavy rock question about a god or God (http://www.geocities.com/inquisitive79/heavyrock.html)

Clik on the ling for those atheist who still use this concept, to try disprove a negative.

Godless

[Mythbuster]

nice link !

[cole grey]

I'm not saying that God is necessarily outside logic, but our logic has not reached the level of development to which it can be completely trusted to accurately describe all possible reality.

I'll give you that it is the best we have, which is why I believe our responsibility to understand only extends to where our abilities to understand reach their limit.

p.s. thank all of you who are posting (or have posted) in this thread for making me think more about this.

[Mythbuster]

Ummm...It seems like an illusion to me.
Like the logic of this image:
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d4/CCCCP/moving.gif

Mirror is the best way to defeat your outside logic god.

[cole grey]

That illusion and these types of questions are the same - you can focus on a certain limited area, like the second smallest circle which touches the small one on the top left, or the black dots, and by this self-limiting, force the movement to stop.
If you focus on a certain limited, defined level of knowledge, you can pretend that ALL of our knowledge and experience fits into a logical framework, but it really doesn't.
The objectivist and the religious fundamentalist share this fault - they have it all figured out.

[wilofthewisp]

If I would be a Christian, I'd probably answer the argument as follows: It only means that God in his glory exists outside the boundaries of space and time, and his mind works in a way you couldn't possibly even begin to comprehend. His being compasses all that ever was or will be, spanning time from beginning to end simultaneously. Blah blah blah.

Do you like being offensive to Christian who do look at this board? You may already assume I'm uneducated because I am a strong believer in an omniscient God who allows for free will, but if you need earthly credentials, I have studied philosophy and there are several philosophers who have also solved this "problem," namely Immanuel Kant.

Humans have free will. There can be no arguement in that capacity, so what we are essentially arguing is whether or not God is omniscient, having unlimited knowledge. Since all of you have chosen to put your trust into faulty humans rather than God, humor me and go along with the fact that there is a God for my arguement.

God chooses for us to make our own decisions, just as God allows certain things to happen, seeing ahead as to the effects. I ask this, does knowing what will happen mean that one has orchestrated it? God hears our thoughts, rather you like that or not, and knows what decisions we will make because of how well he knows us, rather than seeing into a crystal ball. Let's say you knew the password to an important computer file. Someone else tries to open the file, and you know that unless they put in the password, they will not access it. It turns out, they cannot access the file, just as you knew they wouldn't since you knew they did not know the password. Does that mean that you willed them to not open it, or somehow interfered with their will to open it?

It's interesting that all of you claim to want logic and reason in your lives, but most of you resort to name-calling and tasteless jokes to "prove" a point, and that disappoints me, someone who tries to look at everything with logic and reason. Lastly, of all that has happened to you, did you choose every last bit of it? Weren't there things that happened that you felt you just fell into, or were just too lucky? Free will does not always play a part in our lives, and if you need earthly evidence once again, read Reeve's "Understanding Motivation and Emotion" or better yet, research Watson and Pavlov.

[cole grey]

Do you like being offensive to Christian who do look at this board?
I think all the participants take an honoring and respectful tone in their posts around here.

*cough*

You haven't seen anything yet.

[Godless]

Do you like being offensive to Christian who do look at this board?

Some, not all, make themselves easy target. It only depends how stupid some get, and well some are not stupid at all. ;)

You may already assume I'm uneducated because I am a strong believer in an omniscient God who allows for free will, but if you need earthly credentials, I have studied philosophy and there are several philosophers who have also solved this "problem," namely Immanuel Kant.

A good aponent never assumes, though many have warped ideas, specially Immanuel Kant. He has solved nothing, the nemesis of Ayn Rand, and she tore him a new asshole in philosophical ideas, and clearly showed the erroneous ways of his philosophy. But tell me something, because you studied philosophy, do you think this makes you omniscient? One is not above another, however there is a proper way to live, and a misquided way to see reality.

Quotes Rand:
*(Kant's argument, in essence, ran as follows: man is limited to a consciousness of a specific nature, which perceives by specific means and no others, therefore, his consciousness is not valid; man is blind, because he has eyes—deaf, because he has ears—deluded, because he has a mind—and the things he perceives do not exist, because he perceives them. (33).)

The “phenomenal” world, said Kant [this is not a direct quotation from Kant], is not real: reality, as perceived by man’s mind, is a distortion. The distorting mechanism is man’s conceptual faculty: man’s basic concepts (such as time, space, existence) are not derived from experience or reality, but come from an automatic system of filters in his consciousness (labeled “categories” and “forms of perception”) which impose their own design on his perception of the external world and make him incapable of perceiving it in any manner other than the one in which he does perceive it. This proves, said Kant [this is not a direct quotation], that man’s concepts are only a delusion, but a collective delusion which no one has the power to escape. Thus reason and science are “limited,” said Kant [this, again, is not a direct quotation from Kant]; they are valid only so long as they deal with this world, with a permanent, pre-determined collective delusion . . . but they are impotent to deal with the fundamental metaphysical issues of existence, which belong to the “noumenal” world . . . [which] is unknowable; [but] it is the world of “real” reality, “superior” truth and “things in themselves” or “things as they are”—which means things as they are not perceived by man. (32)

More here (http://enlightenment.supersaturated.com/objectivity/walsh1/)

Kant's mistakes. (http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/kant1.htm)

The above is not from Ayn Rand.

Though, I do sherish the works of the mad-man Immanuel Kant, for truly without his philosophy, we would have no concept of evil, false logic, and able to identify misquided notions.

And I quote: Neo-Tech

The task of philosophy and the job of a philosopher is not to obfuscate but to clarify reality, not to complicate but to simplify living, i.e., not to further mystify but to progressively demystify the human mind in relation to reality and human life. However, except for Aristotle, Ayn Rand, and a few others, most philosophers throughout history have almost completely defaulted in their responsibility. click (http://www.neo-tech.com/zero/part8.html)

God chooses for us to make our own decisions, just as God allows certain things to happen, seeing ahead as to the effects.

An entity who's existence is questionable, makes no decisions. Does not allow for nothing, and can't see anything. First premise. is proof of such an entiy in order to assume, that it has an "identity, that it has to abide by the laws of physics, and that it has a will and a purpose" NONE of those traits have been shown to exist by any theist, throughout all the ages.

Godless

[axilmar]

Hello to everyone. I am new to this sciforums, but this discussion always interests me, so here I am.

Cris is right. Logic dictates that an all-knowing infinite God can not exist, because otherwise we do not have free will.

Tven if God does not exist, if the universe is deterministic, we still have no free will, because the path of each particle has been set up from the beginning of the universe.

The very nature of our existence is also illogical. Normally, we shouldn't exist...nothing should actually exist. That the universe exists is an unexplainable thing, just like God.

Christians do not bother using logic because the use of logic may shake their foundations. This discussion is 36 pages long, most of it filled with absolutely meaningless, illogical but highly emotional talk. I am not offending Christians, because I respect each man's opinions, but at the same time, I can not look the other way when illogical things are said.

No one can say that "we do not know the ways of God" and "God is omniscient" at the same time. It is a contradiction in terms. How do they know what God is, if we do not know what God is?

If God is eternal, then concepts like 'creation', 'before' and 'after' have no meaning for God. These concepts imply the existence of a space-time continuum. And if God is inside some form of spacetime, then God is not infinite, since the spacetime God exists in is greater than God. The action of God deciding to make this universe implies a previous state were God had not decided to make this universe. But the concept of 'before' and 'after' in the godly space-time continuum is illogical, as I have shown above, even if God is the space-time continuum itself.

And assuming for a moment that the above is incorrect, why God chose to create people at time X and not at time X-1? and since God is eternal, what is the actual significance of the universe existing for some billion years, when this time period is infinitely small compared to God's duration?

There is also the problem of God interacting with this universe. If God can interact with this universe, then some part of God consists of particles that are of the same type as the ones of the universe. If God does not have at least one such particle, then it would be impossible for God to affect this universe. Since we know that the amount of matter/energy is constant in the universe, it means that God's particles are always part of this universe...so If God is outside of the universe, then God is outside of his particles, and he has no way to use those particles. Therefore God can not interact with this universe, which is a contradiction.

Then we have the problem of having people that never got to know Christianity; people that lived before Jesus in far away lands. According to the Christian dogma, all the people that ever lived are going to be judged on 2nd coming. But how are the ancient people that never got to know Christianity going to be judged? we have actually double standards here.

Then we also have the problem of people dying early in their lives (babies, children etc). These people never got to live a complete life, and never faced with challenges like the ones grownups do. How are these people going to be judged on 2nd coming? again, here we have double standards.

And then we have the problem of the average human lifetime being too small to be a serious criterion for entrance into heaven. Think about it a little: we live 80 years on average, and then we are going to be judged for that, for eternity. Not only we do not get a second chance, but the duration of our lifes is too small to be used as a criterion for living eternally in heaven or in hell.

And finally we have the problem of anthopocentrism. It seems that there is quite a big amount of entities above humans: saints, angels, archangels, prophets, Mary, Jesus and God. And angels are organized, according to scriptures, like an army: there are generals, commanders, lieutenants, ensigns, petit officers and soldiers. But why all these spirits exist? what is there purpose, beyond playing with humans? it seems that all these things exist in order to play with man. We are at the center of their interests. Don't they have anything else to do?

I do not expect a logical answer from a Christian...they simply do not want to use their brain, due to their emotions. Most probably they fear that their lifes will be empty and meaningless without God. It is not that they do not know how to apply logic, because they do in most parts of their lives. But in this area, they are blinded.

Of course similar logic to the above can be applied for all religions, not only Christianity.

[Godless]

Excellent first post.

Welcome to sci.

[Mythbuster]

Intelligent post axilmar.

[Medicine*Woman]

Hello to everyone. I am new to this sciforums, but this discussion always interests me, so here I am.

Cris is right. Logic dictates that an all-knowing infinite God can not exist, because otherwise we do not have free will.

Tven if God does not exist, if the universe is deterministic, we still have no free will, because the path of each particle has been set up from the beginning of the universe.

The very nature of our existence is also illogical. Normally, we shouldn't exist...nothing should actually exist. That the universe exists is an unexplainable thing, just like God.

Christians do not bother using logic because the use of logic may shake their foundations. This discussion is 36 pages long, most of it filled with absolutely meaningless, illogical but highly emotional talk. I am not offending Christians, because I respect each man's opinions, but at the same time, I can not look the other way when illogical things are said.

No one can say that "we do not know the ways of God" and "God is omniscient" at the same time. It is a contradiction in terms. How do they know what God is, if we do not know what God is?

If God is eternal, then concepts like 'creation', 'before' and 'after' have no meaning for God. These concepts imply the existence of a space-time continuum. And if God is inside some form of spacetime, then God is not infinite, since the spacetime God exists in is greater than God. The action of God deciding to make this universe implies a previous state were God had not decided to make this universe. But the concept of 'before' and 'after' in the godly space-time continuum is illogical, as I have shown above, even if God is the space-time continuum itself.

And assuming for a moment that the above is incorrect, why God chose to create people at time X and not at time X-1? and since God is eternal, what is the actual significance of the universe existing for some billion years, when this time period is infinitely small compared to God's duration?

There is also the problem of God interacting with this universe. If God can interact with this universe, then some part of God consists of particles that are of the same type as the ones of the universe. If God does not have at least one such particle, then it would be impossible for God to affect this universe. Since we know that the amount of matter/energy is constant in the universe, it means that God's particles are always part of this universe...so If God is outside of the universe, then God is outside of his particles, and he has no way to use those particles. Therefore God can not interact with this universe, which is a contradiction.

Then we have the problem of having people that never got to know Christianity; people that lived before Jesus in far away lands. According to the Christian dogma, all the people that ever lived are going to be judged on 2nd coming. But how are the ancient people that never got to know Christianity going to be judged? we have actually double standards here.

Then we also have the problem of people dying early in their lives (babies, children etc). These people never got to live a complete life, and never faced with challenges like the ones grownups do. How are these people going to be judged on 2nd coming? again, here we have double standards.

And then we have the problem of the average human lifetime being too small to be a serious criterion for entrance into heaven. Think about it a little: we live 80 years on average, and then we are going to be judged for that, for eternity. Not only we do not get a second chance, but the duration of our lifes is too small to be used as a criterion for living eternally in heaven or in hell.

And finally we have the problem of anthopocentrism. It seems that there is quite a big amount of entities above humans: saints, angels, archangels, prophets, Mary, Jesus and God. And angels are organized, according to scriptures, like an army: there are generals, commanders, lieutenants, ensigns, petit officers and soldiers. But why all these spirits exist? what is there purpose, beyond playing with humans? it seems that all these things exist in order to play with man. We are at the center of their interests. Don't they have anything else to do?

I do not expect a logical answer from a Christian...they simply do not want to use their brain, due to their emotions. Most probably they fear that their lifes will be empty and meaningless without God. It is not that they do not know how to apply logic, because they do in most parts of their lives. But in this area, they are blinded.

Of course similar logic to the above can be applied for all religions, not only Christianity.

*************
M*W: Welcome to sciforums! You wrote a very thoughtful post. I hope the religionists will read it. Unfortunately, they will not understand or agree with it, but who cares? I hope you continue to find this forum interesting and will continue to be a member.

~ Medicine*Woman

[cole grey]

AXILMAR,
Humans describe God the best they can with their language, perceptions, and finite understanding.
You say the universe is illogical, if this is true, you are correct in saying you can't turn aside when you see things that aren't logical, because illogical things surround us like an atmosphere.

The description of God as illogical depends on maintaining that our level of understanding, as humans, is the only level that exists, and if we can't understand it, it can't exist. This is quite comforting to believe, but it is patently untrue, and proven so by the way our logic and knowledge has changed over the millenia of human existence.

Also, 1/2 of your post is attacking beliefs that many christians don't hold. Can we all get past that soon?

Also, your idea that energy and particles must be of the same type as another energy or particle to affect it seems faulty. Destroy half of the moon with atomic energy and see if the gravitational effect on the earth remains constant. Perhaps God's energy exists in the universe without affecting it in ways we can detect. What is God's energy? Who knows? By agreeing with cris, you join the group of people, who I consider fundamentalists - those who have decided that their perceptions are the only possibility for reality - an idea which i find completely illogical.

[c7ityi_]

According to the Christian dogma, all the people that ever lived are going to be judged on 2nd coming. But how are the ancient people that never got to know Christianity going to be judged?

Everyone has heard of "Christ", even though they may not call it with the same name. Christ is, like he says, life itself. "I am life, truth and the way." But people don't understand what he was talking about...

These people never got to live a complete life, and never faced with challenges like the ones grownups do. How are these people going to be judged on 2nd coming?

In their next life.

And finally we have the problem of anthopocentrism. It seems that there is quite a big amount of entities above humans: saints, angels, archangels, prophets, Mary, Jesus and God. And angels are organized, according to scriptures, like an army: there are generals, commanders, lieutenants, ensigns, petit officers and soldiers. But why all these spirits exist? what is there purpose, beyond playing with humans? it seems that all these things exist in order to play with man. We are at the center of their interests. Don't they have anything else to do?

Their purpose is the same as ours. The purpose is to become "God" -- to become what we are in reality.

What is God's energy?

Love.

[beyondtimeandspace]

axilmar, have you read every one of those 36 pages in full? If so you either didn't understand it, disregarded it, or forgot to include it in your list of Christian arguments. I'm guessing you simply didn't read this whole thread. That's fine, I didn't either. Let's get one thing straight though. You say you don't offend Christians. Well guess what, you've just offended me by stereotyping me as an illogical unthinker for the mere fact that I'm religious.

I'm glad you value intelligence and reason so highly, I do too. In fact, I would have thought I made that clear by now here at sciforums. I thank Godless for the times he's recognized it, but I'm a bit mad that he said nothing in the defense those who are religious and intelligent. Likewise to all of the subsequent posters that did the same.

Particularly M*W, who says she was once Catholic, but clearly ignores the fact that Catholocism holds doctrines like "Fides et Ratio" (Faith and Reason), which upholds reason and logic as a foundation of thought. I abhore public Christian schools, but private ones are good. The one I attended taught both morality and ethics, ethics being the foundation of good action based on reason, not attached to any religion. I was taught the classic classes, not taught within the religious context, mathematics, history, physics, chemistry was offered but I didn't take it (for which I'm now kicking myself), languages (Latin, Greek and Polish), English Lit and Grammar, plus a range of electives, none of which pertained to religion. Intelligent Design was a subject presented in Philosophy, not science. Biblical studies included both the history and geography of Palestine. Areas of contention, including archaeological ones, were given mention (as far as the knowledge of the different professors extended), both sides. I admit bias at times, but that is to be expected with any debated issue, I would expect the opposite bias from an atheist professor (and have experienced this as true during my studies in university).

The kicker is that the school I attended was operated by and the classes taught by Fraciscan friars. Already I can hear the minds of many scimembers who are reading this shouting "child molestation." I can tell you with full certainty that such a suggestion would be utterly false. Matter of factly, the only hint of that kind of behaviour that I was aware of came from a man who was not a friar, but a diocesan priest who came to teach English Literature, a man very much disliked by most of the faculty, staff and students of that school, as he eventually had the school shut down (for reasons that weren't entirely clear to us students). I can tell you, as having spent a good deal of time under his guidance in literature, that he is the kind of man that people like M*W hate. He was devious, a liar, and very much disagreed with the way the friars ran the school and the content of their lectures. The friars, however, had good standing with Catholic officials in Rome, I can attest to this via personal experience.

The point is, we're not all blundering idiots. One friar, who taught me mathematics and some small amount of computer programming, had priorly been a computer hacker and a police officer, in that order. Leaving the issue of the morality of computer hacking aside, it takes quite a bit of logic to understand and make use of the inner workings of a computer in new and creative ways. He taught Advanced Algebra and Physics quite intelligently.

A great deal of us use our intelligence quite willingly and happily. Catholocism, and others, argue that reason is part of the beauty of the human being. God created humans with intelligent brains, it would be a slap in the face to God to ignore that.

*sigh*, I really hate stereotyping. I for one try to deal with everyone I meet on an individual basis.

[Godless]

Cole:

Humans describe God the best they can with their language, perceptions, and finite understanding.

God is a word with no meaning. Thus the word, and the entity that theists believe in is undiscribable, an entity void of identity, void of human conception, and unknowable. No emperical proof of such an entity exists, and the whole concept of belief in this entity is based on faith. The assumption that others before you believed in this entity and wrote about it 2.1/2 milliniums years ago, does not make it fact that this entity exists.

This is quite comforting to believe, but it is patently untrue, and proven so by the way our logic and knowledge has changed over the millenia of human existence.

And since we have had it easy, without church power, to render free choice, and ideas to flurish, other than to eradicate and vilify non-believers by force, is the cause of our epistemological progress, otherwise if theistic belief was the law of the land, we still be in the midle ages. Proven by history itself.

Destroy half of the moon with atomic energy and see if the gravitational effect on the earth remains constant.

The ocean tides would be smaller, that's about it. The Earth's gravitational pull would not be effected whatsoever, it is the earth that's holding the moon were it is at. BTW there is another moon that orbits the earth. click (http://www.astro.uwo.ca/~wiegert/3753/3753.html)

By agreeing with cris, you join the group of people, who I consider fundamentalists - those who have decided that their perceptions are the only possibility for reality, an idea which i find completely illogical.

Atheists are not fundamentalist, we don't adhire to any kind of dogma, in the scriptures, or in reality, we question, we seek, we don't accept by ancient authority the scriptures writen by nomads, and uncivilized degenerates such as the islamists. We question every new scientific discovery, we test hypothesis, some of us have even come to the conclusion that there's no absolute truth. But there is a number of secularist fundamentalists though they don't have the bad rap as religious fundamentalists. Who think have all the answers, but we are not to question them, we are only to accept on their say so, and authority. What is illogical however is to accept without proof, or evidence, in entities that one does not perceive. i.e gods, ghosts, leprechans, devils, unicorns, soul.

C7:

Everyone has heard of "Christ",

Which one? click (http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/surfeit.htm)

In their next life.

It's called death for a reason! There's no life after death, this is only wishfull thinking, which orinated from ancient Egypt of which the slaves HmmHebrews adopted as their own..

Their purpose is the same as ours. The purpose is to become "God" -- to become what we are in reality.

Excuse me? Is this not the reason why Lucifer was kicked out of heaven supposedly? :rolleyes:

Godless

[cole grey]

God is a word with no meaning.
The word has no meaning to you. That is ok. There is a lot of meaning in the word though - it has resonance in the minds of many, many people, therefore it has meaning. It has different meanings to different people, just like the word "love", among many other words which are similarly ambiguous. That does not make it meaningless. Also, having the limits of a concept not clearly defined does not make a concept meaningless.
Please retract the above.

Thus the word, and the entity that theists believe in is undiscribable, an entity void of identity, void of human conception, and unknowable.
The limits are unknown now, that is all we can be sure of. The same can be said for our various scientific descriptions of our physical reality.

No emperical proof of such an entity exists, and the whole concept of belief in this entity is based on faith. The assumption that others before you believed in this entity and wrote about it 2.1/2 milliniums years ago, does not make it fact that this entity exists.
That is why religious people shouldn't be so judgemental. I'm glad you agree with me on these points.

And since we have had it easy, without church power, to render free choice, and ideas to flurish, other than to eradicate and vilify non-believers by force, is the cause of our epistemological progress, otherwise if theistic belief was the law of the land, we still be in the midle ages. Proven by history itself.
You missed my point. My point was that our ideas have changed throughout history, and are therefore proven to be reliable only up to a point. Yes, neither of us would like to have any of the various, very human centered, churches dominating the earth today.

The ocean tides would be smaller, that's about it. The Earth's gravitational pull would not be effected whatsoever...
You missed my point. I could have said blow up half the earth and watch the moon fly into the sun, or whatever. My point was that there would be an effect, one type of force changing the strength of another type of force, in a way which we can see. Perhaps there are other types of transfers going on that we can't detect yet.

Atheists are not fundamentalist, we don't adhire to any kind of dogma, in the scriptures, or in reality, we question, we seek, we don't accept by ancient authority the scriptures writen by nomads, and uncivilized degenerates such as the islamists. We question every new scientific discovery, we test hypothesis, some of us have even come to the conclusion that there's no absolute truth. But there is a number of secularist fundamentalists though they don't have the bad rap as religious fundamentalists. Who think have all the answers, but we are not to question them, we are only to accept on their say so, and authority.
I didn't say all athiests are fundies, only those you desribe above who think they have all the answers on the subject. You say God is a meaningless term, and the possibility doesn't exist for God to be real, you are saying that you know, and negate the subject entirely - you are enlisting in that camp by yourself, I am not forcing you into it.

What is illogical however is to accept without proof, or evidence, in entities that one does not perceive. i.e gods, ghosts, leprechans, devils, unicorns, soul.
We are free to believe or not believe. Certain things can be accepted as evidence of how spiritual matters work, or not accepted. There is no proof. There is no proof of a lot of stuff in life, get used to it.

[Godless]

axilmar, have you read every one of those 36 pages in full?

I doubt that too. ;)

I thank Godless for the times he's recognized it, but I'm a bit mad that he said nothing in the defense those who are religious and intelligent.

Hey buddy! you don't need any defending. And any religious thinker such as yourelf wouldn't either. But you have to admit, ingnorance is found in both sides of these debates, I've met some real dumbass atheists in my time, I'm one included. Compared to your level of education, I should be a complete ingnoramous. I'm a highschool drop out, no college degree, academically I've been a failure, C's&F's average while I was in highschool, drug addict, drunk, and a gambler. Why else would I move to Las Vegas? LOL.. I am however self taught thanks to Barnes&Noble and this here computer. ;). My grammar is laughable, I mispelled almost every other word, but I do get an idea across. So my friend, anyone with your level of education, and a theist, compared to me, does not need me to defend his/her's own intelligence.

Particularly M*W, who says she was once Catholic, but clearly ignores the fact that Catholocism holds doctrines like "Fides et Ratio" (Faith and Reason), which upholds reason and logic as a foundation of thought.

Perhaps she thinks this is an oxymoron? who knows. I once defended her she got it from both sides of the debate, a bit radical, yes! she has fire in her loins, but once you get to really know her deep down she's a smart lady, that still got the desire to learn.

I abhore public Christian schools, but private ones are good. The one I attended taught both morality and ethics, ethics being the foundation of good action based on reason, not attached to any religion.

This is true, I attended a Catholic school when I was a child in South America, we didn't even pray at the start of school, but all the teachers wore robes. We also had our uniforms, this has been over 35 years ago so recollection is a tad difficult.

Already I can hear the minds of many scimembers who are reading this shouting "child molestation."

Hey! some of us know that there are bad apples anywhere you go. I'd be willing to bet some self proclaimed atheists may also be a child molester. Some of us know bette than to use "quilt by association" to judge all priests as child molesters. BTW you also commit a logical falacie here, by assuming that we would judge people whom we have never met, to be child molesters. A red herring I believe.

A great deal of us use our intelligence quite willingly and happily. Catholocism, and others, argue that reason is part of the beauty of the human being.

This is quite new though, because it is "reason" which had been the ultimate enemy of religious dogma, and one that theist sought to destroy in the early days of the authoritive churches. The stagnation of new scientific discoveries which contradicted "presumed" theistic generalizations. i.e. Geocentric vs Heliocentric theory for one, and many other exist. The authorative nature of early Catholicism stagnated scientific, philosophical doctrines that they presumed heretical and bias against their religious doctrine. Would you have called this reasonable?

It is "reason" that is still in the forefront of the debate wether the human mind can comprehend reality, and we are loosing the battle since our students today are being tought *that the contents of man's mind need bear no necessary relationship to the facts of reality* Nathaniel Branden**. And furthermore our debate is futile.

The two positions "There is a God" and "There isn't a God" ought not be both differing positions and premises in the same debate. Because, unless there's just one mutual premise upon which both positions are based there can be no rational debate leading to a meaningful conclusion based on logical argument. Either position stated as a premise would eliminate all argument to it and render the debate moot. So, we have to look deeper for underlying premises of the two positions. click (http://www.proaxis.com/~randau2/singles/atheism.htm)

**The Stolen Concept (http://www.nathanielbranden.net/ess/ton04.html)

The above link is were i stole the quote from Nathaniel Branden, this is a good article of the defence of reason agaisnt neo-mystics.

Godless

[cole grey]

Compared to your level of education, I should be a complete ingnoramous. I'm a highschool drop out, no college degree, academically I've been a failure, C's&F's average while I was in highschool, drug addict, drunk, and a gambler. Why else would I move to Las Vegas? LOL.. I am however self taught thanks to Barnes&Noble and this here computer. ;). My grammar is laughable, I mispelled almost every other word, but I do get an idea across...

For this, Godless is my hero.

Funny how you can usually find a reason to like everyone here (mostly).

[Godless]

The word has no meaning to you. That is ok. There is a lot of meaning in the word though - it has resonance in the minds of many, many people, therefore it has meaning.

The only meaning applied to this word, has been whose god of the land and which time in history was god for them. I.E. Zeus, Olimpus, Mythras they were all gods, Allah, and now the Christian god, just another word, a meaningless word, that only means what the believer wants it too. For the Islamist god is Allah, Jews YHVH, the Christian plainly God, who had a son called jesus, and bla,bla,bla.. A word with no identity, only the antropomorphical identity given by a particular group.

Ignosticism is the view that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because it has no verifiable (or testable) consequences and should therefore be ignored. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

The limits are unknown now, that is all we can be sure of.

Many ancient gods, were discovered to be just natural phenomenom, thus as science and knowlege progressed, gods were dying left and right. i.e. The god of thunder, god of the sea, god's whom you consider non-existent compared to the Christian god. Thus "it" is just one more superstition in the list of mystical minds of men.

The same can be said for our various scientific descriptions of our physical reality.

Reference please?

First there's an assumption, second the assumption becomes a hypothesis with further observation, then last it's a theory.

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts. Scientific theories are never proven to be true, but can be disproven. All scientific understanding takes the form of hypotheses, or conjectures. A theory is in this context a set of hypotheses that are logically bound together (See also hypothetico-deductive method). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

That is why religious people shouldn't be so judgemental. I'm glad you agree with me on these points.

Neither should atheist be, however around here it's a sport..LOL.. No harm intended though, I do know who is off his/her rocker and who can follow a good logical argument.

My point was that our ideas have changed throughout history, and are therefore proven to be reliable only up to a point.

I very well understood your point, however I pointed out, because of secularised ideas hence the Reinesance, the change of ideas happened in the first place, because new ideas were acceptable by the people even though many contradicted church doctrines. If it had not happened, were would we be today? Better yet were would we be today if the library of Alexandria was never destroyed by religious zealots. I believe they were Christians!

You say God is a meaningless term, and the possibility doesn't exist for God to be real, you are saying that you know, and negate the subject entirely - you are enlisting in that camp by yourself, I am not forcing you into it.

Basically you misunderstand my stance. If the word god to me is meaningless that is I don't know what god is, neither can you tell me what god is. In order for me to claim, There's no god, I presume to have a defenition of what god is, it would render me in the same falacie as the theist claiming that there is a god, because neither of us have a defenition of god. So in conclusion, I don't claim there's no god, (I don't know what god is) in order for me to make such a claim, I would have to know the defenition of god, and furthemore since it's existence can't be known or is unknown I can't claim that X does not exist, since I don't even have defenition of X. Thus this is my stance: I don't believe any evidence has been shown to prove that X exists, no emperical proof exists, no defenition, other than empty claims (Of an unknown) entity who supposedly lives outside of time, and created the universe bla,bla,bla, but not one iota of claims have been proven factual in reality.

We are free to believe or not believe. Certain things can be accepted as evidence of how spiritual matters work, or not accepted. There is no proof. There is no proof of a lot of stuff in life, get used to it.

Basically here too there's a conflict, since the overwhelming majority of people are religious they then try and (force) their beliefs their code of morals, and doctrines in political cyrcles make laws that may hinder our freedom to "believe as we wish" Such as victimless crimes as prostitution for example is completely demoralised by religious sense of morals. So basically I too fight for the freedom to believe as you do, but the odds are well stock against liberal secularist.

Godless

[Godless]

(For this, Godless is my hero.)

Geeess thanks.

[c7ityi_]

Which one? click

There's only one Christ, with many names and many forms. The only real Christ is the self within us.

It's called death for a reason!

Life can't die, only bodies and persons must die. Existence can't stop existing. The feeling that "I am" can't go away.

There's no life after death, this is only wishfull thinking, which orinated from ancient Egypt of which the slaves HmmHebrews adopted as their own..

But I wish my life ended when my body dies... :( so it's not wishful thinking...

Excuse me? Is this not the reason why Lucifer was kicked out of heaven supposedly?

Yeah!... I think so... but we are the temples of God... so God lives in us... and we are God... like Jesus said...

[Medicine*Woman]

There's only one Christ, with many names and many forms. The only real Christ is the self within us.

Life can't die, only bodies and persons must die. Existence can't stop existing. The feeling that "I am" can't go away.

But I wish my life ended when my body dies... :( so it's not wishful thinking...

Yeah!... I think so... but we are the temples of God... so God lives in us... and we are God... like Jesus said...

*************
M*W: "Hello... hello in there... can you hear me... is anybody home?"

c7ityi_ says, "you're in there... somewhere in me... yoohoo... but you have a different name... tell me your name..." ***afraid to come out***

"I'm going to have to ask you to step away from my body... please put your hands on my ass and spread your legs... You do realize you were occupying my body without permission? I'm going to have to take you in for trespassing on private property... you have the right to remain silent... anything you say on sciforums may be held against you...".

[Godless]

There's only one Christ, with many names and many forms. The only real Christ is the self within us.

Sorry but that's delusional. Christ was the ultimate alturist, I will not sacrifice myself for the scoundrel down the road, for the child molester in jail, the murderer and rapist of women. These are all sinners in the eyes of god, to whom Jesus supposedly gave his life for, I wouldn't do that. I let the muderfuckers burn for the crime, though crimes of this nature is petty crap, compared to real criminals such scum-bag as the Bushes, Hitlers, Mao's kind of scumbags indirectly killed in droves, and are sometimes considered "heros". Where was christ in them?

Life can't die, only bodies and persons must die. Existence can't stop existing. The feeling that "I am" can't go away.

This is deluded nonsense. If one has life, and his body and person dies, then life is terminated for that individual. Can't you see how you contradict yourself in only one sentence? Existence existed before you became a being, and it will exist long after you are gone. The feeling that you are, will end, the day you depart this planet in death. You will live in the memories of others, but you will not exist in any other form, within this universe or any other assumed dimension suchas heaven or hell. That's just silly notions to manipulate the gullibility of stupidity.


But I wish my life ended when my body dies... so it's not wishful thinking...

Oh! don't worry your life ends when your mind and body dies, proven unfortunately in a daily basis around the globe.


Yeah!... I think so... but we are the temples of God... so God lives in us... and we are God... like Jesus said...

We may be gods, but not gods in the sense of mysticism that you mean, nor like jesus, who was an illiterate mystical demi-god, who's its very existence has been questionable for milliniums..

*(Research indicates that mankind is still going to undergo one more evolutionary leap into a far more competitive being called God-Man. That God-Man in the future will be so superior he might mistakenly think a missing link must exist between himself and 20th-century man in the chart of human evolution. Such a missing link will never be found, however. Instead, I believe soon we will make an unexpected evolutionary "jump" into God-Man. As God-Man, we will be as far beyond today's cognitive man as we, today, are beyond ancient animal man.)*Man's final evolution (http://www.neo-tech.com/finalevo/)

Godless

[axilmar]

The description of God as illogical depends on maintaining that our level of understanding, as humans, is the only level that exists, and if we can't understand it, it can't exist.


If you need another level of understanding to understand God, then how can you claim you understand God?


This is quite comforting to believe


"Comforting" is not something that is involved in this discussion, from my part. I speak about this without any feelings whatsoever.


so by the way our logic and knowledge has changed over the millenia of human existence.


Our logic has not changed over the millenia. Our knowledge has changed though.

Humans do not work with logic, but with pattern matching. Logic requires absolute proof, which is almost never available...but since the entity has to survive, the entity's brain uses pattern matching to reach a "proof"...this proof is always related to the instinct of survival.


Also, 1/2 of your post is attacking beliefs that many christians don't hold. Can we all get past that soon?


I am not attacking beliefs out of hate, I am debating.

The world's progress is held back by religions...science and logic is the way forward.


Destroy half of the moon with atomic energy and see if the gravitational effect on the earth remains constant.


but atomic energy and gravity is stuff of our universe. They are both particles of the same "type".


By agreeing with cris, you join the group of people, who I consider fundamentalists - those who have decided that their perceptions are the only possibility for reality - an idea which i find completely illogical.


Not at all! I believe in quantum mechanics, for example, although I have never perceived it. I believe that there is a country named Australia, although I have not seen it. I believe that there are microbes, although I have not seen them.

You know why I believe in lots of things I have never seen, tasted, touched, smelled or felt? because they are logical. They are governed by mathematical laws and proven by experiment.

If God made this universe with mathematics, then he signed his death sentence!


Everyone has heard of "Christ", even though they may not call it with the same name.


People that have lived before Christ did not have a chance to know him. Or people in far away lands that could not been reached until recently.


In their next life.


The Christian dogma says that there is no reincarnation. Christian priests say that reincarnation is a concept propagated by the Devil.


Love.

That's why I said "most Christians' responses are a bunch of highly illogical emotional words".

There is no love actually...love is just a vague name that we humans have given to lots of things. But the common thing in all these things is that "we give" in order to "get".


axilmar, have you read every one of those 36 pages in full?


I read so much stuff every day in so many forums, that I may not be able to remember all. I apologise for that.


Well guess what, you've just offended me by stereotyping me as an illogical unthinker for the mere fact that I'm religious.


I apologise, but why did you find that offending? I simply stated a fact. I also said that "religious people are not stupid - they apply logic in all the other parts of their lifes except religion."

If you say to me "you are fat", I will say "I am". Because I am. I do not find it offending.


The point is, we're not all blundering idiots.


I never said you are. Thanks for the introduction. Of course you are not an idiot. You are just blinded by emotions.


Leaving the issue of the morality of computer hacking aside, it takes quite a bit of logic to understand and make use of the inner workings of a computer in new and creative ways. He taught Advanced Algebra and Physics quite intelligently.


Exactly. Many people are clever enough to tackle the most complex of things. But understanding a thing, and formulating a logical proof is something completely different.

I am a computer programmer. I have to construct logical proofs as part of my job. There are many times that human "logic" goes against mathematical logic, simply because human "logic" is not logic at all, but an assumption based on pattern matching.

Thanks everyone for replying. I will try to keep up with the posts.

[beyondtimeandspace]

I apologise, but why did you find that offending? I simply stated a fact. I also said that "religious people are not stupid - they apply logic in all the other parts of their lifes except religion."

If you say to me "you are fat", I will say "I am". Because I am. I do not find it offending.

The part I find offensive is that you treat it as fact, as truth, when it is not. If it were true that I was an illogical unthinker, then I aught to agree to it, as it is true. However, I do not believe it to be true, and I find it offensive that you treat it as such. Justice is a matter of treating things as they are, and as they deserve. If I am offended it is because I believe you have been unjust in your statements.

I never said you are. Thanks for the introduction. Of course you are not an idiot. You are just blinded by emotions.

In not precisely these words, but definitely in your meaning, as far as religion goes, I AM a blundering idiot, who is "blinded by emotions."


Exactly. Many people are clever enough to tackle the most complex of things. But understanding a thing, and formulating a logical proof is something completely different. [QUOTE=axilmar]

No doubt.

[QUOTE=axilmar]I am a computer programmer. I have to construct logical proofs as part of my job. There are many times that human "logic" goes against mathematical logic, simply because human "logic" is not logic at all, but an assumption based on pattern matching.

Logic is logic. If one form of logic contradicts another, then one is false, and not really logic. Pattern-matching can be applied in logic, but does no constitute logic. Mathematics doesn't need assumptions because mathematics doesn't try to explain causes or origins, it merely speaks about how things work. Because humans apply logic to attempt to understand origins and causes, assumptions are almost invariably used to "get it going." Any kind of theory makes use of assumptions. If the assumption is false, this doesn't make the logic false, it simply means the assumption is false. Logic can take any variables, presumed or otherwise, and function according to the same principles, which will invariably produce a truth-value of 0 or 1. This does not necessarily make such arguments true, it simply means that given the truth of the assumptions, the conclusion must be true. However, if the original assumption is false, then it is likely that the conclusion is also false (though, it may happen that a different set of presumed premises will produce an identical conclusion).

[Mythbuster]

An omnipotent god can limit it's own abilities if it wants to, same as it could occupy multiple realities if it wanted to. It just always has a way out of any situation it puts itself in.

Creating alternate realities is one logical means to escape eternal death. You and I could go back and forth conflicting eachother with ways to use omnipotence to end omnipotence, but we'd both eventually run out of ideas. Now imagine if our imaginations, intelligence, and possibilities were infinite. We'd be locked in this logical argument forever.

The point is that it can't really trap or kill itself with it's own omnipotence, because it can use it's omnipotence to find a way out. Then it can use it's omnipotence to reinforce the trap, then use it to find a way out again. It'd never end.

[cole grey]

The only meaning applied to this word, has been whose god of the land and which time in history ... A word with no identity, only the antropomorphical identity given by a particular group.
Many words are the same, some would say ALL words are merely approximations of meaning, subject to non-universal interpretation. The words still have meaning. The words "theory of relativity", are mostly misunderstood by everyone around the world, and only a small percentage of people, especially when you say it in english, understand what the meaning is behind the words. Universal understanding is something that HAS been proven not to exist.
Many ancient gods, were discovered to be just natural phenomenom, thus as science and knowlege progressed, gods were dying left and right. i.e. The god of thunder, god of the sea, god's whom you consider non-existent compared to the Christian god. Thus "it" is just one more superstition in the list of mystical minds of men.
I'm sure the modern representation(s) of what God is will also fare poorly as time goes by - that doesn't mean God has changed, or will.
Reference please?
Theories have developed and been changed or discarded over time - I don't need a reference to show that, obviously.
I very well understood your point, however I pointed out, because of secularised ideas hence the Reinesance, the change of ideas happened in the first place, because new ideas were acceptable by the people even though many contradicted church doctrines. If it had not happened, were would we be today? Better yet were would we be today if the library of Alexandria was never destroyed by religious zealots. I believe they were Christians!
Hello! The renaissance wasn't the first time civilization reared its ugly head. People have been muddling along with theories they thought were logical for some time now, off and on.

Basically you misunderstand my stance. If the word god to me is meaningless that is I don't know what god is, neither can you tell me what god is. In order for me to claim, There's no god, I presume to have a defenition of what god is, it would render me in the same falacie as the theist claiming that there is a god, because neither of us have a defenition of god.
A person has to figure that out for themselves. I have some defining ideas about God but I am far from having a complete definition, so what? Humanity works with ideas (like love), that are incompletely defined; ill-defined; undefined; relatively defined; and even incorrectly defined - those are the ideas we work with in our lives. To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality.

[cole grey]

If you need another level of understanding to understand God, then how can you claim you understand God?
Completely? I can't and don't.
I am saying that some things lie outside the scope of human logic's ability to define it or understand it. Hatred, love, God, etc. None can be universally defined, nor do they need to be to be meaningful.
Our logic has not changed over the millenia. Our knowledge has changed though.
Our ideas about logic have changed significantly as recently as with Bert Russell, and Godel. Godel, in particular, changed (or should have changed), the idea of what types of problems logic can be capable of dealing with.
I am not attacking beliefs out of hate, I am debating.
I'm just saying that 1/2 of that post consisted of the expression of ideas which i believe are unimportant to the discussion because they are not necessarily part of a belief in a christian God. The term "christian" is so loose though, I can't blame you, i guess.
The world's progress is held back by religions...science and logic is the way forward.
The world's progress is held back by human hatred and stupidity - religion is only one example of how we can warp a positive concept into a hazard by this stupidity and hatred.
but atomic energy and gravity is stuff of our universe. They are both particles of the same "type".
God could be in our universe, permeating it and completely undetectable by scientific means, and also outside of it.
My particles exist in dimensions 1, 2, and 3 pretty easily. Perhaps they are wreaking havoc in another dimension I don't know about, or perhaps acting as a refining force. If we are going to say other dimensions exist, which many scientists and mathematicians do, do we not exist in them? Do we interact with these dimensions? We don't really know yet, do we?
Not at all! I believe in quantum mechanics, for example, although I have never perceived it...You know why I believe in lots of things I have never seen, tasted, touched, smelled or felt? because they are logical. They are governed by mathematical laws and proven by experiment.
the idea that an electron acts sometimes as a particle and sometimes as a wave isn't really that logical. We can't show how, but you still believe it. That is not based on any logic except your own personal logic, or what you ingest from outside experts. Some people believed these things were true before we had the experiments to prove them. They may not have said they "knew", but we shouldn't use that word when talking about God, other than as a personal "knowing".

[c7ityi_]

Where was christ in them?

They denied Christ. They denied their real self because they loved their persons and the world more.

If one has life, and his body and person dies, then life is terminated for that individual.

Individuality is an illusion, there is only one existence, one self, within many bodies.

Existence existed before you became a being, and it will exist long after you are gone.

But I never came into being because I'm the being itself. The bodies are just instruments I use.

The feeling that you are, will end, the day you depart this planet in death.

No, because the feeling of existence (me) still exists in you and our kids and their kids and on other planets.

You will live in the memories of others, but you will not exist in any other form, within this universe or any other assumed dimension suchas heaven or hell.

But I already exist in another form, in the form of Godless!

Oh! don't worry your life ends when your mind and body dies, proven unfortunately in a daily basis around the globe.

I really wish you were right but I'm not the type who believes in wishful thinking.

People that have lived before Christ did not have a chance to know him. Or people in far away lands that could not been reached until recently.

Christ is a "spiritual entity". He himself said: "Before Abraham was, I am." He has always existed. He is life itself, like he said.

The Christian dogma says that there is no reincarnation. Christian priests say that reincarnation is a concept propagated by the Devil.

I don't believe in that Christian dogma!

[Godless]

c7 I'll get to ya tomorrow. ;)

[hypGnosis]

No, because the feeling of existence (me) still exists in you and our kids and their kids and on other planets.


...And the feeling of toothache still exists in me... (and in you and your kids and in their kids on other planets :( )

All just one big toothache... :p

[Godless]

Individuality is an illusion, there is only one existence, one self, within many bodies.

This is the sign of a true mystic. Then you are just a figment of my imagination, you don't exist, I'm the only individual that does exist, I am, What I am is consciousness!.

Godless

[(Q)]

I'm not the type who believes in wishful thinking.

Or any other kind of thinking for that matter.

[axilmar]

The part I find offensive is that you treat it as fact, as truth, when it is not. If it were true that I was an illogical unthinker, then I aught to agree to it, as it is true. However, I do not believe it to be true, and I find it offensive that you treat it as such. Justice is a matter of treating things as they are, and as they deserve. If I am offended it is because I believe you have been unjust in your statements.
[quote]

If you are not illogical when it comes to religion, then tell me how explain logically the issue of free will and omnipotence.

[quote]
In not precisely these words, but definitely in your meaning, as far as religion goes, I AM a blundering idiot, who is "blinded by emotions."


The words you use imply that I look upon you as a inferior being, which is not true. What I say is that people that do not see the inconsistencies are distracted by their own emotions.


Our ideas about logic have changed significantly as recently as with Bert Russell, and Godel. Godel, in particular, changed (or should have changed), the idea of what types of problems logic can be capable of dealing with.


Indeed. What you just said is that our knowledge about logic has changed. Not logic itself.


religion is only one example of how we can warp a positive concept into a hazard by this stupidity and hatred


How come religion is a positive concept? I say it is not. Do you have any proof? the world's history is filled with numerous examples of religions leading to bloodbaths.


God could be in our universe, permeating it and completely undetectable by scientific means, and also outside of it.


Undetactable by us, yes. Undetectable generally, no. Because if God can interact with this universe, then he is composed of particles that can interact with this universe, i.e. particles of the same category.


the idea that an electron acts sometimes as a particle and sometimes as a wave isn't really that logical.


No, particles are waves. It's proven, and you are using devices in your everyday life that were made possible because of that.


We can't show how, but you still believe it.


It is a proven fact.


That is not based on any logic except your own personal logic, or what you ingest from outside experts.


There is no such thing as "my own personal logic". Math proves it, not me.

[cole grey]

Indeed. What you just said is that our knowledge about logic has changed. Not logic itself.
According to your "logic", i.e. that which is mathematically "proven", our knowledge of logic is all that matters. Your conjecture about what logic is, that we cannot yet fathom, is not "logical", according to your rules. Therefore my point stands. Our ideas of what questions logic can encompass have changed. Now we know that logic used within a system is not the final word outside of any given system, and we also know that the current system of human knowledge does not encompass all future knowledge. This system's logic is fine for now, but it doesn't define the universe. Solid matter was mostly made of the space between the electrons before we knew that that was true - it wasn't logical, according to anyone's senses and ideas of the time, but it was true.

How come religion is a positive concept? I say it is not. Do you have any proof? the world's history is filled with numerous examples of religions leading to bloodbaths.The idea of that there would be a community of people, which would go beyond the basic animal cooperation and care for and help people, is positive. That they would experience love through following a spiritual idea, is nice. The ideas of religion as implemented by greedy, prideful, power-mongering people has had some problems, but that is the way the world has worked for most of history, might is right, even when it is wrong.

Undetactable by us, yes. Undetectable generally, no. Because if God can interact with this universe, then he is composed of particles that can interact with this universe, i.e. particles of the same category.detectable by who then? little green men?
Unless we can say God should be"detectable by us", you have no right to say math is on your side when you dismiss the idea.
Can you tell me how I interact with other dimensions? No. Neither can you tell me how those dimensions interact with us.

There is no such thing as "my own personal logic". Math proves it, not me.
As usual, your ideas are "facts", others' ideas are "beliefs". The things we know now are "truth", the things we have yet to know are "illogical". You have it all nicely; smoothly; and quite possibly, incorrectly; defined.

[Mythbuster]

That's not a good enough answer. Why exactly are we cursed? Oh yeah, because supposedly, the two first human beings ate apples from some "Tree of Knowledge". Let's not forget, they were led to their doom by an evil, talking snake. If the Garden of Eden was so good, why was there an evil snake in it in the first place?

[smallaxe0217]

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.

Agreed

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.

This is not a logical conclusion. God's foreknowledge of our choices does not negate the fact that we decide what those choices are. The statement that choices are predetermined has not been proved or explained, and any further conclusions based on this premise are faulty. God's omniscience means that He knows what we will do, but He does not make us choose that course.

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.

Or, He could know all of the possible decisions that we would make, incuding the one we DID make.

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.

This presupposes that God predestines people for Heaven or Hell, which is not true. I do not presume to explain how God will justly deal with those who have never heard of Him, but one can personally say whether or not they have heard evidence of Jesus and whether that evidence is solid enough to have faith in, or whether it is not. If you feel that there is not enough evidence for you to believe in God, did you make that decision or did someone else make you believe it?

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
However, God's omniscience does not require predestination, man's freewill is not an arbitrary situation, and God's omniscience and omipontence includes knowledge of all possible outcomes as well as the actual outcome.

Whether or not humans have free will depends on the answer to the question: What did/will you have for dinner today, and why did you choose it as opposed to something else?

[smallaxe0217]

Marlin,

Don't be silly no worthwhile god is going to be using a throne. What an infantile notion.

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

LOL - How can you be so naive and gullible as to be so totally brainwashed by a proven charlatan?

Dream on - that is all you have.


On what do you base your determinations of what a real God would or would not do?

[smallaxe0217]

Why do fundies constantly wish for something non-physical within the universe? They even resort to trying to call aspects of the physical world non-physical. It's really quite sad that they seek mystery and comfort in this way.


When we look at the physical world and see the contradictions between the empirical facts of quantum physics and general relativity, we realize that we don't even understand what's going on in the physical world too often. To limit oneself to what one can detect with instruments, or to what we can feel tangibly, is to cut off the greater wonder of existence that is no less real just because we can't explain or feel it. How can physics explain the beauty of a Bach prelude, or Miles Davis's "Kind of Blue"? What instrument can explain what makes the Mona Lisa so priceless? Does biology alone determine why you view your wife (or husband) as the most beautiful woman (or man) on the earth?

Or is it biology and the threat of alimony?

[smallaxe0217]

Not quite. Logic is a system of deduction used to argue valid conclusions. Not just the conclusions we as people can come up with, but anything that can be determined by reason. And in this case it seems the rules of logic force us to accept that God is not omnipotent.

(A) God is omnipotent
If (A)God is omnipotent, then (B)God can lift anything.
If (A)God is omnipotent, then (C)God can make anything.
If (C)God can make anything, then God can make a rock so big that (~B)he can't lift it.

A
A=>B
B
A=>C
C
C=>~B
~B

B^~B => ~A (By negation introduction)

(Note ~A is the negation of A, that is, it means God is not omnipotent)

It seems that by the rules of logic, we're not allowed to assume God is omnipotent because to do so would result in a contradiction. This means we have to change our definitions of both God and omnipotence, Otherwise the rules of logic won't apply at all, and the world would be rendered incoherent.

There's competing claims here. God's very existence on the one hand, and the fundamental rule of logic that contradictions are unacceptable.

The way the paradox works is that you can't simply claim God transcends logic, because for logic to have any real meaning it has to apply all the time, everytime. God either exists and logic doesn't or logic exists and God doesn't. You can't hold God goes beyond the system like some people would be inclined to say.



Omnipotence does not mean "ability to make what is logically impossible". If God can do everything, then that would include the impossible. But if God can do everything, impossible things should not be possible; yet how could they not be possible if omipotence incuded the possiblity of everything, even "the impossible"?

One cannot make a four-sided triangle. Why? The instant the shape has four sides, it is not a triangle anymore. God cannot make a rock so big that He cannot lift it; because it is a logical impossibility. In the same way that 2+2 cannot be made to equal 5, the existence of logical impossibilities does not in any way limit God's omnipotence. St. Augustine said "It is precisely because He is omnipotent that for Him, some things are impossible.


I acknowledge the book "God, Godel and Grace" by Clifford Goldstein for providing much of my response in this post.

[SnakeLord]

Omnipotence does not mean "ability to make what is logically impossible".

But it does. Omnipotence is "all powerful", not "all powerful.. except for.."

[cole grey]

But it does. Omnipotence is "all powerful", not "all powerful.. except for.."

Does the statement, "God can't make a fefilflackhujnidgggg," make sense to you?
I hope not. The same applies to saying God can't do the logically impossible.
Applying a meaningless statement to God and then saying that it should have meaning for God is no good.

[SnakeLord]

Does the statement, "God can't make a fefilflackhujnidgggg," make sense to you?


Yes, and god can make one. Just because your puny human brain cannot comprehend it doesn't really mean anything. (Btw that's not an insult, it's a comparison between human brains and godly ones).

But, given your statements, it might be worth inventing a new word for a being that is all powerful with exceptions. Like.. "omnialmostpotent" or something. Remember cole, it isn't god's understanding of the word that's relevant, but ours. When you use the word omnipotent you are talking language of humans, and it refers to a being that can do anything. Not "anything except for this that and that", but anything.

Applying a meaningless statement to God

A) I didn't apply a statement to god, I applied it to smallaxe

B) All I have ever seen on this forum, and from the mouths of religious people are meaningless statements to/concerning god/s

and then saying that it should have meaning for God is no good

Where did I say it should have meaning for a god?

Let me requote the statement made:

"Omnipotence does not mean "ability to make what is logically impossible"

I responded that "omnipotence" means the ability to make anything - and that is regardless to what a god has to say on the matter. The word omnipotence would mean that yes, a god can make a square circle or anything else it so chooses to.

K?

[cole grey]

Yes, and god can make one. Just because your puny human brain cannot comprehend it doesn't really mean anything. (Btw that's not an insult, it's a comparison between human brains and godly ones).

It is a nonsense word. Get it?

A square 2 dimensional triangle is impossible to create, by definition. You can add a third dimension which will allow the triangle to be seen as "square" and a triangle. Perhaps God could, in the same way, add a dimension to an impossible situation to make it possible.
Or we could change the definition of traingle, that is easy enough. The impossible could become possible that way as well.
But my point is still that nonsense is nonsense - a logical contradiction, if accurately defined and described, is, in terms of actually entering reality, nonsense.

[SnakeLord]

It is a nonsense word. Get it?

Then why assign a nonsense, (and meaningless), word to a god, (something you scalded me about in the first place) - i.e god is omnipotent?

[cole grey]

Then why assign a nonsense, (and meaningless), word to a god, (something you scalded me about in the first place) - i.e god is omnipotent?
I agree, your definition of the word "omnipotent" is nonsenical.