Proof that the Christian god cannot exist

[SnakeLord]

My definition?

Try again.

[Godless]

And here comes wikipedia to the rescue;

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

Heck by reading the above link, not even theist can determine wether god is omnipotent or not :rolleyes:

First premise:

Does a god exist?

Second premise:

Can a questionable entity, with no identity by omnianything?

Third Premise:

Occam's razor, would suggest that such an entity with no identity, no evidence of it's existence, is more than likely non-existent. It's the only logical answer, given the "lack of evidence" of it's existence.

Godless

[SnakeLord]

Thanks godless, I suppose I should have just done that to start with :D

[draqon]

Does God exist? If you believe he exists, then he will exist.

[Medicine*Woman]

Does God exist? If you believe he exists, then he will exist.

*************
M*W: Do those people following you believe you exist?

[qwerty mob]

All gods are imaginary, mythological entities. Proof is between one's ears also. ;)

[Godless]

Does God exist? If you believe he exists, then he will exist.

By this analogy; The flying speghetty monster is god.
The PinkInvisibleUnicorn is god
There are green goblins on the other side of the moon. Though they consider themselves demons, not gods
Zeus says he's still god, Apollo says he's not as powerfull as zeus, but considers himself a god, and a hole bunch of Greek, Roman, demi-gods consider themselves to be gods throughout the ages. ;)

Godless

[qwerty mob]

Hail, the IPU! PBUH! *whicker*

[Mythbuster]

http://www.myth-and-fantasy.com/pegasus/pgallery/smoon/smoon6.jpg

[Mythbuster]

moving:

[cole grey]

My definition?

Try again.
I am saying that your definition of omnipotence includes performing a nonsense action and that nonsense is undefinable and therefore cannot be regarded as real. I can perform any nonsensical action as omnipotently as God can. Watch me hrjukl a giant trafgejsxik past the moon.

*cole grey hrjukls a giant trafgejsxik past the moon.*

We are all omnipotent in this sense. Please prove that I have NOT hrjukls'd that nonsensical object past the moon.
The definition that omnipotence includes all nonsensical actions is no good, it is meaningless.

[goliah]

RSS news feed today:

(PRWEB) February 16, 2006 -- Attracting considerable attention over the past year in discussion forums and momentum from a growing number of web sites is a new manuscript by an unknown author entitled: The Final Freedoms. But this continuing and growing interest is inevitably leading to a confrontation of David and Goliath proportions, as religious institutions rarely appreciate anyone subverting their foundations. And at stake are two thousand years of history.

What at first appears an utterly preposterous challenge to the religious status quo, on closer examination carries within its pages an idea so subtle and sublime, the combined intellectual histories of religion and science have dismissed it as impossible. An error of presumption which could now leave tradition staring into the abyss and humble the heights of scientific speculation. For if this material is confirmed, and there appears to be both the means and a concerted effort to authenticate it, the greatest unresolved questions of human existence may finally have been untangled.

Being distributed freely as a pdf download, made up of twenty nine chapters and three hundred and seventy pages is the first wholly new and complete interpretation for two thousand years of the teachings of Jesus the Christ and the Perfect Law. And this new teaching, more appropriately called a revelation to the modern world, has nothing whatsoever to do with any existing religious conception known to history. It is unique in every respect.

Using a synthesis of several thousand scriptural elements from the Old and New Testaments, the Apocrypha , The Dead Sea Scrolls,The Nag Hammadi Library, and some of the worlds greatest poetry, it describes and teaches a single moral LAW, a single moral principle and offers its own proof; one in which the reality of God responds to an act of perfect faith with a direct, individual intervention into the natural world; making a correction to human nature by a change in natural law, altering consciousness, human ethical perception, and providing new, primary insight and understanding of the human condition.

Also called the Gospel of the Resurrection, this new interpretation defines the moral foundation of all human conduct and finds expression within a new covenant of human spiritual union, the marriage between one man and one woman. It resolves the most intractable questions and issues of human sexuality and offers possibilities for peace, health and cultural development political process has yet to dream of.

This new teaching is pure ethics. It requires no institutional framework, no churches, no priest craft, no scholastic theological rational, costs nothing and requires only conviction and the necessary measure of self discipline to accomplish a new moral imperative.

As the first ever religious teaching able to demonstrate its own efficacy, the first ever religious claim to knowledge that meets both the ideal and criteria of the most rigourous, testable scientific method, this teaching represents a reality entirely new to human history.

The beginnings of an intellectual and moral revolution are unfolding on the web. And as this expression of insight called The Final Freedoms comes to bear, it will undoubtedly impact on the very future of our planet.

Download links: http://www.energon.uklinux.net
http://thefinalfreedoms.bulldoghome.com

[Mythbuster]

Reasoning:

If God is omniscient then even before we are born God will have complete knowledge of every decision we are going to make.Stop right there - major problem. When talking about an eternal being and His relation to a world that is not, words like "before" do not belong. The closest thing you could say to express God's relation in terms of knowledge of states of affairs is that He always knows them (or knows them tenselessly).
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 does not follow - only if our actions come about through God's direct causal action does that mean they are predetermined in such a way that negates volition. In other words, any given human's salvation decision is predetermined iff 1) God does some specific act that causes the outcome of accepting or rejecting salvation or 2) salvation is not an act of choice and the saved are instead chosen by God. I reject the latter (which is Calvinism), and I see no reason to accept the former. Consequently, the rejection of Calvinism negates the "Question" section below as well, since Arminianists hold that God does not choose the elect: their fate is in their own hands.
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.This also does not follow if God exists out of time and simply knows all the states of affairs tenselessly. He does not need to know them "in advance".

And another less related point - the definition of paradox seems somewhat incomplete. As it stands, it seems synonymous with "contradiction", which is erroneous; most accurately, a paradox is a true statement that is seemingly self-contradictory (like the statement "There is a set of all possible sets").

[qwerty mob]

The beginnings of an intellectual and moral revolution are unfolding on the web.


R0FL.

[SnakeLord]

I am saying that your definition of omnipotence includes performing a nonsense action and that nonsense is undefinable and therefore cannot be regarded as real.

Once again you make the mistake of assuming it to be my definition. It has nothing to do with me, it falls under the meaning of the word 'omnipotence'. Who are you to assign a "nonsense" label to anything? Just because to you something is seemingly nonsense, doesn't make it nonsense to an 'omnipotent' being. By the very definition of omnipotence, even that which to you seems nonsense, is fully doable by any being that has 'omnipotence'.

I can perform any nonsensical action as omnipotently as God can. Watch me hrjukl a giant trafgejsxik past the moon.

Give me your address and I will come and see if you can. I am willing, however, to bet down to my very last pound coin that you can't. The reason you can't has something to do with you not being omnipotent. If you were 'omnipotent', then you could.

We are all omnipotent in this sense.

Now, this is nonsense. You're about as omnipotent as my butthole, (unless you can prove otherwise). However, that has absolutely no consequence to any being that truly is omnipotent.

Please prove that I have NOT hrjukls'd that nonsensical object past the moon.

You made the claim that you could, so the onus is on you to prove it. Give me your address and I am willing to come and observe.

The definition that omnipotence includes all nonsensical actions is no good, it is meaningless.

Meaningless to your lowly human brain, (again this isn't an insult, just a point). Because something is "nonsensical" to you has absolutely no relevance to an omnipotent being. Show it to be otherwise and I shall retract my statement.

[Guilty_Biscuit]

Hi Cris (& everyone else on sciforums),

I stumbled across your post whilst trawling the net and after reading through all 39 pages (38 when I started - I have a job where nobody is sure what I do so I get a lot of time to read) I thought I'd throw in my own two pence.

Apologies for returning to the original topic of this thread - I know ~95% of the posts have moved way off it but no-one else has laid out the following argument - dan1123 and jay_7 nearly touched on it but nobody replied to their points. I should point out that I am totally and actively opposed to organised religion so it pains me to post in Christianity's defense.

I should point out that I am totally and actively opposed to organised religion so it pains me to post in Christianity's defense.

Your argument reasons that the Christian God's omniscience forms a paradox with human free will. What causes the paradox is not the omniscient God but the existence of facts about the future, even if there were no God there would still be a paradox if the facts exist, even if nobody had knowledge of the facts. This can be shown using your own logical structure.

Facts about the future vs. Human Free will. A Paradox.

Facts about the future: Facts about all future events.
Free will: Freedom to choose between alternatives without external coercion.
Paradox: Statements or events that have contradictory and inconsistent properties.

Proposal:

Nobody can claim that there are facts about the future and also claim that humans have free will. The claims form a paradox, a falsehood.

Reasoning:

If there are facts about the future then even before we are born there will be facts on every decision we are going to make.

Any apparent choice we make regarding the acceptance or denial of anything is predetermined. This must be true to satisfy the assertion that there are facts about the future. Effectively we have no choice in the matter. What we think is free will is an illusion.

Alternatively if human free will is valid, meaning that the outcome of our decisions is not pre-determined, then there cannot be facts about the future, since the facts would state in advance our decisions.

Conclusion:

As this argument has premises that are equatable to Cris' original premises and it has exactly the same logical strucure one of the following statements must follow:

(1) We must reject both my own and Cris' arguments as being unsound. Rejection of one of the arguments is inconsitent with accepting the other.

(2) We must accept both arguments and concede that humans do not have free will (where's the absolute determinism debate?).

(3) We must accept both arguments and concede that there are no future facts. If we accept this then the argument against an omniscient God vanishes because omniscience (knowledge of all facts) will not imply knowledge of future facts (as no future facts exist).

So in the end, whatever position you take Cris' original argument cannot be used to prove the paradox of an omniscient God and human free will. Unless you can prove that humans do not have free will - in which case there would be no need for Chris' proof in the first place.

A more eloquent diplay of these arguments can be found (along with many other arguments for theism, atheism and agnosticism) at:

http://www.philosophyofreligion.info

I'd recommend anyone interested in religious debate take a look there if they haven't already.

There - that's my first post over, I think I'll have a look around the sciforums now. (I hope someone improves Cris' arguement and proves the arguement from Future Facts wrong btw)

[Mythbuster]

Hi Cris (& everyone else on sciforums),

I stumbled across your post whilst trawling the net and after reading through all 39 pages (38 when I started - I have a job where nobody is sure what I do so I get a lot of time to read) I thought I'd throw in my own two pence.

Apologies for returning to the original topic of this thread - I know ~95% of the posts have moved way off it but no-one else has laid out the following argument - dan1123 and jay_7 nearly touched on it but nobody replied to their points. I should point out that I am totally and actively opposed to organised religion so it pains me to post in Christianity's defense.

I should point out that I am totally and actively opposed to organised religion so it pains me to post in Christianity's defense.

Your argument reasons that the Christian God's omniscience forms a paradox with human free will. What causes the paradox is not the omniscient God but the existence of facts about the future, even if there were no God there would still be a paradox if the facts exist, even if nobody had knowledge of the facts. This can be shown using your own logical structure.

Facts about the future vs. Human Free will. A Paradox.

Facts about the future: Facts about all future events.
Free will: Freedom to choose between alternatives without external coercion.
Paradox: Statements or events that have contradictory and inconsistent properties.

Proposal:

Nobody can claim that there are facts about the future and also claim that humans have free will. The claims form a paradox, a falsehood.

Reasoning:

If there are facts about the future then even before we are born there will be facts on every decision we are going to make.

Any apparent choice we make regarding the acceptance or denial of anything is predetermined. This must be true to satisfy the assertion that there are facts about the future. Effectively we have no choice in the matter. What we think is free will is an illusion.

Alternatively if human free will is valid, meaning that the outcome of our decisions is not pre-determined, then there cannot be facts about the future, since the facts would state in advance our decisions.

Conclusion:

As this argument has premises that are equatable to Cris' original premises and it has exactly the same logical strucure one of the following statements must follow:

(1) We must reject both my own and Cris' arguments as being unsound. Rejection of one of the arguments is inconsitent with accepting the other.

(2) We must accept both arguments and concede that humans do not have free will (where's the absolute determinism debate?).

(3) We must accept both arguments and concede that there are no future facts. If we accept this then the argument against an omniscient God vanishes because omniscience (knowledge of all facts) will not imply knowledge of future facts (as no future facts exist).

So in the end, whatever position you take Cris' original argument cannot be used to prove the paradox of an omniscient God and human free will. Unless you can prove that humans do not have free will - in which case there would be no need for Chris' proof in the first place.

A more eloquent diplay of these arguments can be found (along with many other arguments for theism, atheism and agnosticism) at:

http://www.philosophyofreligion.info

I'd recommend anyone interested in religious debate take a look there if they haven't already.

There - that's my first post over, I think I'll have a look around the sciforums now. (I hope someone improves Cris' arguement and proves the arguement from Future Facts wrong btw)

Maybe if you and cris use this:
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d4/CCCCP/againstfreewill2lu.gif

[cole grey]

Once again you make the mistake of assuming it to be my definition. It has nothing to do with me, it falls under the meaning of the word 'omnipotence'. Who are you to assign a "nonsense" label to anything? Just because to you something is seemingly nonsense, doesn't make it nonsense to an 'omnipotent' being. By the very definition of omnipotence, even that which to you seems nonsense, is fully doable by any being that has 'omnipotence'.
God can hujrkls anything anywhere, and so can I. What does that show? Nothing. A paradox has no more or less value as an actual action than hurjkls-ing. Although I believe any God worth God's salt could, through working on an alternate level, solve anything paradoxical to us - making a three dimensional triangle to make a square triangle would be an example. The problem of making a square triangle, which is impossible in two dimensions, is easy in three.

Perhaps in one dimension God cannot lift the rock God made and in another God can lift it. Please tell me whether or not God can lift the rock. Perhaps in two dimensions the rock is liftable, via cartesian (XY) movement in the positive "upward" direction, yet the rock cannot be lifted in three dimensions. God doesn't have to be able to lift the unliftable rock in three dimensions because God CAN lift the unliftable rock.
The whole "unliftable rock" problem shot to pieces. Let's move on. Hahaha.

Give me your address and I will come and see if you can. I am willing, however, to bet down to my very last pound coin that you can't. The reason you can't has something to do with you not being omnipotent. If you were 'omnipotent', then you could.
I would love that bet. Actually I performed that action fourteen times today. Who are you to say I did not, seeing as you don't even know what hjurkls-ing is? You don't do you? That's nonsense for you, you can do anything with it and you can't do anything with it.

Meaningless to your lowly human brain, (again this isn't an insult, just a point). Because something is "nonsensical" to you has absolutely no relevance to an omnipotent being. Show it to be otherwise and I shall retract my statement.
God is not required to make all nonsense sensible, that is ridiculous. But God could. Anyone can make nonsense sensible, just assign a meaning you prefer. This is a lowly feat.

[Guilty_Biscuit]

Mythbuster,

It does seem to state the argument rigorously (in my amateur opinion). The reason I set out the reply in the same format as Cris was to avoid people thinking the arguments were logically different. In the layout you have given (which is better for justifying each step) then you would simply replace proposition k with 'future facts exist' which leads to the same rejection of the original argument as a proof that the Christian god cannot exist.



"Semper in mira, solum profundum variat"

[SnakeLord]

Although I believe any God worth God's salt could, through working on an alternate level, solve anything paradoxical to us

Exactly my point, and the meaning of omnipotence. As explained before, just because you and I cannot figure out how an omnipotent being would do something paradoxical or seemingly "nonsensical", would not hinder that being if it was indeed omnipotent.

Perhaps in two dimensions the rock is liftable, via cartesian (XY) movement in the positive "upward" direction, yet the rock cannot be lifted in three dimensions. God doesn't have to be able to lift the unliftable rock in three dimensions because God CAN lift the unliftable rock.
The whole "unliftable rock" problem shot to pieces. Let's move on. Hahaha.

But then, as I'm trying to explain, any of these issues are instantly shot to pieces, because the answer is simply yes and yes. Ok, we cannot comprehend how exactly, but we're not omnipotent. If a god is omnipotent, it can do whatever it is, regardless to how paradoxical or impossible it sounds to us.

God is not required to make all nonsense sensible, that is ridiculous.

I never stated or implied that any omnipotent being was "required" to do anything. My entire argument is not that they must, but that they "can" - (by the definition of omnipotent).

[kziglu_bey]

...
yes , omnipotece does imply that it is possible for the omnipotent to do whatever seems impossible for us to do, like create matter (the world) ex nihilo, etc..., but the existence of paradoxes proves that omnipotence cannot exist, because paradoxes can be reduced to statements like
"(A) implies (non A)" and this cannot be possible without changing the structure of the argument A. If A by definition implies non A , the fact that it does so is actually a particular proprety of the argument A. Changing this changes the argument itself. A becomes B.
Ok. Now... you all percieve God to be a beeing. That might not be so.
But that is irrelevant here. The christian God cannot exist, in the christian form at least, because of the following argument:
The evolution of any system can be predicted if one knows all the data of that system, meaning all the characteristics of all the bodies in that system, and all the laws that govern the system, presuming the system to be totaly isolated, or not influenced by anything from the exterior. The Universe is such a system, without God`s intervention (miracles, etc...:))
So if one knew everything about the Universe, one could predict every event in the Universes future evolution, but that would also mean that the Universe has a specific evolution, every event beeing caused by one or more events in the past. This means that no event is spontaneous. And that if an event does not take place it was impossible for it to take place. And that if an event takes place it was impossible for it not to take place. And that man cannot do things without beeing obligated to do them. For example:
if some guy next to you in the bus starts to sing "E lucevan le stelle" by Puccini, you might be amused, irritated, or you might just like the music and listen captivated. But if you do any, you will do so because of the way you were brought up, because of the mood you were in, because of etc...,
And you were brought up in a particular way baceuse your parents were brought up in a particular way and you were in a good mood that day because you recieved a raise for example, and you recieved a raise because..., etc etc etc......
And if you agree at this point, you will be shocked to realise that these facts also imply that there can be no free will for man. Because every action is controlled by it`s predeccesors. So , (and you were wrong Chris), God cannot be as the christians think, not because he would be meen, but because he himself, as priciple of all things, would be the cause of all sins and of all the evil in the world.
So the christian God is himself a paradox.
This is something to talk about.. ;)
Dasvidania

[cole grey]

you people don`t really understand the things you are talking about.
This is a common response from people who don't understand what we are talking about.

What you said about omnipotence being impossible is snakelord's point in our discussion, you dumbass. So, since you are trying to make the same point, you also must not know what you are talking about. Chew on that.

I was taking the position that since omnipotence as described in this way is basically nonsense, unless (as snakelord and I have postulated), God can work around our ideas that seem to be paradoxical, as I have shown one simple possibility for doing so above, the idea of omnipotence described this way has no bearing on shit, because it is meaningless, and can be applied at will.

You are a pompous ass, and you are as much a paradox as your idea of the christian god, because a person like you cannot type and think at the same time obviously, yet somehow you manage to do those things (and not do them) all at once.

Sorry to be so blunt with you, but when you walk into a room re-stating things that have already been said a hundred times, acting as if you came in off of a cloud, and thinking you made the ideas up, you need to just stop.

[SnakeLord]

Sorry kziglu, but cole's right.

I mean seriously.. before you start talking about someone's parents, and making accusations concerning what they do or don't understand, it would help if you knew what the discussion was about. K?

[Godless]

And withall that said, welcome to sci-anyaways! :). We are a roudy bunch, we get a bit tic-off when someone comes and claims we don't know what the hell we talking about, when basically your a new comer, coming in page 39 of a thread, have you read all the pages? I doubt that you have, or else you might have avoided making an ass of yourself, next time do take the time and read throught the whole thread if you have too, before making a post, one that we wouldn't scruitinise so harshly. And don't let this scare you outofhere, you could have lots of meaningless discussions to pass the time. Cya!

Godless

[ghost7584]

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.

Cris

The bible does not claim that any human has freedom to choose without external coercion. Men do have freedom to choose, but there is coercion.
The bible plainly shows that external coercion does exist. The planet earth is populated by a large number of devils that have telepathic contact to the minds of men, and they are tempting men to do evil and disobey God. God is allowing them to have this power to test men to see if they will do good or evil, to see who is worthy to go to heaven and who is not worthy.
God is also trying to compel men to do what is right.
The bible speaks of definite coercion, on the minds of men.
Yet, men do have the right to choose which way they will go and what coercion they will follow, either good (obeying God) or bad (disobeying God).
Your definition of free will is in error, if you think there is no coercion.

[kziglu_bey]

ok,ok.
:p
... "sciforums.com intelligent community"...
you did not see what was, you saw what you wanted to see.
and you don`t get the point:
i didn`t insult you. you think i did.
you insulted me. one insults, when one has no arguments left.
you agreed to what i said, but you didn`t like the way i said it.
you think you`re smart. i think i`m smart.
so , as an old romanian proverb says, i`ll say "sorry".
now , could you please exclude the first paragraph of my first post here and comment in these conditions. you`ll notice that you will agree to my ideas.
"don`t criticise the man, but his ideeas." (Kogalniceanu)
oh, and i did make up these ideas .
i still didn`t read the whole tread yet... but, just in case this was not mentioned earlyer, you should study the dispute between Erasmus and Luther. it aplies here. to the talk on fatalism i meen.
and , come on guys, we are all "intelligent" people here , no ?
:m: :m:

[kziglu_bey]

well, ghost7584, you`re wrong.
you said "...God is allowing them to have this power to test men to see if they will do good or evil..."
this cannot be so because this would mean that god doesn`t know what those men are going to do. so god isn`t allknowing...
and the bibel tels us he is.
now , "God is also trying to compel men to do what is right". if god is omnipotent he doesn`t have to try to do something... he can just do it...
furthermore, free will does not exist. becouse every action one takes is dictated by the past. you cannot do anything spontaneously and you don`t even have a will.
everything you do , you do because something makes you do it. if you eat, you eat because you are hungry. etc.
you might say: yeh, but i can jump up from this chair i`m sitting in and start dansing Kazachiok and that would be spontaneous.
no it would not. you would only do so because you wanted to do something spontaneous ( that you thought is spontaneous) and you would choose to danse because this is the most accessible irational thing to do right now, for example.
and every cause has a cause of its own, et coetera.
plus the whole christian idea is stupid... the thing with god ,it`s like i would
create a very simple computer program, that i would perfectly understand ofcourse, and then i would run the program to see what it does., as if the program was completly unknown to me. If god knows everything he doesn`t have to find out or test anything...

[(Q)]

The planet earth is populated by a large number of devils that have telepathic contact to the minds of men, and they are tempting men to do evil and disobey God. God is allowing them to have this power to test men to see if they will do good or evil, to see who is worthy to go to heaven and who is not worthy.

Correction, your god created those mind manipulating demons. He also created those who were manipulated by the demons. And he knew all along what would happen, an afterlife of eternal damnation. He is omniscient and omnipotent, is he not?

So, is he just having a bucket o' sadistic fun, or what?

[Diogenes' Dog]

I don't know if I have free will or not. All I can say is it FEELS like I have, and I therefore cannot escape taking responsibility for the consequences of my decisions.

I therefore don't think Cris's argument disproves the existence of God at all, and is oversimplistic. Using the analogie of a book: If my life will be contained in a biography, someone in the future (or God) will know what I as the central character decide now. Even if my biography is mysteriously transmitted to someone in the past, it will not effect my apparent freedom to make decisions, provided we do not communicate. So, because I do not know, I still appear to have the freedom to make a choice now.

That's before you get into the "Many Worlds Interpretation" etc. :bugeye:

All this proves/disproves at best is a very anthropomorphic "Old Man in the Sky" type of God anyway. Such a God who claims to be loving and sends half his creation to Hell is clearly confused. You can disprove that sort of God fairly simply without having to invoke "free will".

[Diogenes' Dog]

In summary:
1) "Free will" is the ability to choose in the present, between any of several possibilities.

2) The existence of an omniscient entity who knows the past and the future, including what I will have decided, does not preclude my ability to choose any possibility now, provided they do not influence my decision.

3) An omnipotent entity can choose not to have an influence on my freedom to choose. Therefore the existence of an omnipotent entity would not in itself preclude my ability to choose any possibility now, provided they do not influence my decision.

Therefore the existence of an entity (i.e. God) who is omniscient and/or omnipotent does not preclude my ability to choose (free will). Equally, my apparent freedom to choose does not preclude the existence of an omniscient or omnipotent entity (God).

N.B. Free will only exists provided the decisions I take are not wholly determined by physical causality. However, this is not really relevant to the above argument.

[I don't know]

Proof that the Christian god cannot exist.

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

Omniscience vs. Human Free will. A Paradox.

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

Proposal:

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

Reasoning:

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

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

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

Question:

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

Conclusions:

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

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

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

Cris- If God is omnipotent he doesn't have to follow the rules of logic, i.e. you can't argue against the existence of God in any friggin way :D

And that is dodging the very interesting discussion on the nature of the free will that you might be having here :l

[TheVisitor]

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

You don't understand, Chris...
God came and died for humanity.....he didn't send his son, or someone else.
Jesus Christ is God.
And doing that, He alone has the right to the book of redemption.
He as any king is sovereign.
He knew by foreknowledge what you would do with the opportunities life has given you, and let you have your own way.
Some to honor and some to dishonor...so that the glory of the honored , His glory...the only glory there is, might be displayed in that day.
He with longsuffering and patience waited while they had their day first.
He gave them that chose not to believe in Him a time in the sun, with preeminence and a kingdom that persecutes believers and rewards unbelief, where the wicked and unrighteous flourish and laugh his little ones to scorn.
Soon it will be time for His kingdom to reign on earth, and having patiently waited for the pleasant fruits of the earth....those who stood for Him in the kingdoms of this world, will rule with Him as kings and priests.
God will rule the nations with a rod of iron.
The situation will be reversed, there is a reason it has been this way.

[KennyJC]

I demand TheVisitor be locked up (if he isn't already) in a padded room before the voices in his head tell him to kill someone.

[(Q)]

God will rule the nations with a rod of iron.

My rod of titanium can beat your gods rod of iron anyday.

I'll ram his rod of iron so far up his patootie that his pus-filled head will explode.

Bring it on, godboy!

[Diogenes' Dog]

Hey guys, you may be getting side-tracked! Isn’t this supposed to be the “intelligent” forum? :m:

I want to know - is there a flaw in this argument?
Proof that the Christian god cannot exist.

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.

Statement 1: Freedom to choose between alternatives without coercion can only be eliminated by:
a) Elimination of the alternatives I have to choose from (i.e. by a change in the situation)
b) Elimination of my freedom to choose (i.e. by a change in my capability to decide).
c) Coercion (i.e. use of force or threat to compel a choice).
Statement 2: God’s perfect knowledge of past and future events does not in itself eliminate my freedom to choose in the present (i.e. it does not affect my capability).
Statement 3: God’s perfect knowledge of past and future does not eliminate the alternatives I have to choose from (i.e. it does not affect the situation).
Statement 4: God’s perfect knowledge of past and future does not constitute coercion (i.e. I am not compelled to a choice by force or threat).

Conclusion: Therefore God’s perfect knowledge of past and future events is not inconsistent or contradictory to my freedom to choose between alternatives without coercion.

Summary: The claim that God can be omniscient and also that humans can have free will does NOT form a paradox or a falsehood.

Proof that the Christian god cannot exist.
Reasoning:
If God is omniscient then even before we are born God will have complete knowledge of every decision we are going to make.

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

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

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.


The error is in the confusion between prescient and pre-determined. Prescience of a decision does not mean it is pre-determined or coerced. To make it pre-determined or coerced involves an intervention to ensure a specific outcome. This may be e.g. to set up the conditions that make it inevitable.

Proof that the Christian god cannot exist.

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.
Cris

Well, that is a good question... and the obvious oxymoron that "a loving God creates individuals in order to damn them eternally" is a very good proof that God (if he exists) cannot be like this. QED :D

[TheVisitor]

Well......... :D obviously :D

How ridiculous..why not waste time theorizing about.....
"If God can do anything , can He create a rock to big for Him to lift....?
Or a "square circle ?", a "stupid smart man ?"....theres one that applies here.

Obviously. :mad:

[Teetotaler]

I find it funny when people try to disprove God. If God doesn't exist, then you are a worthless organism. If God doesn't exist, then the only choice you have is to pass away into non-existence.

If non-existence is your only outcome, then why in the hell are you wasting your time disproving what does not exist? Since you are finite and destined for non-existence, then your opinion does not matter; nothing matters.

So, all of you non-believers can kiss my round, lady-like ass.

[Tattooed Soul]

Cris,

I find your proof compelling.
It has a very salient corner post i.e. omniscient vs free will.

I must say that I agree with the argument but I will add these comments.

I think that the "Christian Idea" of God is seriously flawed and flawed more deeply than you reveal here. Quite simply the flaws are caused by the fact that the Christian idea of God is a construct of man. The Christian Idea of God, being a creation of man, can only be described by humans, in as much as their languages and thought can describe it. For this reason I think any Christian description of God will be inherently flawed, perhapse fatally so as you so aptly demonstrate.

I am not however ready to admit that there is no God, in some form. I am not ready to accept that there is no "Supreme Life Force". Whether or not it is / was the creative force for our reality or even concerned with our existance remains to be discussed. But I wonder still.

Yours is, All in all, a good argument thanks for posting it.

[Cris]

I Don't know,

If God is omnipotent he doesn't have to follow the rules of logic, Not true. If he possesses omniscience then he has no choice but to know everything. You could argue that he could remove his ability to be omniscient, but then he wouldn't be omnipotent since there would be something he couldn't do, i.e. he wouldn't be able to know everything.

Either way he has no choice but to be constrained by logic.

i.e. you can't argue against the existence of God in any friggin way Clearly I have.

[Cris]

Teetotaler,

I find it funny when people try to disprove God. I find it funny that no one has yet to show a god exists yet billions believe it regardless.

If God doesn't exist, then you are a worthless organism.Why? If he did exist wouldn’t your eternal life be equally worthless, whether in heaven or hell?

If God doesn't exist, then the only choice you have is to pass away into non-existence.Unless you find a way to avoid that.

If non-existence is your only outcome, then why in the hell are you wasting your time disproving what does not exist? I don’t accept that non-existence is inevitable.

Since you are finite and destined for non-existence, then your opinion does not matter; nothing matters.Expressed opinions may well survive forever whether you exist forever or not.

[Cris]

Diogenes Dog,

The error is in the confusion between prescient and pre-determined. Prescience of a decision does not mean it is pre-determined or coerced. To make it pre-determined or coerced involves an intervention to ensure a specific outcome. This may be e.g. to set up the conditions that make it inevitable. Not true. To prove your point you will need to show how foreknowledge is possible without the event having been predetermined. The two states are inextricably linked.

[Cris]

Diogenes Dog,

Statement 2: God’s perfect knowledge of past and future events does not in itself eliminate my freedom to choose in the present (i.e. it does not affect my capability). But yes it does. You have zero capability to make any choice other than what is already known. E.g. if you were to make a different choice then that would be reflected in God’s prior perfect knowledge and you are back to the original paradox.

Statement 3: God’s perfect knowledge of past and future does not eliminate the alternatives I have to choose from (i.e. it does not affect the situation).The number of alternatives is not relevant since only one will occur and that will have been predetermined.

Statement 4: God’s perfect knowledge of past and future does not constitute coercion (i.e. I am not compelled to a choice by force or threat).It is not necessary for you to realize that you are being coerced for it to occur.

[I don't know]

I Don't know,

Not true. If he possesses omniscience then he has no choice but to know everything. You could argue that he could remove his ability to be omniscient, but then he wouldn't be omnipotent since there would be something he couldn't do, i.e. he wouldn't be able to know everything.

Either way he has no choice but to be constrained by logic.

Clearly I have.- No no no, you're not getting it :D Omnipotence means that God can do everything, including breaking the rules of logic.

He can create a rock too big for Him to lift, and then lift it anyway!

[Diogenes' Dog]

Diogenes Dog,
Not true. To prove your point you will need to show how foreknowledge is possible without the event having been predetermined. The two states are inextricably linked. ...but not the same!

I think the problem is in trying to mess about with time, which leads to all sorts of apparent paradoxes. Ask yourself - by knowing (e.g. remembering) the outcome of a past choice, am I determining what it was? If not why would transferring that information (by strange means) to someone in the remote past cause that choice to become pre-determined?

Your assumption is that knowing the future would "fix" it like the past into a single inescapable track. However, this may not be the structure of time. Hence the "Many Worlds Interpretation" and other such hypotheses.

So, back to my perspective as the choice maker, it is irrelevant to my ability to choose whether someone else has (unknown to me) predicted the outcome of my decision - I still have as much ability to make a free choice as if they had not, or did not exist. Thus my choice is not pre-determined, nor am I coerced into making one choice.

If however they set up the conditions so I can only choose one alternative - then my choice is pre-determined.

[Sarkus]

Your assumption is that knowing the future would "fix" it like the past into a single inescapable track. However, this may not be the structure of time. Hence the "Many Worlds Interpretation" and other such hypotheses.In the idea of the infinite number of worlds, where all possible outcomes occur on one world or another, the decision / choice on all of them individually is fixed.
It is only by moving from one world to another that one can experience a change in decision and thus appear to be unfixed - but in reality this would not be the case - as the first decision and the apparent change are actually performed by distinct entities - i.e. not the same person.

So, back to my perspective as the choice maker, it is irrelevant to my ability to choose whether someone else has (unknown to me) predicted the outcome of my decision - I still have as much ability to make a free choice as if they had not, or did not exist. Thus my choice is not pre-determined, nor am I coerced into making one choice. But this is then only the appearance of free-will - which for most people is sufficient for them to conclude that it is actually freewill.

Does ignorance of coercion mean that you aren't coerced?
Does ignorance of the lack of freewill mean that you have it?
It depends, I guess, on the point of view:
The person who is ignorant of the coercion is, as far as they are concerned, free of coercion. And if they are unaware of someone being able to determine their choices then they are free to choose.

The person doing the coercion knows that the subject is being coerced - and would know that they lack free-will, even if the subject doesn't.

So are we talking subjective or objective reality?

[Diogenes' Dog]

In the idea of the infinite number of worlds, where all possible outcomes occur on one world or another, the decision / choice on all of them individually is fixed.
It is only by moving from one world to another that one can experience a change in decision and thus appear to be unfixed - but in reality this would not be the case - as the first decision and the apparent change are actually performed by distinct entities - i.e. not the same person.

But this is then only the appearance of free-will - which for most people is sufficient for them to conclude that it is actually freewill.

Yes, but the person to whom the future has been communicated may be forced to accompany the version of me that makes the decision that he predicts. I may choose to take another "branch" into another parallel world.

Does ignorance of coercion mean that you aren't coerced?
Does ignorance of the lack of freewill mean that you have it?
It depends, I guess, on the point of view:
The person who is ignorant of the coercion is, as far as they are concerned, free of coercion. And if they are unaware of someone being able to determine their choices then they are free to choose.

The person doing the coercion knows that the subject is being coerced - and would know that they lack free-will, even if the subject doesn't.

So are we talking subjective or objective reality?


There's some interesting paradoxes that occur if you assume that someone knowing the future restricts my freedom to choose.

1) Suppose this person communicates to me what my future decision is. I would undoubtedly change my mind and choose something else. Does that make his information NOT from the future, or can I NOT change my mind?

2) Suppose this person is told of a future decision of mine that I will take in 2 minutes time. However, this person is in a spacecraft 3 light-minutes from Earth. Will his knowing still restrict my freedom to choose?

[GeoffP]

- No no no, you're not getting it :D Omnipotence means that God can do everything, including breaking the rules of logic.

He can create a rock too big for Him to lift, and then lift it anyway!

...I hate to say it but this does make a certain sense. He can think of everything, and do it. Kind of fits the whole "infinite" bill.

Geoff

[Diogenes' Dog]

...I hate to say it but this does make a certain sense. He can think of everything, and do it. Kind of fits the whole "infinite" bill.
Geoff
I think it shows the futility of trying to understand God using logical statements concerning infinite values e.g. omniscience, omnipotence etc.

[Sarkus]

There's some interesting paradoxes that occur if you assume that someone knowing the future restricts my freedom to choose.No there isn't.

1) Suppose this person communicates to me what my future decision is. I would undoubtedly change my mind and choose something else. Does that make his information NOT from the future, or can I NOT change my mind?If you assume someone does know the future, then they will also be restricted by what they know. They know that what they are telling you is all part of the pre-destined plan - and that your response to what they tell you is what they saw. You can "second-guess" yourself, but the choice you make is what they saw. And the "future" that they saw was based on everything that occurred up to the point you make your decision - even them telling you what your future is.

2) Suppose this person is told of a future decision of mine that I will take in 2 minutes time. However, this person is in a spacecraft 3 light-minutes from Earth. Will his knowing still restrict my freedom to choose?Yes - but from your perspective you will have the feeling of choice - the illusion of choice - which some would argue is indistinguishable from choice and thus equates to choice.

[Diogenes' Dog]

If you assume someone does know the future, then they will also be restricted by what they know. They know that what they are telling you is all part of the pre-destined plan

I think this could be begging the question Sarkus. What we are debating is whether the "plan" becomes pre-destined or predetermined.

...and that your response to what they tell you is what they saw. You can "second-guess" yourself, but the choice you make is what they saw. And the "future" that they saw was based on everything that occurred up to the point you make your decision - even them telling you what your future is.

If at 11.30am you "know" that I will choose A at noon today, and give me this information truthfully, I can then at noon choose B or C instead, (unless I am magically restrained) and change what you "knew" was the future (unless you are magically restrained from telling me). It is irrelevant that you might also know you would tell me, but it does create a paradox. If you and I ARE restrained, you need to find a mechanism by which we would lose our freedom. The simplest way out is to rethink your hypothesis that the future is single and fixed.

Yes - but from your perspective you will have the feeling of choice - the illusion of choice - which some would argue is indistinguishable from choice and thus equates to choice.

If the man in a spacecraft 3-light minutes away, by suddenly knowing my future in 2 minutes, does affect me - then his effect on me is transmitted faster than light can travel. This contravenes the constancy of the speed light (and therefore the laws of causality). :eek:

I'm willing to entertain the hypothesis that we may NOT have free will, and that our seeming freedom of choice is in fact ruled by unbreakable chains of causation in our clockwork like brains.

However, that actually doesn't help you one bit to resolve the paradoxes I mentioned. :p

[Sarkus]

If at 11.30am you "know" that I will choose A at noon today, and give me this information truthfully, I can then at noon choose B or C instead, (unless I am magically restrained) and change what you "knew" was the future (unless you are magically restrained from telling me).

It is irrelevant that you might also know you would tell me, but it does create a paradox. If you and I ARE restrained, you need to find a mechanism by which we would lose our freedom. The simplest way out is to rethink your hypothesis that the future is single and fixed. Surely the simplest way is to say that an omniscient entity doesn't exist in our Universe? The above example is only a paradox with that assumption. Remove the assumption and you remove the paradox - as, in your example, I could not "know" that you would choose A. I could at best have an estimate of the probability that you would choose A - but I could never have absolute knoweldge that you would.

If the man in a spacecraft 3-light minutes away, by suddenly knowing my future in 2 minutes, does affect me - then his effect on me is transmitted faster than light can travel. This contravenes the constancy of the speed light (and therefore the laws of causality). :eek:I don't recall saying that the act of knowing the future (by the man in the space-craft) directly affects the actions of the other.
If I did - I apologise.
What I do say is that the knowing of the future by the man in the space-craft will have no bearing on the outcome - and hence the other man will do exactly what the man in the space-craft knew.
So - if the spaceman can not interact to make you change your mind (even if he could) then you WILL certainly make the choice he knew you would - and thus you had no real choice - only an illusion of choice.

I'm willing to entertain the hypothesis that we may NOT have free will, and that our seeming freedom of choice is in fact ruled by unbreakable chains of causation in our clockwork like brains. I'm in agreement with this. On one level (cause and effect) I don't think we do - but what we're left with is the illusion of choice - and that is good enough for me :)

[Mythbuster]

Reasoning:

If God is omniscient then even before we are born God will have complete knowledge of every decision we are going to make.Stop right there - major problem. When talking about an eternal being and His relation to a world that is not, words like "before" do not belong. The closest thing you could say to express God's relation in terms of knowledge of states of affairs is that He always knows them (or knows them tenselessly).
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 does not follow - only if our actions come about through God's direct causal action does that mean they are predetermined in such a way that negates volition. In other words, any given human's salvation decision is predetermined iff 1) God does some specific act that causes the outcome of accepting or rejecting salvation or 2) salvation is not an act of choice and the saved are instead chosen by God. I reject the latter (which is Calvinism), and I see no reason to accept the former. Consequently, the rejection of Calvinism negates the "Question" section below as well, since Arminianists hold that God does not choose the elect: their fate is in their own hands.
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.This also does not follow if God exists out of time and simply knows all the states of affairs tenselessly. He does not need to know them "in advance".

And another less related point - the definition of paradox seems somewhat incomplete. As it stands, it seems synonymous with "contradiction", which is erroneous; most accurately, a paradox is a true statement that is seemingly self-contradictory (like the statement "There is a set of all possible sets").

[Mythbuster]

Cris,

Here is the typical christian response, as I hear it.

"God is omniscent in that he knows every possible consequence of every possible decision you COULD make. In other words, he knows every POSSIBLE FUTURE that would result from every possible choice I might make. Think of the way god sees the world as a completely large "Choose your own adventure" book, wherein all the chapters are written in advance (and known to the Author) but it is still left up to you to choose which paths you will take. for every choice you make, god knows of all the possible results of that choice, and the next choice you make, god knows of all the possible results of making that choice, etc."

My response is that this absolutely fails to resolve the question. If god does not know which choice you will make (but only knows what all the 'possible futures' are for each choice you COULD make, then god is simply not omniscient, as he does not know all tha can be known!

Also, this is utter bull for another reason. There are many millions of people in the world and what my future looks like depends on an innumerable web of people making innumerable decisions (how much steak will cost tomorrow depends on the grocer's chosen markup, the importer's ease in gettiing it to land, the chosen price for gas for the boat, etc.)

Were he to know IN ADVANCE all the possible futures for every decision i make, he would have to know an innumerable number of choices from everyone else (as my possible futures also depend on their choices which affect me).

[Diogenes' Dog]

Surely the simplest way is to say that an omniscient entity doesn't exist in our Universe? The above example is only a paradox with that assumption. Remove the assumption and you remove the paradox - as, in your example, I could not "know" that you would choose A. I could at best have an estimate of the probability that you would choose A - but I could never have absolute knoweldge that you would.

I think the non-existence of God as an omniscient entity is what this thought experiment was designed to "prove"? One cannot use it as an assumption therefore Sarkus!

What I hope I have shown is:
1) That knowing the future does not eliminate the freedom to choose.
2) The original paradox (posed by Cris) is flawed because it was based on the questionable assumption that the future is single and fixed.
3) That prescience therefore does not mean pre-determination.
4) that an omniscient entity (God) is therefore not incompatible with free will.
QED

I don't recall saying that the act of knowing the future (by the man in the space-craft) directly affects the actions of the other.
If I did - I apologise. What I do say is that the knowing of the future by the man in the space-craft will have no bearing on the outcome - and hence the other man will do exactly what the man in the space-craft knew.
So - if the spaceman can not interact to make you change your mind (even if he could) then you WILL certainly make the choice he knew you would - and thus you had no real choice - only an illusion of choice.
I think you are confused in your thinking here Sarkus!

1) If the man in the spacecraft can constrain my freedom to choose (free will) by knowing "the future", there must be some (unknown) mechanism by which that happens.

2) It is not possible for anything to travel faster than light through a vacuum.

Conclusion 1: Therefore is it NOT possible for a man in a spacecraft, by knowing the future to effect me in any way (including constraining my free will) more rapidly than light can travel between us.

Conclusion 2: Therefore his knowing the future is not incomaptible with my free will in this instance.

[Diogenes' Dog]

Cris,

Here is the typical christian response, as I hear it.

"God is omniscent in that he knows every possible consequence of every possible decision you COULD make. In other words, he knows every POSSIBLE FUTURE that would result from every possible choice I might make. Think of the way god sees the world as a completely large "Choose your own adventure" book, wherein all the chapters are written in advance (and known to the Author) but it is still left up to you to choose which paths you will take. for every choice you make, god knows of all the possible results of that choice, and the next choice you make, god knows of all the possible results of making that choice, etc."

My response is that this absolutely fails to resolve the question. If god does not know which choice you will make (but only knows what all the 'possible futures' are for each choice you COULD make, then god is simply not omniscient, as he does not know all tha can be known!

Also, this is utter bull for another reason. There are many millions of people in the world and what my future looks like depends on an innumerable web of people making innumerable decisions (how much steak will cost tomorrow depends on the grocer's chosen markup, the importer's ease in gettiing it to land, the chosen price for gas for the boat, etc.)

Were he to know IN ADVANCE all the possible futures for every decision i make, he would have to know an innumerable number of choices from everyone else (as my possible futures also depend on their choices which affect me).

I think the point is Mythbuster that I retain the freedom to choose, and will experience a different choice as a result of my choice. My freedom is therefore not constrained by God knowing the choice I make. Perhaps I make (and experience) all choices, but am only aware of one at this moment!

[Sarkus]

I think the non-existence of God as an omniscient entity is what this thought experiment was designed to "prove"? One cannot use it as an assumption therefore Sarkus!It is not an assumption, but a logical conclusion.

What I hope I have shown is:
1) That knowing the future does not eliminate the freedom to choose.
If you are referring to your example of someone "knowing" at 11:30 and getting someone at 12:00 to change their mind / the future - then NO - you have not shown it.

If I claim to know the future - and know it "omnisciently" - then I surely know the outcome of every event - of every apparent "choice" - including my own actions.

If, at 11:30am I TRULY knew the future - then that future ALREADY takes into account EVERY ACTION I MAKE GOING FORWARD.
Otherwise you are claiming that the "knowing" isn't omniscience and that the person who is omniscient isn't bound by it.

So the person I tell will make the same choice that I knew they were going to make back at 11:30 - by the same chain of cause and effect that I knew was going to happen back at 11:30.

2) The original paradox (posed by Cris) is flawed because it was based on the questionable assumption that the future is single and fixed.How is the future not single or fixed? Please elaborate on this.

My view is that there may be multiple universes' where every possibility occurs - but on each of these, taken in isolation, the future is fixed and single.

3) That prescience therefore does not mean pre-determination.Again, please elaborate. At what point does prescience not mean pre-determination.

4) that an omniscient entity (God) is therefore not incompatible with free will. You will need to expand on all 4 of these points individually. I apologise if I have missed where in prior posts you have thought you have achieved each of these, so please could you lay out your thought process again?

1) If the man in the spacecraft can constrain my freedom to choose (free will) by knowing "the future", there must be some (unknown) mechanism by which that happens.

2) It is not possible for anything to travel faster than light through a vacuum.

Conclusion 1: Therefore is it NOT possible for a man in a spacecraft, by knowing the future to effect me in any way (including constraining my free will) more rapidly than light can travel between us.

Conclusion 2: Therefore his knowing the future is not incomaptible with my free will in this instance.You are the one confused, I fear.

In point (1) you are assuming that the very act of knowing the future constrains your actions. This is flawed.
You are going from a cause (Spaceman knowing the future) to effect (future actions). This is wrong.
It goes from cause (call it CAUSE 1 for sake of a better term) to 2 effects (your future actions and the spaceman knowing your future actions).

There is no direct cause / effect relationship between spaceman and your future actions.

I think the non-existence of God as an omniscient entity is what this thought experiment was designed to "prove"? You can not prove non-existence.

[Sarkus]

I think the point is Mythbuster that I retain the freedom to choose, and will experience a different choice as a result of my choice. My freedom is therefore not constrained by God knowing the choice I make. Perhaps I make (and experience) all choices, but am only aware of one at this moment!Again, it comes down to the experience / illusion of choice and the objective reality of the situation.

If you hold with cause and effect, then at it's logical extreme there is no free-will.

If you hold with an omniscient God, then there is no free-will.

In both instances there is a mighty good illusion of free-will. And this suffices us in everyday life when we consider "choice".

[Diogenes' Dog]

Sarkus, you might have to go back and look at some of the previous posts. I think we are stuck in a loop here.

It is not an assumption, but a logical conclusion.

It's NOT an assumption OR a logical conclusion. The only assumption made (originally by cris) is that the future can be known. This leads to the above paradoxes if you also assume the future is single and fixed.

If you are referring to your example of someone "knowing" at 11:30 and getting someone at 12:00 to change their mind / the future - then NO - you have not shown it.

If I claim to know the future - and know it "omnisciently" - then I surely know the outcome of every event - of every apparent "choice" - including my own actions.

If, at 11:30am I TRULY knew the future - then that future ALREADY takes into account EVERY ACTION I MAKE GOING FORWARD.
Otherwise you are claiming that the "knowing" isn't omniscience and that the person who is omniscient isn't bound by it.

So the person I tell will make the same choice that I knew they were going to make back at 11:30 - by the same chain of cause and effect that I knew was going to happen back at 11:30.

THAT IS THE PARADOX! How can someone know THE future, if (having told me what it is) I can then change it?

How is the future not single or fixed? Please elaborate on this.
Please see the above! THE = one only. The only ways out of the paradox is that there cannot be a single, fixed future that can be known.

In point (1) you are assuming that the very act of knowing the future constrains your actions. This is flawed.
You are going from a cause (Spaceman knowing the future) to effect (future actions). This is wrong.
It goes from cause (call it CAUSE 1 for sake of a better term) to 2 effects (your future actions and the spaceman knowing your future actions).

There is no direct cause / effect relationship between spaceman and your future actions.

OK, so what/who and when is this cause1? If it is situated in the future for both (i.e. after I make the choice), then cause1 cannot be said to have "determined" my choice, just as you do not determine a choice by remembering it. Similarly if it is an effect of the act making a choice (i.e. making the choice=cause1).

So, it resolves the "spaceman" paradox (2), but in both cases I retain the freedom to choose = free will. Therefore "free will" is not incompatible with an entity knowing the future (or being omniscient) in these instances.

If you are postulating an entity/mechanism that both constrains my freedom to choose, and sends it back through time, then I'd have to ask for your evidence for such an entity/mechanism. Could this be our Omniscient Deity perhaps?

Q. Why need this entity/mechanism constrain my freedom to choose (free will)?
A. Only so that you can cling onto the prejudice that the future is single & fixed and the illogical conclusion that free will must therefore be an illusion!

God moves in mysterious ways. :mad:

[Sarkus]

Your confusion seems to stem from your removal of the OMNISCIENT ENTITY.

If an entity KNOWS your future and doesn't tell you - you will think you are making a choice and choose A over B.

If an entity KNOWS your future and does tell you - and you change your mind - then you now choose B over A when he apparently KNEW you were going to choose A.
The only conclusion here is that the entity is NOT OMNISCIENT.

Having an unfixed future CAN NOT EXIST with an OMNISCIENT entity.
Having multiple futures is irrelevant - as the OMNISCIENT entity will either know the outcome of your choices or not (in which case he is not Omniscient)!

An OMNISCIENT entity is also bound by his own Omniscience - he can not do anything that he does not know he will do.
Therefore he knows when he will coerce and he knows when he will not - and his knowledge of outcomes will already have this taken into account.

But we are not talking about someone who can merely tell the future like in a fair-ground - or someone who has a hunch - we are talking about OMNISCIENCE.


If you create a paradox by having an Omniscient entity AND free-will then the only conclusion is that one or the other do not exist.

If you think, as you do, that multiple futures and / or unfixed futures resolve the paradox - CLEARLY explain your reasoning and how it doesn't also breach one of the initial claims of the existence of Omniscience and Free-will.

[Mythbuster]

G = The Judeo-Christian God exists
B = God is benevolent
P = God is omnipotent
N = There is no evil

P1. If G, then B and P
P2. If B and P, then N
P3. Not-N
C1. Therefore, not-B or not-P
C2. Therefore, not-G

Christian does not exist. :D

[Diogenes' Dog]

Your confusion seems to stem from your removal of the OMNISCIENT ENTITY.

If an entity KNOWS your future and doesn't tell you - you will think you are making a choice and choose A over B.

If an entity KNOWS your future and does tell you - and you change your mind - then you now choose B over A when he apparently KNEW you were going to choose A.
The only conclusion here is that the entity is NOT OMNISCIENT.

Having an unfixed future CAN NOT EXIST with an OMNISCIENT entity.
Having multiple futures is irrelevant - as the OMNISCIENT entity will either know the outcome of your choices or not (in which case he is not Omniscient)!

An OMNISCIENT entity is also bound by his own Omniscience - he can not do anything that he does not know he will do.
Therefore he knows when he will coerce and he knows when he will not - and his knowledge of outcomes will already have this taken into account.

But we are not talking about someone who can merely tell the future like in a fair-ground - or someone who has a hunch - we are talking about OMNISCIENCE.

No, what you have shown is that having a fixed future is incompatible with an omniscient entity. My original point was that Cris's paradox was based on that very assumption - and the future may not be fixed or single! As an example, I suggested the MWI.

The whole point of the "many worlds interpretation" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many_worlds) (MWI) is that you make ALL the choices, not just one. The future branches at the point of decision, and 3 nearly identical Sarkuses (assuming it was A,B and C to choose from) exist in 3 parallel worlds. An omniscient entity therefore correctly knows that you will choose ALL the options. If he tells someone you will choose A, it is because that person will meet you again in the future where you chose A. At the decision point however, you have total freedom to choose B or C and go off on another branch and another parallel world, and maybe never meet this A character. The omniscient entity is with you down all the branches. It is meaningless to ask this entity therefore what you will decide, because he will correctly say you will choose A,B and C. Suppose the you I'm addressing chose B yesterday. This "you" has lost sight of the other "you"s, and can only see yourself choosing B. Somewhere, in a parallel world it is possible that another "me" is addressing a "you" that chose A. However, as parallel worlds can never communicate, MWI is only an "interpretation", and we will never know.

If you create a paradox by having an Omniscient entity AND free-will then the only conclusion is that one or the other do not exist.

If you think, as you do, that multiple futures and / or unfixed futures resolve the paradox - CLEARLY explain your reasoning and how it doesn't also breach one of the initial claims of the existence of Omniscience and Free-will.
We are going round in a loop! Sarkus, you've worn me out. The original refutation I posted of Cris's proposition is on p40, with some subsequent posts and replies. HERE (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=3182&page=40&pp=20).

P.S. ALL proofs for the existence or non-existence of God are only playing with words. This one is no exception. There is a flaw in all of them - you just have to find it.

[Diogenes' Dog]

G = The Judeo-Christian God exists
B = God is benevolent
P = God is omnipotent
N = There is no evil

P1. If G, then B and P
P2. If B and P, then N
P3. Not-N
C1. Therefore, not-B or not-P
C2. Therefore, not-G

Christian does not exist. :D

This is an old one Mythbuster!

The flaw is in P2 which is FALSE. An omnipotent God may have benevolent reasons (R) for not intervening to erradicate the existence of "evil".

So it should read:
P1. If G, then B and P
P2. If B and P but not-R then N
P3. If B and P and R then not-N
P4. If not-G then not-N
P5. Not-N
C1. Therefore, not-G or G and B and P and R

OK ;) ?

[cato]

This does not follow - only if our actions come about through God's direct causal action does that mean they are predetermined in such a way that negates volition.
if god created all that exists, I would call that a causal action. if god created us, and knows our "future," or states, then god must have predetermined our states, after all god made the states.

This also does not follow if God exists out of time and simply knows all the states of affairs tenselessly. He does not need to know them "in advance".
you are correct to say that if we assume god is outside of time, then we can't define future or past in terms of god. however, the underlying theme still exists. if god knows the states, then the states can't be any other way, thus we can't "move through time" to any other state. ergo, our states (our future) is unchangeable.

[Mythbuster]

OK ;) ?

Why are you soo good ? :cool:

[cole grey]

question -
Is there anybody here who thinks that the future is going to be anything other than what it is?
I hope not.
Does anyone think that the future being guaranteed to be what it is, just as surely as the past is what it is, causes the future to be what it is?
I hope not.
Our future is guaranteed to be what it is whether or not there is any knowledge of what it will be because whatever happens will be the future.

I am going to pick up my cell phone.
I pick up the cell phone.
The cell phone, you may as well say, was pre-determined to do that, the same way everything on earth that happens was, and not many things actually are.

[Sarkus]

No, what you have shown is that having a fixed future is incompatible with an omniscient entity. My original point was that Cris's paradox was based on that very assumption - and the future may not be fixed or single! As an example, I suggested the MWI.

The whole point of the "many worlds interpretation" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many_worlds) (MWI) is that you make ALL the choices, not just one. This idea falls down right here!
If, under MWI, you make ALL choices - then there surely IS NO CHOICE. YOU WILL TAKE ALL CHOICES!
The fact that you "lose sight of" the other worlds where you have taken the other choice only leaves you with the illusion of choice.
If I give you an option of A, B, or C - and the MWI states that you will choose ALL options - this means it is as predetermined as if it were a single fixed future.

P.S. ALL proofs for the existence or non-existence of God are only playing with words. This one is no exception. There is a flaw in all of them - you just have to find it.While I agree that it is all playing with words, I don't hold that there is necessarily a flaw in all of them.
It all depends upon the definition of "God" being used.
If you set up a definition of "God" (which is after all merely a word being used for something that has no evidence of existence nor non-existence) then it is entirely possible to say whether or not it is logical, illogical, true or false.

[cole grey]

The fact that you "lose sight of" the other worlds where you have taken the other choice only leaves you with the illusion of choice.
If I give you an option of A, B, or C - and the MWI states that you will choose ALL options - this means it is as predetermined as if it were a single fixed future.

Using the word "pre-determined" is meaningless unless there is some other option by which events occur. If no choices are ever made in this type of reality, the word "pre-determination" as commonly defined becomes meaningless. This is a problem with my last post as well as your statement above.
A non-choice is not pre-determined at all, only an event that can have choice can have the choice removed from it.

Also, I agree that the definiton of the word "God" in any particular proof or idea will determine whether or not the idea can be logically followed. If you define God as an illogical thing and then say that that shows God can't exist - which is what this thread is all about from the start - you have merely shown that your idea of God is illogical.

[Sarkus]

Using the word "pre-determined" is meaningless unless there is some other option by which events occur. If no choices are ever made in this type of reality, the word "pre-determination" as commonly defined becomes meaningless. This is a problem with my last post as well as your statement above.
A non-choice is not pre-determined at all, only an event that can have choice can have the choice removed from it.Okay - semantics, possibly.
I mean Predetermined as in "absence of any choice". I do not mean "removal of choice".

[Mythbuster]

Been thinking about this and came up with the question.

Assumptions:
- Omnipresence is necessarily everywhere presence required.
- Omnipotence is capacity to do everything.

My question is, Why is it necessary for "Omnipotent & All powerful being" to be present everywhere?

Sure Omnipotent being can do anything, means, he can even be at point X location and still affect point Y location.

Thus by being omnipresent, God cannot do one thing, he cannot be present at particular X location and affect Y location without being there. A limitation to omnipotence?



Conclusion: God cannot affect any location, without being present there.

So this is an unneccessary attribute given to him by those who wanted an all-seeing, all-knowing, all-everything Super-God! They slipped up.

Question: Can god be at X location, and affect Y location from X?
Answer: He can't coz he is everywhere. NECESSARILY. He must have to be present at Y.



IN SHORT:

WHY IS OMNIPRESENCE ATTRIBUTED TO GOD WHEN HE IS OMNIPOTENT... WONT THAT BE A LIMITATION INSTEAD?

[cole grey]

Okay - semantics, possibly.
I mean Predetermined as in "absence of any choice". I do not mean "removal of choice".
I think you really hit on something when you brought up the illusion of choice.
We have to decide whether human consciousness must include the perception of choice. And we have to create a shared understanding of what the word "pre-determined" means and how it may be affecting us, with or without a God involved, before we can really get anywhere on solving the puzzle posed by the thread starter.

[cole grey]

mythbuster -
all you are saying, when you remove the details, is that it is impossible for God to be present everywhere and not be present everywhere. It is the same problem posed by saying God can't be a square and a circle at the same time, or make a rock he can't lift, saying, God can't be anything that we consider paradoxical.

This is very trusting of the infallible mind of the human - did I say "infallible" and "human" in the same sentence? Now that is an oxymoron.

[Mythbuster]

Did God create free will? How then does it itself have free will?

1. God created everything.
2. God created free-will.
3. Before creating free-will, obviously god didn't possess free-will then.
4. If God didn't create free-will, he isn't the ultimate creator.
5. If God created free will then God had no choice in doing so.


So It must have been predestined to create it.


If theist argue God had free-will since eternity, then wait a min, Free-will existed since eternity? God never created it? Or did he just add Evil to it?

This one is interesting, any comments?

[Godless]

God does not exist.

[ggazoo]

The idea that God is a made-up concept to soothe our fears makes no sense, since we reject the existence of other made-up figures that might, likewise, make us feel better. A comparison between the existence of God (a non-contingent being) and the existence of Santa Claus or invisible pink unicorns (contingent beings) fails on many levels, not the least of which is that their fundamental natures (non-physical vs. physical) are vastly different. The idea that there is no evidence to support the existence of God is clearly false. The evidence was clear enough for me to convert from agnosticism to deism in the absence of efforts by theists. Anthony Flew, a lifelong proponent of atheism recently became a deist on the basis of evidence for design. In subsequent interviews, Flew stated that he "had to go where the evidence leads." Philosophical arguments like invisible pink unicorns are great ways to avoid examining evidence, but such an approach is ultimately dishonest.

[Sarkus]

A comparison between the existence of God (a non-contingent being) and the existence of Santa Claus or invisible pink unicorns (contingent beings) fails on many levels, not the least of which is that their fundamental natures (non-physical vs. physical) are vastly different.And these differences are.... ?

The idea that there is no evidence to support the existence of God is clearly false.And this evidence is.... ?

The evidence was clear enough for me to convert from agnosticism to deism in the absence of efforts by theists.And this evidence is.... ?

Anthony Flew, a lifelong proponent of atheism recently became a deist on the basis of evidence for design.And this evidence is.... ?

In subsequent interviews, Flew stated that he "had to go where the evidence leads."One man's trip down the irrational is not evidence.
Unless there really is evidence. In which case...
The evidence is.... ?

Philosophical arguments like invisible pink unicorns are great ways to avoid examining evidence, but such an approach is ultimately dishonest.Claiming them (arguments such as invisible pink unicorns) as such is merely a (not-great) way of avoiding the issue they raise. And is thus ultimately dishonest.

[ggazoo]

Evidence, evidence, evidence... and therin lies the difference between atheists and Christans. Christians go on faith, whereas atheists need proof, and that's fine either way.

Atheists seem to go out of their way to disprove God. Instead of trying to prove God, Christians spend their time and effort just believing, which is difficult for non-believers to accept, and that's cool too, as everyone is different.

One of the arguments that I've found interesting is that "for thousands of years no one has found evidence or proof of God". Mostly true. But biblicaly, thousands of years in Gods eyes go by in a second.

But hey, that's just another theory.

[Sarkus]

Evidence, evidence, evidence... and therin lies the difference between atheists and Christans. Christians go on faith, whereas atheists need proof, and that's fine either way.Therein indeed. But there is still the fascinating question of what drives someone to accept something as true without any proof whatsoever.
And therein lies the interest.

Atheists seem to go out of their way to disprove God.No they don't. They merely do not have a belief in God.
Pick anything for which there is no evidence and then try and disprove their existence? You can't. So most don't try.
Those that do try and disprove God only succeed, possibly, in disproving the existence of a very specifically defined God (including in those definitions what that God might be bound by - such as logic.) But since the definition of "God" appears to be different (slightly or significantly) for each person, and that there are an infinite number of possible "God"s that might exist (all of which have the one same quality of lack of evidence) it is difficult to disprove them all. ;)

Instead of trying to prove God, Christians spend their time and effort just believing, which is difficult for non-believers to accept, and that's cool too, as everyone is different.Indeed. To each their own.
Atheists generally don't spend any time or effort in believing - and most couldn't give two hoots (let alone three or even a whopping four hoots) about religion. But some of us are strangely fascinated by what drives people to "believe" something as true in the absence of evidence.

One of the arguments that I've found interesting is that "for thousands of years no one has found evidence or proof of God". Mostly true. But biblicaly, thousands of years in Gods eyes go by in a second. And your evidence for this is...?
And how is this an argument for or against God?

But hey, that's just another theory.No it isn't as it can not be verified, falsified, measured, used for prediction..... etc.

[oxypunk101]

One key aspect of free will I have realized in my short life (only 18) is that people tend to think free will means absolute control over your life. I think free will is the ability to make you own choice given your current situation. For example you say someone stole something of yours(out of control) you can decide to do nothing or possibly call the cops. All I am trying to say is that free will only means you have the ability to make a choice given the situation which is often out of your control. This also leads to my particular view of heaven and hell. While alive, we have the ability to effect others lives. We can lead others into positive situations where they can exert their free will given the situation or negative ones. If our actions tend to place others in a good place hopefully after we die overall we will help contribute to placing future people in positive situations. An obvious example is Dr. Martin Luther King helps black be in better situations long after he died. My heaven in hell don't literally exist, rather they are the effects of our actions on the world after we die. So rather than believing in God, one I believe in the power of cause and effect. I choose to be what I consider good since out of my free will I desire for my effects to be what I consider positive. Being good to be accepted into Heaven should lead to condemnation, your not really being good assuming Christians are right a hell exist. The goodness that comes from people who are doing it to go to heaven is vain and not genuine, another argument against the principals of Christianity.

[(Q)]

oxypunk

You make very good points, especially for one of 18 years. Kudos!

Part of the problem is that the world is still run with religious thought in place. Our society has been and continues to be completely based on those thoughts and decision making processes, if you could label it such.

So, most believe their gods control their lives, hence they never have to take responsibilty for their actions. So, they can commit whatever crime they want and plead ignorance, since it is ignorance they rely upon to live their lives. Their "sins" will always be washed away with their confessions to their gods, and they can continue to go on committing those crimes.

An atheist must always take responsibility for his actions since he knows there are no gods controlling him. He will decide for himself whether or not criminal actions warrant the way of life he wishes to lead. He'll use reason to judge if doing harm to others is rational, since he would also have harm done to him if he thought it so.

The conclusion and decision is quite obvious.

[Woody]

Proof that the Christian god cannot exist.

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

Omniscience vs. Human Free will. A Paradox.

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

Proposal:

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

Reasoning:

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

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

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

Question:

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

Conclusions:

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

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

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

Cris

This form of Christian doctrine is called predestination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination_%28Calvinism%29) accepted by calvinists, so your position does not prove a christian God can not exist -- unless you say say presbyterians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyterian) are non-christians.

from the source:

Predestination is a religious idea, under which the relationship between the beginning of things and the destiny of things is discussed. Its religious nature distinguishes it from other ideas concerning determinism and free will, and related concepts. In particular, predestination concerns God's decision to create and to govern Creation, and the extent to which God's decisions determine ahead of time what the destiny of groups and individuals will be.

Christians do not agree about this doctrine. The sects of christianity divide this way:

calvinism -- presbyterian (not sure about lutherans) - no free will ever -- God decides who will be saved and sticks with his plan.

salvation by grace: baptists, methodists -- free will until you get saved then God controls your will -- once saved always saved

arminian -- church of christ, christian church, pentacostal denominations -- always have free will -- once saved you can lose it.

[Mr Fide]

Woe to the believers of God! - You are only giving the highest insult to God. - Shame on you! - Belief, itself, cancels out the whole premise of God being real because noone would be forced to be only a believer if everyone already knew that God was real. - Knowing someone before you can trust them must apply to believing in God as well. - In fact, I have to know someone really well before I can believe in them and fully trust them. - Belief in God without ever getting to know God first is a futile effort that will never amount to anything worthwhile! - A real God would be the most visible character the world had ever seen and every single person would know everything that they ever desired to know from being taught directly by God with no ignorant person getting in God's way because that person could only teach a very limited personal opinion about God. - Noone in the world can ever know what God is thinking. - There is no telepathy power strong enough for anyone to do that. - Yet, religious people are telling the worst lies of all by telling lies in God's name while "they" ask believers to give them money. - Apparently, "Thou shalt not steal" doesn't mean that much to them anymore. - Think about it. - Televangelists are collecting and spending the money given to them by believers while telling lies and wanting people to believe that God will bless believers for giving money to televangelists. - God doesn't even care about money. - God already has everything. - Besides, money is only a symbol of trust that only has value between people. - Yet money cannot buy love or happiness, nor can anyone take money with them to the other side when they die. - The main reason that televangelists need to get all of their money from believers is to keep from earning their own. - Believers would make them very happy by giving them easy money so they would never have to work for a living. - Besides, ministries are really using most of the donations to pay for all of their expensive bills within the ministry like rent, broadcast airtime, satellite usage, etc... and to pay for all of their employees' wages as well as their own high salaries. - My name is Mr. Fide but you can call me Bona.

[I don't know]

God does not exist.- God does not have to exist :D

[Mythbuster]

- God does not have to exist :D

He exist only inside your mind, yes. Imaginary like the FSM. :D

[I don't know]

I'm not religious, I just enjoy the screwy logical possibilities of the concept of omnipotence.

[UncleChrist]

Somewhere in the world a man has abducted a little girl. Soon he will rape, torture, and kill her. If an atrocity of this kind not occurring at precisely this moment, it will happen in a few hours, or days at most. Such is the confidence we can draw from the statistical laws that govern the lives of six billion human beings.
The same statistics also suggest that this girl’s parents believe -- at this very moment -- that an all-powerful and all-loving God is watching over them and their family. Are they right to believe this? Is it good that they believe this?
No.
The entirety of atheism is contained in this response. Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious. Unfortunately, we live in a world in which the obvious is overlooked as a matter of principle. The obvious must be observed and re-observed and argued for. This is a thankless job. It carries with it an aura of petulance and insensitivity. It is, moreover, a job that the atheist does not want.

It is worth noting that no one ever need identify himself as a non-astrologer or a non-alchemist. Consequently, we do not have words for people who deny the validity of these pseudo-disciplines. Likewise, “atheism” is a term that should not even exist. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of religious dogma. The atheist is merely a person who believes that the 260 million Americans (eighty-seven percent of the population) who claim to “never doubt the existence of God” should be obliged to present evidence for his existence -- and, indeed, for his benevolence, given the relentless destruction of innocent human beings we witness in the world each day. Only the atheist appreciates just how uncanny our situation is: most of us believe in a God that is every bit as specious as the gods of Mount Olympus;

no person, whatever his or her qualifications, can seek public office in the United States without pretending to be certain that such a God exists; and much of what passes for public policy in our country conforms to religious taboos and superstitions appropriate to a medieval theocracy. Our circumstance is abject, indefensible, and terrifying. It would be hilarious if the stakes were not so high.

Consider: the city of New Orleans was recently destroyed by hurricane Katrina. At least a thousand people died, tens of thousands lost all their earthly possessions, and over a million have been displaced. It is safe to say that almost every person living in New Orleans at the moment Katrina struck believed in an omnipotent, omniscient, and compassionate God. But what was God doing while a hurricane laid waste to their city? Surely He heard the prayers of those elderly men and women who fled the rising waters for the safety of their attics, only to be slowly drowned there. These were people of faith. These were good men and women who had prayed throughout their lives. Only the atheist has the courage to admit the obvious: these poor people spent their lives in the company of an imaginary friend.

Of course, there had been ample warning that a storm “of biblical proportions” would strike New Orleans, and the human response to the ensuing disaster was tragically inept. But it was inept only by the light of science. Advance warning of Katrina’s path was wrested from mute Nature by meteorological calculations and satellite imagery. God told no one of his plans. Had the residents of New Orleans been content to rely on the beneficence of the Lord, they wouldn’t have known that a killer hurricane was bearing down upon them until they felt the first gusts of wind on their faces. And yet, a poll conducted by The Washington Post found that eighty percent of Katrina’s survivors claim that the event has only strengthened their faith in God.
As hurricane Katrina was devouring New Orleans, nearly a thousand Shiite pilgrims were trampled to death on a bridge in Iraq. There can be no doubt that these pilgrims believed mightily in the God of the Koran. Indeed, their lives were organized around the indisputable fact of his existence: their women walked veiled before him; their men regularly murdered one another over rival interpretations of his word. It would be remarkable if a single survivor of this tragedy lost his faith. More likely, the survivors imagine that they were spared through God’s grace.

Only the atheist recognizes the boundless narcissism and self-deceit of the saved. Only the atheist realizes how morally objectionable it is for survivors of a catastrophe to believe themselves spared by a loving God, while this same God drowned infants in their cribs. Because he refuses to cloak the reality of the world’s suffering in a cloying fantasy of eternal life, the atheist feels in his bones just how precious life is -- and, indeed, how unfortunate it is that millions of human beings suffer the most harrowing abridgements of their happiness for no good reason at all.

Of course, people of faith regularly assure one another that God is not responsible for human suffering. But how else can we understand the claim that God is both omniscient and omnipotent? There is no other way, and it is time for sane human beings to own up to this. This is the age-old problem of theodicy, of course, and we should consider it solved. If God exists, either He can do nothing to stop the most egregious calamities, or He does not care to. God, therefore, is either impotent or evil.

Pious readers will now execute the following pirouette: God cannot be judged by merely human standards of morality. But, of course, human standards of morality are precisely what the faithful use to establish God’s goodness in the first place. And any God who could concern himself with something as trivial as gay marriage, or the name by which he is addressed in prayer, is not as inscrutable as all that. If He exists, the God of Abraham is not merely unworthy of the immensity of creation; he is unworthy even of man.

There is another possibility, of course, and it is both the most reasonable and least odious: the biblical God is a fiction. As Richard Dawkins has observed, we are all atheists with respect to Zeus and Thor. Only the atheist has realized that the biblical god is no different. Consequently, only the atheist is compassionate enough to take the profundity of the world’s suffering at face value.
It is terrible that we all die and lose everything we love; it is doubly terrible that so many human beings suffer needlessly while alive. That so much of this suffering can be directly attributed to religion -- to religious hatreds, religious wars, religious delusions, and religious diversions of scarce resources -- is what makes atheism a moral and intellectual necessity. It is a necessity, however, that places the atheist at the margins of society. The atheist, by merely being in touch with reality, appears shamefully out of touch with the fantasy life of his neighbors.

Sam Harris
This is an excerpt from An Atheist Manifesto, to be published at www.truthdig.com in December.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/there-is-no-god-and-you-_b_8459.html (Sam Harris Blog)

[Godless]

Ah! Good article Uncle, next time just give us the link and help save some bandwidth.
;)

Godless

[stretched]

Indeed, that is succinctly stated. For a moment I thought you wrote it Uncle.

[stretched]

Anyone want to get depressed? Read some of the rightous comments recieved re: Sam Harris Manifesto on Uncle`s link: http://www.truthdig.com/dig/item/200512_an_atheist_manifesto/

The human mind is indeed like the Christian god. "Unfathomnable".

[usp8riot]

Some of you should grow up and stop being babies. Listen, evil happens for a reason. If we had no evil, what challenge would we have here on earth? Evil is nothing but challenge. When you go to work and faced with struggles, negative prospects that are abound, they are to overcome. When you play a game in God mode, what is there to do, where is the challenge without someone opposing you? You get bored, it is dull. There has to be evil in the world, there has to be someone to test you. You are here for a reason and you may not think it but more than likely before your present state we were all nothing more than likely, just a plan about to be drawn and now we have a chance at something. Would you blame your father/mother for bringing you in this world? Yeah, it sucks sometimes. Without them, you'd have no life, no shot at challenges to face, therefore, no reward in the afterlife, or no way to grow spiritually, but do you blame them once you have seen and experienced them and what they went through. You will also on your day of judgement see the pain in the eyes of God and will understand and forgive God for your blasphemy and other sins. When you die and redeemed with a new version of life which you couldn't conceive of here on earth. What a sad life to think we are here for nothing, are nothing, and nothing is to become of us if we do better or do worse to ourselves and/or others in the afterlife.
But evil has to happen. Without one, there can be no other. It is the way of the universe. Without a magnetic north, there can be no magnetic south. Without a 0, there can be no 1 or any # after it since 0 may not be a number but negates a positive number to show that it is a number. There has to be opposites in this universe. There is no force without a counter-force. No moving object without an object that pushed it to move. Without the afterlife, there is no life. Without good, there is no bad. Any energy derived to create life, there has to be an energy of equal or greater force in the universe, to create it. That is the way of the universe. Without an object/force to negate another object/force, you will have a nonexistant object/force. As in 0 + 0 = 0, you have nothing. But 1 + 0 = 1, you have an existant force/object with can be deduced. I think the math system is the gears of the universe. Every object can be declared by a number and every force by a number and be predicted by only one, The mathematician. Therefore there is no random. By the one who started it, knows all, and all the properties and values of all variables involved, on He can predict or know what the turnout will be.
And pertaining to free will, yes, we have free will. If you wrote a PC prog with a character that had supposed free will, you will know in advance what he is going to do but the character himself wouldn't. You wrote the program, and you input say, "if character x, mood=happy, energy level = good, iq=100, morality=%k, THEN say 'woohoo", or whatever, since you're the one declaring all the properties and know the variables involved, you will know what's going to the character before the character knows. And being the creator of all, you built the PC from the ground up also, IC chips and all, so you know it all. And if you know how the RND program on the PC functions since you wrote it, no prob either. And if it's based on true random sequences like on the quantum level, you made quantum physics also being the God of all so you know all the variables. Maybe that's not the best metaphor but hopefully you get my point.

[Godless]

Some of you should grow up and stop being babies.

Some of us have, that's why we became atheists.


When you play a game in God mode, what is there to do, where is the challenge without someone opposing you? You get bored, it is dull.

So god invented evil to enteratain himself?

You will also on your day of judgement see the pain in the eyes of God and will understand and forgive God for your blasphemy and other sins.

Let me get this, the same sob diety that invented evil for his entertainment is going to judge us on our struggle with evil? Very absurd don't you think?

But evil has to happen. Without one, there can be no other. It is the way of the universe.

If it has to happen, then god can't posibly be omnipotent, since he couldn't create a universe without evil! Since he created evil anyway, don't that make him evil as well?

And pertaining to free will, yes, we have free will. If you wrote a PC prog with a character that had supposed free will, you will know in advance what he is going to do but the character himself wouldn't.

Then that is not free will, if an entity has known our "program" since he programed us, and knows what we are going to do, then that negates free will all together. Having free will, means that no one, no entity, has foreknowledge of your actions. Hence free will, negates foreknowledge of an individuals actions.


Maybe that's not the best metaphor but hopefully you get my point.

Right that is not the best metaphor at all, computers often fail for unknown reasons, even programmers have had clitches to keep fixing, see "microsoft".

Godless

[usp8riot]

So god invented evil to enteratain himself?

No, He didn't invent evil. Just like He didn't invent us or the earth, it evolved. He molded as it spun, speaking metaphorically of course, like molding a clay pot. Necessity is the mother of invention and so as we grew, so evil was formed. When man became knowledgeable man, ie, knew when he was hurting someone else by being able to place himself in others shoes to see how they feel, that's when he knew he was sinning or hurting someone. And that happened as man evolved and gained intelligence. The evil is not entertainment, it is to protect each other and oneself also. To know when someone is displeased. There is a moment in evolution from ape to man when we evolved to understand this slowly and our reasoning and this ability to see sin, or how to feel others emotions and how they are hurt. This is metaphored in the bible as biting from the tree of knowledge. That is when man was created as we are now, self-aware and reasonable, atleast some of us.

Let me get this, the same sob diety that invented evil for his entertainment is going to judge us on our struggle with evil? Very absurd don't you think?

Yes, He will judge understandably. As He already knows how tough it is to be a human, He knows all. If you trust your own mother/father's punishment, you can surely trust His and the mercy He will have for us all on judgement day. Surely it will be greater mercy our parents gave us when we commited wrong against someone.

If it has to happen, then god can't posibly be omnipotent, since he couldn't create a universe without evil! Since he created evil anyway, don't that make him evil as well?

Yes, it makes him self-aware of when someone is being hurt, that is recognizing evil. We could all be ignorant and see no evil and when wrong is done and get no reward for doing right, but it's not the case. Evil is only seen in the eyes of the intelligent. Like I said, to see evil is to see when wrong is commited. If we didn't know evil, we would have the intellect of animals, and would that be fun or challenging? We have a test to complete and should accept it.

Then that is not free will, if an entity has known our "program" since he programed us, and knows what we are going to do, then that negates free will all together. Having free will, means that no one, no entity, has foreknowledge of your actions. Hence free will, negates foreknowledge of an individuals actions.

Freewill is imo, able to do what you want or think what you want. Whether God knows what's going on or not, doesn't matter, it won't affect us unless He actually jumps in and takes action. So, knowing in advance the variables of an object makes the object have no free will? Huh, new one to me. No free will to do as it pleases? So 2+2=4 has no free will? In that case, no, we don't. Because of all the variables in the universe, all the mathematic calculations, involving us and the universe and the product of the conflictions of variables, it can all be calculated. Every action and object in the universe is declared with a variable, how it can be acted upon, how much, it's object's properties, etc, like I said, by the ultimate mathematician, and He knows all. I guess if someone knows the outcome, the no, none of us have free will because there is always one that knows the outcome of all.

And, of course PC's fail, they're built by us. Everything fails with time. That's irrelevant to the conversation.

[SnakeLord]

Some of you should grow up and stop being babies. Listen, evil happens for a reason. If we had no evil, what challenge would we have here on earth? Evil is nothing but challenge. When you go to work and faced with struggles, negative prospects that are abound, they are to overcome. When you play a game in God mode, what is there to do, where is the challenge without someone opposing you? You get bored, it is dull.

A) So you're saying that a young child is raped, tortured and then killed to stop life from becoming boring and dull?

B) Given your statements above, it seems that "heaven" is going to be the most boring place of all. No?

"where is the challenge?"

[wesmorris]

It amazes me that people think logic applicable to an argument regarding religion.

It didn't used to.

[cole grey]

The best idea I have come up with is that in order to evolve to as high a level of consciousness as we have, we needed the pressure and possibilities of evil - mental illness and bad genes, environmental hazrds, et al.

To say that God allowing evil is completely sensible is a mistake though. If you can't admit that you don't really understand why things are this way, i think you are one confused theist.

[usp8riot]

A) So you're saying that a young child is raped, tortured and then killed to stop life from becoming boring and dull?

No, it is a bad thing to happen, of course. But evil happens with free will. If you made a robot and programmed it to stray off path at random times, then it should be cautioned of course if it is capable of hurt. As man evolved a higher intellect, he gained the ability to stray off course in other words, to choose more paths. We see the less intelligent beings like animals are pretty set in their ways, they hardly have any logic and can only comprehend and carry out what they're programmed for, or their instinct and basic wants.

B) Given your statements above, it seems that "heaven" is going to be the most boring place of all. No?

Yes, I have thought of that question. And because Satan had a choice to do or not do as God told him, apparently we can wrong in heaven also. There has to be challenges. No challenges=dull life or afterlife. Even God has challenges with the universe. God speaks of being sad, angry, etc. He seems to have emotions and thereby, we can tell he must have challenges He faces himself. He feels hurt just as we do. I don't like authority figures just as much as the next guy but God as I understand Him, is very easy-going compared to the way some portray Him. He is not someone that apparently sits on His throne waving orders without a care in the world or no worries. That is an arrogant and conceited man, whoever would do that. I would be pissed off at God if that's the way I thought of Him too. But I'm sure heaven will be more peaceful than earth is now. Like the command post in a war. The soldiers on the frontline, in the thick of it have the toughest job fighting. But the command post there is not so much pressure and more peaceful. Even though it's sad hearing of your men going, it would be nothing compared to being in the thick of it with bullets flying around your head. But the job has it's own worries just as an supervisory job does. The command post is probably not the best metaphor but don't have much time for reason right now.

[Sarkus]

If you made a robot and programmed it to stray off path at random times, then it should be cautioned of course if it is capable of hurt.Why would you programme a robot to stray off path, only to caution it when it did? If you didn't want it to, why give it that ability??? Not logical.

We see the less intelligent beings like animals are pretty set in their ways, they hardly have any logic and can only comprehend and carry out what they're programmed for, or their instinct and basic wants.Actually, due to their lack of intelligent, they are far more logical than humans tend to be.
You put your hand in a fire - it hurts - you pull it out through instinct. This is a logical reaction for survival.

Once you understand the animal's main driver, you see that most of what they do instictively is entirely a logical pursuit of that driver - mainly survival. So one could say that instinct and logic run in parallel.

[SnakeLord]

If you made a robot and programmed it to stray off path at random times

I wouldn't do anything quite that daft unless I really wanted it to - and I can't think of any worthwhile reason right now.

As man evolved a higher intellect, he gained the ability to stray off course in other words, to choose more paths.

You seem to be contradicting your earlier stance. Evolved or programmed?

We see the less intelligent beings like animals are pretty set in their ways, they hardly have any logic and can only comprehend and carry out what they're programmed for, or their instinct and basic wants.

I'd have to disagree with you here and ask how humans are any different in only doing "what they're programmed for"?

And because Satan had a choice to do or not do as God told him

Choice? Or perhaps just a "robot programmed to stray off the path"?

I don't like authority figures just as much as the next guy but God as I understand Him, is very easy-going compared to the way some portray Him.

The annihilation of every man, woman, child and animal on the planet is considered "easy going"?

But I'm sure heaven will be more peaceful than earth is now

So, the purpose of earth is what exactly?

[usp8riot]

To put it simply, intelligence=ability to make or see more choices. Evil=wrong choice. The more intelligent the being, the more choices it will see when it comes to overcoming a challenge. As we see in the intelligence of animals, for instance, the famed mouse in a maze. Which of course, the more intelligent the animal, the better they perform. Any time you make anything complex, that's just more ways it can go wrong. Therefore, the smarter the being, the more it can see good choices and bad choices. An animal isn't programmed for much since it hasn't much intellect. Now we on the other hand, are programmed on a higher scale, there's way more possibilities. More chances of us doing something wrong or going wrong. I was thinking about this today at work and had it phrased better in my head but too tired to think as good at the moment.

[usp8riot]

The annihilation of every man, woman, child and animal on the planet is considered "easy going"?

No, no, no, not my God. He created us and the last thing He would want to do is kill us. There is always hope for man. I don't believe in killing just as my God doesn't. Even someone who has killed has the chance to turn around and save someone else and it is for God to punish, not us. Our lives are not our own, but God's and if someone hurt's His child, it is Him who should bear responsibility in the end. There are enough godless people out there that don't play by God's rules and will wind up punishing them instead, because the godless love violence. They see others' lives as theirs to hurt or take away. Not just atheists, but people who kill in the name of Allah or God also. I am pretty much a religion of my own but still believe in the Abrahamic God. But as different phases of man require different rules, so do I think it's time for different rules.

So, the purpose of earth is what exactly?

I can't say that for sure. That is only what God knows. I feel there is a message left in all of us, like a message left by your father as he goes off to work, to behave, a note of rules. And so that same message I feel, which is in all of us but some are more in tune to it than others. It tells us what is right and wrong, it is our conscience, aka, our ability to reason and know when someone is hurting and that when something is not right.

[UncleChrist]

For some good laughs
:D :p ;)
Sam Harris Forum (http://www.samharris.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1418)

Another Funny post (http://www.samharris.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1406)

[stretched]

Patriot:
“There has to be evil in the world, there has to be someone to test you.”

* I am feeling drowsy … I am feeling very sleepy …”

P:
“You will also on your day of judgement see the pain in the eyes of God and will understand and forgive God for your blasphemy and other sins.”

* 3,2,1 … you’re under.

P:
“But evil has to happen. Without one, there can be no other.”

* Look I can levitate …

P:
“Therefore there is no random. By the one who started it, knows all, and all the properties and values of all variables involved, on He can predict or know what the turnout will be.”

* Your wish is my command … master …

P:
“And pertaining to free will, yes, we have free will. “

* I have free will … I have free will … I have free will …

P:
“And being the creator of all, you built the PC from the ground up also, IC chips and all, so you know it all. And if you know how the RND program on the PC functions since you wrote it, no prob either.”

* If you are intimating that this creator is the Christian god, perhaps he should stick to turning out red cheeked little cherubs, his PC is totally fucked up. And you say HE knew that all along? Dig?

P:
“Maybe that's not the best metaphor but hopefully you get my point.”

* Pay your money at the door.

[usp8riot]

Stretched, are you even old enough to post something intelligible?

[redarmy11]

No, no, no, not my God. He created us and the last thing He would want to do is kill us. There is always hope for man. I don't believe in killing just as my God doesn't

Please explain what went wrong with Noah, the Ark, the flood and, er...

The annihilation of every man, woman and child on the planet..

Did he get out of the wrong side of bed that day?

Not that that was an isolated incident. God massacres men, women and children throughout the entire Old Testament, apparently for fun.

[stretched]

Patsy
"Stretched, are you even old enough to post something intelligible?"

* Oh, boy.

[Sarkus]

To put it simply, intelligence=ability to make or see more choices.Not sure I agree with this rather simple definition of intelligence. Seeing choices is not intelligent - especially if none of them work.

Evil=wrong choice.Good grief!
So if I ask someone: What is 2 + 2 and they say 5, they are EVIL?????

As we see in the intelligence of animals, for instance, the famed mouse in a maze. Which of course, the more intelligent the animal, the better they perform.So a paraplegic blind person, who would perform badly, is not intelligent?? A mouse would outperform them, after all.


Any time you make anything complex, that's just more ways it can go wrong. Therefore, the smarter the being, the more it can see good choices and bad choices. An animal isn't programmed for much since it hasn't much intellect. Now we on the other hand, are programmed on a higher scale, there's way more possibilities. More chances of us doing something wrong or going wrong. I was thinking about this today at work and had it phrased better in my head but too tired to think as good at the moment.You're still equating wrong choice and evil - and you have a very simplified understanding of intelligence.

Part of intelligence is the ability to learn from "wrong" choices.

But intelligence has diddly to do with EVIL.
Good and Evil are just comparatives of outcome for a given choice when compared to the morals of the person / society.
And these morals have, IMO, developed over time as we try and live in harmony together, and basically are determined and shaped by the majority. It is the natural way of things.

For example, if you were the only living thing on the planet - but had all the food you could want so didn't starve etc - which of your actions would be EVIL, and which would be GOOD?

[usp8riot]

Please explain what went wrong with Noah, the Ark, the flood and, er...

And it was, I'm sure, the last thing He wanted to do. Do you think there is a God who just creates people and destroys them for the fun of it? Where's the logic? If you believe that, why are you not locked up in a mental institution? A perfect God would not do that. Perfection is the simplest, most efficient state an object can be in. And that also means, no waste.

Take a perfect circle, for instance, a geometric example of what is considered perfect. It will not be perfect if there is 2 circles put together side by side, or looped together, because you have wasted space, and to be perfect there can only be one whole object. With two, in either the outside or inside space, there is waste. Consider especially this being a universe/globe in a 4d space/time. The most simple, efficient state is perfection, like I said. No waste, and waste would be the last thing a perfect God would want. We see this in nature, it is efficient and nothing is wasted. If a trait is useless in a species, the species eventually evolves without that trait or feature or gains a certain feature so as to adapt. And in nature, when a creature dies, nothing is wasted. Everything is recycled by nature. Everything has a purpose.

Not sure I agree with this rather simple definition of intelligence. Seeing choices is not intelligent - especially if none of them work.

We're talking moral decisions here for choices.

So if I ask someone: What is 2 + 2 and they say 5, they are EVIL?????

Again, moral decisions. But also you could call it a sin, come to think of it if someone's health/life/welfare was on the line. A sin doesn't have to be harmful to someone else, can also be harmful to yourself. And doesn't have to be like, "oh, I SINNED, I'm going to hell". No, everyone makes wrong choices, nothing wrong with that and God knows it. Some just have more or stronger consequences. What is really sin in your heart is to not care if you make a wrong choice. Suppose you were a doctor and we equate the 2+2=5 to his studies. Of course if the doctor tries hard and makes a mistake in his studies which could have deadly or unhealthy consequences later on in his career, he will have sinned. But God knows he tried for the love of himself, his patient, and the good of all, so it is not taken against him nearly like it would if he was ignorant and just didn't care of the consequences or who he could harm. A sin can be very small or very big, but doesn't have to be a big deal to God. Everyone does and will screw up, no one is perfect.

So a paraplegic blind person, who would perform badly, is not intelligent?? A mouse would outperform them, after all.

Do I really have to answer these type questions? Jeez, you know what I mean. You're wasting everyone's time with dumb questions like this. The others I don't mind but this is just dumb.

Do you get it yet? Evil is done when someone knows they've done wrong or made a wrong choice. Evil isn't done by someone who isn't intelligent enough to know what a wrong choice is. The animals don't sin or do evil because even if they kill out of defense even though the person/animal intended no harm, the animal knew no better, therefore, hasn't performed evil and hence, will not be judged by their actions, ie, God didn't give the animal the ability to reason well enough to know when wrong choices were commited. Also the same is true for the mentally retarded or for children who know no better when they commit acts. They will be forgiven as they haven't been taught better or may not know better and if they die prematurely in the case of a healthy, smart child, they cannot be punished for committing any act they didn't know any better. They knew no rule, therefore, they didn't break any rule. Would you spat your child if they done wrong but didn't know it was wrong? So how much would our Father in heaven forgive us if we committed such an act? But just as He cannot punish, and so He also cannot reward for doing good or what He wanted if the individual didn't know what He wanted. And so as you unbelievers won't be punished by my God for not believing or knowing His rules, you will neither be rewarded. You will be as you were before. And so shall your life be used to bring nothing in advancement. To neither believe in a God or neither care is such a waste of life that God has given you. To believe in God is to believe in a purpose and to try to fulfill it so as to advance your soul. God has given you a gift, and He longs for us to not take it for granted.

[Godless]

I love it when theist try an sound logical in their ilogical rhetoric. Good try kid, perhaps you'll convince some confused atheist, I don't think we have any here on Sciforums. fact is we have a record of turning hardcore theist like yourself, to agnosticism, atheism or non-label secularists.

Quote: SouthStar
I am the Christian depicted in the quote. I can no longer honestly defend my faith and relinquish my all so glorious title, Defender of the Faith. After an objective inspection of the Bible click on his turning point. It's a good read. (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=40413)

I realize this won't convince you of anything, that's not my goal, here my goal is for you to really take a look at exactly what is it that you believe. If you were born in South Arabia, you'd be preaching to us about Allah, and the great religion of Islam, If you were from Tibet perhaps you would be a Buddhist and talk about that relgion. You are a product of your emidiate enviorenment, as a child you have adopted a version of your parents religion if not the same religion, you have not questioned it's history, origin, nor it's validity, you have merely accepted on assertion everything that's been fed to you, without the evidence to back it up, you have no doubt been told "have faith" yet another manipulative ploy at ignorance.

The best place to start, your education my friend is the bible. Be thorough like SouthStar, n this guy Bart Ehrman (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/150/story_15091_1.html)

or this guy; Dan Barker (http://www.ffrf.org/books/lfif/)

Begin to see a patern here? these were proffesors and clegy, SouthStar is a very versed x-religious person, who argued moths after months, and simply was told to screw off many times, however he did take an "objective" look at what exactly was that he believed. So keep reading your bible. ;)

Godless

[usp8riot]

I am not a product of Christianity or any other religion. My grandparents were Christian on one side and that's it. I can tell my mom that I believe, even if I say some Islam phrases sound just, or if I didn't understand part of the Christian bible, or if I just said, 'screw hell, i'll punch the devil in his face'. The thing with me is I could argue subjectively with my family like that of religion because I was an open book growing up, pretty much. Nothing instilled as far as religion goes.

And if I had to say my religion is a product of anything, it is a product of all information gathered thus far from science and God. It is a product of the vast resources of the internet. When I chose to research how the universe worked and our purpose and how we are to live, that is where I researched and I hold steadfast to my faith in God, nothing can shake it. I am very secure in my knowledge of the world and God's views. As soon as I tried to go up against God myself and disprove Him for myself but found out otherwise, I didn't believe, I knew. At one time in my life, my late teens, I was baptised but still had my doubts only to later walk away from my faith slowly and in the end, I had no God. All the views I've read of others, convinced me He wasn't there and His prophets were false and His words were bologne. I am a very intense individual and felt this God of others should face hell Himself and I would like to get a hold of Him and rip Him apart for sending others to hell when they were innocent unbelievers who simply hadn't had the opportunity to learn of Him. But that is not how it worked, I came to find out. God gave me a message and said He is extremely sad of the condition of the world now and how so much hate can be spread under the guise of His word. He is very upset with those that are ignorantly spreading a misguided message of His and making others hate Him or misunderstand Him but yet, those people doing this neither know themselves or realise the consequences and He will forgive them as much as they forgive others.

I used to never want to mingle with non-Christians at one point for fear of them converting me and that's what happened. I was an atheist about all my life, late teens, supposed believer in God, or so I said, 20-25 yrs old approx., hardcore atheist, until more than a year ago when I discovered the truth. Now, I have the security, to be able to be around anyone I want and hear all the views I want, I know the truth and nothing else makes sense to me anymore but the truth. I have seen the world from God's eye view at one point in my life, seen the pain, the suffering, the world in it's present, soon-to-be reborn days, and it's sad seeing the cold, hard truth. It's both a curse and a blessing. I see everything through logic now. Logic is the truth, the rules of the universe, it is science...math...reasoning, and it is the way. Even in these times when we there are so many atheists but they still go by logic, their rules are pretty much that of God's. Logic runs parrallel with God's views and man's own natural views. It is logic, which is like a message, God put inside us all, to guide us in this life. He gave our ancestors a choice to bite from the metaphorical tree of knowledge. And so we did, and so we saw logic. And as we saw what is right, we also saw what is wrong. Jesus taught logic and was a very intelligent man. But Jesus was very in tune to this message God gave us, what is right and what is wrong. Some are more than others. And sometimes is easier to tune into when it is not tainted by other instilled religions. But is also easier to be perverted when you are instilled with a lot of wrong messages growing up. As so, I feel 100% my faith in God will never leave me. It is the truth and as long as my body longs for the truth, so shall I have God with me. I feel any question involving morality I can answer from what He gave me. Not from quoting from any religious text, but from my own mind, using logical reasoning.

[Godless]

Well I suppose if you are happy, it really doesn't matter that you live in delusion right? I'ts your belief, your truth, your subjective ideal of god that keeps you going even though psychologically it's delusional to believe in theological rhetoric thought out by schizophrenic mentalities and happened to document their trief, so be it. Be happy.

But the truth! It aint found in religion. Truth of what? Our existence here? our "life after death" crap, saving soul? when there's no evidence you posses such a thing, truth of what really? Delusional subjective mentality that gives the illusion that you are secure in the next life by your actions here. That's mind boggling.

And like Audible mentioned in some other thread, I don't believe for a minute, that you were a hard core atheist, perhaps a mostly confused theist, who denied for a bit the theological rhetoric.

I've been an atheist about as long as you have lived, I'm one of the youngers ones around here, of atheist of have been on this board for as many years as I have, they know my bacground from different discusions and threads on these here boards. I wan't always an atheist, I was Catholic in my teens, Christian in my late teens, and I've been "reborn" as a Babtist in my last denomination, before coming to grips with reality and becoming an atheist. it's no easy move, I understand the strugle one goes through, atheism is not for everyone, some miss the commoradity of the hibe, the commonality of beliefs and the support of the same misquided rhetoric by it's leaders, but truth? Aint found in religion! Oppression is!

Godless

[usp8riot]

Godless: Truth of what? Our existence here? our "life after death" crap, saving soul?

The truth on the correct way to live. Our existance is to do God's will, that is the purpose. God tells us that we will be rewarded as we reap, so in the after life, it is time to be graded on the test, so to speak. You can go on and on into infinity in an infinite universe with infinite possibilities to explore and infinite knowledge to be gained but we can't store it all and neither will we have time to find it all. You got to learn to know when to draw the line, when the knowledge I learn will help me or if it is going in to too much depth that it is just a waste of my time and will never come into use in this life. That is the mistake a lot of knowledgeable and curious people make. You will never find that end, the end of the universe, the end of knowledge, the end it all question to all questions. If you did know, you would be God. And God is infinity. Just as kids question questions and on and on, so as we are kids of God, we will never know all He knows and can keep on questioning for infinity if we had it. Even if we were infinite, God will always be one step ahead, on the verge or forefront of infinity, breaking ground, leading the way just as our parents have done for us or bosses at work, treading a path and telling us which is the best and safest path to complete the goal.

[usp8riot]

Godless: I don't believe for a minute, that you were a hard core atheist, perhaps a mostly confused theist, who denied for a bit the theological rhetoric.

Believe me, I was. I asked the same questions as you guys and made the same arguments. I didn't believe in God at all and done pretty much what I wanted. I didn't know who God was is why I didn't believe. I was believing that I didn't believe. I wasn't convinced inside because the bible just didn't make sense historically and scientifically in ways but yet, I found Jesus's views very logical. I thought there was something to it that I just didn't have and didn't belong to be a christian. Then I thought it was basically THE religion before I also discovered in my search for God that all of us, Jews, Christians, Muslims are more than likely following the same God. So I felt I was just a child of science, that what I experience, I will believe, that was my only avenue of making sense of anything, and still is. I love it, it is so concrete and there, in the here and now, no falsehood to it. It is the 'in your face' truth, so to speak. It is the avenue to finding out the truth in object interaction. And religion to me is the avenue to finding out the truth in human interaction, how we should treat each other. And is no coincidence, both merge on logic, or the way everyone as a whole sees it. Scientific experiments can't be proven by one study or experiment by one person, it takes many to be subjective. Just as morality is what is appeared just by many people and has been theorized and tested. As I stated in a previous thread, morality is for the good of all, not the individual.

[Huwy]

"Santa loves me because I am a good boy. Mummy says Santa is always watching, and if I'm a good boy Santa will bring me a bicycle and a XBOX 360 for Christmas."


What about morality for the sake of morality, for the good of your own conscience and for other people, not for some nice little reward at the end of your life?

[usp8riot]

Same as in life. We don't have to be nice to each other if we want. But if we are, we feel better, the person that we could've been mean to feels better, for instance, if I would've replied like a smart mouth, it probably wouldn't make you feel good. The good feeling of doing good is an extra incentive and we surely don't feel like doing good or doing right all the time. Even if we do do good. And if we do good and don't feel like it, for instance, helping someone out for whom eventually keeps taking advantage of your good offerings and won't help himself. Not everything in life will be paid back to you if you have sacrificed a lot so that is the reason for reward in the next life. If you're a kind person and keep helping others all the time and being selfless, then it can take a toll. Doing good is not always fun or advantageous to the body's health. Good deeds involving hard work can take their toll on the body and mental or problem solving can tire you out or stress you out mentally. Suppose a commoner is serving a lazy king and have done many good things for him and served him well. It has taken a toll on the commoners body over the years and he is still sitting in his throne, his body still preserved well and healthy from not being used much. He has many riches but gives very little to the commoner, less than he deserves. When the commoner dies, his king may owe him a debt and as so, the commoner will be rewarded in his afterlife to justify what he has lost in his earthly life and what he has given.

[Huwy]

Not everything in life will be paid back to you if you have sacrificed a lot so that is the reason for reward in the next life.

I think that is the reason you'd LIKE there to be reward in the next life.
I mean look what they did to Jesus! Probably one of the nicest guys ever.

But if there is no reward in the next life, doesn't that make the act so much kinder? So much more generous and wonderful? To help others knowing that you may never be repaid? :)

[usp8riot]

But if there is no reward in the next life, doesn't that make the act so much kinder? So much more generous and wonderful? To help others knowing that you may never be repaid?

Yes, and I'm sure if God were to ask if you wanted a reward for your good doings and you chose to offer your reward to someone who you feel should be blessed with it that didn't have as much reward coming in heaven, such as a family member, then I'm sure he would oblige. And maybe give you still twice the reward you deserve by wanting to bless another's soul with your reward. I am sure you will recieve a reward of some kind, whether He has an immaterial award or it is just blessings to you, you will be paid back. God is just and won't let any good deed go unrewarded. I think once you got to heaven, you would probably be so awed to see God, you would probably think it an insult not to take your reward from Him like your grandma offering you a piece of her homemade blueberry pie she so lovingly made and longingly waited to offer to you. But who knows what the reward would be. If you done good, it may be servants who a debt on earth serving you so as to pay them off. I don't know what heaven is like, so I can't really speak of it but I will say God is just.

[cole grey]

... but truth? Aint found in religion! Oppression is!

That is what you find/found there, I'm sorry about that, but you don't know what other people find.

[UncleChrist]

Thanks for the link Godless,

Ethical systems are based on the worth humans have assigned to life: "good" is that which enhances life, and "evil" is that which threatens it. We do not need a deity to tell us it is wrong to kill, lie or steal. Humans have always had the potential to use their minds to determine what is kind and reasonable.

There is no "universal moral urge" and not all ethical systems agree. Polygamy, human sacrifice, cannibalism (Eucharist), wife beating, self mutilation, war, circumcision, castration and incest are perfectly "moral" actions in certain cultures. Is god confused?

To call god a "nonphysical being" is contradictory. A being must exist as some form of mass in space and time. Values reside within physical brains, so if morality points to "god," then we are it: the god concept is just a projection of human ideals.

Link (http://www.ffrf.org/books/lfif/?t=refute)

American laws are based on a secular constitution, not the bible. Any scriptures that might support a good law do so only because they have met the test of human values, which long predate the ineffective Ten Commandments.

There is no evidence that theists are more moral than atheists. In fact, the contrary seems to be true, as evidenced by centuries of religious violence. Most atheists are happy, productive, moral people.

Even if this argument is true, it is of little practical value. Devout, bible-believing Christians cannot agree on what the scriptures say about many crucial moral issues. Believers regularly take opposing positions on such matters as capital punishment, abortion, pacifism, birth control, physician-assisted suicide, animal rights, the environment, the separation of church and state, gay rights, and women's rights. It might be concluded from this that there is either a multiplicity of gods handing out conflicting moral advice, or a single god who is hopelessly confused.

[usp8riot]

To call god a "nonphysical being" is contradictory

Of course, I agree. God is physical. Or pertains to the the laws of physics, albeit, ones we also don't know of.

There is no "universal moral urge" and not all ethical systems agree. Polygamy, human sacrifice, cannibalism (Eucharist), wife beating, self mutilation, war, circumcision, castration and incest are perfectly "moral" actions in certain cultures. Is god confused?

God confused? Who is doing these things, aren't humans?

Most atheists are happy, productive, moral people.

Happy, so they're content in all the hate we see going on in the world today? Productive, as in making money. Great, if you think earning money is the secret to life. Moral, yes, jails are just filled with God-fearing people aren't they?

Even if this argument is true, it is of little practical value. Devout, bible-believing Christians cannot agree on what the scriptures say about many crucial moral issues. Believers regularly take opposing positions on such matters as capital punishment, abortion, pacifism, birth control, physician-assisted suicide, animal rights, the environment, the separation of church and state, gay rights, and women's rights. It might be concluded from this that there is either a multiplicity of gods handing out conflicting moral advice, or a single god who is hopelessly confused.

That is a sub-society confused, not God. Generally, anything which does more harm than good is wrong.

[Godless]

The truth on the correct way to live. Our existance is to do God's will, that is the purpose.

Oh! really?

The purpose of Mohammed's god "allah" was to seduce a nine year girl take her as a wife, and kill everyone who disagrees with his take on Islamic religion & Allah.

The purpose of early Christian church was very much similar, where Christianity was "forced" to the people to convert, or be burned as heretics.

God's purpose it seems throughtout world religions is to have conflict of interest in to what the hell is god's fucking purpose!. :rolleyes:

See what I mean? is that the statement you made is so freaking vaque, that god's purpose seems to be what ever the hell one with political, religious power dictates.

There's no morality out of religion, but exactly the opposite, it's not moral to promise eternal bliss in an after life, when such a fucking thing is not known to exist, it's called a manipulative advantage to those in power to make people believe such bs. This way they can dictate to you exactly what your conduct should be according to their means of what is ethical.

Is it ethical to manipulate by deceit? Is it ethical to live of fear, because they dictate that one ends up in a hell, because on does not believe their rhetoric? Is it ethical that they tell ya to "love" this invisible entity out of fear, and that if you dont you will burn for eternity? Common' dood. See that's why I claim that you were just a confused theist, who really never put much thought into the atheistic argument. It's not moral to live by deceit, manipulation, and cohersive agression of eternal damnation after death. Now is it?

Godless

[Godless]

God is physical

I think Uncle made a mistake and meant to say:

To call god a "physical being" is contradictory. A being must exist as some form of mass in space and time.

Basically with the debates that BeyonTime&Space and I have had through WindowsMensenger "a good friend btw" It's that god is not a physical being, but a spirit. BT&S is a devout Catholic, smart guy and a good debating partner, we both respect one another in our opinions, and often chat on WM. I think he just got bored with sciforums and hasn't visited in while.

But god is not physical, otherwise it be dead by now :D

Godless

[wesmorris]

More importantly, (IMO)...

The term "physical" applies to that which lies within space-time as material.

If "god" created space-time, then "god" exists indepently of space-time and thus doesn't require space-time to exist. If it doesn't require space-time to exist, it doesn't require an attribute like "physical" to exist.

Therefore, god is not physical. I think issues such as this necessitated the term "metaphysical", no?


Further, I think it's basically impossible for something of space-time to remotely relate to something that is independent of space-time. As such, our lack of familiarity renders all argument moot because comprehension is impossible unless we can relate to the object of it.

This renders any attempt to discuss such an entity pure speculation.

But if you are faithful you shouldn't care. If you care about proof, you're not faithful.

[Godless]

That was very well said Wes.

[Huwy]

Sometimes it saddens me to think that if all we atheists put our heads together and stopped arguing with "believers" - we could pool our time, logic, and energy, and find a cure for cancer.

I mean, out of a world with 6.5 billion people, there has to be a good few hundred million of us right?

[redarmy11]

1.1 billion and rising. But would finding a cure for cancer be anywhere near as much fun?

[Huwy]

really? sweet!

well I was thinking, when the children of "believers" get cancer, they could come to the doctor/hospital (as they always do), expecting the heathens/infidels to cure their children, and they could make them sign a form renouncing their faith and admitting its bullshit, before commencing treatment.

Would that be fun?

"I hereby accept science as the most likely method to finding the truth and healing the sick. I hereby acknowledge that my "god" has failed to prevent my child contracting a terminal illness and has failed to healed him/her, and this is due to my "god" being pretend/a delusional belief/an imaginary friend (please circle one).
I accept that if I sign this form I renounce my faith as bullshit and treatment will commence which offers the best hope for my child's recovery.

"Please tick all of the following boxes:
_ Mary could not have given birth to jesus and still have been a virgin, (unless she received IVF treatment).

_ Muhammed had sex with his 9 year old wife Aisha.

_ Cutting children's genitals is wrong.

_ The planet earth, is round - not flat."

Too harsh?

[wesmorris]

1.1 billion and rising. But would finding a cure for cancer be anywhere near as much fun?

curing diseases is not nearly as profitable as "treating" them. *sigh*

such is the way.

[redarmy11]

really? sweet!

well I was thinking, when the children of "believers" get cancer, they could come to the doctor/hospital (as they always do), expecting the heathens/infidels to cure their children, and they could make them sign a form renouncing their faith and admitting its bullshit, before commencing treatment.

Would that be fun?

"I hereby accept science as the most likely method to finding the truth and healing the sick. I hereby acknowledge that my "god" has failed to prevent my child contracting a terminal illness and has failed to healed him/her, and this is due to my "god" being pretend/a delusional belief/an imaginary friend (please circle one).
I accept that if I sign this form I renounce my faith as bullshit and treatment will commence which offers the best hope for my child's recovery.

"Please tick all of the following boxes:
_ Mary could not have given birth to jesus and still have been a virgin, (unless she received IVF treatment).

_ Muhammed had sex with his 9 year old wife Aisha.

_ Cutting children's genitals is wrong.

_ The planet earth, is round - not flat."

Too harsh?

LOL! Hilarious. Let's do it today..

[usp8riot]

Godless:See what I mean? is that the statement you made is so freaking vaque, that god's purpose seems to be what ever the hell one with political, religious power dictates.

Yes, I see your viewpoints, I've been there and understand why and how you think it. I believe nothing involving man is 100% perfect. Even the prophets' messages. Once man receives the message, it is automatically going to be tainted somewhat. When someone speaks out of anger, sadness, excitement, that message can be tainted. Only when the person speaks and is at total peace, totally rested, totally awake, yet totally calm, etc can the message be portrayed more correctly. And with different misinterpretations through the ages, it's sure enough going to lead to misunderstandings. Life isn't as simple as, 'that story is messed up, so there's nothing to it'. Everyone makes mistakes, even children of God.

Godless: Is it ethical to manipulate by deceit?

Again, do I have to stress it every time, this is my beliefs when we're talking of the things we don't know like the makeup of God. When it comes to morality and such, which is why we have religion and subsequently a religion forum, then I believe the truth can be found by man.

Godless:Is it ethical to live of fear, because they dictate that one ends up in a hell, because on does not believe their rhetoric?

Let me state first, if you read my other posts, I don't believe God sends anyone to hell for not knowing his rules. You didn't know of Him, therefore you can't be punished for not following His rules. No, I'm not a believer in hellfire preaching. I believe it stirs, or can stir up hate against the church from the more rebellious people as I was. And my view of hell also differs from the typical Christian's. I view hell a lot more lightly than most. Even you among us who debate my viewpoints, I don't see anything wrong with it so how much would my God not see anything wrong with it? You in turn are serving God whether you think it or not. By testing my faith, giving me an opportunity to test it and grow, then you are helping me. You are the test givers. Even evil or antagonistic doings can be turned around and made good. But life of evil and good is not black and white so there's a lot more I could describe about it than that. But even the devil serves God by giving us an opportunity to be tested. He is like the drill sergeant pushing us and testing us to our limits. Even though it seems cruel, the devil helps you grow. He is the tester. But for your average person, that is probably not a healthy view of him, as a good doer by doing evil. He should be stayed away from. Take no more test than you are ready to take or else you will surely fail. And the devil is not a being as I see it, he/it is just merely the things that test you in life and evil is merely the wrong choice in life, the wrong answer to the question.

Godless: But god is not physical, otherwise it be dead by now

God can't die. But whatever you want to call it, God has rules for Himself just as we do. He is the creator of the laws of physics and even the physics and laws that we don't know, and He abides by them. Just as His creation abides by the laws of physics.

wesmorris: If "god" created space-time, then "god" exists indepently of space-time and thus doesn't require space-time to exist. If it doesn't require space-time to exist, it doesn't require an attribute like "physical" to exist.

No, not necessarily. We can create something here on earth obviously. And we do not exist independently of it. It can be manipulated by us, commanded by us, etc. God is pretty much the same boat with us. He exists with us. One with us. We are a part of God, and so is the universe. It all makes up part of God, it is His creation. I can see how and why you think that. The way I see it, you're partly right. He is our father, we are from Him, but separate. We are like the 1/2 of His 1. He is like a number in the system, the ultimate number, non-deducable, and we are as a fraction of it. But are part of the same numbering system, so to speak.

wesmorris: Further, I think it's basically impossible for something of space-time to remotely relate to something that is independent of space-time. As such, our lack of familiarity renders all argument moot because comprehension is impossible unless we can relate to the object of it.

This renders any attempt to discuss such an entity pure speculation.

But if you are faithful you shouldn't care. If you care about proof, you're not faithful.

Yes, of course, we are speculating here on the makeup of God. But yes, I am faithful but I do care because there's people just like I was interested in the makeup of God. If I knew, it would fill my own curiosity and others'. It doesn't matter how faithful you are, you always have curiosity. I have no doubts but always want to drill further into why this and why that, it never ends. Infinite discovery can be the mother of curiosity and temporary satisfaction here on earth to us but it can also drive the mind crazy as mine is/was sometimes. 'Why this, and how does this influence the why, and why is that so?'. Seems to never stop. At the risk of sounding like a lunatic, infinity drives me crazy sometimes. It is neverending, no peace at the end, no feeling of conquering and reaching a goal with the satisfaction of completing it. To see no end to something can drive someone mad. So I am glad we don't live infinitely. We would have to be stupid to put up with that. Just as the problem with pi, we see it as virtually infinite. While a fool would keep on solving the problem and wasting His time, the wise/smart man realizes when to stop and doesn't get sunctioned into the problem, he can see he is just wasting his time on an infinite problem. A wise man looks far ahead before jumping into what he is about to do. And a wise man is also one troubled with curiosity as we here are. The foolish do not wander of these things. They either don't have the capacity to look farther ahead or just don't care. Just as an animal has no ability to see far ahead in it's limited thinking, so don't the less intelligent of us not see as far ahead as the intelligent. But the less intelligent also have a gift of freedom from the constant questions going on in the heads of the intelligent or curious. We are all put here with equal opportunity. One man's so-called gift can be both a blessing and a curse and so can his disability or disadvantage, everyone is equal. I will just stop there. I could rather go on since too little of someone's opinion can be very misunderstood without the full of it but I could write a book if I let myself.

Huwy: Sometimes it saddens me to think that if all we atheists put our heads together and stopped arguing with "believers" - we could pool our time, logic, and energy, and find a cure for cancer.

So why find a cure for cancer? So you can live longer? Why do you want to live longer? So you can carry out your non-existant entity's beliefs? You're not thinking far enough ahead. So what about when you cure cancer and nothing can kill man, you are immortal, what then? What is the purpose? Where is the end? The goal? That would drive me crazy. What is life without a purpose?

[Diogenes' Dog]

More importantly, (IMO)...

The term "physical" applies to that which lies within space-time as material.

If "god" created space-time, then "god" exists indepently of space-time and thus doesn't require space-time to exist. If it doesn't require space-time to exist, it doesn't require an attribute like "physical" to exist.

Therefore, god is not physical. I think issues such as this necessitated the term "metaphysical", no?

As a theist, I like your logic and agree WM.

Further, I think it's basically impossible for something of space-time to remotely relate to something that is independent of space-time. As such, our lack of familiarity renders all argument moot because comprehension is impossible unless we can relate to the object of it.

I agree mostly, except, as Karl Barth pointed out, though we cannot analyse God, there is no reason that God cannot choose to reveal knowledge to us, or be in relation to us.

This renders any attempt to discuss such an entity pure speculation.

But if you are faithful you shouldn't care. If you care about proof, you're not faithful.

Nicely put. God is known in relationship through faith - there is no proof. You may have done the seemingly impossible by having both theists and atheists agree with you (at least mostly)!

[(Q)]

Further, I think it's basically impossible for something of space-time to remotely relate to something that is independent of space-time. As such, our lack of familiarity renders all argument moot because comprehension is impossible unless we can relate to the object of it.

This renders any attempt to discuss such an entity pure speculation.

But if you are faithful you shouldn't care. If you care about proof, you're not faithful.

Hence, we are left with the question as to where theists came up with the idea of gods if not entirely from their imagination?

[wesmorris]

Hence, we are left with the question as to where theists came up with the idea of gods if not entirely from their imagination?

Hardly.

It's plain to see where today's theists gather their ideas. Usually, it's from those they love, parents.. etc. It is also often from those who would manipulate them without love.

I do not blame them for trusting those they love, and do not fault them for their beliefs. I DO fault them however, for attempting to defend them through logical analysis. Faith needs no defense.

[wesmorris]

As a theist, I like your logic and agree WM.

*kowtow*

I agree mostly, except, as Karl Barth pointed out, though we cannot analyse God, there is no reason that God cannot choose to reveal knowledge to us, or be in relation to us.

I agree with this exception, though I would add that if such a case were to be true as far as someone could tell... its source cannot be validated/verified except through faith. Further, in the case of faith I think it's simply wrong to insist that others relate to related conviction. Nothing wrong with saying "this is what I believe and why I believe it", but everything wrong with "and you should believe it too".

Nicely put. God is known in relationship through faith - there is no proof. You may have done the seemingly impossible by having both theists and atheists agree with you (at least mostly)!

Well thanks.

I don't think lesser of people for being athiests or theists anymore. There's just people, trying to make sense of it all. Each has no choice but to do it in his/her own way.

[The Devil Inside]

I don't think lesser of people for being athiests or theists anymore. There's just people, trying to make sense of it all. Each has no choice but to do it in his/her own way.

this, coming from the guy with a goat on his lap! :D

sorry man, i cant get over it...the goat looks like its on a rollercoaster or something!

[wesmorris]

wesmorris:

No, not necessarily. We can create something here on earth obviously.

But there is something in which to create. No universe = no degree of freedom in which to create anything, at least as far as we could know. We are in a way, logically trapped by our circumstance.

And we do not exist independently of it.

That because both exist within the universe. Again, no universe -> nothing in which to create as far as we could know. Certainly we could hypothesize around the circumstance, but as I've mentioned... that's conjecture. Further, since we can't be outside of the universe to see what's going on... we cannot verify what could be out there in non-space. (not at this time at least)

It can be manipulated by us, commanded by us, etc. God is pretty much the same boat with us. He exists with us.

So you insist based on your faith. You shouldn't expect me to agree, as I think yours is simply one of possibility infinite possible hypothesis, none verifable.

One with us. We are a part of God, and so is the universe.

Unverifiable speculation.... unless you're faithful.

It all makes up part of God, it is His creation. I can see how and why you think that. The way I see it, you're partly right. He is our father, we are from Him, but separate. We are like the 1/2 of His 1. He is like a number in the system, the ultimate number, non-deducable, and we are as a fraction of it. But are part of the same numbering system, so to speak.

More speculation. I'm glad you find it satisfying but it doesn't do much for me. Sort of interestng I suppoze, but I deem it too distracting from the path to comprehension. Of course you're free to disagree.

Yes, of course, we are speculating here on the makeup of God.

Which is IMO, somewhat blasphemous - a mockery of faith. Perhaps I'm incorrect, but it seems to me that if one truly respected their "god", they would NOT indulge in attempts to define it within the paultry limitations of logic. IMO, true reverance and faith demands absolute subjegation, which if in the name of love or perhaps something I haven't thought of, I can respect.

But yes, I am faithful but I do care because there's people just like I was interested in the makeup of God.

IMO, there is little more egotistical action that to try to explain the makeup of god. That's not necessarily horrible, just egotistical.

If I knew, it would fill my own curiosity and others'. It doesn't matter how faithful you are, you always have curiosity. I have no doubts but always want to drill further into why this and why that, it never ends. Infinite discovery can be the mother of curiosity and temporary satisfaction here on earth to us but it can also drive the mind crazy as mine is/was sometimes. 'Why this, and how does this influence the why, and why is that so?'. Seems to never stop. At the risk of sounding like a lunatic, infinity drives me crazy sometimes. It is neverending, no peace at the end, no feeling of conquering and reaching a goal with the satisfaction of completing it. To see no end to something can drive someone mad. So I am glad we don't live infinitely. We would have to be stupid to put up with that. Just as the problem with pi, we see it as virtually infinite. While a fool would keep on solving the problem and wasting His time, the wise/smart man realizes when to stop and doesn't get sunctioned into the problem, he can see he is just wasting his time on an infinite problem. A wise man looks far ahead before jumping into what he is about to do. And a wise man is also one troubled with curiosity as we here are. The foolish do not wander of these things. They either don't have the capacity to look farther ahead or just don't care. Just as an animal has no ability to see far ahead in it's limited thinking, so don't the less intelligent of us not see as far ahead as the intelligent. But the less intelligent also have a gift of freedom from the constant questions going on in the heads of the intelligent or curious. We are all put here with equal opportunity. One man's so-called gift can be both a blessing and a curse and so can his disability or disadvantage, everyone is equal. I will just stop there. I could rather go on since too little of someone's opinion can be very misunderstood without the full of it but I could write a book if I let myself.

LOL. I understand man and have driven myself mad to a similar extent. I realized eventually as you implied above.. that I can live with some open ended questions, and pursue their answers at my leisure. The first point IMO, is to kick back once in a while and realize that one of the biggest mental mistakes is to take life too seriously, and to allow one's self the freedom of the moment time to time. Bah something like that.

[Huwy]

So why find a cure for cancer? So you can live longer? Why do you want to live longer? So you can carry out your non-existant entity's beliefs? You're not thinking far enough ahead. So what about when you cure cancer and nothing can kill man, you are immortal, what then? What is the purpose? Where is the end? The goal? That would drive me crazy. What is life without a purpose?

So people don't have to suffer painfully and die from terminal illness. So people can have quality of life, and life which is not cut short.

Wtf are you talking about "non-existant entity's beliefs"?
How could a non-existant entity have beliefs?
You seem to be incapable of imagining a life without your imaginary god.
You also seem to fail to grasp the benefits of a cure for cancer, or even the value of life itself. If "heaven" is so great, why bother with life at all?

Perhaps you should learn what the words "pediatric" and "oncology" mean, and then visit a "pediatric oncology ward" and then tell me why your "god" makes those children suffer in agony, and lets so many die so young.

Its my belief that people have a right to a quality life, without needless suffering, that is one of the things I live for.
I didn't say I wanted to make humans immortal.

It is the very fact that you are unable to answer these natural questions about life, "where is the end" "what is the goal" "what is the purpose"
that has led you to create an imaginary purpose - to live in some kind of fantasy land after you die.

The goal and purpose are to live a happy peaceful quality life, free of unneccessary suffering - and in the process, to help others less fortunate to acheive the same goals - to live and learn long enough to reach our potential to be "good" people and help others. The end is death.

I'm not surprised it drives you crazy - it has led to your beliefs in an imaginary man who lives in the clouds and cares about you, and has reserved a special place for you when you die.

Here is a question. What happened when you were a child and your "baby" teeth fell out? Did the tooth fairy come to take them away? No, you just thought "she" did - but in reality, they got thrown away, or put in a jar in a cupboard - much like we put dead people in coffins in the ground.

You try answer the question "when does it end" by creating your own pretend answer: "oh great! it doesn't! and afterwards, we get to eat ice-cream!!!"

After all, who needs to fix the problems of the world, war, famine, disease - when you can just wait for the "rapture": where everyone dies and those who agree with your beliefs get to go to the nice cozy place in imaginary la-la land, and everyone else burns in hell.

Its not just crazy, its immature, insulting to those who indulge in their natural right to "question", and its highly offensive.

[usp8riot]

wesmorris: That because both exist within the universe. Again, no universe -> nothing in which to create as far as we could know. Certainly we could hypothesize around the circumstance, but as I've mentioned... that's conjecture. Further, since we can't be outside of the universe to see what's going on... we cannot verify what could be out there in non-space. (not at this time at least)

I've explained it better before. But He may not be the physical we think or may speculate He is. We cannot exist without Him. We are His children just as perhaps 0 or -1 is the birther of .123. A positive cannot exist without a negative because the - is the birther of the +. He is part of the same system but came before us. Maybe I'm odd, but I relate it all to math. You see the universe in my eyes and it's all numbers. I see concrete data which simplifies the seemingly random things going on. Objects represented by numbers. Objects interacting, ie, atoms, molecules, objects and being added, subtracted, multiplied, divideded, etc as certain reactions going on in the universe. You bump into me, I see force being subtracted or added by weight and logic going on in the head saying, 'excuse me', or why someone says this and that on the interaction and other causes and effects of the interaction, etc. The universe can all be simplified to numbers, beautiful numbers. Numbers are logic, logic is a base of rules, and the universe has it's rules of interaction of objects and so does God abide by those rules because He created them. God is not random, He doesn't like random. Random is chaos, rebellion, that which doesn't adhere to logic. But yet even random to us is logic to God. He is the ultimate mathematician.

wesmorris: Which is IMO, somewhat blasphemous - a mockery of faith. Perhaps I'm incorrect, but it seems to me that if one truly respected their "god", they would NOT indulge in attempts to define it within the paultry limitations of logic. IMO, true reverance and faith demands absolute subjegation, which if in the name of love or perhaps something I haven't thought of, I can respect.

I don't see it as that, I believe it is normal to wonder the makeup of God and yourself. I discovered God through science and it sure hasn't let me down so far. Yes, at one time, I wondered the same, if it was wrong to wonder the makeup of God. Perhaps I used to feel ashamed of it but lately I've gotten to know God more personally and don't feel a bit ashamed if it helps to explain others how I see it and so others can have the same peace of mind I have. It is the way of the universe, the truth if I knew God's makeup for sure, you can't deny it. It's like being a surgeon. I'm grossed out by blood and all but if I was going to be a surgeon, I'd get used to it. The initial guilty feeling is seeing the workings of someone and the truth right in your face, the ugly truth on how someone works and you also see how it can be made to not work and it's shortcomings. The in-your-face truth can be harsh but can bring a more personal attachment to that person/being in which you are studying in that you see/feel the pain/worry in the subject. And the wrong partly stems from the human body having guilt in which you have that power to know how something or someone works and be made not to work and the power that comes with it, the insecurity of knowing if you can handle it. Beleive you me, God is the father of logic. Logic is the way to Him. Logic is the gift He gave us to be able to find Him. Everyone finds God by logic or by what makes sense to us. Animals don't worship God because they haven't the logical ability to theorize beyond the realm of what it is experiencing. It can be used or abused and there is a fine line in between and one must be careful not to over-run it. But all in all, God is numbers, or logic and also the scribe for which logic is wrote on. Every number has to have an object associated with it. If we just add numbers, as in a math class, that is just immaterial numbers. God is a complete being of numbers, ie, the variables involved in any movement, and He is the object, the carrier or association of the numbers. He is the Father of every movement/variable in the universe and the Father of every object and we are created in His likeness. But I understand all your points, been in your shoes, so don't worry about me blasphemy'ing. It is said God's face will cause such dread on the living who see Him as they cannot bear it. The truth of Him just smacks you in the face and you realize, He is right, there is a God, what have I done? It is torture not many men can bare but when I discovered God, I wasn't happy at all. I was in a 2 year long depression of what I had discovered. I'd become solitary, even more than I was before. As they say, be careful what you ask for because you might just get it. And that's what happened. The truth came to me as a slap in the face. I discovered too much of who God is and I asked for it and longed for it. God warned me because it is a heavy burden. To do because you know than to do because you believe. Just like when your parents tell you do this or that because it is right and you don't believe them. Then you grow up and realize they were right. And you have to do not what you believe is right but what you know is right, it becomes a burden. And this is the end times. Better to believe me now rather than have to know later when He comes, or else it will be a huge burden.

Huwy: So people don't have to suffer painfully and die from terminal illness. So people can have quality of life, and life which is not cut short.

Yes, I know. Of course, cancer isn't good. But trying to make you think ahead.

Wtf are you talking about "non-existant entity's beliefs"?

I mean, an atheist's anti-God, whatever you want to call him, a non-existant entity. The rest is pretty much your theoretical ideals on life so I won't comment. That's your beliefs/opinions. It's pretty much entrapment or a catch-22 situation to theists here on the forums sometimes. Usually it's atheists questioning us and that leads us into more discussion and then when we keep discussing and answering questions, some rant at us for answering. What good is the discussion board if we don't discuss religion. And what is religion? Theorized belief, a hypothesis at times maybe. So nothing is 100% proven when we're speaking of it. It seems to be atheists entrap us to ask questions just to try to tear us down. What if this board was all atheists. What would we discuss. "Uh, so like, I believe in no God but my own made up rules", and "and..uh,...yeah....,me too". What fun would it be if we couldn't have a healthy debate? And btw, I do enjoy the debates here as long as it's mature commentary and non-inflammatory. But when we discuss of God, it's pretty safe to say we can call it all beliefs to most, even to atheists who believe in the lack thereof. If you believe aliens/ghosts/bigfoot doesn't exist, it's a belief. You can't disprove it. A negative can't be disproven unless it has a positor to prove it doesn't exist which in that case would wind up proving it exists. So all these arguments to say God doesn't exist is useless. The positor to God will come soon to prove He exists, I am sure about that. Just as time/space differs from the perspective of the viewer, so can other things/thoughts/experiences vary in time/space. So what others take for knowing, some may see as believing. You heard from so and so who said this and that. The one who heard knows, you can only believe because it was told in a different time/space before you were there or in another space from which you couldn't observe the happening. Just as God created the heavens and earth before we were here, we can only take it for, at the very least, belief. I see a ball rolling down the hall, it must've started from somewhere to get there, but I see no one. Some motion had to have set it off in another time, possibly seconds before I observed it. I will hypothesize it was someone who done it, who started the initial 'thump' to get the ball rolling. That is the way I see it. God is in the same time continuum just as the person who rolled the ball but just in an unobservable space. Or the person could've been in the hall at the time the ball initially rolled but I was in a different space/time too late to observe it as where I am now. So no one can say God doesn't exist.

[Huwy]

Actually, its your theory that "god" exists, therefore you have to provide the evidence.
That's the way a hypothesis works.
If you believe aliens/ghosts/bigfoot exists - you are supposed to provide evidence to support your claim.

"In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

"Belief is considered propositional in that it is an assertion, claim or expectation about reality that is presumed to be either true or false (even if this cannot be practically determined, such as a belief in the existence of a particular deity)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief


Its exactly the same for the invisible pink unicorn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_pink_unicorn
"The IPU is usually used to highlight the perceived fallacious or arbitrary nature of supernatural beliefs by, for example, replacing the word "God" in any theistic statement with "Invisible Pink Unicorn". "

"It is common when discussing the Invisible Pink Unicorn to point out that because she is invisible, no one can prove she does not exist, thereby making the point that simply by claiming that something cannot be sensed in any way, shape or form, such as God in Theistic beliefs, someone could claim that any divine object or entity existed and argue that no one can prove this theory right, but no one could prove it wrong, either, and saying that this is reason to believe in said divine object/entity - which is the main point of the satire, namely pointing out that the Invisible Pink Unicorn has all the credibility of God from Theistic beliefs, and that it is no different to believe in the IPU than to believe in God. "

If I said the invisible pink unicorn existed, I would have to provide evidence.
I couldn't just assume the invisible pink unicorn existed, and then assume OTHERS had to provide the evidence she DIDN'T exist.

Here is an excellent text which provides evidence that "god" does not exist.
http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com/

Plus, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that your "god" didn't do the things people claim "he" did, Evolution, for starters proves that "genesis" is flawed. Children with terminal illnesses - it directly contradicts the claim that god has a master plan and also loves us all. The "god" in the bible also supposedly loves slavery. Nice.


"Deut 21:18-21
18 If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, 19then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of that place. 20They shall say to the elders of his town, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.’ 21Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death. So you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel will hear, and be afraid. "

The bible is full of horrible, violent, intolerant shit like this.


Literature describes how Moses hallucinated, and then killed all the people who questioned the voices in his head. Why couldn't "god" just make a little effort, and show himself to all those people, instead of letting them question (people are inquisitive by nature, and supposedly "he made them all"), and then let Moses kill all those people?

[usp8riot]

Belief is this...theorizing is that...word games, irrelevant.

Plus, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that your "god" didn't do the things people claim "he" did, Evolution, for starters proves that "genesis" is flawed. Children with terminal illnesses - it directly contradicts the claim that god has a master plan and also loves us all. The "god" in the bible also supposedly loves slavery. Nice.

No, that is for man in his infancy to believe. Just as you tell a child in simplified form of the way the world works since the child hasn't grown enough to understand the more complicated aspects. Children with illness is a by-product of sin. And sin is brought on by man. Cancer is caused by all sorts of pollution to the human species, not just pollution as we know it. Too much of this chemical, too much of that. Too much sunlight, not enough of this. Being malnutritioned and not taking care of yourself. Many circustances are a cause of cancer and all of which are deducable to man's faults which can also occur in successive generations causing a predisposition to a certain cancer.

The bible is full of horrible, violent, intolerant sh*t like this.

That was in the times of man in his infancy. Just as it may seem intolerant to spat your wrist for doing wrong but can seem just punishment for a child if he/she is about to touch a hot fire. As a child, times seemed more strict but they were because we were all not as smart as children and more susceptable to the dangers of the world, therefore, our parents may have had to be more strict and straight to the point with us and perhaps whoop us. But just as a child grows, man's grown now and outgrown the punishment of old. As a whole, man is in his adulthood. We no longer need to adhere to the old rules as we did before. I would like to discuss more in detail and better but I've been up all night and can't think good and got to work.

Literature describes how Moses hallucinated, and then killed all the people who questioned the voices in his head. Why couldn't "god" just make a little effort, and show himself to all those people, instead of letting them question (people are inquisitive by nature, and supposedly "he made them all"), and then let Moses kill all those people?

Discussed it before in greater detail. Pretty much it has to be that way. The test would be over if He did. There would be no believers to do God's wish because they believe in Him and love Him, it would be because they have to if they know He exists, so that defeats free will. It would ruin God's plan. Like I said, killing may have been acceptable in those days, but it sure isn't anymore, not to me anyway.

[Huwy]

"Children with illness is a by-product of sin".

You go tell them that then, in the children's cancer ward. You go tell them and their parents its because of sin. You can't explain how an all powerful all loving god would allow an innocent child to die a painful death from a terminal illness - so you create your own reason: you blame the child. OK HIV/AIDS sure, but Cancer? Leukemia? What about children with down-syndrome - do you even know what causes trisomy 21?

"Many circustances are a cause of cancer and all of which are deducable to man's faults which can also occur in successive generations causing a predisposition to a certain cancer."

Understand more complicated aspects? Go finish highschool biology before you spout
your offensive shit all over the internet.

You crackpot. Good luck trying to force schools to teach creationism, you'll need it.

Oh and just so you know how offensive you are,
What about september 11? Why didn't your "god" prevent september 11?
I watched some people sing "god bless america" that morning on the TV, at the same time palestinians were dancing in the streets. Your "God" must have slept in.

Even NORAD sat dumbfounded, thinking it was a training exercise, while the 2nd plane headed for manhattan - failing to scramble jets in time, and then sending them the wrong way, out to sea. Why didn't your "god" do something?

Those hijacker's "allah" was/is no less real than your "god" is, and thats exactly the problem - religion makes people do crazy shit, either realise that, or start re-examining your foreign policy.

What someone told you it was the "sin of those people" who worked in the towers that day? Is its part of "god's master plan??"
You try telling that to the poor widows and the children.

(I'm sorry if my bitter satirical attempt at the same twisted thinking has offended any other Americans and I truly empathise over 9/11, but I wanted to demonstrate how offensive, bitter, and torturous this supposed "god" would be, and that it is in fact people who are truly capable of good and evil.)

[usp8riot]

You go tell them that then, in the children's cancer ward. You go tell them and their parents its because of sin. You can't explain how an all powerful all loving god would allow an innocent child to die a painful death from a terminal illness - so you create your own reason: you blame the child. OK HIV/AIDS sure, but Cancer? Leukemia? What about children with down-syndrome - do you even know what causes trisomy 21?

Every wrong you see going on is a by-product of wrong that has been done, like it or not. No, it's not their fault. It may be genetic. But somewhere down the line, them or their ancestors were exposed to wrong or done wrong and as we know, and wrong parents do can sure enough affect the generations after. Having a regular cold is probably from hanging around someone that had it and perhaps got it from someone else. In that case, the sin is hanging around too many people or living around too many people. Lots of diseases are contagious and it is a sin to be around too many people all the time as it is not to be social. Where there is many people, peace and meditation are hard to come by. And where there is little, there is little opportunity to spread your peace and good doings to them. We will all eventually wind up dying because of being exposed to wrong and doing wrong in this world. We will all do wrong and it is going to happen and in a world where we can choose wrong, dying is going to happen.

Understand more complicated aspects? Go finish highschool biology before you spout your offensive sh*t all over the internet.


Yes, I know, you don't like hearing it. Neither did I when I came to the conclusion but you can not deny it. Name one disease or medical problem that was not brought on by man doing wrong?

Oh and just so you know how offensive you are, What about september 11? Why didn't your "god" prevent september 11?
I watched some people sing "god bless america" that morning on the TV, at the same time palestinians were dancing in the streets. Your "God" must have slept in.


How offensive I am? Are you ignorant? What do you want Him to do, reach down and literally stop every wrong action done? Where would be the free will then? I consider it offensive someone accusing my God of "letting" these things happen without fully understanding why and then assuming he is an evil God. Do you get it by now? Evil has to happen. There is no other way. As I discussed in other posts, evil=wrong choice and with free will, evil is bound to happen.

Those hijacker's "allah" was/is no less real than your "god" is, and thats exactly the problem - religion makes people do crazy sh*t, either realise that, or start re-examining your foreign policy.

No, it is extremists that do crazy things. There are extremists in every religion and every philosophy. I was one myself in my beliefs. I figured it it's good, then it's good to the max, in a way. Yeah, sounds ignorant, but sort of the way I saw things. But I am a religion of my own so you more than likely don't know my God. I believe extreme actions are wrong. Strong emotions can taint the body's ability to reason. Therefore, I don't believe in acting or speaking when strong motions are present. When you're feeling strong emotion and impulse, you will likely speak with less reason and concern for your fellow human being. And you sir, are sounding more extremist than I, almost like the aforementioned crackpot you called me.

What someone told you it was the "sin of those people" who worked in the towers that day? Is its part of "god's master plan??"

No, it isn't what someone told me. This is all directly from God. This isn't from the Christian bible or from the Quran what I'm telling you, it is from me. When you grow up, you will understand more. You have much to learn before you speak in impulse and hate as you do.

(I'm sorry if my bitter satirical attempt at the same twisted thinking has offended any other Americans and I truly empathise over 9/11, but I wanted to demonstrate how offensive, bitter, and torturous this supposed "god" would be, and that it is in fact people who are truly capable of good and evil.)

No worry, I once saw it that way too. I understand. Debate is great.

[stretched]

Patriot:
“Name one disease or medical problem that was not brought on by man doing wrong?”

* Oh, boy. Still sleepy I see. You would be funny, if your indoctrinated drivel was not being echoed by millions and millions of Christians around the world, and driving mankind apart. Your religion is truly dangerous.

[Diogenes' Dog]

"Children with illness is a by-product of sin".

You go tell them that then, in the children's cancer ward. You go tell them and their parents its because of sin. You can't explain how an all powerful all loving god would allow an innocent child to die a painful death from a terminal illness - so you create your own reason: you blame the child. OK HIV/AIDS sure, but Cancer? Leukemia? What about children with down-syndrome - do you even know what causes trisomy 21?

"Many circustances are a cause of cancer and all of which are deducable to man's faults which can also occur in successive generations causing a predisposition to a certain cancer."

Understand more complicated aspects? Go finish highschool biology before you spout
your offensive shit all over the internet.

You crackpot. Good luck trying to force schools to teach creationism, you'll need it.

Oh and just so you know how offensive you are,
What about september 11? Why didn't your "god" prevent september 11?
I watched some people sing "god bless america" that morning on the TV, at the same time palestinians were dancing in the streets. Your "God" must have slept in.

Even NORAD sat dumbfounded, thinking it was a training exercise, while the 2nd plane headed for manhattan - failing to scramble jets in time, and then sending them the wrong way, out to sea. Why didn't your "god" do something?

Those hijacker's "allah" was/is no less real than your "god" is, and thats exactly the problem - religion makes people do crazy shit, either realise that, or start re-examining your foreign policy.

What someone told you it was the "sin of those people" who worked in the towers that day? Is its part of "god's master plan??"
You try telling that to the poor widows and the children.

(I'm sorry if my bitter satirical attempt at the same twisted thinking has offended any other Americans and I truly empathise over 9/11, but I wanted to demonstrate how offensive, bitter, and torturous this supposed "god" would be, and that it is in fact people who are truly capable of good and evil.)

I can only speak for myself, but it is as a response to the horrors and injustices of the world that I look for some hope through theism. That is what people mean when they talk of "the good news" of "salvation". It is the belief that coercion, torture, cancer, HIV, lies, violence, deception and death are not the ultimate nature of reality. The "good news" (if you believe it) is that these things ARE shadows on the wall, distorted reflections of a higher, purer reality (to use Plato's "cave" analogy), a transcendant reality to which our natures entitle us.

It was the shocking encounters with death, poverty and disease that caused the Buddha to seek the causes of suffering, and as a result discovered the way out through enlightenment. It was the same impulse for which Jesus and many of his disciples after him, faced their (horrible) execution with hope, still practicing "love your enemies".

I do not believe God either causes or prevents such events as 9/11, or gives cancer to children, and I don't think it is necessarily our fault either - certainly not the victims. I don't know the ultimate reason for suffering. All we can do is respond with compassion. What I look to God for, is to release me from my fear, hate, apathy etc. so that I can help in the struggle, and ultimately so that I face my own suffering, loss and death with hope.

[usp8riot]

* Oh, boy. Still sleepy I see. You would be funny, if your indoctrinated drivel was not being echoed by millions and millions of Christians around the world, and driving mankind apart. Your religion is truly dangerous.

Well, have you named one yet. Like I said, all misdoings by man, even sickness, disease, poverty is brought on by sin. Sin for one in not taking care of the body. Sin by not thinking ahead. Sin that may not even be your fault but passed on to you by your parents. Sin is pretty much just mistakes everybody makes. I suppose the word sin here sounds like an ugly word and some here are sensitive and it brings back memories of maybe "hellfire" speeches from preachers. Well, that kind of ruined it for someone who would want to speak lightly of sin. God forgives us for our sin and isn't something you have to think you're going to hell for. And btw, I am not a Christian. I am my own religion. Even a lot of modern Christians now can't see it that way but I do. Sin is that which shouldn't be done, that which is unwanted, that which is an accident, and that which hurts man. Perhaps you see sin in a slightly different definition than I do.

[Sarkus]

It was the shocking encounters with death, poverty and disease that caused the Buddha to seek the causes of suffering, and as a result discovered the way out through enlightenment. It was the same impulse for which Jesus and many of his disciples after him, faced their (horrible) execution with hope, still practicing "love your enemies".

I do not believe God either causes or prevents such events as 9/11, or gives cancer to children, and I don't think it is necessarily our fault either - certainly not the victims. I don't know the ultimate reason for suffering. All we can do is respond with compassion. What I look to God for, is to release me from my fear, hate, apathy etc. so that I can help in the struggle, and ultimately so that I face my own suffering, loss and death with hope.From this I gather that you use religion, and belief, as a "self-help" tool? - which is what many use it for. And you also come across as someone that needs to feel, and to believe, that there is "hope" in the long-term - that there is more to everything than just this life, this existence.

I am an atheist.
I do not have this hope.
But I also do not need this hope.
I am content that this is it. No purpose, no goal. Just being.

Maybe this is what truly differentiates the atheist from the theist - that the atheist can deal with this version whereas the theist needs, for some reason, to believe there is more, that there is purpose, that there is a goal.

[stretched]

Patriot:
"And btw, I am not a Christian."

* Oops. My bad for assuming. Pardon.

"Perhaps you see sin in a slightly different definition than I do."

* I assumed you were referring to Biblical sin, original sin, and sin in the Christian context. I reject all these concepts of sin outright. Sin exists only in the mind of the sinner. It has no natural place in nature. Hence it is a contrived concept used to control and instill fear.

[usp8riot]

* Oops. My bad for assuming. Pardon.

No harm done.

* I assumed you were referring to Biblical sin, original sin, and sin in the Christian context. I reject all these concepts of sin outright. Sin exists only in the mind of the sinner. It has no natural place in nature. Hence it is a contrived concept used to control and instill fear.

It is because of instilling fear and contol in others which gives it a bad name. It is also used to learn. Everything we do wrong can be learned from. If we hurt someone when we were younger, that is how we learned not to hurt. We learned that they felt bad and that it made us feel bad when it was done to them or us. Sin can be used to grow. It is a test, but a test given on accident and just by living. So I warn anyone, don't accept more test than you can pass and tests will be given to you by default so no need to go out and search for them. And do not be the test giver, ie, test someone else (patience, temper, etc), that is the devil's job. And for a consummation of anything which we don't want, the bible speaks of the devil as a being but it is just a word to simply describe that which we don't want, as stated before. And that is why some people discredit the bible since it speaks of beasts, dragons, etc. It is just the way of man back then, to simplify reality with mystical beings instead of going in detail beyond the science of the age then. I may seem like a Christian in my conversations but am my own religion. Maybe I should name it, I don't know so it wouldn't be confused with any other religion. I believe in the bible and Jesus was a saviour and saviour of many still in these times but don't read the bible. I get my morals directly from God.

[stretched]

Patriot:
"I believe in the bible and Jesus was a saviour and saviour of many still in these times but don't read the bible."

* That is Christian belief. Why believe in a book if you are not of the faith it represents?

P:
"I get my morals directly from God."

* How?

[usp8riot]

* That is Christian belief. Why believe in a book if you are not of the faith it represents?

I believe it was right for the times. I believe there is a lot it doesn't explain that I would've like to know before but I found it without the bible. Soon a man will renew the words of God and replace all holy text, which will be more understandable to the masses of today.

"I get my morals directly from God."

It just comes from my head, from logic. I type and it flows. God is the father of logic and gave us a tool of logic, our brains. It is like a message God gave to us all that tells us right from wrong. And that is what I listen to.

[KennyJC]

Soon a man will renew the words of God and replace all holy text, which will be more understandable to the masses of today.

I doubt it. Ancient texts only seem holy because it is so important looking and wise with age. If the 'holy text' had been written in a glossy magazine, do you think anyone would pay attention?

Another factor is that if the whole Jesus thing etc happened today, myths and symbolism would be exposed as just that with absolute certainly, thanks to the many media methods we have availible that they did not in those days.

Well, look at Scientology I guess... Maybe you're right. Idiots will buy anything, new or old...

[Diogenes' Dog]

From this I gather that you use religion, and belief, as a "self-help" tool? - which is what many use it for. And you also come across as someone that needs to feel, and to believe, that there is "hope" in the long-term - that there is more to everything than just this life, this existence.

You are probably right Sarkus, for me it is both the way and the destination - which has variously been described as the kingdom of heaven, realisation, enlightenment, samadhi etc.

I am an atheist.
I do not have this hope.
But I also do not need this hope.
I am content that this is it. No purpose, no goal. Just being.

Maybe this is what truly differentiates the atheist from the theist - that the atheist can deal with this version whereas the theist needs, for some reason, to believe there is more, that there is purpose, that there is a goal.

Well, I would put it differently - theism is the realisation that there might be a way to something finer. But it did start out for me with a profound dissatisfaction with the world.

I doubt it. Ancient texts only seem holy because it is so important looking and wise with age. If the 'holy text' had been written in a glossy magazine, do you think anyone would pay attention?

Ancient texts are the legacy of maps by which to navigate in religion. They are valued because they contain vital information if you want to find "God". If you don't, they might as well be yesterday's glossy magazine.

[KennyJC]

Ancient texts are the legacy of maps by which to navigate in religion. They are valued because they contain vital information if you want to find "God". If you don't, they might as well be yesterday's glossy magazine.

The Bible can not even navigate itself nevermind navigate the reader. There are so many contradictions at apparently important parts of the christians faith.

[Cris]

Fair enough. When a fiction author is presented with a paradox in his plot he is always entirely free to re-write the text to avoid the condition. This is true of any scenario based entirely in the imagination. I guess your portrayal of the Christian god is as valid as any other re-write that avoids awkward and inconvenient questions where nothing factual is considered.

[Cris]

Equating God to emotion makes him redundant?

[leopold99]

how can love manipulate atoms into genes?

[Cris]

I don't know. What's the answer?

[leopold99]

I don't know. What's the answer?
smithsonian is the one that made the proposition.

[Medicine*Woman]

how can love manipulate atoms into genes?

*************
M*W: Love is fiery passion. It is heat. Ultimately, love is based on energy. Therefore, that's how "love" manipulates atoms into genes. Simple things made easy.

[Perishiko]

Proof that the Christian god cannot exist.

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

Omniscience vs. Human Free will. A Paradox.

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

Proposal:

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

Reasoning:

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

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

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

Question:

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

Conclusions:

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

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

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

Cris

Heh, I find it hillarious that this was the direct first reason for me not believing in the bible. Even though I was raised that way. I've tried asking people about it in a less intelligent way though.

Basicaly, I started to think. Well, if god knows the future. Then god could tell us the future. If it's all in his will. Then how do we have a choice in anything?

Then, after that. I state that it is truely gods fault if we go to hell (for it is in his will.) But, they don't understand my arguement. And normaly end up saying "but, it's your choice if you want to go to hell."

That's normaly when I stop argueing. Mostly because religious people are a mad bunch of folks if you go against what they think(which contradicts what they supposedly "believe".)

Ya, I was proud of myself to be thinking out of the box. Oh well, ever since then, I've been trying to search for my own truth. I've realized that nobody will ever know any truth about the begining of time(Of course, that's just how I feel right now. I'm sure they thought the world was going to be flat forever too...)

[thedevilmademe81]

Thanks for posting that for the new members. We all need reminders now a days that God and the whole concept of religion is getting out of control. One of my favorite things to do is make Christians lose faith. Just think.....Christians attempt to justify the current condition of the world..famines..W.T.C...wars...death...and disease...by saying that God never intended for it to be this way. Does that mean God made a mistake? Oh wait a minute..the reason everything is the way that it is is because a naked woman ate a magic apple from a magic garden because a talking snake talked her into it. No pun intended but...Jesus Christ!!:rolleyes:

[IceAgeCivilizations]

God predicted that the world would end up like this, after the 6,000 years, and yes, He has allowed things to progress mostly as man has wished, but it won't go on forever.

[thedevilmademe81]

Ok so God "predicted" the world would end up like this. The question still remains though...How could a God who Knows all "predict" anything? A prediction is merely an educated guess. If God had to predict then he never really knew for sure.

[IceAgeCivilizations]

He knew it, so He had it written in prophecy (predictions), to demonstrate that He knows the future, He is the Alpha and the Omega.

[Ayodhya]

Dangit, who resurrected this thread?
Prince James, your commandments are in dire need.

[GeoffP]

*************
M*W: Love is fiery passion. It is heat. Ultimately, love is based on energy. Therefore, that's how "love" manipulates atoms into genes. Simple things made easy.

Eh?

Love is a biochemical delusion, most frequently emitted by females who come into close contact with me. I admit that that can be pretty hot, and I suppose were I inclined to polygamy that genes would inevitably become involved, but how is love based on energy? I don't really see it as some kind of force.

They do say love makes the world go round but, let's face it, that's just hot steamy gravity.

Oh yeah, gravitational coefficients...this post is for you.

:m:

[thedevilmademe81]

No one can convince a true Christian that he is wrong in his beliefs and although I disagree with you iceage i do respect the fact that you hold strong in the face of adversity...I am not here to argue and if you were by chance to say something to me that is believable then I still would not change my mind and I am sure that it works both ways...but there are alot of very personal reasons that I do not believe in God...reasons so unshakable that were God himself to come down and sit at my side I would spit into his face.

[IceAgeCivilizations]

Saul used to persecute the followers of Jesus, then he became Paul.

[spidergoat]

That's dumb. I don't respect anyone for holding fast to an idea which there is compelling evidence to reject.

If God were to come down(?) and sit by my side, the reasonable thing is to believe it.

[IceAgeCivilizations]

God did come down to Earth, about 2000 years ago, to show humans the nature of God, some believe He came, physically died, then resurrected, others don't and won't.

[thedevilmademe81]

The reason that I won't believe is because I would have to believe that my wife who passed recentally is in Hell. And I would have to accept that God let this all happen...Trust me deep down I want to believe...I almost need to believe I just can't bring myself to do it.....I would like to talk privatley to you though cuz u do have good points but I dont know how....if you have yahoo messenger why dont you add me? MY handle is thedevilmademe81

[spidergoat]

God did come down to Earth, about 2000 years ago, to show humans the nature of God, some believe He came, physically died, then resurrected, others don't and won't.

He didn't come to me.

thedevilmademe81, If God came and sat here next to me, I would have to believe it, but I would still have to ask about the rest of the legend, the heaven and hell. Maybe there's a God, but that other stuff is a myth.

[Medicine*Woman]

God did come down to Earth, about 2000 years ago, to show humans the nature of God, some believe He came, physically died, then resurrected, others don't and won't.

*************
M*W: "Others don't and won't" because it never happened.

[IceAgeCivilizations]

In your humble and spiritually blind opinion.

[Medicine*Woman]

Saul used to persecute the followers of Jesus, then he became Paul.

*************
M*W: I won't go too deep here, because I know it will fly over your head. "Saul" is another symbolic name for "Sol," the sun. Then "Sol" (the god on most high) came to be known as Paul or "Apollo." The "bright light" that Paul was said to have been blinded by was simply a metaphor for the sun (or god). It's not rocket science, really.

There was never a Paul who really lived and wrote about Jesus. The character Paul was created by the Romans who created the story of Jesus as a parody.

[Medicine*Woman]

Eh?

Love is a biochemical delusion, most frequently emitted by females who come into close contact with me. I admit that that can be pretty hot, and I suppose were I inclined to polygamy that genes would inevitably become involved, but how is love based on energy? I don't really see it as some kind of force.

They do say love makes the world go round but, let's face it, that's just hot steamy gravity.

Oh yeah, gravitational coefficients...this post is for you.

:m:

*************
M*W: I referred to love as fire, heat, passion and god, as a metaphor. Makes sense to me. BTW what did you say your phone number was???

[Medicine*Woman]

God predicted that the world would end up like this, after the 6,000 years, and yes, He has allowed things to progress mostly as man has wished, but it won't go on forever.

*************
M*W: When did you say you were leaving?

[IceAgeCivilizations]

So Saul was so named because he looked into the Sun? Ahahahaha.

[thedevilmademe81]

He didn't come to me.

thedevilmademe81, If God came and sat here next to me, I would have to believe it, but I would still have to ask about the rest of the legend, the heaven and hell. Maybe there's a God, but that other stuff is a myth.

yeah your right I think that if God came down and sat down beside us no one would even recognize him. If we all could just agree that we really dont know it would solve so many problems we have today...People killing people because they worship a different invisible man who lives in the sky than we do...crazy shit man. If you just look at it like this its actually funny
Christians have people believing that there is an invisible man who lives in the sky who watches everything you do every minute of everyday and has a list of ten specific things that you are not to do...and if you do one of them her will send you to a place of torment..suffering...weeping...pain..fire...and gnashing of teeth...for all of eternity..........BUT HE LOVES YOU!:eek:

[Godless]

hey!!! we know that line, George Carlin's quote been in your mind. It's quite accurate as well. ;)

[IceAgeCivilizations]

Devil81, you should actually read what the New Testament says.

[thedevilmademe81]

hey!!! we know that line, George Carlin's quote been in your mind. It's quite accurate as well. ;)

yes good old George....wouldn't u love to just sit down with him fow an hour!!:m:

[Medicine*Woman]

In your humble and spiritually blind opinion.

*************
M*W: Unfortunately, no, it is not my opinion. It has been well-documented by serious biblical scholars and archeologists.

[thedevilmademe81]

Devil81, you should actually read what the New Testament says.

Actually IceAge I went to Bible college...you see I use to believe..I still read the bible..I still study the scripture and my reason behind that is because if I did not know everything I could possibly know about God/Jesus/and the bible and I said I disagreed with it..well then I would be a Christian....sorry i meant to type Hypocrite

[imaplanck.]

Actually IceAge I went to Bible college...you see I use to believe..I still read the bible..I still study the scripture and my reason behind that is because if I did not know everything I could possibly know about God/Jesus/and the bible and I said I disagreed with it..well then I would be a Christian....sorry i meant to type Hypocrite

lol

[IceAgeCivilizations]

The suffering on Earth will not go on forever, and it hasn't been ongoing for anywhere close to millions of years, so God is allowing it, for a short time, but not forever.

[imaplanck.]

No its been from around three billion years ago, when the first organisms thrived better if avoiding harm or death.

[IceAgeCivilizations]

What happened to the purported "4.6 billion years old?" The uniformitarians just can't get their stories straight.

[imaplanck.]

Actually the highest calculation is life began about 3.8 billion, but I was allowing a bit for the time for self preservation to develope.

[IceAgeCivilizations]

4.6, 3.8, 3.0, that's a big variance for "hard science," wouldn't you say?

[imaplanck.]

It was just a ball park figure, but theres not a lot of difference when you consider the difference between 10^9 and 10^6.

[IceAgeCivilizations]

"Ball park figure," and that's "hard" science?

[imaplanck.]

its a fucking hill of beans more better than your pitiful suggestion, how do you think organisms survived before the last million years without a desire to avoid expiring?

[IceAgeCivilizations]

Huh?

[thedevilmademe81]

The suffering on Earth will not go on forever, and it hasn't been ongoing for anywhere close to millions of years, so God is allowing it, for a short time, but not forever.

Boy how many times have i heard that.....its 2007 IceAge...did Jesus miss his flight? AHHH shit maby it's all that airport security u know pretty hard to get through the metal detectors with those fucking nails....hahahaha

[IceAgeCivilizations]

"In the end times there shall be many mockers."

[imaplanck.]

What dont you understand? Fossil records indicate life began 3.5-3.8 bill years ago? Or that self preservation isnt exclusive to humans (who are in fact around 200,000 years old)?

[IceAgeCivilizations]

Fossil records go back to "500 million years ago," according to the Darwinists.

[thedevilmademe81]

What dont you understand? Fossil records indicate live began 3.5-3.8 bill years ago? Or that self preservation isnt exclusive to humans (who are in fact around 250,000 years old)?

you know the really funny thing is when the big debate first started about fossil recordsand carbon dating and all that the catholic church tried to say that Satan put them there to confuse us...lol....satan is a busy man

[imaplanck.]

Fossil records go back to "500 million years ago," according to the Darwinists.

Says who?

[Medicine*Woman]

you know the really funny thing is when the big debate first started about fossil recordsand carbon dating and all that the catholic church tried to say that Satan put them there to confuse us...lol....satan is a busy man

*************
M*W: And the catholic church has spent 2,000 years propagating the greatest lie ever told.

[imaplanck.]

http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/neo/life.html



For the first billion years of Earth's existence, the formation of life was prevented by a fusillade of comet and asteroid impacts that rendered the Earth's surface too hot to allow the existence of sufficient quantities of water and carbon-based molecules. Life on Earth began at the end of this period called the late heavy bombardment, some 3.8 billion years ago. The earliest known fossils on Earth date from 3.5 billion years ago and there is evidence that biological activity took place even earlier - just at the end of the period of late heavy bombardment. So the window when life began was very short. As soon as life could have formed on our planet, it did. But if life formed so quickly on Earth and there was little in the way of water and carbon-based molecules on the Earth's surface, then how were these building blocks of life delivered to the Earth's surface so quickly? The answer may involve the collision of comets and asteroids with the Earth, since these objects contain abundant supplies of both water and carbon-based molecules.

[thedevilmademe81]

oh i would have to find the exact text that talks about that but i 'am not disagreeing with you at all i just think its really funny

[IceAgeCivilizations]

You're right for once Med Woman, the Roman Catholic church telling people to pray to dead people such as Mary, allegedly to good effect, is a huge lie.

[Medicine*Woman]

You're right for once Med Woman, the Roman Catholic church telling people to pray to dead people such as Mary, allegedly to good effect, is a huge lie.

*************
M*W: Well, more than that, they had us pray to people who never existed except in myth.

[imaplanck.]

you know the really funny thing is when the big debate first started about fossil recordsand carbon dating and all that the catholic church tried to say that Satan put them there to confuse us...lol....satan is a busy man

Yeah religions have moved their goal posts so much in the light of new discoveries, that they have gone around the circumference of the world and come back to meet each other.

[IceAgeCivilizations]

Billions of fossils (99% of which are of marine creatures) bear testimony to the Deluge which entombed them in sediments, very simple.

[imaplanck.]

Billions of fossils (99% of which are of marine creatures) bear testimony to the Deluge which entombed them in sediments, very simple.

.......The point being????????

[Medicine*Woman]

"In the end times there shall be many mockers."

*************
M*W: In the beginning of it alll, there were mockers.

[IceAgeCivilizations]

"Satan put the fossils there to fool people."

[IceAgeCivilizations]

Just as it was in the day of Noah (mockers), so shall it be in the end times.

[Medicine*Woman]

"Satan put the fossils there to fool people."

*************
M*W: I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but you're getting sillier by the minute!

[IceAgeCivilizations]

That's what was cited by devil81, you're so silly.

[thedevilmademe81]

That's what was cited by devil81, you're so silly.

Yeah its the same old story everytime....we have the all powerfull God yet lets blame everything on Satan who God could so easily crush under his all powerfull foot...yet chooses not to because he likes to watch his creation suffer before he sends over half of them to hell

[nova900]

"Satan put the fossils there to fool people."

LOL !
That's one of my favorites. I had a neighbours mother who used to spout that all the time.

So, ..any empirical evidence to support that ???
Nah, just more "one-liners", self denial and preaching :rolleyes:

[Nikelodeon]

LOL !
That's one of my favorites. I had a neighbours mother who used to spout that all the time.

So, ..any empirical evidence to support that ???
Nah, just more "one-liners", self denial and preaching :rolleyes:
Well he probably left his fingerprints all over them. Unless he wore gloves.

[w1z4rd]

Interesting debate

[IceAgeCivilizations]

Why would I defend that supposedly "Satan put the fossils there to fool people?" That, nova900, is your neighbor's mother's problem, not mine.

[w1z4rd]

Regarding the original post (sorry if its been discussed already)

Is there not a place for the argument that God is Omnipotent, he chooses to control or not control any event as well....

[Rolling_Stone]

Yours is an old argument, Cris, and it goes something like this:

Three sailors walk into a hotel asking for a room for the night. Each sailor had only ten dollars so the manager said he would charge them $30 dollars for the night. Now, this was war time and the thought he’d give them an even bigger break and gave $5 to the bellhop to take to the sailors. On the way up, the bellhop thought that since $5 can’t be divided evenly between the three sailors, he’d give them each $1 and pocket the other $2 and no one would be the wiser. It ends up that the each of the sailors paid only $9. 3x9=27 plus the $2 the bellhop kept is $29. What happened to the other dollar?

Figure out the answer to that and you have the fallacy of your reasoning.

[thedevilmademe81]

Ok I have noticed something and after alot of deep thought I still can not quite figure this out. Why when someone who is a non-believer is arguing with a believer, the believer always uses the Bible to defend his belief? Take for example if I were trying to explain to someone that Cinderella never existed and I was showing that person scientific facts as to why Cinderella in not real..and all this person could do was show me parts of the book. The book is what I am attempting to say is false in the first place. Understand my logic here? You Christians need to show something else other than the bible to defend your beliefs..And don't show me some picture of a nice rainforest or a beautiful mountain at sun set and yell me to look at the world. The minute you do that I will show you a picture of the children who Jesus loves so much...you know the little starving AIDS infected children in Africa. Or maby the children who are being raped by their fathers while God watches on. Lets get realistic. I am tired of coming up with so many good undisputable points only to finally stump the Believer and recieve the age old anwser which basically is a Christians way of saying, "You know you might be right...Maby there is no God." And that anwser is of course, "You got to have faith." Or the other one. "Human minds can not possibly comprehend the things of God." Ok I am done but a last word to the believers..keep raising your children to be good American christians. I love it. To me it is almost as fun as watching ants in an ant farm...working so hard for nothing.
Have a Wonderful Day!:)

[imaplanck.]

Yours is an old argument, Cris, and it goes something like this:

Three sailors walk into a hotel asking for a room for the night. Each sailor had only ten dollars so the manager said he would charge them $30 dollars for the night. Now, this was war time and the thought he’d give them an even bigger break and gave $5 to the bellhop to take to the sailors. On the way up, the bellhop thought that since $5 can’t be divided evenly between the three sailors, he’d give them each $1 and pocket the other $2 and no one would be the wiser. It ends up that the each of the sailors paid only $9. 3x9=27 plus the $2 the bellhop kept is $29. What happened to the other dollar?

Figure out the answer to that and you have the fallacy of your reasoning.

This just about sums up your reasoning skills and how easy it is to fool you.:rolleyes:

The 2 d's the bellend pocketed shouldnt be added on to the 27, because it is part of the 27! The three d's that the bellboy gave back to the fags should be added on to the 27.

[lightgigantic]

Ok I have noticed something and after alot of deep thought I still can not quite figure this out. Why when someone who is a non-believer is arguing with a believer, the believer always uses the Bible to defend his belief? Take for example if I were trying to explain to someone that Cinderella never existed and I was showing that person scientific facts as to why Cinderella in not real..and all this person could do was show me parts of the book.
if your cinderella book gave normative descriptions (ie gave prescriptions of process and methodology that enable coming to the point of direct perception) perhaps there could be a similarity

[Rolling_Stone]

Hey, imaplanck, did you hear a "woosh" as my point flew over your head?

[imaplanck.]

Hey, imaplanck, did you hear a "woosh" as my point flew over your head?

No I heard a fart as your claim of a fallacy exited you ass.

[w1z4rd]

Yours is an old argument, Cris, and it goes something like this:

Three sailors walk into a hotel asking for a room for the night. Each sailor had only ten dollars so the manager said he would charge them $30 dollars for the night. Now, this was war time and the thought he’d give them an even bigger break and gave $5 to the bellhop to take to the sailors. On the way up, the bellhop thought that since $5 can’t be divided evenly between the three sailors, he’d give them each $1 and pocket the other $2 and no one would be the wiser. It ends up that the each of the sailors paid only $9. 3x9=27 plus the $2 the bellhop kept is $29. What happened to the other dollar?

Figure out the answer to that and you have the fallacy of your reasoning.

This has nothing to do with his argument. Ish, as someone said, simple software for simple minds.

[geeser]

if your cinderella book gave normative descriptions (ie gave prescriptions of process and methodology that enable coming to the point of direct perception) perhaps there could be a similaritydirect perception, being the point that you become completely delusional, well theirs people out there who fantasize that their star trek captains, they must have direct perception with star trek, but I dont think they qualify as delusional as they dont let it dominate their lifes.
however I think all fiction has a methodology, and process, else how would you make sense of it.
but whether it makes you delusional, is questionable you have to believe it beyond any doubt first, Ie: have blind faith in it.

[GeoffP]

Yours is an old argument, Cris, and it goes something like this:

Three sailors walk into a hotel asking for a room for the night. Each sailor had only ten dollars so the manager said he would charge them $30 dollars for the night. Now, this was war time and the thought he’d give them an even bigger break and gave $5 to the bellhop to take to the sailors. On the way up, the bellhop thought that since $5 can’t be divided evenly between the three sailors, he’d give them each $1 and pocket the other $2 and no one would be the wiser. It ends up that the each of the sailors paid only $9. 3x9=27 plus the $2 the bellhop kept is $29. What happened to the other dollar?

Figure out the answer to that and you have the fallacy of your reasoning.

That was a wierd way to sum things up. 3x9=27, plus the 1x3 dollars given to the sailors, and the 2 the bellhop keeps, is 35 bucks in the system. That's it. Sailors still pay 9 each. No dollars missing.

[mabufo]

Proof that the Christian god cannot exist.

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

Cris

If they claim God is all knowing, how does that conflict with their ability to make choices for themselves? I don't see a connection between the two.

Being omniscient, to my understanding, does not give you power over someone, but rather, you are able to see what they are thinking. Similiar to how some books are written by an omniscient narrator - but the narrator cannot conrtol the actions of the character like you assume a 'christian god' can.

[Godless]

If they claim God is all knowing, how does that conflict with their ability to make choices for themselves?

If an entity has foreknowledge of your choices, how then can you have free will?

Unless you claim, then that god is not all knowing since it won't have forknowledge of your choices. In that case god is not omniscient!.

Why does a god supposedly all knowing, "omniscient" lack the knowledge of an angel that defies it? Hence god had no foreknoledge that Lucifer, would betray him/her/it...

[mabufo]

I was not aware that 'foreknowledge' was associated with omniscience. As I understand it, the all knowing aspect of omniscience is affiliated with thoughts, and past events - not the future.

Semantics aside, you believe what you want. If someone believes in a god, then that god exists to them.

[Godless]

Well great, now just tell your buddies running this country to the ground, and back to the dark ages, to keep their religion at home and church, and away from government policy! ;)

[mabufo]

Well great, now just tell your buddies running this country to the ground, and back to the dark ages, to keep their religion at home and church, and away from government policy! ;)

Last I checked there was a separation between the Church and the State. Though if that is violeted somehow - me talking with my 'buddies who run the country' surely won't help much.

[lightgigantic]

geeser
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
if your cinderella book gave normative descriptions (ie gave prescriptions of process and methodology that enable coming to the point of direct perception) perhaps there could be a similarity
”
direct perception, being the point that you become completely delusional,
its not clear how you establish direct perception is synonymous for delusion

well theirs people out there who fantasize that their star trek captains, they must have direct perception with star trek, but I dont think they qualify as delusional as they dont let it dominate their lifes.
its not clear how a serious discussion of the perceptions of theism can be addressed in connection to star trek, since the star trek one obviously doesn't innvolve any direct perception

however I think all fiction has a methodology, and process, else how would you make sense of it.
to say 'some people get it wrong therefore all people get it wrong' is absurd, and its hardly a principle one would utilize to evaluate scientifc claims, what to speak of the theistic

but whether it makes you delusional, is questionable you have to believe it beyond any doubt first, Ie: have blind faith in it.
and without inductive knowledge, or faith, being one of the initial foundations for scientific inquiry, you have a very marginal body of info to work with in the name of science
(in other words if one is only prepared to accept as 'knowledge' what is immediately perceptable its a very limiting methodology, since on ewould be bereft of the opportunity to apply higher education/training etc)

[Godless]

Last I checked there was a separation between the Church and the State. Though if that is violeted somehow - me talking with my 'buddies who run the country' surely won't help much.

Have a nice read:
http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm

[mabufo]

The point is - that the 'christian god' will exist as long as people believe in it. if they believe in god, then it will exist and be real to them. Even though it may not be real to the OP.

On another note, I think it's a little sad that people feel the compulsion to pick on Christians so much - they have just as much of a right to believe in what they want as you do with what you want. Can't we just leave it at that?

[Godless]

On another note, I think it's a little sad that people feel the compulsion to pick on Christians so much - they have just as much of a right to believe in what they want as you do with what you want. Can't we just leave it at that?

Basically when a theist comes here, he's/she's got issues, needs clarifications, as this is a science forum with a subforum on theology/religion.

So theist have to educate themselves about their beliefs, or is basically trying to get converts here to their way of thinking. FAT CHANCE at that, most theist that stick around here for a spell, either end up leaving the forum, or become an atheist/agnostic. Of course this does not happen quite often, but I've been long enough here to have seen it happen. ;)

Did you know, that Christmas is a pagan holiday? It was adopted by early Christianity, and christmas has existed on earth way before any jesus ever showed it's mythical existence here on earth.
http://www.uuman.org/ed_christmyth.htm

Have a nice read! BTW if you are not here to learn, then why the hell are you here?

[imaplanck.]

I think they are here because they actually believe they are making in-roads with their fricking irreducible complexity and supernatural quantum mechanics pseudoscience.

[Godless]

I think they are here because they actually believe they are making in-roads with their fricking irreducible complexity and supernatural quantum mechanics pseudoscience.

Got that right!

Why not advertise their pseudoscience BS in a religious forum? were everyone agrees with them! AS for Sciforums is a science forum with a subforum on theism/religion. Only to give chance to those who think that they can present credible evidence of their creed. However apparently no one ever has, though the subforum stays here do to it's popularity, also good way to re-educate some theists. It has happened. SouthStar was once "defender of the faith" now he's an atheist! ;)

So the forum eventually does serve a purpose! it brings zealot theist to think critical of their creed. Even Lg has to re-invent his pseudotheologycrap!

[Medicine*Woman]

The point is - that the 'christian god' will exist as long as people believe in it. if they believe in god, then it will exist and be real to them. Even though it may not be real to the OP.

On another note, I think it's a little sad that people feel the compulsion to pick on Christians so much - they have just as much of a right to believe in what they want as you do with what you want. Can't we just leave it at that?

*************
M*W: Yes, they have a right to believe in what they want to believe in. It's when they come to sciforums, a scientific forum, and demand that they hear voices in their heads, and they've seen miracles, etc. They never offer any evidence for their beliefs. Talk about being judgmental! Because they hear god's voice in their heads, they tell us how condemned the rest of us are! When the rest of us try to explain to them this is illogical, they just tear into us, however silly and immature they may be, and they are completely unable to discuss anything in a reasonable manner.

It's not the christians I want to pick on, it's their ignorance that I want to destroy.

[mabufo]

Godless, your agenda aside, would it hurt to be a little nicer?

[mabufo]

*************
M*W: Yes, they have a right to believe in what they want to believe in. It's when they come to sciforums, a scientific forum, and demand that they hear voices in their heads, and they've seen miracles, etc. They never offer any evidence for their beliefs ....

... they are completely unable to discuss anything in a reasonable manner....

...It's not the christians I want to pick on, it's their ignorance that I want to destroy.

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree, does it?

[Godless]

Godless, your agenda aside, would it hurt to be a little nicer?

WTF do you mean, i've calmed down quite a bit, just ask LightGigantic.

I've not called you! any swear names, like; idiot, brainless, head stuck up your ass, or even said your typing stupidity! I only asked what the hell is a theist doing in a scientific forum/subforum of religion, if not to LEARN or find ways to find converts to their way of thinking! ;)

BTW all the swears above were just for an example, they are not meant for any theist here who believe in their rhetorical non-sequirtus mumble jumble, jada,jada,jada, nonsense! Ok! :cool:

[mabufo]

That raises an interesting question. Why shouldn't a theist be allowed in a subforum designated 'religion'. Wouldn't things be a little boring if you guys had no one to debate with?

[lightgigantic]

I only asked what the hell is a theist doing in a scientific forum/subforum of religion, if not to LEARN or find ways to find converts to their way of thinking! ;)


then what is an atheist doing here?

[Godless]

Learning how to deal with half wits like you! Calm, anger management! CALM! anger management! LOL...Plus I was not always an atheist, thanks to scites like this, Barnes and Noble, and a bit of common sense, I learnt to think for myself, and not quote some ancient dogmatic tribal bs rhetoric writen by ignorat fools who mostly followed astrology-theology BS! ;)

BTW I'm still learning!

[Godless]

That raises an interesting question. Why shouldn't a theist be allowed in a subforum designated 'religion'. Wouldn't things be a little boring if you guys had no one to debate with?

I never claimed they shouldn't be allowed!

I only asked, kind of rudely what the heck are you doing here? if not to learn, preach, or try to convert?

[lightgigantic]

Learning how to deal with half wits like you! Calm, anger management! CALM! anger management! LOL...Plus I was not always an atheist, thanks to scites like this, Barnes and Noble, and a bit of common sense, I learnt to think for myself, and not quote some ancient dogmatic tribal bs rhetoric writen by ignorat fools who mostly followed astrology-theology BS! ;)

BTW I'm still learning!

I think you shouldn't post without following the directions of your prescription medication
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=62117

:confused:

[Kendall]

"Originally posted by Godless"
I only asked what the hell is a theist doing in a scientific forum/subforum of religion, if not to LEARN or find ways to find converts to their way of thinking!

Kendall-So because I believe in god in your mind I should not be interested or understand science.

[Kendall]

Is science just for atheist?

[imaplanck.]

I only asked what the hell is a theist doing in a scientific forum/subforum of religion, if not to LEARN or find ways to find converts to their way of thinking! .Did you phrase that correctly? If you didnt I would tend to agree.:)



So becouse I believe in god in your mind I should not be interested or understand science.

No of course not, but you should distinguish between science and the pseudo fecal matter that borrows the science name

[w1z4rd]

I think they are here because they actually believe they are making in-roads with their fricking irreducible complexity and supernatural quantum mechanics pseudoscience.

Theres nothing pseudo about quantum mechanic. Only certain levels of understanding on it.

Have a look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cldg_Hcp9-c its a nice simple introduction into the real quantum world.