View Full Version : Proof that the Christian god cannot exist
SnakeLord
07-21-07, 06:56 PM
Also, Jesus was saying that looking upon a woman lustfully is a sin because it shows *only* sexual desire, something that Yahweh does not approve of.
So what you are now telling me is that god is angry that lust comes before love? I'm sorry, how exactly does 'love' come into play when you're staring at a sexy woman across the room? At this moment in time 'love' is non-existant, lust is the only issue.
So tell me again: why does one burn for looking at a woman lustfully as jesus stated?
but I wouldn't trust that book at term of accurate explination as to the origion of man.
I always get enjoyment in seeing a theist tell me in his own words that the very book he believes in is actually all nonsense, not to be trusted, just a story. Tell me because I am curious.. how exactly do you choose which parts to trust and which not to?
Perhaps Earth was meant to be God's garden and when humans started to sin it pissed Yahweh off?
Ah, humans ruined god's master plan. Is he incompetent?
Um, aside from looking at women, those aren't sins, Jesus dispelled that when He stated that nothing from the outside can make you unholy, only that from the inside, from a man's heart can make him unholy.
If that's the case we have several choices:
1) god was joking when he said they were sins
2) god that doesn't change his mind, changed his mind
3) god was lying
4) jesus - who stated that all the laws were to be obeyed and anyone that didn't or taught others not to would suffer - was lying.
5) jesus - who stated that all the laws were to be obeyed and anyone that didn't or taught others not to would suffer - was joking.
6) The pair of them were just plain incompetent.
Take your pick.
Leading a happy life and living in the light of God.
What "light" is that then? You mean the sun?
This would include being kind to others who do not deserve it
The problem with such a thing is that it inevitably leads them to deserve it even less. god is well aware of this apparently which is why he invented hell.
Lust is an intense sexual desire, and taken with the quote, Jesus is saying it is wrong to look upon a woman with only sex in mind.
Why? It is essential to the continuation of the species and that is apparently of utmost importance to god. It is also not a choice, one can't help it.
Wait, why would the majority of the people burn in hell? And you do realise its not forever right?
I have yet to meet one person in existence that hasn't looked at another in lust, hasn't sinned, hasn't sinned in his heart. As a result they are all destined to burn.
Furthermore, where does it say burning isn't forever?
Again, I don't really take Genesis as the true story of creation.
So we can pick and choose which of god's words we're going to believe and which we're not? That's the recommendation from a theist?
No, worship is not pay.
But he only protects us if we worship him right, and if we dont worship him he no longer protects us..
Hellblade8
07-21-07, 07:06 PM
So what you are now telling me is that god is angry that lust comes before love? I'm sorry, how exactly does 'love' come into play when you're staring at a sexy woman across the room? At this moment in time 'love' is non-existant, lust is the only issue.
So tell me again: why does one burn for looking at a woman lustfully as jesus stated?
Because you are looking upon her with only sexual desire in mind.
I always get enjoyment in seeing a theist tell me in his own words that the very book he believes in is actually all nonsense, not to be trusted, just a story. Tell me because I am curious.. how exactly do you choose which parts to trust and which not to?
The ones that makes sense.
Ah, humans ruined god's master plan. Is he incompetent?
No, man is.
If that's the case we have several choices:
1) god was joking when he said they were sins
2) god that doesn't change his mind, changed his mind
3) god was lying
4) jesus - who stated that all the laws were to be obeyed and anyone that didn't or taught others not to would suffer - was lying.
5) jesus - who stated that all the laws were to be obeyed and anyone that didn't or taught others not to would suffer - was joking.
6) The pair of them were just plain incompetent.
Take your pick.
Yahweh changed his mind, since when couldn't He change his mind?:bugeye:
What "light" is that then? You mean the sun?
No.
Why? It is essential to the continuation of the species and that is apparently of utmost importance to god. It is also not a choice, one can't help it.
One can resist lust. Lust is an extreme sexual desire for sex. To look upon a woman with that in mind is to only want her for sex and has nothing to do with what God commanded in raising a family. And again, sexual desire, or finding a woman attractive is not lust.
I have yet to meet one person in existence that hasn't looked at another in lust, hasn't sinned, hasn't sinned in his heart. As a result they are all destined to burn.
Per say.
Furthermore, where does it say burning isn't forever?
Who said it is? If I recall, only seperation from Yahweh is forever.
So we can pick and choose which of god's words we're going to believe and which we're not? That's the recommendation from a theist?
Reason and logic. The bible is not perfect, why would you think it is?
Hellblade8
07-21-07, 07:07 PM
But he only protects us if we worship him right, and if we dont worship him he no longer protects us..
Incorrect.
Unless you wish to share about how horrible and tortured your life is the moment you stopped worshiping Yahweh.
Incorrect.
Unless you wish to share about how horrible and tortured your life is the moment you stopped worshiping Yahweh.
Ok, i was under the impression you stated that somewhere.
Would you please have a look at this post of mine im quoting for the second time now ?
This is the post i made, and you and S.A.M. somehow mistook them for commandments !?
“ Originally Posted by Enmos
I am however bothered by something Snakelord came up with.
Why did he even create mankind with free will, if he knew beforehand that at the very least some are going to burn in hell for their sins.
Why not make a happy world with no sins, does he like us doing sins and then throwing us into the fires of hell ?
The way i see it there are three possibilities:
1.) He likes to see humans burn in hell
2.) He doesnt care if humans burn in hell
3.) God was unable to make humankind without sin.
Actually there is a forth; God didnt create us at all. ”
Hellblade8
07-21-07, 07:13 PM
Ok, i was under the impression you stated that somewhere.
Would you please have a look at this post of mine im quoting for the second time now ?
No, I was talking about how having humans populate the earth was not one of the ten commandments.
And?
Oh, nothing really, just thought it somewhat rather large range of killings, between good and evil, good doing all the killing, of course. :shrug:
I disagree. Satan isn't some theif and Yahweh a guard. Yahweh offers protection from Satan while upholding everything that exists, one might think that you should be thankful for such protections and again, has Job ever paid Yahweh?
What protections? Bad things happen to good people.
Really, how do you expect to pay a god anything? Yahweh offers His protections for free to every man and woman. How about you?
If at any moment, Yahweh were to make me his object of cruelty with his next 'argument,' what protection can I be assured if he suddenly decides to let Satan have his way with me?
Its a story of how God doesn't just smite people here and there for doing something wrong. It means that just because someone is having a hard life, God does not hate you. If someone cheats on you, it's not God's fault.
Didn't he create the hard life in the first place? Why should some have a hard life while others have a good life - both might worship god equally?
It also serves as a way for God to inform Job that He owes the world nothing for He has given them everything and He has every right to take it away, since He owns it.
And there is lesson ill advised.
The actual lesson presented is that you may give something away, but you can take it back at any time, because you own it.
Hence, if you own it and you can take it back at anytime, then you didn't really give it away, did you?
When you give something away, you don't own it anymore. Simple, really.
No, I was talking about how having humans populate the earth was not one of the ten commandments.
Are you ignoring the rest of the post ?
Hellblade8
07-21-07, 07:16 PM
Ok, i was under the impression you stated that somewhere.
My apologies. Fact is, you will not get struck by lightning the moment you reject Yahweh, He saves any punishment you recieve until the after life save for a few cases in which it is warrented. However, this is an exception to the rule of thumb. Your car breaking down is not a sign that God isn't happy.
Now if your problem is say ironic, then perhaps it is.:p
Hellblade8
07-21-07, 07:21 PM
Oh, nothing really, just thought it somewhat rather large range of killings, between good and evil, good doing all the killing, of course. :shrug:
Ignoring that most of those people where smitten for their evil doings...
What protections? Bad things happen to good people.
So what? did you miss the point of the story? Just because something bad happens to you, it does not mean Yahweh did it.
If at any moment, Yahweh were to make me his object of cruelty with his next 'argument,' what protection can I be assured if he suddenly decides to let Satan have his way with me?
I hardly see where you have any worry about that. And so far He won't let Satan take your life if that's any comfort.
Didn't he create the hard life in the first place? Why should some have a hard life while others have a good life - both might worship god equally?
Those who are last shall be first and those who are first shall be last.
And their is lesson ill advised.
The actual lesson presented is that you may give something away, but you can take it back at any time, because you own it.
Hence, if you own it and you can take it back at anytime, then you didn't really give it away, did you?
When you give something away, you don't own it anymore. Simple, really.
Uhm, no it isn't. While part of the story was about Yahweh explaining that He doesn't have to do jack for humanity, He does it anyway. Not to mention upholding all of existence. Another point of His; His wisdom is greater. And no, you are wrong on the point of the story. You fail to understand it completely.
Hellblade8
07-21-07, 07:26 PM
Are you ignoring the rest of the post ?
These?
1.) He likes to see humans burn in hell
Then why create a heaven?
2.) He doesnt care if humans burn in hell
Again, why would He create a heaven and then why would He lie and say He actually cares when he does not?
3.) God was unable to make humankind without sin.
No, He gave free will. True free will means we can sin and not sin. If He stops us, He is stopping free will. If people do bad things, they deserved to be punished for their crimes do they not?
Actually there is a forth; God didnt create us at all.
If you think this is true, why bother with this board? If Yahweh is just some imaginary person you don't care about, why do you act as if you care so much about the subject? Why not just roll your eyes and get on with the more important things in your life than to debate something as silly as this?:confused:
Of course I guess it could be that you enjoy religous debates, but your manner seems to suggest that you picture Yahweh as an evil bastard.
These?
Then why create a heaven?
Again, why would He create a heaven and then why would He lie and say He actually cares when he does not?
No, He gave free will. True free will means we can sin and not sin. If He stops us, He is stopping free will. If people do bad things, they deserved to be punished for their crimes do they not?
If you think this is true, why bother with this board? If Yahweh is just some imaginary person you don't care about, why do you act as if you care so much about the subject? Why not just roll your eyes and get on with the more important things in your life than to debate something as silly as this?:confused:
Of course I guess it could be that you enjoy religous debates, but your manner seems to suggest that you picture Yahweh as an evil bastard.
Thanks for answering that, the true questions however were:
"Why did he even create mankind with free will, if he knew beforehand that at the very least some are going to burn in hell for their sins.
Why not make a happy world with no sins, does he like us doing sins and then throwing us into the fires of hell ?"
I do not belief in God, but does that have to mean i cannot be interested in the subject ?
I do not think God is an evil bastard, i was merely going on claims made by you and the Job story.
Furthermore, it might shock you but the only ones debating your are atheists.
Afterall you are posting in a thread called: "Proof that the Christian god cannot exist". Maybe you forgot about that ?
SnakeLord
07-21-07, 07:38 PM
Because you are looking upon her with only sexual desire in mind.
As opposed to what, children and mortgages?
The ones that makes sense.
So kindly tell me which bible parts are nonsensical and thus can be discarded. I shall then inform the entire jewish and christian community to dispose of their biblical junk.
No, man is.
Sorry, who created man?
Yahweh changed his mind, since when couldn't He change his mind?
Numbers: God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?
So, what's your next choice?
No.
What light then?
One can resist lust. Lust is an extreme sexual desire for sex. To look upon a woman with that in mind is to only want her for sex and has nothing to do with what God commanded in raising a family. And again, sexual desire, or finding a woman attractive is not lust.
You're seemingly making a confusing borderline between the two. How many people when they have a sexual desire, extreme or otherwise, are thinking about raising a family or anything other than sex? So what exactly is the distinction between lust and extreme lust.. the way you phrase it they're both the same thing.
Who said it is? If I recall, only seperation from Yahweh is forever.
Who said? Uhh..... jesus did.
Matthew: "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."
Matthew: "If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire."
Matthew: "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
Oh well, what now?
Reason and logic.
I wonder... have you ever done a test to see your level concerning reason and logic? Does such a test exist? If not, I want to ask under what basis you determine your ideas as being reasonable and logical. To what are you comparing them?
The bible is not perfect, why would you think it is?
So what is it then?
But how is knowing something denying you from choosin?
Because if the answer/ choice is already known then how does "choosing" mean anything?
We think we've taken a free choice, but if it's already known before hand then we haven't actually made a choice - we just think we have.
When you say infallibly correct, do you mean if He where to say one thing it must happen no matter what?
That's what infallibly correct means - never, ever being wrong.
Hellblade8
07-21-07, 07:56 PM
As opposed to what, children and mortgages?
Impart.
So kindly tell me which bible parts are nonsensical and thus can be discarded. I shall then inform the entire jewish and christian community to dispose of their biblical junk.
I can't, you must decided what is right or wrong for yourself.
Sorry, who created man?
Yahweh, what's your point?
Numbers: God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?
God is not a man: Eh? When did I say this?
that he should lie: I did not say this.
nor a son of a man: confusing.
He should change His mind: Sure, why not? He's done it before. Read up on OT, He changed His mind before.
So, what's your next choice?
Um...Hello Kitty Adventure?
What light then?
That's plain to anyone with wisdom.
You're seemingly making a confusing borderline between the two. How many people when they have a sexual desire, extreme or otherwise, are thinking about raising a family or anything other than sex? So what exactly is the distinction between lust and extreme lust.. the way you phrase it they're both the same thing.
No.
Lust:
1. intense sexual desire or appetite.
2. uncontrolled or illicit sexual desire or appetite; lecherousness.
3. a passionate or overmastering desire or craving
Sexual desire:
1. a desire for sexual intimacy
Who said? Uhh..... Jesus did.
Well, lets see then.
Matthew: "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."
Yes, for the devil and his angels. It said the fire itself is eternal and was made for the devil and his angels. While the wicked are cast into hell, it was never stated how long they would stay.
Matthew: "If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire."
Again, the fire is eternal.
Matthew: "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
Seperation from God is eternal punishment in and of itself. It does not mean that you shall burn for all of eternity in flames of hell.
I wonder... have you ever done a test to see your level concerning reason and logic? Does such a test exist? If not, I want to ask under what basis you determine your ideas as being reasonable and logical. To what are you comparing them?
Its case by case. Determining on what makes sense and what does not. If it does not make sense, I place it aside until it either makes sense or I just eventually discard it out of hand.
So what is it then?
It's a book.
Hellblade8
07-21-07, 07:58 PM
Because if the answer/ choice is already known then how does "choosing" mean anything?
We think we've taken a free choice, but if it's already known before hand then we haven't actually made a choice - we just think we have.
Again, this does not take away from free will.
You are saying that because I know what one will do, they have lost the ability to decide, this is not true. In no way is free will affected by knowing what will happen, for the person who made the choice still chose to do it, even if another knows that they will.
Again, this does not take away from free will.
Of course it does.
If the choice is infallibly KNOWN before hand then any "choice" is merely an illusion.
You may convince yourself that you chose freely but if I know without error what you are going to pick on each and every occasion then you really don't have a choice at all - you must pick what I know you're going to choose.
Hellblade8
07-21-07, 08:12 PM
Of course it does.
If the choice is infallibly KNOWN before hand then any "choice" is merely an illusion.
You may convince yourself that you chose freely but if I know without error what you are going to pick on each and every occasion then you really don't have a choice at all - you must pick what I know you're going to choose.
No, it isn't about you choosing and then me having to do so, its about you always knowing what I choose. I hold the power to choose, and you just know what I choose. Nothing more.
No, it isn't about you choosing and then me having to do so, its about you always knowing what I choose. I hold the power to choose, and you just know what I choose. Nothing more.
Then you're still missing the point: if I KNOW before you make the choice what you're going to pick then (if I am always correct) you cannot choose anything other than what I KNOW you're going to choose - therefore your choice is an illusion since you were always going to pick what I knew you'd pick.
You have no option but to choose what I know you're going to choose - therefore you have no "choice" - you MUST pick what I know you're going to, otherwise I wouldn't be infallible.
Hellblade8
07-21-07, 08:26 PM
Then you're still missing the point: if I KNOW before you make the choice what you're going to pick then (if I am always correct) you cannot choose anything other than what I KNOW you're going to choose - therefore your choice is an illusion since you were always going to pick what I knew you'd pick.
You have no option but to choose what I know you're going to choose - therefore you have no "choice" - you MUST pick what I know you're going to, otherwise I wouldn't be infallible.
Again, wrong. Knowing what I will choose does not mean I do not have a choice. Where are you getting this? This is utterly incorrect. Just because you have someone who knows what you are going to do, it does not mean that you have now choice. Infalibility does not mean that if you say something, its right. It means that you have never been wrong before because you do not think or say something that is not right.
Again, wrong. Knowing what I will choose does not mean I do not have a choice. Where are you getting this? This is utterly incorrect. Just because you have someone who knows what you are going to do, it does not mean that you have now choice.
See below.
If I am infallibly correct then I cannot EVER be wrong. Therefore whatever I know you are going to pick, you MUST pick.
Any "choice" on your part is an illusion because I am always right - therefore your choice is not really a choice since I know beforehand what you are going to pick: therefore you do not have any choice.
Infalibility does not mean that if you say something, its right.
Actually it does.
It means that you have never been wrong before because you do not think or say something that is not right.
Actually it doesn't.
Infallible:
# incapable of failure or error;
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
# Infallibility is the ability to be free from error (obtain certainty).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infallible
Incapable of error: always correct.
Not just in the past, but forever.
SnakeLord
07-21-07, 08:35 PM
I can't, you must decided what is right or wrong for yourself.
It is quite apparent that you would happily admit that man is not perfect and, given the statements on your last post, that they're not competent either.
In saying, what is the outcome if a person - through their incompetence and imperfection - decides for instance that the whole of the NT is wrong/fiction or that indeed the whole book is? Is he then eternally punished for that incompetence/imperfection?
Yahweh, what's your point?
The point is quite simple. Let's say you go about creating a robot. You end up with a final product that is incompetent. What does that ultimately say about your ability as a designer?
God is not a man: Eh? When did I say this?
that he should lie: I did not say this.
nor a son of a man: confusing.
Avoidance tactic. Kindly desist from doing that, it's annoying.
He should change His mind: Sure, why not?
Uhh.. because the biblical passage I quoted states that he does not.
That's plain to anyone with wisdom.
Is that what you call it? You know, I've never had much respect for those that are so quick and eager to metaphorically suck their own penis. Your statement is akin to saying you're better than me, and that I'm an idiot. I resent such arrogance.
No.
No what? Where is the difference in wanting sex really badly and just wanting sex? At the end of the day, you're just thinking about sex in either case. Someone with a desire for sexual intimacy is not thinking about kids and mortgages, he's thinking about sex. Where's the difference?
Seperation from God is eternal punishment in and of itself. It does not mean that you shall burn for all of eternity in flames of hell.
Almost as bad as your display of arrogance, is your inability to just own up when caught out. The first statement is made to humans who are cast into eternal fire. The latter statement shows that the punishment is eternal as is the fire and that the fire is where the punishment takes place.
Why are you even arguing? You do accept that it's our choice, so what does it matter to you if people are burning for eternity?
Its case by case. Determining on what makes sense and what does not. If it does not make sense, I place it aside until it either makes sense or I just eventually discard it out of hand.
Is that because you have ultimate understanding or some things don't make sense to you personally but might make perfect sense if you had better understanding? As a result wouldn't it be best not to discard it? Just incase your imperfection and incompetence causes you to get it wrong? Oh wait, yes... you're full of that "wisdom". I get it.
It's a book.
Like Harry Potter?
Benauld
07-22-07, 05:41 AM
If God is not obliged to grant me my choice of non-existence, I do not have true free will. Simple really.
Ignoring that most of those people where smitten for their evil doings...
And, many of them were merely innocent bystanders. How are small children considered evil?
So what? did you miss the point of the story? Just because something bad happens to you, it does not mean Yahweh did it.
That's not the point of the story, because Yahweh was a participant. He did it.
I hardly see where you have any worry about that. And so far He won't let Satan take your life if that's any comfort.
It's no comfort at all. And if the bible were any indication of his so-called "just" behavior, no one is safe. The body count in the bible is in the millions, with god at the helm. Satan killed less than a dozen, who is the safer bet?
Those who are last shall be first and those who are first shall be last.
That makes no sense at all and doesn't answer the question.
Uhm, no it isn't. While part of the story was about Yahweh explaining that He doesn't have to do jack for humanity, He does it anyway. Not to mention upholding all of existence. Another point of His; His wisdom is greater. And no, you are wrong on the point of the story. You fail to understand it completely.
You failed to understand the simple logic in giving something away. He may not have to do 'jack for humanity' but he certainly has no right to take it away, IF he actually gave it away.
Obviously, that was a lie on his part. He never gave anything away, he simply allows people to live until he gets bored with them, and wipes them off the planet whenever he wants, and for whatever reasons he wants. Those reasons rarely add up to anything ethical or moral, and instead demonstrate his cruel and petty nature.
If his wisdom were greater, why does he take back what he gives away?
Is that what you do, take back anything you give away whenever you want?
How are small children considered evil?You have obviously never been to some of the council estates in the UK! :D
When do we remember god?either in times of grave difficulties or in extreme happiness(occasionally) well god is nothing but a psychological balm created by man himself it soothes the pain in ur difficulty and shows u the way out when an indecisive criteria the same applies to happiness throw evrything on god thinking vaccum will look after it and get lazy life gives u an ass boiling kick and the cycle continues.everyday a different brain is born on earth talents,creationists,great phenomena topplers in this rate it not surprising that some nutty illusionist created an excellent illusion called god to create fear,order,uprising,and better living which inturn lead to the imbalance in the human and animal ratio making humans powerful and succumb to his very power adding to this the onslauht of nature to balance this equation or else we would be a low populated cro magnons travelling from place to place on a perfectly green earth.
Hapsburg
07-26-07, 07:23 AM
I have something that would be of interest to the Opening Poster and his initial statement.
While his proof is a logical proof, I have here a mathematical one. It's interesting, IMO:
Infinity x zero = undefined.
Where infinity = time and location everywhere, and zero = time and location now. Since "god" is theoretically omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, "god" is everywhere, everywhen, and everywhat at the same time, both in the infinite past and infinite future and in the present. Multiply zero and infinity and you get undefined, thus "god" cannot be defined, and is thus impossible to quantify and prove. When you cannot quantify something, there's two logical roads to take: 1. agnosticism, and 2. assumption of non-existence.
And this second one:
The number of gods possible is infinite; infinitely positive and infinitely negative. The most reasonable and rational number that will exist from any given number line in the mean, or average, of the line. The mean of all numbers positive and negative is 0. Thus, the most reasonable number of gods in existence is 0.
Infinity x zero = undefined.
Where infinity = time and location everywhere, and zero = time and location now. Since "god" is theoretically omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, "god" is everywhere, everywhen, and everywhat at the same time, both in the infinite past and infinite future and in the present. Multiply zero and infinity and you get undefined, thus "god" cannot be defined, and is thus impossible to quantify and prove. When you cannot quantify something, there's two logical roads to take: 1. agnosticism, and 2. assumption of non-existence.I'd call into question your assumptions of what "zero" and "infinity" are - i.e. can you really classify a position and time as a number and expect it to follow mathematical rules?
I could define "zero = a chair", "infinity = a table".
Infinity + zero = infinity, but if you add a chair to a table... you get a bench :)
And this second one:
The number of gods possible is infinite; infinitely positive and infinitely negative. The most reasonable and rational number that will exist from any given number line in the mean, or average, of the line. The mean of all numbers positive and negative is 0. Thus, the most reasonable number of gods in existence is 0.This one is easy to dismiss...
How can you have a negative number of gods?
You either have a positive number... or none.
You can't have a negative number of something, except in maths.
So your analysis fails.
Furthermore - your (flawed) analysis that "the most reasonable number of gods in existence is 0" is purely probabilistic... and will be unlikely to reflect reality.
Your analysis would assume that people not of average height can't reasonably exist. :eek: :D
Hapsburg
07-26-07, 08:13 AM
Sure, you can have negative gods, theoretically. Call it "chaos". Call it "evil". Call it whatever, but it's still a vague concept.
Hmmm - vague indeed :D.
Anyhoo - you haven't responded to the last "criticism" - in that you're not offering a proof - just a probabilistic outcome analysis.
"Your analysis would assume that people not of average height can't reasonably exist."
Care to respond? :)
I'd call into question your assumptions of what "zero" and "infinity" are - i.e. can you really classify a position and time as a number and expect it to follow mathematical rules?
I could define "zero = a chair", "infinity = a table".
Infinity + zero = infinity, but if you add a chair to a table... you get a bench :)
This one is easy to dismiss...
How can you have a negative number of gods?
You either have a positive number... or none.
You can't have a negative number of something, except in maths.
So your analysis fails.
Furthermore - your (flawed) analysis that "the most reasonable number of gods in existence is 0" is purely probabilistic... and will be unlikely to reflect reality.
Your analysis would assume that people not of average height can't reasonably exist. :eek: :D
The analysis obviously fails lol
But when you say "and will be unlikely to reflect reality" you mean following from the formula i presume ?
But when you say "and will be unlikely to reflect reality" you mean following from the formula i presume ?Yes - in that he assumes because the probabilistic outcome is zero that this equates to a proof that God does not exist.
But if you follow that logic then people of non-average height would not exist.
The mean / average / medium of probabilities rarely reflects reality.
Or am I over analysing this :eek: :D
Hapsburg
07-26-07, 10:56 AM
You're probably over-analyzing it.
Height can't be negative. But there can be negative deities, theoretically.
So, what I said doesn't apply to height. Just to things that can go both positive and negative.
I think.
I dunno. My friend, Trevor, was the guy who thought of it.
He's, like, a fucking math genius, so I assumed he knew what the fuck he was talking about. :D
You're probably over-analyzing it.
Height can't be negative. But there can be negative deities, theoretically.
So, what I said doesn't apply to height. Just to things that can go both positive and negative.
I think.
I dunno. My friend, Trevor, was the guy who thought of it.
He's, like, a fucking math genius, so I assumed he knew what the fuck he was talking about. :D
What about depth ? ;)
Hapsburg
07-26-07, 11:00 AM
Hmmm. If you consider depth an aspect of heighth, maybe.
I dunno. I always that one was kinda loopy.
But the first one was at least somewhat reasonable.
Hmmm. If you consider depth an aspect of heighth, maybe.
I dunno. I always that one was kinda loopy.
But the first one was at least somewhat reasonable.
I get the idea youre trying to get across, but the analysis actually has to hold up for it to mean anything. Otherwise, whats the point ?
Maybe you should refine it.
cole grey
07-27-07, 05:16 PM
Infinity x zero = undefined.
no. anything times zero = zero. Unless you are talking about some uncommon theoretized version of "zero" and not the normal one.
All your mathematical mapping is arbitrary.
Anyway, any pixies fan knows that man is 5, and the devil is 6. So we can't be at zero.
The number of gods possible is infinite; infinitely positive and infinitely negative. The most reasonable and rational number that will exist from any given number line in the mean, or average, of the line. The mean of all numbers positive and negative is 0. Thus, the most reasonable number of gods in existence is 0.
Then the following makes sense too - the number of people possible is infinite, and the mean of all possible numbers of people is zero - therefore the most reasonable # of people in existence is zero. Uh, no.
The equations your friend came up with are like tv - it is a fun something to occupy your mind with that is devoid of content.
Journey0820
07-31-07, 07:48 PM
This thread has me convinced. As I understand the argument of fulfilled infinities, no deity could have existed for an infinite length of time before it eventually created the universe.
Good enough for me. The Abrahamic god is disproved.
cole grey
07-31-07, 09:15 PM
Good enough for me. The Abrahamic god is disproved.
Yes, not being able to comprehend something obviously means it CANNOT exist.
I am confused as to why people use a mathematical analysis to "disprove" something like this, although any mathematician can tell you that proving something requires completeness - in other words, you can't just say there are no square roots of numbers over eight hundred billion just because you dont have the time to write out all the answers, and you haven't found any over a hundred and forty four - that is not a proof.
Let's just leave it at this - there is no proof that God exists, and there is no proof God doesn't exist. Fact.
There is no compelling reason beyond personal experience either of the universe, or of God itself, to believe in God. There is also no compelling reason not to believe in a God of some kind, even if there are acceptable reasons to disbelieve certain fantastic renditions which people have put forward.
The abrahamic God may have been misunderstood and misrepresented, or perhaps He is right and we are wrong as certain people believe, or perhaps it doesn't exist - but there is no proof. Period.
Medicine*Woman
07-31-07, 11:28 PM
This thread has me convinced. As I understand the argument of fulfilled infinities, no deity could have existed for an infinite length of time before it eventually created the universe.
Good enough for me. The Abrahamic god is disproved.
*************
M*W: Why is it that some people think that Abraham was a monotheist? Abraham was a pantheist who believed in the many gods of Egypt and Canaan which included moon worship. Abraham's father was also a pantheist. The god that told Abraham to sacrifice his own son was not the same god of monotheism but a pagan god that was worshipped even before sun worship came about. Monotheism started with Egyptian sun worship, or the worship of Aten Ra, and that was a couple of thousand years after Abraham's time. But in any event, all the gods people have worshipped through the ages didn't really exist.
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
Its called a test theory. When you go for a test, the examiners don't give you the answers before the test has been concluded.
SEE THIS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOJ3FKXmrVY
That didn't seem to address the issue.
Mattpaul
10-04-07, 11:09 PM
Hi All,
very intersting debate. Is it possible that "predeterminism" and "omniscience" are not mutually exclusive. I.e could God "know" what is going to happen, without "making" it happen?
Matt
LovesHumanity
02-27-08, 11:09 PM
Thank "God" you provided the proof else "Godmen" would have continued with their perpetualization of ignorance of the masses. Now, people have an option and a way to disseminate fact from fiction.
However, the article is not limited in application to Christian God alone.. the God of any and every faith cannot stands up to rationality.
God stuff is quite handy when it comes to keeping minds of the masses off the real issues! For example, one may rule, justify murders, rapes and atrocities on "infidels" and yet make the best of life for himself/herself -- all in the name of GOD!
answers
03-05-08, 10:29 PM
This really isn't some new revelation, Christians have been saying since the beginning that God is in control. You just uncovered a few implications of that teaching.
These points of 'how much' God controls is up for debate hugely in Christian circles. This debate centers around the doctrine of God's providence.
But I do think its plain to see through the bible that God chooses who will be saved, giving rise to the teaching that salvation is all of God and none of us. Doctrine of regeneration.
We have all done things which separate us from God, in doing that we become slaves to sin. So a non-Christian by biblical teaching would not have free will at all (Calvinistic view point ). A saved person has a change of nature, desiring the things of God when before the old nature didn't desire God (Depravity of man). In this the Christian becomes truly free, free to choose Godly things when before their nature inhibited such choices.
I'm not saying that a person with a sinful nature cannot do good, because there is such thing as common grace. The rain falls on the just and the unjust. But you've got to realize that good things are Godly things, if God is good. And any choice to follow God or do good must first be initiated either by His common grace or His saving work on the cross.
So a few questions arise out of all this:
How are people still held accountable when God is responsible for someones salvation?
If God is in total control then he must control evil and therefore be evil?
I'll leave those questions to you, can't give you all the answers or else things wouldn't be interesting, and besides you may come to totally different conclusions to me. But just remember in seeking answers about God you have to realize that you can't answer these questions fully because, let's face it when it comes to God human logic fails miserably. Which can be put in a negative way, that belief in God is illogical. But even so...it all makes sense to God.
SkywalkerJedi
03-21-08, 05:47 PM
it is logical god is real
SkyWalkerJedi,
it is logical god is realAn assertion bereft of meaningful support and hence worthless.
wesmorris
03-22-08, 02:53 AM
I think god is as real as pi.
Proof that the Christian god cannot exist.
This is a revision and refinement of a post I made over a year ago but there are so many new members now that I felt it worth a revisit.
Omniscience vs. Human Free will. A Paradox.
Omniscience: Perfect knowledge of past and future events.
Free will: Freedom to choose between alternatives without external coercion.
Paradox: Statements or events that have contradictory and inconsistent properties.
Proposal:
Christianity cannot claim that God is omniscient and also claim that humans have free will. The claims form a paradox, a falsehood.
Reasoning:
If God is omniscient then even before we are born God will have complete knowledge of every decision we are going to make.
Any apparent choice we make regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior is predetermined. This must be true to satisfy the assertion that God is omniscient. Effectively we have no choice in the matter. What we think is free will is an illusion. Our choices have been coerced since we exist and act according to the will of God.
Alternatively if human free will is valid, meaning that the outcome of our decisions is not pre-determined or coerced, then God cannot be omniscient, since he would not know in advance our decisions.
Question:
If God knows the decision of every individual, before they are born, regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior, then why does he create one set of individuals destined for heaven and another set destined for eternal damnation? This seems unjust, perverse and particularly evil.
Conclusions:
If God is omniscient then humans do not have free will (see argument above) and the apparent arbitrary choice of God to condemn many individuals to eternal damnation is evil. I.e. God does not possess the property of omni benevolence and is therefore not worth our attention.
If humans have true free will then God cannot be omniscient (see argument above). If he is not omniscient then he also cannot be omnipotent since knowledge of the future is a prerequisite for total action. Without these abilities God can no longer be deemed a god – i.e. God does not exist.
If humans do not have free will then the choice of whether to choose Jesus as a savior or not makes total nonsense of Christianity since the choice is pre-determined and we are merely puppets at the hands of an evil monster.
Cris
I will assume you base your beliefs of the universe in science, correct? Ok, science tells that a table 1" thick made from an Oak tree 100 yrs old today is actually mostly comprised of empty space. When I set my whiskey glass down on it, it does not fall through- and it is mostly comprised of empty space as well.
Through the works of others and lessons I have been taught I understand that Atoms are mostly comprised of empty space and are held together by a "strong" and "weak" force, nuclear if I remember correctly. Scientists have no idea what causes these forces to exists, and state their observed existence as "fundamental laws". Gravity, the most basic force known to us and what holds the universe together at a larger level is a complete mystery as well. So the forces that hold the universe together at an atomic level and planetary level are completely unknown, just observed and measured. Correct?
So with this understanding you state your understanding of God's knowledge as a falsehood?? Maybe everything that is ever going to happen has already happened. And maybe free will is unaffected by this. Maybe future events affect past events. Why is that harder for your mind to grasp or accept? Let us just call Gods knowledge a "Fundamental Omniscientifical Paradoxial Law" and we will go from there.
Scientific endeavors should be explored unexhaustively by those so inclined. The beauty of scientific exploration is that it reveals the nature of the universe, and those that use it for their own ends to shirk their responsibilities are adding to the confusion.
Rjr6,
I will assume you base your beliefs of the universe in science, correct? Ok, science tells that a table 1" thick made from an Oak tree 100 yrs old today is actually mostly comprised of empty space. When I set my whiskey glass down on it, it does not fall through- and it is mostly comprised of empty space as well.
Through the works of others and lessons I have been taught I understand that Atoms are mostly comprised of empty space and are held together by a "strong" and "weak" force, nuclear if I remember correctly. Scientists have no idea what causes these forces to exists, and state their observed existence as "fundamental laws". Gravity, the most basic force known to us and what holds the universe together at a larger level is a complete mystery as well. So the forces that hold the universe together at an atomic level and planetary level are completely unknown, just observed and measured. Correct?
So with this understanding you state your understanding of God's knowledge as a falsehood?? No. The nature of science and what I might believe is irrelevant to the topic. The issue is entirely one of logical reasoning.
Maybe everything that is ever going to happen has already happened. And maybe free will is unaffected by this.All you have done is re-state the paradox. If everything has already happened then what you might claim is free will is an illusion since you would now be powerless to alter anything that has already happened. If everything is pre-destined or has already happened then free will cannot exist.
Maybe future events affect past events.If that were possible then the entire foundation of everything we observe in terms of cause and effect would be nonsense. What does it mean to have an effect occur before its cause? What would it mean if you were born before your parents conceived you?
Why is that harder for your mind to grasp or accept? Why imply that I am not equally capable of grasping nonsense fantasies as well as you are capable of suggesting them?
Let us just call Gods knowledge a "Fundamental Omniscientifical Paradoxial Law" and we will go from there.You mean a law that proves such a god cannot exist? There is nowhere to go with that.
Scientific endeavors should be explored unexhaustively by those so inclined.I think you mean exhaustively.
The beauty of scientific exploration is that it reveals the nature of the universe,OK.
and those that use it for their own ends to shirk their responsibilities are adding to the confusion.Huh? Don’t really know what you are on about here and I don’t see what relevance it is to the topic?
Rjr6,
All you have done is re-state the paradox. If everything has already happened then what you might claim is free will is an illusion since you would now be powerless to alter anything that has already happened. If everything is pre-destined or has already happened then free will cannot exist.
If that were possible then the entire foundation of everything we observe in terms of cause and effect would be nonsense. What does it mean to have an effect occur before its cause? What would it mean if you were born before your parents conceived you?
I do not believe having an effect bring about a cause would render the foundation of our understanding of the universe "nonsense". Though it would open up new avenues of research. If an effect brought about a cause would that eliminate the paradox of someone understanding the end destiny and still allow for free will? What if time only existed for humans? What would that do for free will? Do you think this should have been included in the Bible? Maybe this text does exists, but how would you explain to a mostly illiterate world that time does not exists? Maybe you would use words like "eternity" instead. Please don't ask for proof, I don't have any that you would accept.
It is just a thought. Being confined to only using a narrow view of logic to understand the universe baffles me when this view (ie: our scientific observations and measurements to date) fundamentally has absolutely no understanding at the most basic levels of what is happening and cannot explain even the most rudimentary aspects of our existence.
You act as if "paradox" is a bad thing, or that somehow that means it is absolutely impossible to be that way if there is a "paradox". Of course this (no problem with perceived paradox from a divine point of view) cannot be "proved" to you, just as you cannot "prove" to me that if I drop a rock it will not fall up as opposed to down. All you can say is that the rock normally falls down when you drop it, so it probably will again. You can not "prove" it to me (that it will fall down). Gravity is yet unexplained-it is a mystery.
What if I ran around saying "gravitarians believe in a falsehood!" You would, and most would, think I am crazy. And I would be crazy to do that, just as a believer in Christ would think you were being a hypocrite to say that that belief was a "falsehood".
Rjr6,
You are trying to argue from the perspective that there are things we don’t know, even basic things, and I’m not denying that but that isn’t the issue here. Those are largely concerns of inductive reasoning. My point is entirely deductive and is created by the very “divine point of view” that you reference. I.e. the very definitions and concepts Christianity has defined create an impossible scenario.
Put simply – if something exists that has perfect knowledge of all that will happen then it is impossible for anyone to change those events, i.e. the events are pre-determined. If they could, e.g. through the exercise of free-will then that something could not know what will happen before the exercise of free-will.
Either the knowledge exists and hence free-will is impossible, or free-will exists and hence the knowledge cannot exist. They cannot both coexist which is what Christianity claims.
Note that there is no implication that actions are dependent on the existence of knowledge which is the essence of the modality refutation; in fact there cannot be a connection. And I make no attempt to explain how future events can be known before they occur. I strongly suspect that such a scenario is not possible since time does not appear to be a medium that can be manipulated in such a way. My only point is the paradoxical implications if such a thing were possible.
TW Scott
03-29-08, 04:20 AM
Rjr6,
You are trying to argue from the perspective that there are things we don’t know, even basic things, and I’m not denying that but that isn’t the issue here. Those are largely concerns of inductive reasoning. My point is entirely deductive and is created by the very “divine point of view” that you reference. I.e. the very definitions and concepts Christianity has defined create an impossible scenario.
Put simply – if something exists that has perfect knowledge of all that will happen then it is impossible for anyone to change those events, i.e. the events are pre-determined. If they could, e.g. through the exercise of free-will then that something could not know what will happen before the exercise of free-will.
Either the knowledge exists and hence free-will is impossible, or free-will exists and hence the knowledge cannot exist. They cannot both coexist which is what Christianity claims.
Note that there is no implication that actions are dependent on the existence of knowledge which is the essence of the modality refutation; in fact there cannot be a connection. And I make no attempt to explain how future events can be known before they occur. I strongly suspect that such a scenario is not possible since time does not appear to be a medium that can be manipulated in such a way. My only point is the paradoxical implications if such a thing were possible.
Okay you are looking at this completely wrong. Take a step back, clear your mind. Now imagine a being that can see all the myraid of possibilities in the universe. this being knows them in advance of the oppurtunity for them to happen. Now this being knows all the possible futures. it knows what you will do if you are presented with certain stimuli. You are assuming that it is becuase it is preordained to happen. You're not factoring thagt this being just has perfect knowledge of you.
It would be like if you knew your sister is not ready for marriage. In fact she absolutely wants to wait another two years and she does not think her current boyfriend is the one. Would you be taking away her freewill if you knew her answer would be no when her boyfriend proposes to her tomorrow.
Rjr6,
You are trying to argue from the perspective that there are things we don’t know, even basic things, and I’m not denying that but that isn’t the issue here. Those are largely concerns of inductive reasoning. My point is entirely deductive and is created by the very “divine point of view” that you reference. I.e. the very definitions and concepts Christianity has defined create an impossible scenario.
Put simply – if something exists that has perfect knowledge of all that will happen then it is impossible for anyone to change those events, i.e. the events are pre-determined. If they could, e.g. through the exercise of free-will then that something could not know what will happen before the exercise of free-will.
Either the knowledge exists and hence free-will is impossible, or free-will exists and hence the knowledge cannot exist. They cannot both coexist which is what Christianity claims.
Note that there is no implication that actions are dependent on the existence of knowledge which is the essence of the modality refutation; in fact there cannot be a connection. And I make no attempt to explain how future events can be known before they occur. I strongly suspect that such a scenario is not possible since time does not appear to be a medium that can be manipulated in such a way. My only point is the paradoxical implications if such a thing were possible.
Exactly my point, we don't understand even basic aspects of our reality. I completely understand your logical refutation of a paradox as explained in the Bible. But what makes your science beyond reproach to a point where you call christianity a falsehood? The almighty knowledge that you can observe natural laws and deduce aspects of our physical reality?
Maybe time cannot be manipulated in a way that makes sense to our level of understanding. But if time exists such as a landscape, and we are traveling through that landscape, why is it impossible to get off of the train and wander in the landscape, so to speak. This does not alter free will and destiny to my understanding. Free will, which is basically what the bible addresses, may be more important and complex than we can imagine. The Christian God choose to sacrifice his Son over it.
rjr6,
Maybe time cannot be manipulated in a way that makes sense to our level of understanding. But if time exists such as a landscape, and we are traveling through that landscape, why is it impossible to get off of the train and wander in the landscape, so to speak. This does not alter free will and destiny to my understanding. Free will, which is basically what the bible addresses, may be more important and complex than we can imagine. The Christian God choose to sacrifice his Son over it.The proof assumes that such a god does have that "independence if time" ability, but from our perspective we remain tightly coupled with time. The result remains the same that for us there is a before and an after. And, if by whatever mechanism is imagined, our future actions are known long before we make them then we cannot have free will, our actions are somehow pre-determined.
That such a god might have such abilities that we cannot comprehend is appreciated but that does not remove the logical conclusion of resultant pre-determination and hence the resultant absence of free-will.
Jan Ardena
03-30-08, 02:40 PM
rjr6,
The proof assumes that such a god does have that "independence if time" ability, but from our perspective we remain tightly coupled with time. The result remains the same that for us there is a before and an after. And, if by whatever mechanism is imagined, our future actions are known long before we make them then we cannot have free will, our actions are somehow pre-determined.
That such a god might have such abilities that we cannot comprehend is appreciated but that does not remove the logical conclusion of resultant pre-determination and hence the resultant absence of free-will.
You are labouring under the notion that this life is all there is, and there is no transmigration of the soul, or even that there is a soul.
This appears to be a comfort zone, where you have to be correct.
But even in the Bible, we can understand that the soul (animator) is separate from the body. We can understand that the soul is part and parcel of God, and as such cannot die in the same way the body does. If you wish to use the current institution of christianity, as your reference, then this discussion can never be resolved.
But what would your analysis be, if the soul was part and parcel of God?
Jan.
I'm way late on this one...
It would be like if you knew your sister is not ready for marriage. In fact she absolutely wants to wait another two years and she does not think her current boyfriend is the one. Would you be taking away her freewill if you knew her answer would be no when her boyfriend proposes to her tomorrow.
It would be nothing like that, actually. The only way you would know your sister did not want to get married would be if she gave you some indication of her desire. It's not as if you had access to some over-knowledge.
Here's my opinion on the whole "proving there is no God" argument...
The problem with using logic to disprove the existence of a god is that you must assume at the outset that this god is bound by that logic. That's simply not something anyone can prove. I don't know if there is or isn't a god, but I would imagine any god would have to reside beyond the borders of our universe, and thus not held to the laws that regulate it. Perhaps an inherent trait of god-hood is the ability to know all without having to influence--or program--the events beforehand. And it sounds absolutely outrageous, but consider what the notion of abstract thought would sound to a frog, or a wolf...it would be incomprehensible.
Really, this thing has been beaten to death so many times, by so many individuals in this thread, you would think the proponents would have conceded by now.
But! Still holding out...
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.
Omiscient = Adjective (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/omniscient)
Coercing = Verb (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coercing)
Verbs refer to action. Adjectives refer to description. Thus Omniscience is a feature, not an action. Coercion is an action.
Now which idiot is going to conclude that Omniscience is equivalent to coercion? Clearly it isn't, which means then... Well... That if there is any cause-effect relationship to consider, the choices made in the future, as with the past, must affect the timeless knowledge, not vice versa.
Reasoning:
If God is omniscient then even before we are born God will have complete knowledge of every decision we are going to make.Yes.
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.No. Said differently, actions of the past, and actions of the future determine the Omniscience of God. Saying an action is predetermined by God's Omniscience is like saying our actions are predetermined by our actions. So silly.
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.No. As noted above, knowledge is not equivalent to coercion, be it all encompassing or not.
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.But the integrity of Free Will in parallel with Omniscience still stands 1000+ posts after the faulty proposal on the first page, so this question is clearly irrelevant.
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.LOL... Wrong. See arguments above, and on other pages (blonde_cupid, tony1)
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.No. It has been shown that Omniscience and Free Will go quite well together. Omnipotence (= Adjective) (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/omnipotent) is not equivalent to total action. Think... Omni, Potential... See my leaning? Omnipotence is the capacity for "total action" as it is put in the errant argument.
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.So I guess Christianity still makes a lot of sense after this one - even more sense, now. :D
CrisSomeone needs to brush up on their grammar.
SnakeLord
04-01-08, 04:44 AM
Omniscience: Perfect knowledge of past and future events.
Free will: Freedom to choose between alternatives without external coercion.
Marcac:
What would the above say about a god itself? Does a god that is omniscient have any free will? It would know long before doing any action that it was going to do that action and, because it knew it was going to do it, had no choice not to. It would certainly seem that this god lacks any free will.
But for now let's pretend such a being does.. It would stand that this entity chose to create two certain individuals knowing everything they would ever do. So then the question is why not create Bob and Jane instead of Adam and Eve? You see, Bob and Jane would never eat the fruit or disobey this god. They would still have the free will you claim they have because this god would not make their choices for them it would simply know what choices they were going to make. By choosing to create Bob and Jane instead of Adam and Eve this god would prevent billions of people from being tortured needlessly while not impacting this free will you claim they have.
This is typically where the theist backtracks and claims they don't have free will because they can't do anything other than what this god knows they are going to do. You do not have that luxury given your own statements, (it is exactly the same position Adam and Eve were in).
So, either this god has free will and chose for many billions to burn needlessly or this god itself has no free will and thus isn't much of a god.
What would the above say about a god itself? Does a god that is omniscient have any free will? It would know long before doing any action that it was going to do that action and, because it knew it was going to do it, had no choice not to. It would certainly seem that this god lacks any free will. [...] So, either this god has free will and chose for many billions to burn needlessly or this god itself has no free will and thus isn't much of a god.Does "a god" require free will (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary)? You seem to think it would? I'm not so sure. But just make sure you're not hopping onto that dimwit bandwagon confusing knowledge (of a decision) with action (decision).
Whether "a god" does or doesn't have free will the same things happen to individuals by their choices, providing "a god" allows individuals free will.
Pretty smart way for "a god" to get out of that little atheist-blame-game-mess if you ask me. Don't blame God, blame yourself. You choose to burn, you burn. Man He must've seen it coming! :eek:
SnakeLord
04-01-08, 08:05 AM
Does "a god" require free will? You seem to think it would? I'm not so sure.
I didn't imply that a god would require free will, merely that it would have about the same ultimate value as a fart in the wind, unable to decide its own actions or course. As it is nothing but a fart in the wind, it's not really worth much attention.
Pretty smart way for "a god" to get out of that little atheist-blame-game-mess if you ask me. Don't blame God, blame yourself. You choose to burn, you burn.
You use the term 'dimwit' and then use one of the most pathetic, idiotic arguments ever seen in these kinds of debates. Curious behaviour.
Even if we allow for the notion of 'free will', there are certain things that people have absolutely no choice over. One such thing is the ability to choose to just believe in something, (without external coercion). If you want to contest this issue we can do a little experiment:
Sit down, (squeeze real hard pal), and make yourself believe in leprechauns. The fact of the matter is you wont be able to do it, you have absolutely no personal control over what you do or do not believe in. The only way to reach a belief in something is via external 'evidence' (and I use the term loosely in this context). Humans, being different, require different forms of 'evidence' to come to belief in something. To some finding small footprints in the mud will convince them that leprechauns exist, to some it takes much much more. None of this is a choice, please make note of that.
So, the unbeliever - the person that has no belief in gods is apparently going to burn forever and chose to do so. The notion is simple idiocy. They had no choice in the matter whatsoever. You know that, that's why with all that squeezing you'll never manage to choose to believe in leprechauns. That means you chose to go to the leprechaun underworld where you'll be prodded and poked with all manner of sharp instruments. Was your own choosing apparently :bugeye: What foolishness.
I didn't imply that a god would require free will, merely that it would have about the same ultimate value as a fart in the wind, unable to decide its own actions or course. As it is nothing but a fart in the wind, it's not really worth much attention.O.k. As I said I'm not so sure. So one knows their route from Google Maps, then they take that route. Here, apparently, God would know - for example - other drivers decisions, light changing, and weather conditions which will affect the journey. Of course, even that is largely predictable now with SatNavs and GIS.Even if we allow for the notion of 'free will', there are certain things that people have absolutely no choice over. One such thing is the ability to choose to just believe in something, (without external coercion). If you want to contest this issue we can do a little experiment:
Sit down, (squeeze real hard pal), and make yourself believe in leprechauns. The fact of the matter is you wont be able to do it, you have absolutely no personal control over what you do or do not believe in. The only way to reach a belief in something is via external 'evidence' (and I use the term loosely in this context). Humans, being different, require different forms of 'evidence' to come to belief in something. To some finding small footprints in the mud will convince them that leprechauns exist, to some it takes much much more. None of this is a choice, please make note of that.So now we move on to whether or not belief or disbelief/"lack-of-belief" has its basis in free will. I think that for the more rational among us, choice plays a large part in belief - i.e. acceptance by evidence after considering alternatives (= or not). For those overwhelmed by emotive response... Well, they feel more than they think. Question remains of which are more beneficial in the end: think more, or feel more? Thought or instinct/intuition? I'm still thinking about the one...So, the unbeliever - the person that has no belief in gods is apparently going to burn forever and chose to do so. The notion is simple idiocy. They had no choice in the matter whatsoever. You know that, that's why with all that squeezing you'll never manage to choose to believe in leprechauns. That means you chose to go to the leprechaun underworld where you'll be prodded and poked with all manner of sharp instruments. Was your own choosing apparently :bugeye: What foolishness.Maybe its the human contribution to a higher form of natural selection. :shrug:
SnakeLord
04-01-08, 09:56 AM
I think that for the more rational among us, choice plays a large part in belief - i.e. acceptance by evidence after considering alternatives (= or not).
Seemingly you'd now like to drag this down to a "I'm more rational" contest, which is fine by me given by what can be gathered from your posts. However, let me ask you what you typically compare what you think is rational to. Who and what are you making a comparison to?
Anyway, as far as the subject goes, accepting or not accepting that 'evidence' is also not a "choice" as much as what happens to convince you, (which is beyond your control). One does not choose to be convinced by an argument, one merely is or isn't convinced by it.
Either way you would need to recognise that 'evidence' is an external factor that you would or wouldn't be coerced by. In saying, it goes against the earlier given definition of 'free will': Freedom to choose between alternatives without external coercion. If you would like to provide a definition of 'free will' then please do.
Maybe its the human contribution to a higher form of natural selection.
Apologies, I don't see what this is a debate to. Would you assert that because you cannot just choose to believe in leprechauns that you have in fact chosen to go to the leprechaun underworld and get prodded with sharp instruments? Yes or no. Btw, do note the distinct problem your earlier argument will suffer from if you say no.
[???]...let me ask you what you typically compare what you think is rational to. Who and what are you making a comparison to?That which I think isn't rational. Deep, I know... But you asked the question after getting the answer.Anyway, as far as the subject goes, accepting or not accepting that 'evidence' is also not a "choice" as much as what happens to convince you, (which is beyond your control). One does not choose to be convinced by an argument, one merely is or isn't convinced by it.One can be convinced by the choice of evidence to accept or reject, particularly when these pieces of evidence approach equivalence from one's perspective.Either way you would need to recognise that 'evidence' is an external factor that you would or wouldn't be coerced by. In saying, it goes against the earlier given definition of 'free will': Freedom to choose between alternatives without external coercion. If you would like to provide a definition of 'free will' then please do.This is been taken a bit too far. There must be a framework within which one has alternatives to facilitate choice. You've taken it past choice, into what makes you choose. Choice constitutes free will. Taking it further launches into some nature vs. nurture debate, which may as well be conducted off the religious forum.Apologies, I don't see what this is a debate to. Would you assert that because you cannot just choose to believe in leprechauns that you have in fact chosen to go to the leprechaun underworld and get prodded with sharp instruments? Yes or no. Btw, do note the distinct problem your earlier argument will suffer from if you say no.I have asserted that you have a choice through thought. You seem to assert you don't. I've done my job here. Have a good one.
SnakeLord
04-01-08, 12:29 PM
One can be convinced by the choice of evidence to accept or reject
'Convinced' certainly - and judging from the mammoth differences between theists and atheists it seems the levels of what is found convincing or not differs incredibly. Where does choice fit into any of that, (especially given the context of discussion)?
This is been taken a bit too far.
Not at all and, needless to add, I even gave you the 'choice' to give your own definition. Of course it's always worth looking at where 'choices' stem from - which is entirely relevant given the earlier definition of 'free will'.
I have asserted that you have a choice through thought. You seem to assert you don't.
Unsurprisingly enough this is not an answer to my question. Should I try again or is that attitude of yours just gonna get in the way again? Sod it, I'll try:
"Would you assert that because you cannot just choose to believe in leprechauns that you have in fact chosen to go to the leprechaun underworld and get prodded with sharp instruments? Yes or no."
ang2223
04-01-08, 12:56 PM
'
"Would you assert that because you cannot just choose to believe in leprechauns that you have in fact chosen to go to the leprechaun underworld and get prodded with sharp instruments? Yes or no."
I am going to have to use this one!! I never think to bring "other" personal beliefs into the "Christ" debates.
Jan,
You are labouring under the notion that this life is all there is, and there is no transmigration of the soul, or even that there is a soul.
This appears to be a comfort zone, where you have to be correct.
But even in the Bible, we can understand that the soul (animator) is separate from the body. We can understand that the soul is part and parcel of God, and as such cannot die in the same way the body does. If you wish to use the current institution of christianity, as your reference, then this discussion can never be resolved.
But what would your analysis be, if the soul was part and parcel of God?Appears to have no relevance to the topic.
MarcAC,
Now which idiot is going to conclude that Omniscience is equivalent to coercion? Clearly it isn't, which means then... Well... That if there is any cause-effect relationship to consider, the choices made in the future, as with the past, must affect the timeless knowledge, not vice versa.As has been discussed in the thread. What is not said is how Omniscience results in coercion; in fact I have stated that they cannot be related, re the modality issue. However, the issue remains that if something is known long before its occurrence then that event must occur. That is a predetermined event. I make no conclusion about how such a thing is possible and neither do I make a claim that Omniscience is the cause.
The issue remains very simple – if omniscience exists then events are necessarily predetermined and that precludes free-will.
But the integrity of Free Will in parallel with Omniscience still stands 1000+ posts after the faulty proposal on the first page, so this question is clearly irrelevant.How so? I see no one has solved the paradox yet.
No. It has been shown that Omniscience and Free Will go quite well together. Where?
So I guess Christianity still makes a lot of sense after this one - even more sense, now. Dream on kiddo. You have barely begun.
JDAWG,
The problem with using logic to disprove the existence of a god is that you must assume at the outset that this god is bound by that logic. That's simply not something anyone can prove. I don't know if there is or isn't a god, but I would imagine any god would have to reside beyond the borders of our universe, and thus not held to the laws that regulate it. Perhaps an inherent trait of god-hood is the ability to know all without having to influence--or program--the events beforehand. And it sounds absolutely outrageous, but consider what the notion of abstract thought would sound to a frog, or a wolf...it would be incomprehensible.Logic is not something that is eligible to be bound or not. It makes no more sense for a god to call a circle a square than it does for a human. If an effect has a cause then the cause will occur first and that will be true for gods as well as people.
If a god is to take any type of action then there would be a transition from a before and an after, i.e. time would elapse. I.e. a god could not exist outside of time.
Logic is not something that is optional. Logic is simply a disciplined method of determining a truth. The alternative to logic is illogic. And if you want to say a that a god is not bound by logic then that simply leads to the conclusion that such a god is illogical, i.e. paradoxial and could not exist.
lightgigantic
04-07-08, 10:51 PM
JDAWG,
Logic is not something that is eligible to be bound or not. It makes no more sense for a god to call a circle a square than it does for a human. If an effect has a cause then the cause will occur first and that will be true for gods as well as people.
If a god is to take any type of action then there would be a transition from a before and an after, i.e. time would elapse. I.e. a god could not exist outside of time.
the difference between your two analogies (that of the circle and that of cause and effect) is that a "circle" is defined as something quite distinct from say a square (ie circle and square are mutually exclusive terms). It is not logically tenable to say that a square is a circle.
The notion of something existing outside of cause and effect is slightly different however, especially when the nature of cause and effect is said to be contingent on that something. Actually what you are arguing is that there is nothing beyond cause and effect except the nature of cause and effect. This is not an issue of logic but of your experience, knowledge and, most obviously, your values .... much like everything from a frog to albert einstein has experience, knowledge and values
Logic is not something that is optional. Logic is simply a disciplined method of determining a truth. The alternative to logic is illogic. And if you want to say a that a god is not bound by logic then that simply leads to the conclusion that such a god is illogical, i.e. paradoxial and could not exist.
To put it quite simply, god is not bound by our experience, knowledge or values, and especially not the illogic of god must conform to the extent of anyone else's experience, knowledge or values.
francois
04-08-08, 07:23 AM
This proof just shows that there's no Christian god as Christians describe him.
Jan Ardena
04-08-08, 07:47 AM
Jan,
Appears to have no relevance to the topic.
In one way you are right, but i'm curious. As the subject of your proof is God, from the biblical perspective, how is it you have failed to add to the claim of omniscience, spirit, as in pure. And his command over material nature.
Surely this aspect play a part in his being omniscient?
If you deny these aspects, then, is your enquiry really an honest one?
Jan.
Sorry Jan, but your your comments seem to be too cryptic. I really don't know what you are asking or where it would be relevant to the topic.
LG,
So are you arguing that an effect can come before a cause?
And are you agreeing that a god would have to be logically consistent?
lightgigantic
04-08-08, 06:01 PM
LG,
So are you arguing that an effect can come before a cause?
And are you agreeing that a god would have to be logically consistent?
I am saying that eternal relationships of contingency can over-ride the mechanism of cause and effect. IOW if the time factor (ie "cause and effect" factor) is accepted as an eternal potency that is contingent on god, there is no problems in logically understanding how god can be beyond issues of cause and effect (and is in fact controlling them).
God is logically consistent, but it often requires the proper foundation of knowledge to see that consistency. For instance if your foundational premise is that the laws of physics are the ultimate authority for determining reality, the logic that follows will be deeply dyed by this value-based claim.
wesmorris
04-09-08, 03:55 AM
God is not real if you don't think ideas are part of reality.
God is real if you think ideas are part of reality.
God is a powerful idea. 'believing it' offers intellectual or emotional utility in most minds. The idea is also a very verstatile personal and/or social tool. This may help to explain its persistence and virtual ubiquity.
I think assigning it the properties of an entity is simply the reflection of self into the idea. It's the normal manner in which humans have the capacity to relate to something, and as such - is completely rational. The 'truth' of any assertion cannot be physically evaluated and is as such IMO - irrelevant to all but the holder of the belief.
Invisible pink unicorns are not real if you don't think ideas are part of reality.
Invisible pink unicorns are real if you think ideas are part of reality.
:shrug:
wesmorris
04-09-08, 04:47 AM
true dat, do they provide emotionl or intellectual utility to most minds? if so, bring em on!
true dat, do they provide emotionl or intellectual utility to most minds? if so, bring em on!
I don't think that's the issue. The issue is that you say that, if ideas are part of reality, God exists. I think this is rather moot though.
The idea of God can exist, but that doesn't say anything about existence of the object God.
If I picture my car in my head, that idea exists separate from the actual car.
wesmorris
04-09-08, 04:57 AM
The existence of the object god is moot unless you believe in the object god, in which case it is moot unless you believe that those who don't believe should believe or else, which I should have said for the unbelievers too but was too slow witted.
I mean the non believer doesn't accept so then no problem, doesn't accept - game over unless you change status to 'considering acceptance' or 'you can't accept because it's stupid'.
If 'considering acceptance' or whatever, then what are the specific criteria for transition? If a physical test can be devised and passed, then ok - transition. Well the idea is I believe - necessarily untestable in that fashion. So a non-believer either really doesn't believe and therefore doesn't have to bother pondering the question or is stuck in a pergatory awaiting that which I personally construe is impossible, but hey knock yourselves out.
I mean the believer accepts so then no problem, accepts unless maybe crisis of faith, changing status to "considering non-belief' or 'you can't not believe you heathen'. A believer test the idea through faith, an intellectual and emotional grappliing with the idea I'd guess. Seems in some ways like a form of self-discipline. Blah blah blah.
So a believer believes, and a non-believer doesn't. Weird.
The in-betweens wait it out in purgatory for the impossible eh? Expecting physical proof of something I see as clearly untestable, but of course maybe I'm retarded.
wesmorris
04-09-08, 05:02 AM
I don't think that's the issue.
Well you're wrong then, well played. Hehe. Think about it man, for chrissake. Intellectual and emotional utility is everything about the issue.
The issue is that you say that, if ideas are part of reality, God exists. I think this is rather moot though.
God is an idea. If ideas are part of reality, then god is part of reality. God is real, game over.
The idea of God can exist, but that doesn't say anything about existence of the object God.
The existence of the object god cannot really be tested except through faith. Which renders the scenario I described in the preceding post regarding moot stuff.
If I picture my car in my head, that idea exists separate from the actual car.
Sure, but you can go wreck a car. You can't put your hands on god. It's an idea that has a basis in ideas. It's the meta-daddy.
The existence of the object god is moot unless you believe in the object god,
The existence of God is still moot if he doesn't objectively exist, whether you believe in him or not.
in which case it is moot unless you believe that those who don't believe should believe or else, which I should have said for the unbelievers too but was too slow witted.
I don't know what you mean with that.
Well you're wrong then, well played. Hehe. Think about it man, for chrissake. Intellectual and emotional utility is everything about the issue.
God is an idea. If ideas are part of reality, then god is part of reality. God is real, game over.
As an idea, not as an actual entity. Anything you can imagine can be real as an idea. Making up an object in your head doesn't mean the object exists.
The existence of the object god cannot really be tested except through faith. Which renders the scenario I described in the preceding post regarding moot stuff.
It cannot be tested period. Faith is no evidence.
Sure, but you can go wreck a car. You can't put your hands on god. It's an idea that has a basis in ideas. It's the meta-daddy.
Maybe I'm not getting what you mean, but that was exactly my point. Unless you mean to say that God doesn't objectively exist.
lightgigantic
04-09-08, 05:27 AM
God is not real if you don't think ideas are part of reality.
God is real if you think ideas are part of reality.God is a powerful idea. 'believing it' offers intellectual or emotional utility in most minds. The idea is also a very verstatile personal and/or social tool. This may help to explain its persistence and virtual ubiquity.
I think assigning it the properties of an entity is simply the reflection of self into the idea. It's the normal manner in which humans have the capacity to relate to something, and as such - is completely rational. The 'truth' of any assertion cannot be physically evaluated and is as such IMO - irrelevant to all but the holder of the belief.
for one who thinks that god is ultimately just an idea ("the idea that god is an idea"), I guess this makes sense
azizbey
04-09-08, 10:46 AM
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
my response looks too late after thousands of responses, but anyway...
yes God has knowledge of everything, past or future events. and just for that you think we should not have free will. i see no relation between two, whatsoever.
if you are interested in cosmology and possible 10 or 11 dimensions we know of (at least therotically) we can suggest that there may be more.
and what is future, by definition, anyway. it only applies to us, humans. you live in 4 dimensional life, and you draw your conclusion disregarding the rest of the dimensions?
for the sake of the argument, lets say you watch a football ame live, and you taped it. and watched it again. obviously you know the score, and every move of each player.
so does it mean players dont have free will?
just because God knows whats gonna happen at the end, doesnt mean you dont have free will, you know that well, my friend
you can argue that why God creates us when he knows that we will go to hell, but you cant argue that we dont have free will.
do you feel compelled for doing what you do?
there are many dimensions and, without looking at the issue from that perspective, you cant find the answer
Azizbey,
yes God has knowledge of everything, past or future events. That is what we mean by omniscience, yes.
and just for that you think we should not have free will. i see no relation between two, whatsoever.Then you don’t understand the issue yet.
if you are interested in cosmology and possible 10 or 11 dimensions we know of (at least therotically) we can suggest that there may be more.Dimensions are a mathematical concept with no limits. Don’t be fooled into thinking that such concepts could map to a reality. But it is irrelevant here.
just because God knows whats gonna happen at the end, doesnt mean you dont have free will, If God knows exactly every action you will take for your entire life a billion years before you are born then exactly what free will do you have in the matter? In such a scenario all your life will have been pre-determined long before you were born and you will be powerless to do anything different.
I.e. free-will and omniscience are mutually exclusive conditions.
Lg,
I am saying that eternal relationships of contingency can over-ride the mechanism of cause and effect. IOW if the time factor (ie "cause and effect" factor) is accepted as an eternal potency that is contingent on god, there is no problems in logically understanding how god can be beyond issues of cause and effect (and is in fact controlling them).I was hoping for an explanation that would clarify your point rather than a re-statement in increased ambiguity and further confusing phraseology.
After numerous re-reads I think that you have not answered the question. Can an effect precede a cause? Whether a god can control time or not does not overcome the necessary fixed relationship that a cause must precede its effect. Would you agree?
God is logically consistent, but it often requires the proper foundation of knowledge to see that consistency. For instance if your foundational premise is that the laws of physics are the ultimate authority for determining reality, the logic that follows will be deeply dyed by this value-based claim. That is a diversion from the context and the topic. The issue is that a god cannot create a paradox. For example either a light is on or off, it cannot be both on and off concurrently; and the countless similar binary mutually exclusive scenarios.
I agree that for many fact-based logical deductions or inductions special knowledge would be needed, but my point was for the generic deductive case and to refute the notion that a god can be “outside” of logic.
lightgigantic
04-09-08, 07:18 PM
Cris
“
I am saying that eternal relationships of contingency can over-ride the mechanism of cause and effect. IOW if the time factor (ie "cause and effect" factor) is accepted as an eternal potency that is contingent on god, there is no problems in logically understanding how god can be beyond issues of cause and effect (and is in fact controlling them).
”
I was hoping for an explanation that would clarify your point rather than a re-statement in increased ambiguity and further confusing phraseology.
After numerous re-reads I think that you have not answered the question. Can an effect precede a cause? Whether a god can control time or not does not overcome the necessary fixed relationship that a cause must precede its effect. Would you agree?
No I don't agree
Let me ask you - is there any logical reason why there cannot be a an issue that the nature of cause and effect is contingent on (it would have to obviously be an eternal one)? ..... sure you can say, "I have no experience of it", but that is an issue of experiential knowledge and not logic
“
God is logically consistent, but it often requires the proper foundation of knowledge to see that consistency. For instance if your foundational premise is that the laws of physics are the ultimate authority for determining reality, the logic that follows will be deeply dyed by this value-based claim.
”
That is a diversion from the context and the topic. The issue is that a god cannot create a paradox. For example either a light is on or off, it cannot be both on and off concurrently; and the countless similar binary mutually exclusive scenarios.
I agree that for many fact-based logical deductions or inductions special knowledge would be needed, but my point was for the generic deductive case and to refute the notion that a god can be “outside” of logic.
there is this statement discerning the position of god - highlighted the bits that are most relevant
SB 1.1.1 - ... ... He is directly and indirectly conscious of all manifestations, and He is independent because there is no other cause beyond Him. It is He only who first imparted the Vedic knowledge unto the heart of Brahmaji, the original living being. By Him even the great sages and demigods are placed into illusion, as one is bewildered by the illusory representations of water seen in fire, or land seen on water. Only because of Him do the material universes, temporarily manifested by the reactions of the three modes of nature, appear factual, although they are unreal. I therefore meditate upon Him, Lord Sri Krishna, who is eternally existent in the transcendental abode, which is forever free from the illusory representations of the material world. I meditate upon Him, for He is the Absolute Truth.
The basic gist is that a major distinction between us and god is that all of our (experiential) knowledge is re-presented to us. That is why we are apt to make mistakes (IOW our senses can easily deceive us, despite the most meticulous empirical precautions). God has scope not only for direct knowledge (meaning knowledge not subject to the fallibilities of empiricism) but also controlling how that knowledge is directed to others (hence the bit about even the greatest personalities in the universe being bewildered).
So to get back to your issue of logic, no god is not beyond the scope of logic, but he is way beyond your (or anyone elses) scope for knowledge. This means your standards of god's illogic (like existing outside of the medium of cause and effect because you don't know how anything can exist beyond it) are not valid.
wesmorris
04-10-08, 02:17 AM
for one who thinks that god is ultimately just an idea ("the idea that god is an idea"), I guess this makes sense
well, to say "just an idea" doesn't really do the notion of god justice, as in many ways it's a very special idea, mostly because of its power. i don't think that god is ultimately just an idea, but I feel I have authority to discuss the idea, whereas the object, if it is part of physical reality... seems far beyond my scope. So much so that I wouldn't venture to speak of it, as I could only fall far short of the mark. I personally - can't even detect it and readily conceed it far beyond the possibilities of my own comprehension. as such to me the object is irrelevant, but the idea is quite real and relevant to a lot of stuff.
azizbey
04-10-08, 06:54 AM
Azizbey,
That is what we mean by omniscience, yes.
Then you don’t understand the issue yet.
Dimensions are a mathematical concept with no limits. Don’t be fooled into thinking that such concepts could map to a reality. But it is irrelevant here.
If God knows exactly every action you will take for your entire life a billion years before you are born then exactly what free will do you have in the matter? In such a scenario all your life will have been pre-determined long before you were born and you will be powerless to do anything different.
I.e. free-will and omniscience are mutually exclusive conditions.
i completely understand the issue, much to your surprise
mathematical concepts can be well adapted here as well
your answer exists in another dimension , not in this miserable life
i ask again, did you feel like some force forced you to respond to my post?
you did it willingly
what a contradiction you have.
first you claim you dont have a free will because time concept (as we know it) dont apply to God, and then you write me an answer with your free will.
how pathetic does it get?
azizbey
04-10-08, 06:58 AM
Azizbey,
That is what we mean by omniscience, yes.
Then you don’t understand the issue yet.
Dimensions are a mathematical concept with no limits. Don’t be fooled into thinking that such concepts could map to a reality. But it is irrelevant here.
If God knows exactly every action you will take for your entire life a billion years before you are born then exactly what free will do you have in the matter? In such a scenario all your life will have been pre-determined long before you were born and you will be powerless to do anything different.
I.e. free-will and omniscience are mutually exclusive conditions.
Cris, i dont mean to disrespect you, but if I slap you in the face, you should not get mad at me, because I dont have free will, It is God's mistake, right?
azizbey
04-10-08, 07:11 AM
[QUOTE=Cris;1814029 If God knows exactly every action you will take for your entire life a billion years before you are born then exactly what free will do you have in the matter? In such a scenario all your life will have been pre-determined long before you were born and you will be powerless to do anything different.
I.e. free-will and omniscience are mutually exclusive conditions.[/QUOTE]
Cris, as I gave you the example, you tape the football game and watch it again, just becasue i know the score and moves of the players, do I have control over them? future is just a point in fabric of time, and to know future events and being in control of them are two different things.
best regards
Lg,
The issue is not about experiential knowledge, nor is it anything to do with empiricsm.
Can you present a meaningful scenrio where an effect can precede its cause?
Azizbey,
i completely understand the issue, much to your surprise
mathematical concepts can be well adapted here as well
your answer exists in another dimension , not in this miserable life
i ask again, did you feel like some force forced you to respond to my post?
you did it willingly
what a contradiction you have.
first you claim you dont have a free will because time concept (as we know it) dont apply to God, and then you write me an answer with your free will.
how pathetic does it get?You don’t appear close to understanding the issue yet. It has nothing to do with whether I believe free will exists or not. Neither would we be able to tell the difference whether it did or not. If our actions are predetermined then what we perceive as free will is simply our illusion – we would be just pre-programmed puppets.
Cris, i dont mean to disrespect you, but if I slap you in the face, you should not get mad at me, because I dont have free will, It is God's mistake, right?You’ve missed the point.
Cris, as I gave you the example, you tape the football game and watch it again, just becasue i know the score and moves of the players, do I have control over them? future is just a point in fabric of time, and to know future events and being in control of them are two different things.
best regardsYou are not there yet. Knowledge of the events is not the cause of the events, as I have said before they are not connected. But perfect knowledge of future events does mean those events must occur, otherwise the claimed knowledge would be false. I.e. the events are necessarily pre-determined. I make no attempt to explain the cause of how such events would be pre-determined.
Your tape analogy doesn’t work but try this one. Suppose you are given a tape of a game that will take place 1000 years from now. And now wait 1000 years, those players will do exactly as depicted on the tape since they will have no choice in the matter, their actions will have been predetermined. The very existence of the foreknowledge confirms that pre-determination has occurred not that the knowledge is a cause.
lightgigantic
04-10-08, 07:39 PM
Lg,
The issue is not about experiential knowledge, nor is it anything to do with empiricsm.
Can you present a meaningful scenrio where an effect can precede its cause?
Actually it is about experiential knowledge, since logical deductions firmly rest upon them (in the form of premises).
For instance this is a logical statement
P1 - all horses can fly
P2 - all pigs are horses
C - Therefore all pigs can fly
You can't contend the logic of that statement but you can contend the truth of it by inquiring who are the persons who have experience of horses flying or pigs being horses.
Similarly when you talk of god being illogical, you are simply talking about your limits of experiential knowledge. Or perhaps it is more polite to say that you work with dif