Logical Analysis Of The Existence Of God!

jesus came to bring that conflict and disagreement. The only way it could be resolved would be if we all go against what jesus wants. Oh and kindly don't limit conflict and disagreement to between jesus followers and non-jesus followers. Need I start bringing up all the different jesus following sects that can't even agree on the basics and have been exterminating each other since the myth was created? But that's what he wants, that's what he came for.. so I guess if you're a true follower you'll just keep having conflicts and disagreements instead of any kind of peace.

But that's only because your mind is dull, your eyes are closed and your ears have been stopped up. You listen and listen but don't understand it's all complete bollocks. It's a good way of describing a christian, not so much "peoples" attitudes towards them.

Sure, I'll work on it when you show any "proof" that jesus even existed.

No. When I use the term 'pick and mix' I refer to how a person extracts one specific thing, (i.e a rule), while ignoring the others. As an example someone telling everyone how important god's laws are and yet not even being circumcised, eating pork and doing all the things god ruled against while somehow trying to state he is righteous and follows god's laws.

Is there a biblical line where jesus says he did come to bring peace? Maybe he did somewhere and I just got distracted by all the annihilation and end of the world threats.

Well at least one christian who doesn't claim us as all moral-less scumbags. See, god and jesus ain't needed.

What I said was that's how things are. It's not a personal choice on my part, and nor did I imply that people should discriminate against the various sects of christianity let alone anyone else. But that is how humans work. When you are a representative of a company, religion, etc your behaviour can and does reflect negatively on everyone from that company, religion, etc.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, until the time when sin is removed from the Earth.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/10/1021_021021_christianrelicbox.html

It is the 'pick and mix' Christians who are prevelantly part of Christianty that has distorted and create a stereotype of all people bearing the name of Christ in your eyes. I can attest to not being 'pick and mix' and can give a small number of followers I know personally, who are true Christ followers. I know others, but not personally.

Matthew 10:
34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. 37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

You see he came right the wrong. Where our fathers and forefathers were wrong, he came to warn us to be skeptical of what we are taught by anyone else - which is going to cause division. Love blinds, and Jesus said this so that we trust in him first before anyone else. He said this to command us to rise up against wrong and not compromise Christ's teachings, no matter who we stand against. His teachings are going to split the world in two.

Here is a more precise interpretation of the scripture in question:
http://www.ccel.org/j/johnson_bw/pnt/PNT01-10.HTM

Yes, it is sad that my so-called brothers and sisters painted a bad picture of their Christianity and what it means to them, rather than taking the Word as the only authority.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Darkeyedbeauty said -'religious philosophers' don't really fit the definition of philosopher.
Yank agrees.

Well, by your definition, i.e., a SEEKER of truth, as opposed to a person with the answers, an anti-religious philosopher is also a contradiction.
But I'm sure there will be no rush to strike all non-agnostic philosophers from the philosophy textbooks.

Like a very informed person once said, "people don't want to know the truth, they just want someone to agree with them."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why wait?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/06/0618_030618_jesusbox.html

Better luck next time.

Also it seems you misunderstood what "proof" means.

And here you show that you're no different whatsoever, trying to claim to be and know other "true christ followers", when everyone claims that very same thing. Your version of what it is to be "true", is merely a different pick and mix to what they consider to be "true".

I notice you used "trust" in your wording instead of "love" which is what, given your last quote, he said. But wait.. you then say that "love blinds", while quoting jesus saying to love him more than anyone - which would lead to the highest level of blindness. I clearly am not worthy because I love my daughter and wife more than cloud beings and ancient jews, but frankly I find it sickening to think you love some ancient dead guy more than your own children all because an old book tells you to. You're obviously blind.. as you stated.

Precise? It's an opinion, nothing more.

 

God is God. You cannot compare your self to Him. God is not omniscient. God is not omnipotent. God is not omnipresent. From everlasting to everlasting God is God. You cannot add to Him neither can you subtract from Him. You may change but the God of gods is immutable.

 

*************
M*W: You made that very claim on the previous thread. You said, "Very simple! The proof of God is within me, in my christianity."

You're an idiot.

 

So, in other words, you can't explain how you god is supposed to exist, and ergo is a logical fallacy within itself...
Jesus H. Tittyfucking Tapdancing Christ on a Stick! You are thciker than the earth's crust, aren't you?
If you cannot prove that god exists, logically and sanely, then you cannot prove jack fucking shit.

 

A man on a cross, holy water, priests, rabis, the quaran. It all just doesn't look like a higher plane to me. I think a higher plane wouldn't be so mundane and superficial. A higher plane wouldn't have to write more than 300 pages as his holy book. I always thought a higher plane would be a little less superficial and materialistic but just plane spectacular...spiderman is more spectacular than many religion...and he is just a man

 

That's your opinion and it doesn't have anything to do with it's very meaning since as I've senses

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

you're mean.

 

*************
M*W: You don't know me, and neither do water or ellion. You think you know me from my posts, but you haven't read everything I've written. Selfishly, you've only read what I replied to you. I have no patience for xians and no compassion for them either. Until 9 million of your xian male cohorts have been sacrificed in the place of my 9 million sisters, mothers, aunts, grandmothers and cousins murdered by the Inquisition, my crusade will continue.

 

For what purpose should one have to know you? Are you unique or eccentric?

No. I don't even think what words to use when I respond to your post.

It's a waste of time to read baseless accusations/assumptions/opinions. Well, if you are an authority who has followers, maybe I will read your entire dissertations.

And what does xians mean? I don't belong to x-men, although I appreciated the movie director and its casts.

You said, you have no compassion but now you are showing hatred for xians (I think, you were mentioning about x-men). I remember people in that movie who happened to hate Professor X-men. By the way, what Inquisition were you reminiscing? If you are recounting about the "Papal Inquisition", go to that City-State and tell "their" father to resurrect your relatives.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Now there are 3 ways of explaining the existance of God, one has allready been used, and I myslef dont like that particular one. There is the famous kalaam cosmological argument, and just do a search and you'll find that. The other one i wrote down somewhere in these forum site. sO just check all my posts from a while ago and you'll find it.

 

what's wrong in reasoning out something that has plagued mankind since ages?

im talkin bout real perception ie. real sight through your own eyes...
i donn think you understood my point!
take a book on a table fur instance..
now u can see only that side of the book from which you face it...
and since god is present everywhere... he'd see the book frum all possible sides thus making the logical definition of "perception" irrelevant!

ok so you think sometimes because its soothing for you!
can you just tell me one of your thoughts which seems "just" sooothing for you involving no particullar reasoning?

first things first, as Richard Dawkins stated in one of his speeches "people will believe in books written thousands of years ago but will still turn a blind eye towards proven realities by intellectuals of today"
please donn get references frum the bible or any religious scripture fur that matter... its highly obsolete to mention em in a neo-intellectual discussion!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Arguments for the Existence of God
Craig’s Kalaam Cosmological Argument

The main argument

1. Either the universe had no beginning, or it just popped into existence, or it came into existence because it was caused by an eternal, uncaused being for which there is no further explanation.
2. The universe did not just pop into existence out of nothing.
3. The universe had a beginning.
4. So, the universe came into existence because it was caused by an eternal, uncaused being for which there is no further explanation. (1-3)
5. If the universe came into existence because it was caused by an eternal, uncaused being for which there isno further explanation, then (something quite like) God exists.
6. So, (something quite like) God exists. (4,5)

and how do u append to the creation of god?
did he just pop out of nothing... no there has to be something that created it and we call him as.......?

 

Yank, as the argument states, "or it came into existence because it was caused by an eternal, uncaused being for which there is no further explanation."

I repeat two things: "Eternal," and "for which there is no further explanation."

What the argument is pushing is that there HAS to be something that is uncaused, and therefore eternal and needs no explanation. Obviously, the arguer doesn't believe that the universe is that thing ("The universe had a beginning."), therefore there must be something else. Whatever else that something is, it must be uncaused, and needing no explanation. THAT, OR the universe was ULTIMATELY created by an uncaused cause. By this I mean that there may have been a chain of "creators," so to speak, which ultimately began from an uncaused cause. However, at this point, there is no need to bring in that chain (and that argument has flaws, which I won't get into right now).

Basically, this initial cause, were we to call it God, was not created, nor did it pop out of nothing. Quite simply, it has always been. Furthermore, were we to call this God, such that it contained those attributes you stated at the beginning of this thread, which includes omnipresence, this works even better. This is because Omnipresence doesn't simply mean "exists everywhere." A more full meaning of the term would be "simultaneously existing in all places, and simultaneously existing at all points in time." This is what is called the Eternal Present.

Hence, there can be no "prior" to such a being, since it exists in all time frames.

 

ok u tell me one thing...
how can the arguer assume that there is "something else" which is uncaused and needs no explanation??
on the same basis i can assume that the universe itself is uncaused...
where are we going with this?
but why would he want to introduce a divine being as the creator of the universe? because we have no answer to "who created he universe?"
so religious freaks always come up with stupid theories just to fill in where science fails to answer!

woa there! omnipresence doesnt imply existing in all time frames...
it literally means existing everywhere at once!
omni - all, everywhere & not all time!

i think you need to check on a dictionary!

 

The formulation of the uncaused cause argument doesn't come from religion, but rather philosophy. The answer to your question has to do with the idea of finity versus infinity. Logically, if we say that the universe is finite, then it cannot be an uncaused reality. However, if we say that the universe is infinite we run into logical inconsistencies (actually infinite, that is. read Aristotle's treatment of Actual Infinities and Potential Infinities... the universe could be potentially infinite but not actually infinite). Hence, that the universe cannot be actually infinite implies that it has temporal boundaries (ie, beginning). So, because the universe is finite, and not infinite, with beginning, a cause, it cannot be an uncaused reality, denoting the necessity of a necessary being.

As for the term, omnipresent. Omni comes from Latin, you're right, and you're also right that it means all. Present has two meanings in English. It can mean the moment in time accociated with the immediately occurring. It can also mean that you are in a specific place relative to something else (ie, in his presence, in my presence. I am present at the meeting, etc...), and usually references placement at a particular time. Omnipresence then, naturally, refers both to all times, as well as all places relative to all other places, referenced in all times.

 

interesting stuff...
even i believe that the universe isn't infinite..
big bang comes to the rescue...
and its obvious something caused the big bang but why term the cause as god?

 

Why not?

How could something come from nothing? Why would "it" (nothing) explode? What could possibly "cause" it when there is "nothing"?

 

well, the big bang theory states that the universe aint infinite...
it had a start!

thats wat everyone is tryin to find out!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!