Evidence in Scripture disproving god once and for all

Originally posted by Supercertari
But there is no religion GW, it's all a fantasy, according to you, now you are willing to claim it had the power to make apes into massed murderers. Pretty powerful nothing then. Yeah they may have dressed it up, but that doesn't represent Christianity the way you want it to, it represents evil and misdirection.

I partially agree with you here. It was evil and they did dress it up, because it manipulates people. However religion, being the fantasy, does have power. It's like the symbol, by itself, it has no power but people give it that power- like fiat currencies.

I don;t know, it hasn;t been determined yet, because we do hold people to account according to standards higher than mere observation of what happens in nature. Again, like I said to noob, when we strip away that higher authority good luck finding a safe place to hide.

We all have morals and principles, this is the realm of the moral imperative- a product of Nature inc.

Nature can conspire? An inanimate system of laws and constants conspired to kill those millions of people? You're living in a fantasy land.

It's your fantasy land GW, not one I subscribe to. There choices were determined by nature, the instinct to war and all the clothing put on the ape by previous generations.

No it is not my fantasy land, I never ever said anything that even comes close to saying that nature "an inanimate system" can conspire, that is an assertion that you tried to stick to my representation of determinism. Seems your still not reading posts properly.

An inanimate system of laws and constants conspired to kill those millions of people.

This is NOT determinism, just your understanding of it. Nature cannot conspire.

\No misdirection at all. I'm loking for consistency in what you and your peers say. In recent pages there hasn't been much as you've jumped on the "The Nazis were Christians" campaign.

You're saying they weren't? Not even Hitler? The were christians but I'm not saying that all christians are Nazis. You need to chilax, man.

[edit on 6/12/2008 by Good Wolf]

LOL everybody's still going at it. I haven't read most pages in this thread so I don't know what's going on lol.

Anyway...

Originally posted by Supercertari
But there is no religion GW, it's all a fantasy, according to you, now you are willing to claim it had the power to make apes into massed murderers. Pretty powerful nothing then. Yeah they may have dressed it up, but that doesn't represent Christianity the way you want it to, it represents evil and misdirection.

Yes it does represent Christianity. It may not be what Jesus taught, but that is what we see in Christianity. Christianity is responsible for Inquisitions, burning of witches at stakes, destroying cultures and religions, the Holy War, killing of pagans, and many more.

Jesus said that you should know them by their fruits. Indeed.

I don;t know, it hasn;t been determined yet, because we do hold people to account according to standards higher than mere observation of what happens in nature. Again, like I said to noob, when we strip away that higher authority good luck finding a safe place to hide.

We humans have inner knowledge of morality. We can figure out what is right and wrong without resorting to religion or "higher authority." Whether this is from higher power or higher law is still in debate.

The Greek philosophers have formulated many moral and ethic laws on their own without reading the Bible. What worries me is that many Christians say that they wouldn't be moral without the fear of their god.

It's strange that you said that without higher authority, we would have no place to hide. People who were not Christians back then didn't have a place to hide. They were hunted down and branded as heretics and tortured and murdered. Some "higher authority" you have as your god.

Who's living in a fantasy land?

Originally posted by Deaf Alien

...Christianity is responsible for Inquisitions, burning of witches at stakes, destroying cultures and religions, the Holy War, killing of pagans, and many more.

...Who's living in a fantasy land?

That would be you, since

A. there were not any wholesale witch burnings in medieval times (that is an urban myth), and

B.The Encyclopedia of Warfare, a peer-reviewed compendium of all of the wars, crusades, police actions, etc. known to historians since 2480 BCE, notes that only 7% of all of those said wars, battles, skirmishes, etc. had ANY religious element at all, and that if we remove ISLAM from the equasion the number drops to 3% - that's 3% for Christianity, Judaism, Jainism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucionism, Aztec Mysticism, Mormonism, Cargo cults, Jehovah's Witnesses, Hale-Bopp-ism, etc. combined.

Oh, now this is not to say religion in general or even Christianity has no blood on its hands - but in the cases of Christianity and Judaism it comes in self defense, contrary to half-@55ed pseudohistories. (Would you care to debate the cause of the Inquisition? Hmmm? Pretty please?)

[edit on 6-12-2008 by papabryant]

reply to post by papabryant


Yeah, obviously there are times when it is justified to break a commandment, I certainly do recall Jesus going off and killing all the people who were trying to crucify him.

There is no justification for breaking the commandments. Jesus tells you not to fear those who have no power after death.

A bit odd that from this teaching, we have a church who uses peoples fears as a way of getting them to break commandments because it is "justified" in their "defense".



[edit on 6-12-2008 by badmedia]

Originally posted by Supercertari
Well according to your standards these justifications are nonsense anyway, its just the acting out of natural instincts.

really? becuase they dont fit the natural process

Religion has nothing to do with it at all, according to your standards: putting justifications on a conflict is like putting clothes on a primate just another way of dressing up natural urges and instincts.

wrong again but nice try at ignoring what i say to mean what ytou want

there are natural causes for conflict ill cover them below, religeously motivated ones are not of natural motivation, but use our natural instinct to carry them out

You use those principles to justify other behaviours why not this one? Does noob perhaps have some morality which is not entirely based on observations in nature and science?

all morality is based on nature thats why the same basic rules are found in all cultures

quote] Oh but I do get worked up about it, and you (evidently) do too. Why do you though, that's the question. Nature says war is ok among other primates, why not among humans? It has societal advantages among primates etc. etc. it is a natural process, even amongst us, but the motivations arnt of a natural origin when religeously motivated

it happens its not a great thing but its a natural thing, nature is predominantley impartial, its our social behaviour of group animals that give us morality it prevents the group imploding

Show me "nice"? What is this "nice" you speak of? It seems to be another of those spaghetti monsters. Theres the law of nature and the physical laws of the universe, there's nothing else except people's fantasies. HIV, STIs, why prevent them, aren't they natures way of population control?

no they are natures way of a virus continuing its genetic lineage,

they are not there to limit population, they are there and attempt to continue thiers

Clothes on an ape again. We don't have to have promiscuity then? There is a sufficient ratio of male to female, we can cope with monogamy. Why do you want us to cope with peace but not monogamy - whats your standard here noob?

manogomy isnt a natural instinct of people, which is why females are more likley to become impregnated by others rather then here main partner, why she is more likley to orgasm during sex with one who isnt her main partner to enourage a repeat encounter with other males

males have similar drives, thats why we spend so much time looking at other women and flirt to out us in a position to mate with them

its external social constraints we have ourselves built that stop us(some times) carry out these biological functions

read a book called sperm wars its facinating, most of those the sperm count classes as deformed perfom a function other then imprgnation, they are designed to fit off other sperm allowing thier genetics to be the winner and fertalise the egg

no clothes on a chimp here sorry, maybe a trip to london zoo for that, do they still have chimps tea parties?

our usual justification is if it happens in nature and has societal advantages then its ok. Well "lebensraum" (a greater motivation that Got for the Nazis) was societally advantageous for the Germans.

natural function to gain territory and resources yes

but justified by religeon to mass recruit for the cause, and hitlers motivation was religeous belief coupled with a paln to gain resources and territory and sold to the masses as both a natural and un-nantural reasoning it was gods will(they wanted thier very own god given version of isreal)

The others were weak, weren't fit enough to defend themselves from the master race. It's your law of nature noob. You tell us what clothes you are going to put on the ape and why?

hahaha still no clothes on apes

why? becasue it was motivated by none natural belief coupled with natural desires

with the unnatural motivation bieng the greater for the cruelty shown, by natural response they would have just killed or driven off the rivals

rounding them up and putting them in conditions to prove to the german guards they were below human and ungodly and them killing them off a bit at a time is not a natural response

And, as well you know, I don't subscribe to any of this, but its your standard, your governing inspiration,

no its your strawman of a natural thing so you can try and denounce it to save accepting that your holy book and saviour were used to promote so much harm and cruelty

why here are you twisting your own principles and observations for "nice" and "coping" - because it suits you to portray Christianity as a force for evil?

christianity in its self is not evil, but it is used by man to promote and commit acts not found in nature

Well of course it is, but in doing so you are contradicting your own principles you are being glaringly inconsistent.

im contradicting your false and twisted disincongruant view of it but not my own

The natural consequence of your law of nature and evolution etc. is to strip away the clothes from your ape, where are you going to hide and find "niceness" when you do noob?

social hierachy group dynamics mutual survivability the same place yours comes from, it was just co-opted and twisted to become a thing of the bible and religeon

causes for group based conflict

natural = anything found and driven by nature
unnatural = anything not of the above driven by belief and faith

border protection, to protect territory and resources found withint = natural(see any border of a country)

border disputes, any time opposing groups meet on said broders and either aggresive posture for dominance or use physical aggresion to protect said borders = natural(india pakistan)

cross border invasion, crossing into oppositional territory to claim territory or make use of resources found withint in it, or weaken you opponent = natural (see india pakistan, isreal palestine where they kill or detain possible enemy fighters to weaken the group, even illegal imgration is a form of this )

labeling part of your species ungodly, labeling them the killer of jesus or bieng ungodly and below human and setting out to destroy them even if they are in none bordering areas = unnatural

claiming territory not bordering your own, becasue of a book and belief then traveling large distances to conquer this territory and add it to your own = unnatural

Only in the steady and constant application of force lies the very first prerequisite for success. This persistence, however, can always and only arise from a definite spiritual conviction. Any violence which does not spring from a firm, spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain. It lacks the stability which can only rest in a fanatical outlook.

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 5

I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 2

What we have to fight for is the necessary security for the existence and increase of our race and people, the subsistence of its children and the maintenance of our racial stock unmixed, the freedom and independence of the Fatherland; so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the Creator.

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 8

notice there a natural process bieng manipulated and justified by religeous belief

Thus inwardly armed with confidence in God and the unshakable stupidity of the voting citizenry, the politicians can begin the fight for the 'remaking' of the Reich as they call it.

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 1

manipulation to promote gods wishes again

The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will.

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 10

gods will again

I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work.

- Adolf Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936

A state that once again rules in God's name can count not only on our applause but also on enthusiastic and active cooperation from the church. With joy and thanks we see how this new state rejects blasphemy, attacks immorality, promotes discipline and order with a firm hand, demands awe before God, works to keep marriage sacred and our youth spiritually instructed, brings honor back to fathers of families, ensures that love of people and fatherland is no longer mocked, but burns in a thousand hearts. ...We can only plead with our fellow worshipers to do an they can to help these new productive forces in our land reach a complete and unimpeded victory.

- Easter Sunday Blessing from Protestant Pastors in Bavaria, April 16, 1933

they think its gods will too and should do all they can to help god out

The word "German" is God's Word! Whosoever understands this is released from all theological conflicts. This is German: return home to Germany and leave behind egoism and your feelings of abandonment. ...Christ has come to us through the person of Adolf Hitler. ...Hitler has taken root in us; through his strength, through his honesty, his faith and his idealism we have found our way to paradise.

- Kirchenrat Leutheusser, addressing German Christians in Saalfeld, August 30, 1933

are you sure it wasnt religeously motivation using natural processes?

Originally posted by Supercertari

But there is no religion GW, it's all a fantasy, according to you, now you are willing to claim it had the power to make apes into massed murderers. Pretty powerful nothing then.

yes faith is a pretty powerful nothing

faith in somthing drives men to do crazy crazy things

god doesnt need to exist they only need to think he does and that its his will his desires to go aout and commit lunacy

Yeah they may have dressed it up, but that doesn't represent Christianity the way you want it to, it represents evil and misdirection.

no it doesnt represent christianity the way you want it to be seen

but they have at the core of it the same faith the same belief the same book

it may not be your kind of christianity but it is still christianity

I don;t know, it hasn;t been determined yet, because we do hold people to account according to standards higher than mere observation of what happens in nature.

we use what is found in nature and further reinforce it with our own built social structure that is a copied from nature in construct we just make extra social laws to suplement the ones we already have

Again, like I said to noob, when we strip away that higher authority good luck finding a safe place to hide.

if we strip away humans good luck finding a place to hide?

who or what would i be hiding from?

No misdirection at all. I'm loking for consistency in what you and your peers say. In recent pages there hasn't been much as you've jumped on the "The Nazis were Christians" campaign.

becasue they were ^_^

the consitency is in natural process's being used for natural results, not using natural processes for results of religeon by religeon with a side benefit of natural results

reply to post by papabryant

there were not any wholesale witch burnings in medieval times (that is an urban myth)

Eh? Urban myth you say? Please provide links. This is the first time I have ever heard of this and I'm pretty sure for many others.

The Encyclopedia of Warfare, a peer-reviewed compendium of all of the wars, crusades, police actions, etc. known to historians since 2480 BCE, notes that only 7% of all of those said wars, battles, skirmishes, etc. had ANY religious element at all, and that if we remove ISLAM from the equasion the number drops to 3% - that's 3% for Christianity, Judaism, Jainism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucionism, Aztec Mysticism, Mormonism, Cargo cults, Jehovah's Witnesses, Hale-Bopp-ism, etc. combined.

We are not talking about the other wars and religions. We are talking about Christianity itself.

but in the cases of Christianity and Judaism it comes in self defense

HAHA! I'm not even going to comment on that one. You are the one living in a fantasy land. Okay, one small comment. Read OT sometimes.

Would you care to debate the cause of the Inquisition? Hmmm? Pretty please?

Huh? Religion? Christianity? Roman Catholic Church?

Originally posted by badmedia
reply to post by papabryant

 

Yeah, obviously there are times when it is justified to break a commandment, I certainly do recall Jesus going off and killing all the people who were trying to crucify him.

There is no justification for breaking the commandments. Jesus tells you not to fear those who have no power after death.

A bit odd that from this teaching, we have a church who uses peoples fears as a way of getting them to break commandments because it is "justified" in their "defense".



[edit on 6-12-2008 by badmedia]

Boy did you misread things...

Did Jesus not tell Peter to buy a sword for self-protection? Jesus himself used bullrushes to drive out the moneychangers - that is a pretty violent act. An overly pacifist reading of scripture will lead to the mistake of saying Jesus wanted us to be a doormat for the world.

Avoid conflict, if possible? Yes, Jesus wanted us to do that.

Assert our rights and dignity in non-violent manner? That is what it meant to "turn the other cheek", since it was a Jewish insult to be slapped with the back of the hand TWICE, and turning the other cheek meant they had to use the palm to administer the last slap - turning the situation around in a way so that your opponent seemed out of control, thus preserving your dignity without escalating it to other forms of violence like swordplay.

But when all efforts at resolving a conflict peacefully have been played out and your opponent is going to attack you, you have the right to defend yourself, your family and property. YOU are the strongman of your house, and those who would rob you of your life and property, you are allowed to apprehend them using force if necessary, not fearing the outcome because God will ensure justice is done, either here or in the life to come. The onus is on you, to know that you tried every means at avoiding violence - if you didn't, THEN you've broken the commandment, and the sin is on you.

Originally posted by papabryant


That would be you, since

A. there were not any wholesale witch burnings in medieval times (that is an urban myth), and

he is right the figure has been drastically increased for that time period and many who were killed wernt burned

but many were tortured, expelled from thier communit,y given finaincial or church penance or any varinat combination of the above and this figur is more like the inflated death rates

the fact these practices still carry on to this day in many parts of sub-sahran sfrica in the name of christianity, where 5-6 children are branded witches by christian priests and many of them are tortured and killed in one country alone ( "nig"and cant put the rest as the swear filter blocks it)

look for a documentary called "saving africa's witch children" to get a small understanding of just how widespread and heinous this is

Oh, now this is not to say religion in general or even Christianity has no blood on its hands - but in the cases of Christianity and Judaism it comes in self defense, contrary to half-@55ed pseudohistories. (Would you care to debate the cause of the Inquisition? Hmmm? Pretty please?)

take out the police actions and stick to wars and skirmishes

(would that be the one written by Adrian Gilbert? or am i thinking of the wrong book?)

how many used religeon to promote it?, gain support inside and outside thier borders? how many used religeon to recruit for it? religeon may not play a direct role, but they often pop up in a supporting role

im guessing the figure just went up a lot

even the spanish armada had religeous influence to support it, bringing catholisism back to the godless protestants of england, is that listed as unreligeously motivated?

can you also check if ALL mayan battles were flagged, the method of warfare to capture live prisoners for religeous sacrifice makes all of them religeous in some nature



[edit on 6/12/08 by noobfun]

Originally posted by badmedia
The only thing you will take as proof is in the form of the external and what the senses can provide for you. However the connection to god is internal, not external and that is where you can see god.

How convenient .

Originally posted by badmedia
If you keep look in the external, you aren't going to find god.

I've found this out .

Originally posted by badmedia
There are no logical arguments against god, only ignorance which takes our own unique and limited perspective as being representative of all which there is to perceive.

There are MANY logical arguments against God .
You, like many others I've seen, say that our limited perspective and ignorance make us incapable of questioning such a being. This is of course absurd. Who, then, made our minds so limited? Who made us need physical evidence to verify something? And why? Why would God choose to make our minds so limited, as in doing so, he would have to know that he would be sending many people to Hell in the process. Why is it a 'sin' to be how we were made? Isn't it a logical contradiction that the creator should torture his creation for being how he made them? Should he not judge himself as any creator would, and then commit to do better the next time? Why would God not reveal himself? Why is it that the only 'proof' you can have of God is based on an internal feeling which is far more fallible than logic? Why would an infinite and 'complete' being create anything? He should have no needs or wants.
There are many more questions which I'm sure you would never even think to explore. The more we learn about the nature of our Universe, the less likely any god becomes. Evolution can be made to fit into some people version of Christianity, but if looking at it logically, it would deminish the only 'real' argument that Christians once had - that we are so complex that we need a designer, and thus would lower the probability of God's existence. Many scientists now are leaning towards parallel universes. If parallel universes exist, then in one universe you are an atheist, and in this universe you are a Christian, so how then would God judge you? This would seem to drastically lower God's probability of existence. The Big Bang and other similar theories likewise lower the probability of God's existence.

Do you really consider your fallible emotions to be worth more than the logical outcomes of many of the worlds most intellegent men and women?

Originally posted by badmedia
Where does Jesus ever say this to be true? Never. I believe the words of Jesus to be the word of god. Not the entire bible which was written by men.

Jesus never says 'that guy in the torah is not God, my father, and he did not create those absurd and cruel laws'. So because he didn't say that, we can assume that they were on the same page of who God is. Since this is the case, let's take a look at the Old Testament God as compared to the New Testament God, or if you like, Jesus' version of God. It doesn't take much to see that the two are as different as night and day...

Originally posted by badmedia
I would say if god is omnipotent, then why would he be limited to just a book when you can speak directly to him? It is not just about having the "word" it's about understanding. They had the commandments before Jesus, Jesus brought understanding of it. It's not just about memory, it's about understanding. Stuff that is actually useful.

Because we cannot understand if we do not know. And we do not know unless we have something physical to let us know. This is how God created us, right ? Do people in eastern countries have this 'understanding'? No, because they do not have the book.
But even so, I'll do you one better.
If God is omnipotent, then why would he be limited to a fallible human emotion or internal feeling? Why not show himself? Why not have a concrete method of communication or understanding?

Originally posted by badmedia
If you can see the contridictions in the bible, why must you throw it all away, or accept it all if you have the wisdom to decide for yourself what is true and what is not.

Did I ever say that? I accept some of the verses which I know to be true. Some of the things that Jesus said. But in what way is it wise to take a 2000 year old book at it's word concerning miracles and the supernatural? If I did so, then I myself would not be consistent for not accepting the myth of Hercules...

[edit on 6-12-2008 by TruthParadox]

Originally posted by papabryant
Oh, now this is not to say religion in general or even Christianity has no blood on its hands - but in the cases of Christianity and Judaism it comes in self defense, contrary to half-@55ed pseudohistories. (Would you care to debate the cause of the Inquisition? Hmmm? Pretty please?)

Woah! Hold on there sparky!
Anyone who followed the Old Testament laws thousands of years ago would be responsible for blood shed.
Would you kill your own child for disobeying?
Would you kill a women who is being raped simply because she doesn't cry out loud enough?
Would you destroy a town for not holding your belief of God and then take the women for yourself? (yes, the Bible actually says this, I am not joking, though I wish I were...)

How many people followed these laws?
Well that's really irrelevant, isn't it?
The fact is that these laws exist, and that death and destruction is commanded in God's name...

Would you like to know how many Americans would be left standing if these laws were followed today? Not very many. If you go through all the laws, many of us would have been slain by now. Mainly being disobedient or commiting adultry. All the gays would also be destroyed. Oh, and atheists or anyone of any faith not of God. Oh, and rape victims would have to marry their attackers - how nice...

What a lovely world we would live in if we ignored our conscience and did what God commanded.

Originally posted by TruthParadox

There are MANY logical arguments against God

.

We also know that the universe does not always operate in the logical way we assume it should. i.e. quantum particles operating like waves, effecting patterns of potentiality but when observed acting within only one aspect of the potential......huh! What does this mean, that logic is great for observing things(oh yeah I saw it or didn't see it so there for it is the logical outcome that i saw it or didn't see it) but does not rule out the potential for another out come.

You, like many others I've seen, say that our limited perspective and ignorance make us incapable of questioning such a being. This is of course absurd

.
We know our knowledge is limited, we know our perception is limited, we know our tools for investigating the universe are limited, that our understanding of the results of these investigations are limited, that are conclusions are limited. I agree with you that it is absurd to say we are incapable of questioning the belief in God. It is plainly obvious we can. We are capable of questioning the Universe and God(or what ever form you apply), but are we capable enough for an answer, a result, a conclusion? The obvious answer to me, is no. It is absurd to answer yes. As answering yes infers complete understanding and knowledge.

Who made us need physical evidence to verify something?

Are you speaking for yourself here, I assume you are. It is quiet evident that the vast majority of people who believe in GOD, do so without any "real evidence"(as defined by the limited view of empirical science). That is why we have the word Faith.

And why? Why would God choose to make our minds so limited, as in doing so, he would have to know that he would be sending many people to Hell in the process.

What if we limit ourselves. As the OP uses the Bible to prove God must not exist the way the Bible describes, the Op limits the way in which God is perceived. The bible is obvious as a factor in our reality, but here we are arguing about its validity(with the potential to limit that validity) as a source of knowledge relating to GOD. For you either accept the bible as a source for knowing GOD and Perceiving GOD or you do not. Perhaps only using science is to limit yourself. Perhaps only using Religion is limiting. As for knowing who GOD intends to send to Hell, well, those who choose to limit their knowledge of GOD would put themselves there due to their own free will. I mean that would be the logical result of ignoring knowledge by describing it as a belief or lack thereof. But what the hey.

Why is it a 'sin' to be how we were made? Isn't it a logical contradiction that the creator should torture his creation for being how he made them?

You may need to be clearer. Are you saying that you have free will or we do not. You were "made" physically. But we are also conscious beings. That is what makes us different to other "made" things, like Rocks(weather they be too heavy for god or not....he-he). Unless you attribute consciousness to rocks.
Also, where is the contradiction? It is only in your scenario because you do not believe in GOD. Because you do not understand GOD the way others DO. Because you have incomplete knowledge, or have limited the way you can know or perceive GOD.
Where are you tortured. I fail to see the element of torture here. Perhaps it is of an intellectual form due to assertions getting tormented by the multitude of questions arising from a lack of knowledge, understanding and reason. But Believers and Non-believers alike go through processes like this. Having ones faith tested, questioning ones beliefs, asserting your own on a forum and having a reply posted that questions the foundations of your paradigm.

Should he not judge himself as any creator would

Well if we go by the OP, GODS omnipotence and Omniscience would make it impossible for him to judge himself. You would need another perspective to judge yourself and as god is everywhere at all times, knowing everything, how to you have that kind of introspection to judge that vastness. How do you judge infinity. It is incomprehensible to us...oops there we go again, imagine GOD being incomprehensible.

, and then commit to do better the next time? Why would God not reveal himself?

Is this about you again.
I have read many accounts of GOD revealing himself in many different ways, any theist or atheist can find these in a wide variety of formats. Personal testimonies, biblical references, miracles, life itself, apparently he also sent his SON down as a sales representative from his marketing and PR division he-he. But some people(not pointing fingers) refuse to accept these accounts. Your choice.

There are many more questions which I'm sure you would never even think to explore.

Why would you need to explore them if you believe in GOD, accepting that his knowledge and power are infinite. And that due to that fact, we cannot comprehend the infinite, we cannot comprehend all the reasons as to the WHY questions you mention.

If parallel universes exist, then in one universe you are an atheist, and in this universe you are a Christian, so how then would God judge you?

If, If, If. What are you now. Perhaps your consciousness is the mechanism of observation and so defines the one reality out of the possible, excluding all other possible outcomes at the nexus of observation that then streams reality as we experience it. No need for what you might be, just what you are! What you choose. In this case, someone who does not believe in GOD.

This would seem to drastically lower God's probability of existence. The Big Bang and other similar theories likewise lower the probability of God's existence.

Only due to the introduction of the IF. The big bang actually argues for GOD point of creation.
Quantum physics is suggesting an interconnectedness of all things, and that things can co-exist at different location simultaneously, that particles act with all possible outcomes, but definitively when observed. These can all argue for GODs omnipotent existence.

Do you really consider your fallible emotions to be worth more than the logical outcomes of many of the worlds most intelligent men and women?

You raise a valid point in arguing against emotions. As some argue we are slaves to emotions and there effects on us via peptides, read Candice Pert for more extremely interesting information. But last time I checked allot of the most gifted intellects often defer as do not, to a greater Power. Weather you accept the Bible as the Definitive account for that greater power is up to you. Einstein, I wonder what he thought, geez I would have loved to see Einstein and Dawkins lock horns.

If God is omnipotent, then why would he be limited to a fallible human emotion or internal feeling? Why not show himself? Why not have a concrete method of communication or understanding?

What if we are that method? We are conscious matter? A macro system of incalculable actions and reactions on sub-atomic, atomic, molecular, chemical, cellular, and biological level that culminate in the experiencing of our existence. To answer that we are so because it JUST is, is the absurdest answer you could conclude, especially in the absence of all knowledge and wisdom. That is why GOD works for people. Do we maintain a belief in GOD only from the Bible? Can we Ignore the question of GOD by simply dismissing the Bible?

Perhaps its time to remember that 2000 years ago people described a system of knowledge that we are only just scrapping the surface of. Quantum Physics via Noetic Sciences are starting to integrate the spiritual consciousness into their paradigm. And with that GOD meets Science. New paradigm, New Thoughts. New beliefs

[edit on 6-12-2008 by atlasastro]

Originally posted by atlasastro
We also know that the universe does not always operate in the logical way

True, but we should use what we do have. To do otherwise would be illogical.

Originally posted by atlasastro
We know our knowledge is limited, we know our perception is limited, we know our tools for investigating the universe are limited, that our understanding of the results of these investigations are limited, that are conclusions are limited. I agree with you that it is absurd to say we are incapable of questioning the belief in God. It is plainly obvious we can. We are capable of questioning the Universe and God(or what ever form you apply), but are we capable enough for an answer, a result, a conclusion? The obvious answer to me, is no. It is absurd to answer yes. As answering yes infers complete understanding and knowledge.

Our knowledge is limited, however the knowledge that we do have shows God's probability of existence to be extremely low. Also, who chose to make our knowledge limited and why?

Originally posted by atlasastro
Are you speaking for yourself here, I assume you are. It is quiet evident that the vast majority of people who believe in GOD, do so without any "real evidence"(as defined by the limited view of empirical science). That is why we have the word Faith.

But my point is that why would God create us to determine things through a physical medium and then ask us to take him on faith.

Originally posted by atlasastro
What if we limit ourselves. As the OP uses the Bible to prove God must not exist the way the Bible describes, the Op limits the way in which God is perceived.

I was refering to the argument that our minds are too feeble to understand God, and so we should not question him. Why would he choose to make our minds feeble? To test our faith? If he tests our faith then that would prove that he has little faith in us. It would also contradict him being omniscient.

Originally posted by atlasastro
You may need to be clearer. Are you saying that you have free will or we do not. You were "made" physically. But we are also conscious beings.

God made Adam knowing that how he made him, Adam would sin. He could have made Adam with a different method of thinking. He could have taken the snake away from the garden. The way it's set up, there could be only one outcome. That was God's choice. How is it Adam's fault that he acted in the way God made him?

Originally posted by atlasastro
Also, where is the contradiction? It is only in your scenario because you do not believe in GOD. Because you do not understand GOD the way others DO. Because you have incomplete knowledge, or have limited the way you can know or perceive GOD.

The contradiction is that a being of infinate knowledge and power would punish his creation for being how he created them to be. The contradiction is plain and obvious for all to see yet many people choose to ignore it.

Originally posted by atlasastro
Where are you tortured. I fail to see the element of torture here.

I'm refering to Hell.

Originally posted by atlasastro
Well if we go by the OP, GODS omnipotence and Omniscience would make it impossible for him to judge himself.

His omnipotence and omniscience would make it illogical to judge anyone, as everything would be his will. Just think about what it would imply to be all knowing and all powerful...

Originally posted by atlasastro
Is this about you again.
I have read many accounts of GOD revealing himself in many different ways, any theist or atheist can find these in a wide variety of formats.

You can find visions of pink elephants in a wide variety of formats as well.
I should think that an omnipotent God would have no problem in arranging something more than a 'personal experience'. If you must believe before you can see, then I suppose that verifies what pshychologists say, however, it holds no weight in Christianity or Universal truth...

Originally posted by atlasastro

There are many more questions which I'm sure you would never even think to explore.

Why would you need to explore them if you believe in GOD, accepting that his knowledge and power are infinite. And that due to that fact, we cannot comprehend the infinite, we cannot comprehend all the reasons as to the WHY questions you mention.

But the very fact that he created humans to ask the why question would defer the responsibility of belief off our shoulders. Why would anyone create something which cannot understand him and therefor questions him? And if so, would that person who doesn't understand be worthy of eternal torment? Is it not the makers fault and responsibility?
Just think about it for 1 minute...

Originally posted by atlasastro

If parallel universes exist, then in one universe you are an atheist, and in this universe you are a Christian, so how then would God judge you?

If, If, If. What are you now. Perhaps your consciousness is the mechanism of observation and so defines the one reality out of the possible, excluding all other possible outcomes at the nexus of observation that then streams reality as we experience it. No need for what you might be, just what you are! What you choose. In this case, someone who does not believe in GOD.

Because that 'If' will one day become fact. And people like you will choose to deny the fact in order to continue your faith .

Originally posted by atlasastro
Einstein, I wonder what he thought, geez I would have loved to see Einstein and Dawkins lock horns.

Einstein was not a theist, I can tell you that much .

[edit on 6-12-2008 by TruthParadox]

Originally posted by Good Wolf

We don't need to understand them at all. Not understanding something does not make it non-existent.

Yes, perhaps that is applicable to you not understanding free will. And Newtons Third Law. And causality, and Psychology.......

...and by the way, your posts are too long. They take for ever to read. I try to keep mine as succinct and to the point as possible.

Yes, i am aware of your succinct and to the point application of Newtons Third Law, causality and Existentialist Psychology.


Forgive me my indulging into the complexity of such an enormous topic. Next time I will just express a belief, make an assertion, repeat it over and often and then ignore all questions and criticisms relating to my beliefs, and assertions.

Thanks for replying to only one little part of my long post btw, but your reply was neither succinct or to any point.

You can ramble on about what choice may mean to you in your world, but the reality of it is, that there is no choice in your world, a world that has no free will. Only an illusion, and so every other aspect leading up to and relating to the illusion of that, or any choice must also be an illusion, just aspects of the process creating the illusion of the existence of choice, which you say, is a means to an end. An end that you cannot even say what is, but must be the "best result". LOL.

Then you are nothing. You are not GW. You are an illusion, an effect of nature, no agency, a collection of data predestined to do what ever you do, ever, at all times, because that is what nature has deemed best. Rap that into your paradigm and see how long you last. Nietzsche did alright by it.

Your onto a winner there GW. And all this from psychology, a school that cannot even agree on this very topic. Belief. I hear Psychology deemed Nietzsche insane.

Be warned if you will not own up to a form of Nietzsche' biological determinism. I will call you on it GW. There is a reason why they call this Fatalism....lol. This is why I brought up instincts, i would explain further but I know your attention span only applies to your own succinct, to the point abuses and twistings of Physics(3rd law gets a mention again), determinism and existentialist psychology.

Originally posted by TruthParadox
Thanks for your reply.

True, but we should use what we do have. To do otherwise would be illogical.

And what we have is a universe that does not always operate according to our logic. Can we define god by our logic alone? These are valid questions and often asked as often left unanswered. We do have the Bible, do we not. As an artifact and a history. So do we not use that because SOME people believe it is illogical.

Our knowledge is limited, however the knowledge that we do have shows God's probability of existence to be extremely low. Also, who chose to make our knowledge limited and why?

Well, we make choices on what knowledge we accept and use. Also the fact that we are finite means we are limited, so If God is the creartor he made us this way. So due to my finite nature not all things are understandable and all knowledge is unatainable. Life.
I could argue that the complexity and enormity of the universe is evidence of the existence of a consciousness far greater than I can understand. And many scientists, philosophers etc also voice these feelings( but both theist and atheist can make these appeals to authority to back a point). In the end, does a failure to understand such complexity and enormity mean I cannot know it in any sense?

But my point is that why would God create us to determine things through a physical medium and then ask us to take him on faith.

This is a question. Not a point. Perhaps one answer is that what you describe as FAITH, another holds as TRUTH. You describe it as Faith because you need science to define it for you as a fact via the empirical method(sorry to make assumption about what you may or may not believe. Please correct me if i am wrong and an apology will be made with absolute regret). So others don't need to answer the question. You need to answer that for yourself by collecting knowledge, experience, etc.

I was refering to the argument that our minds are too feeble to understand God, and so we should not question him. Why would he choose to make our minds feeble? To test our faith? If he tests our faith then that would prove that he has little faith in us. It would also contradict him being omniscient.

Who knows why? Perhaps you are onto why we are here. I was also refering to others, like yourself, who tests anothers faith. Perhaps I can reason a million whys and what fors as you could present paradoxes relating to their impact on Gods Omnipotence. But ultimately I can reason that We are finite, and God infinite that our being tested in anyway(the true nature of our finite existence) would not break Gods infinite existence, or could it?. Our minds are feeble compared to GOD. But why would he make a being that could instantly comprehend him. How do you create 2 infinities. By making another being who could understand him would to show he is not all powerful and all knowing, because there would be another just like that. It is logical that he would create us, an us that could not comprehend GOD fully, so as to not break the laws of GODS omni cool status lol. As to the why he created us at all, well, lets start another 80 page thread shall we. LOL. The other question is, what did create us, and what for, and to what end, if not GOD. Then what. I am as intereted in this answer as I am in GOD as an answer. So don't hold back on me. I can see another 80 pages here too.

God made Adam knowing that how he made him, Adam would sin. He could have made Adam with a different method of thinking. He could have taken the snake away from the garden. The way it's set up, there could be only one outcome. That was God's choice. How is it Adam's fault that he acted in the way God made him?

Well, to be exact, GOD also made eve, and in combination they made the Original Sin with the influence of the SNAKE, another SUPRANATURAL being that has injected himself into GODs handy work, apparently because GOD booted him from the Organisation know as HEAVEN, because he was trying to throw GOD of as the CEO of the organisation know as HEAVEN. Now weather or not you take the literal meaning or devine some other inspiration from it is up to you. What I get is this. In the story of Genesis and the garden of Eden, Adam had all, he was made perfect. He was forbidden the TREE OF KNOWLEDGE. Hmmmm. I wonder why. The pesky snake colluded with the Beautiful EVE to convince Adam to say Stuff God and Chomp down on all the delicious KNOWLEDGE that GOD said he should leave alone. Low an behold, busted. LOL. Your out on your own. God luck, i will be sending a book and my Son. Read and listen.

The contradiction is that a being of infinate knowledge and power would punish his creation for being how he created them to be. The contradiction is plain and obvious for all to see yet many people choose to ignore it.

Does GOD say IGNORE my words? Does God simply leave us with no clue at all? Only to you.

I'm refering to Hell.

But you don't believe in it. Those that do will obviously do what they can to avoid it. Where is the torture?

His omnipotence and omniscience would make it illogical to judge anyone, as everything would be his will. Just think about what it would imply to be all knowing and all powerful...

Knowing all potential outcomes and the actual events that are reliant of each individual conscious decision actually happening are two different concepts. There are modal and logical fallacies in the OPs paradoxes. But no one on this thread will acknowledge them.

You can find visions of pink elephants in a wide variety of formats as well.

Link it. LOL. Limit yourself again. Thats is my point. You only want your version of proof of GOD.

I should think that an omnipotent God would have no problem in arranging something more than a 'personal experience'. If you must believe before you can see, then I suppose that verifies what pshychologists say, however, it holds no weight in Christianity or Universal truth...

Only to you. These are your beliefs. Some people look at the universe, life and US and just know that there is a GOD!(shrug).

But the very fact that he created humans to ask the why question would defer the responsibility of belief off our shoulders. Why would anyone create something which cannot understand him and therefor questions him? And if so, would that person who doesn't understand be worthy of eternal torment? Is it not the makers fault and responsibility?
Just think about it for 1 minute...

I have. For longer than you have. I am finite. I cannot know everything or the nature of everything. I guess if we argue from a Biblical pespective, it already tells us that. The bible tells us that we cannot understand GOD and to do so is futile. It does not say you cannot question. But that you cannot understand. It does not state that understanding GOD is salvation.

Originally posted by atlasastro

If parallel universes exist, then in one universe you are an atheist, and in this universe you are a Christian, so how then would God judge you?

If, If, If. What are you now. Perhaps your consciousness is the mechanism of observation and so defines the one reality out of the possible, excluding all other possible outcomes at the nexus of observation that then streams reality as we experience it. No need for what you might be, just what you are! What you choose. In this case, someone who does not believe in GOD.

Because that 'If' will one day become fact. And people like you will choose to deny the fact in order to continue your faith

.

IF, again with the IFs. LOL. Answer the question, is my comment above not possible. You are defering to an unknown parallel and then dismissing anyone else who does the same via the Unknowable nature of GOD.

[edit on 7-12-2008 by atlasastro]

reply to post by atlasastro

You can ramble on about what choice may mean to you in your world, but the reality of it is, that there is no choice in your world, a world that has no free will. Only an illusion, and so every other aspect leading up to and relating to the illusion of that, or any choice must also be an illusion, just aspects of the process creating the illusion of the existence of choice, which you say, is a means to an end. An end that you cannot even say what is, but must be the "best result". LOL.

If you interpret choice as being equal to freewill then of course you'll never agree with determinism, it doesn't make sense when explained this way. But choice is not equal to freewill. I've explained this, choice is a process.

Choice - noun
1. an act or instance of choosing; selection: Her choice of a computer was made after months of research. His parents were not happy with his choice of friends.
2. the right, power, or opportunity to choose; option: The child had no choice about going to school.
3. the person or thing chosen or eligible to be chosen: This book is my choice. He is one of many choices for the award.
4. an alternative: There is another choice.
5. an abundance or variety from which to choose: a wide choice of candidates.

Dictionary.com

It has a 'quality' component. In a conscious animal, it's an act of judgement to get the best out of a situation. It's goal based and it's made with a logic based system.

Free will – adjective
1. made or done freely or of one's own accord; voluntary: a freewill contribution to a political fund.
2. of or pertaining to the metaphysical doctrine of the freedom of the will: the freewill controversy.

Dictionary.com

If everything is confined to laws and constants, and therefore has a predestined future, then will is not free, nor is it choice. You haven't explained your reasoning behind suggesting that they are the same thing.

Then you are nothing.

I am a material being.

You are not GW.

I carry the label of Good Wolf.

You are an illusion,

I am not.

an effect of nature, no agency, a collection of data predestined to do what ever you do, ever, at all times,

Cold again. You're getting warmer now.

because that is what nature has deemed best.

No. Again nature cannot "deem" or "conspire" it is an inanimate system.

Rap that into your paradigm and see how long you last. Nietzsche did alright by it.

It's a theory I've believed for 8 years and now I don't even believe in a God and I am not troubled. Nietzsche challenged the idea that perception was truthful, leading one to doubt their perception and even themselves- that's quite different to strict determinism. Another misdirection.

Freewill is an illusion.

[edit on 7/12/2008 by Good Wolf]

Originally posted by papabryant
Boy did you misread things...

Did Jesus not tell Peter to buy a sword for self-protection? Jesus himself used bullrushes to drive out the moneychangers - that is a pretty violent act. An overly pacifist reading of scripture will lead to the mistake of saying Jesus wanted us to be a doormat for the world.

It is not a sin to block a blow, only to return a blow. Thus why Jesus heals the guys ear. Also, when it came to the moneychangers, Jesus doesn't hurt anyone. Jesus says he does not come in peace, which would be him laying down as a doormat. But you do not rid the world of evil by killing evil, you will merely replace the evil and become it yourself. When Jesus is faced against demons, he does not kill them. He gives them understanding and heals them with truth. But just because he did not come in peace does not mean he will partake in evil.

We also see this referenced with the requirement Jesus has for his disciples, where if they are not willing to give up everything they hold dear, they can not follow him. And he talks about how people will calculate odds for if they can win or not, and if they can not win they will settle for peace and not finish the job.

But when all efforts at resolving a conflict peacefully have been played out and your opponent is going to attack you, you have the right to defend yourself, your family and property. YOU are the strongman of your house, and those who would rob you of your life and property, you are allowed to apprehend them using force if necessary, not fearing the outcome because God will ensure justice is done, either here or in the life to come. The onus is on you, to know that you tried every means at avoiding violence - if you didn't, THEN you've broken the commandment, and the sin is on you.

This is just what you use to justify your actions. If this was the way of Jesus, then he would have done the same. Yes, protect yourself defensively, but take care not to succumb to temptation of the offense. For then you are fearing those who have no power after death.

It was thou shall not kill. It was not thou shall not kill unless. And Jesus came to fulfill the law and be the example on what to follow, and he also never said thou shall not kill unless.

reply to post by atlasastro


Ok, pretty much all of your responses seem to be that God is infinite and we are finite and because of that we can't understand these paradoxes so we'd better just ignore them...

Do you believe in the Purple Cookie Monster of DOOM?
I should think not... he's rather exclusive.
He comes to me at times, when I'm eating cookies...
Would you say that this deity can be disproven?
No, you can't disprove him... And at any rate, he'd be rather offended if you tried - he is a very jealous cookie monster, afterall.
Would you say that this deity has a low probability of existence?
Probably.
So why would you think that?
Well for one, it's not widely known - you would think that any God would be known all over the world.
My answer to this is that a vast majority of the world have not recieved divine revelation as I have...
Your second concern might be his name (yes he has a gender)...
My answer to that is that we are finite and he is infinite. How should we, as lowely humans, expect to use logic and have a better footing than this fine specimen?
Your third reason to doubt would be a lack of evidence, be it a historical record or physical evidence.
My answer to that is that you may not see such evidence, because you do not look around you with the mind of confirming a belief in the PCOD (Purple Cookie Monster of DOOM), but rather would ignore such truths...

What I've done here is made 3 pseudo-logical arguments which subtly tell you to abandon logic.
Sound familiar?

As for the rest of your post:

Originally posted by atlasastro
We do have the Bible, do we not. As an artifact and a history.

We have a Bible, however, with all the contradictions therein, it hardly confirms anything other than ancient fables.

Originally posted by atlasastro
I could argue that the complexity and enormity of the universe is evidence of the existence of a consciousness far greater than I can understand.

Hey, now your just stealing my evidence for the Purple Cookie Monster!
No, but seriously, if you did pull that card, then I could argue that such a God is far more complex and enourmous than our universe, and therefor even more needing of a higher consciousness...

[edit on 7-12-2008 by TruthParadox]

reply to post by atlasastro


Everything is based on something.
What are your choices based on?
Logic?
What is this logic based on?
A trillion factors both inside and outside your head.
God created all things, you say?
So then God created these trillion factors with the forknowledge of exactly how it would affect our decision making process, you say?

Everytime you disect something, you'll find it much different than it appears on the surface. Many times you will not be satisfied with the result. I don't expect you to disect something you already believe yourself to understand, but if you intend to argue against those who do understand, then maybe you'd better...

Sorry for jumping in GW, you already explained it very well but I just wanted to get my 2.5 pennies in. Also I think it's a lot easier to explain with the stipulation of God's existence, even though it's not required.

[[[[ Many times you will not be satisfied with the result. I don't expect you to disect something you already believe yourself to understand, but if you intend to argue against those who do understand, then maybe you'd better...]]]]

Hey Truth
Seriously though the same can be said for you and what you find to be true according to your understanding of things etc ....