Thread: God

>>Your applying human ideas of perfection.

Oh great. Now god gets different definitions of things. Now I understand. Thats why god is benevolent. Because the god definition of benevolent is "spiteful, mean, and hell-bent on killing things it creates".

If someone knew which way you were going to decide before
hand in every decision then there would be no
sin. Everything you do would do by fate. It would
also mean you are not responsible for your actions.
But we would not be a perfect creation without freewill.

Basically... No. Read back several pages to where Clyde and I get distracted by Quantum Mechanics.

I have the capacity to make a decision, yes. The resulting decision is set, based on imprinting from everything I have experienced before it. But just because I'm only going to chose one element from x options, in no way means that I'm not responsible for that choice, or that some outside force has caused me to chose that particular option. It is merely the result of all things that have transpired before it.

god exist above the logical laws he created. How
would anyone shows that he exist or more
importantly does not exist using logic?

In the strictest sense some-one may logically conclude that they themselves exist due to 'cogito, ergo sum'. Anything other than that relies on trusting their senses.

Therefore, I'd agree with you that it is illogical to believe in god.

However, I'll assume that our senses are providing some form of abstraction of reality, and ask for a repeatable method of demonstrating that god exists using our senses or using equipment that can extend our senses. As our senses are all we've got to go on there is no other basis for believing that god exists. Unless you stop dodging the issue and come up with some or admit that there is none.

Ya, it was right near that part I must have missed where someone proved that it happened!

Historical Fact, and Logic. I'll explain this more latter.

Billy's grave: verifiable = science
Jesus grave : unverifiable = faith
My grave : Not there yet
How do you know that's really Willy in there? . Of course, since Jesus isn't buried anywhere, according to scripture, you lose this argument by default You know, Sentaku et al, there hasn't been to much attack on your beliefs here as much as a challenge to logically justify them.
Your arguments rely on acceptance of a priori facts, i.e. God & Jesus. Until you can justify at least the god part, you're dead in the water.

*laughs* let me make some points.
1. Jesus was buried in a Tomb after his crucififiction.
2. Jesus Died, sorry you can't live and have blood and whater come out of you.
3. The tomb was blocked with a 1.5 ton bolder (conservite), had Romain Guards staioned at it, and had a Romain Seal.

now your greatest and wonderful part:
4. The tomb was found emptey on sunday. There is not a single shred of evidence that does not support this and oposite side both Romain and Jewish sources and tradions admit an empty tomb. Those sources range from Josephus to a compilation of fifth- century Jewish writings called the Toledoth Jeshu. Even the Jewish leaders acknowledged that the tomb was empty.

The fact that the tomb was emptey 3 day's later is historical fact.

Now lets go through the varrious theorys about why the tomb was emtey.

A. Wrong tomb-. for starters the tomb was welll known at the time, second the disciples preaching begain in Jurrusum and geting the body out of the right tomb and end christinity right there.

B. disciples stole the body -
Then they would of known it was a lie, and at least one of them would of cracked. Sure you get indivdual people in history that know something is a lie and don't crack but you never have a group of people go throught what the disiples went throught.

C. Romains stole it - see the wrong tomb theory, they would of wheeled the body down the street.

D. anonymous grave robers
a. Over powerd romain guards
b. Moved the stone
c. removed the body from the linin cloth, then rapted it back up pefectly.
d. Didn't steal anything else.

Hmm, quite odd.

A-D are also all ruled out on this fact:
The disciples had real experiences with one whom they believed was the risen Christ.

"This fact is not widely disputed today, even among critical scholars (Carl Braaten, History and Hermeneutics, p. 78) because of the firsthand testimony supporting it. The gospels, which record these appearances, claim to have been written by eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus and by those who recorded eyewitness testimony. These internal claims are confirmed by external sources (History and Christianity, pp. 31-35). In addition, the reliability and trustworthiness of the New Testament has been confirmed by extrabiblical sources and archaeology (Evidence that Demands a Verdict, pp. 65-74). For these reasons, the conclusion that the gospels record eyewitness testimony, as they claim, cannot be denied."

So lets go and explain that:
* hallucinating- mass hallucination never ocured before, They gave Jesus food, contradicted by certain psychological principles governing the appearances of hallucinations..

* lying- If Jesus had not risen from the dead, His disciples knew it. People may die for something they believe to be true, but is in fact false. But if the resurrection did not happen, the disciples did not just die for a lie which they mistakenly believed to be true, but died for a lie that they knew to be a lie. Someone would of cracked.


Ok to sum of facts:
-The tomb is emptey
-The gospals have been proven as true as any other historical record.
-The disiples had belived to have had experinces with Christ after he rose.
* they could not have been hallucinating
* nor is it resonable to belive that they lied

Now based on this I can logical conclude that Jeus rose from the dead on Sunday. No one has yet to provide a beter answer.

>>Historical Fact, and Logic. I'll explain this more latter.

Wait... No. Why do you keep lying to yourself (and me)? Just because its in a book, does not make it fact. In case you're not picking up on this; That makes the rest of your reasoning invalid. Its all based on what some old text reads. Need I remind you that the greek myths were also written down and preserved? Does that make them historical fact? Guess so...

>>Why not just ask him?

You set up the conference call, I'll be there.

"I probably shouldn't have gotten into this but it seems
that Clyde is using falsehoods about christianity to prove
that there is no god. Actual arguments against the existance
of god cannot use contradictions about christianity or any other
religion.

I will get back on the slaverly issue but much more can be
said of the jewish exodus from egypt."

Falsehoods?

I summarised my argument against belief in God in terms of five major points:

if you recall:

From a purely rational point of view belief in God is farcial for arguments i have outlined (ie. lack of evidence).

Independently God seems at odds with the findings of modern science: Deterministic laws govern everything observeable in the universe, if there was a God we would expect to see his presence in the findings of science: We do not.

Independently the "God model" is internally inconsistent: an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent God is starkly at odds with the vengefull, egotistical, inferiority complex God presented in the bible.

It is also extremely externally inconsistent: The perfect God would produce the perfect creation; a perfect craftsman produces the perfect craft....... the world is certainly not perfect. Why for example (and i can give many many more) is it that the digger wasp and its cousin Ichneumonidae reproduce by paralysing a catapiller then laying its eggs into its body only for them to hatch and then eat there way out of their helpless host?

(Ichneumonidae lead Darwin to lose his faith for precisely this reason "I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars")

From a psychological/anthropological view we can rationalise very well why religion and religious views exist. In addition and supporting this we can see that the correlation between religious beliefs and religious upbringing is so strong that religion to all extenses and purposes can be viewed as a cultural phenomenon.

YOU decided (foolishly) to argue with point 3 that "The God hypothesis" is internally inconsistent by claiming that the bible is consistent and does show God to be benvolent, forgiving etc.

Actually god is portrayed as being kind and forgiving in the
bible.

I demolished your argument by quoting from the bible 2 out of many many examples of God clearly not acting in a benevolent way. Furthermore YOU pointed that God cannot know the future for free will to exist, which immediately contradicts his omniscience. (see below for a refutation of your God chooses not to know)

Now how exactly does any of that square with your claim that I am using "falsehoods about Christianity to prove there is no God"? Hmm?

Bear in mind that was just 1 out of 5 points, i have, i think, conclusively shown that belief without evidence is absurd, both you and Sensaku have failed to provide any kind of counter argument to that point. Nor have I seen any counters to any of the other points I have raised.

"Someone all powerful can choose not to know"

This argument makes no sense, you can argue that God CANNOT know the future for free will to exist, you cannot argue that for free will to exist God CHOOSES not to know the future. It doesn't square up. If FATE exists, whether or not God CHOOSES to know it, free will evaporates.

So we are still left with either God not being omniscient since he can't know the future OR we are left with God sadistically putting Issac through a trying experience for kicks and without free will........ take your pick.

Ok..... Sensaku.....

"Fact: Not one person has disproved the resuraction of Christ, and given any natural explains on how it happend"

HELLO! how many times do I have tell you that LACK OF DISPROOF IS NOT PROOF, YOU CANNOT DISPROVE THE EXISTENCE OF AN INVISIBLE KANGAROO, THAT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE PROOF OF ITS EXISTENCE!!!!!!

Jebus (Simpsons) its like getting blood froma stone.

"The prosocustion is right though the defended is on trail for murder. "

Yes...... he is on trial for murder, but that by itself is not reason to send him to jail! Well atleast according to my reasoning its not, according to yours on the other hand.....

"How can I explain what I my self don't understand"

The fact that you dont understand it, demonstrates my point perfectly; you believe FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN YOU WERE BROUGHT UP TO BELIEVE. Thats your answer, thats why you dont understand, thats why you're certain its true, but cannot produce any reasonable arguments in your favour. Think about my previous question to you:

Why do you believe there is a keyboard under your fingers right now, and not that a voracious pack of wolves are about to burst into your house and eat you alive? Answer that question and apply the same reasoning to God. He will vanish.

And now i will return to debating with a more intelligent person:

"You're confused. Your thought patterns follow no logical path that I can discern. Why does having "free will" (whatever thats supposed to mean) in any way indicate that nobody can know what we will decide? If somebody places an apple pie and a raisin pie in front of me, asking me to chose one, does the fact that somebody _knows_ I will chose the apple (seeing as how I dont like raisins) in any way indicate that I had no choice in the matter?"

I think he's right here, in fact its an argument I use myself: Either freewill or omniscience not both.

The key difference here is between prediction and knowledge, there are two possibilities therefore: Either A) God can predict the future with infinite accuracy, or B) God knows the future because he exists outside of time.

A) Is interesting, the problem with it is two fold really, either you base prediction on previous knowledge IE. as in your example someone already knows that you dislike raisins, therefore can predict that you will choose the apple pie or you base prediction on mechanistic laws, the way scientific predictions are made.

Now with the first method you require knowledge before you can predict which limits you, it would mean for example that God could not predict what foods you would like and dislike initially as a baby who had never tried food.

Even after God has accumulated knowledge about you he still cant predict with 100% certainty because you may 'randomly' (assuming no mechanism behind free will) have decided that you wanted to try raisins again to see if you like them this time (the probability of this will vary depending on how much you dislike raisins but cannot be ruled out). Basicallly this method of prediction is inherently limited, and will not result in true omniscience.

The alternative method is incompatible with free will because it implies there is a mechanism behind freewill, which is also inherently impossible because as soon as you enter a mechanism you are merely obeying mechanistic laws; free will evaporates.

Furthermore I don't see how you can allow A given Q.M. alla our previous discussion (which incidently I can add a little more having cracked out my "universe in a nutshell", Hawking says that the alternative to having "real" uncertainty is a hidden variable model, but that experiment seems to rule out this model)

B) Contradicts freewill because it requires the future to be set (relatavistic block time), hence we have no choices, we merely follow the path already layed out.

Now i don't actually think Nick followed my reasoning, in fact im sure he didn't because he seems to think that you can avoid the problem by simply saying "God chooses not to know the future", which alters nothing, either he can or he can't, whether he chooses to or not makes no difference.

"I have the capacity to make a decision, yes. The resulting decision is set, based on imprinting from everything I have experienced before it. But just because I'm only going to chose one element from x options, in no way means that I'm not responsible for that choice, or that some outside force has caused me to chose that particular option. It is merely the result of all things that have transpired before it"

Oops missed this the first time round, if the resulting decision is set, based on imprinting from everything you have experienced before it then "you" have no free-will, you are nothing but concious computer, just as a computer's responses are set by its software and hardware so too are yours.

Responsiblity is another intersting angle, does the lack of free-will mean we should not blame anyone for anything? Well i'd say...... yes it does:

Since 'we' have control neither of our genes nor of our environment, since we are effectively 'merely' a biological computer running a stupidly complicated program, then responsibility becomes meaningless.

BUT, heh and you knew there had to be a but

That of course doesn't mean I don't condemn murderers, or that i don't blame people who are jerks to me, I do, just as everyone else does because thats part of my program (I should be carefull with the use "program" on a programming board, i mean it in its loosest sense), part of all our programs, we are social animals we have evolved to interact socially, our morals and our responses to other people are part of that. I cannot merge my scientific understanding of behaviour with my social interactions. I cannot escape my own humanity, trying just makes you miserable.

I might know love is an evolved response to keep couples together, and produced by several chemical and electrical interactions in my brain but that doesn't alter how I think of my girlfriend, or how I interact with her. I might know that ethics are 'merely' an evolved social response designed to keep society together but that doesn't mean I act in an amoral way.

Of course there are ramifications (or rather there might be), and it will be intersting to see how ethics in regards to how we hold others responsible alters as we discover more about the workings of the brain. I mean at present we do not hold mentally ill people responsible for their actions, for precisely the reasons discussed, however we still labour under the illusion that non-mentally ill people actually possess the illusive "free-will", well neurology is going to squash that view (in fact it pretty much already has). Perhaps we will stick with the divide as it is, just because we need to draw an arbitrary line at some point, hmmm i wonder.

The alternative method is incompatible with free will because it implies there is a mechanism behind freewill, which is also inherently impossible because as soon as you enter a mechanism you are merely obeying mechanistic laws; free will evaporates.

[...]

B) Contradicts freewill because it requires the future to be set (relatavistic block time), hence we have no choices, we merely follow the path already layed out.

As I put forward in that initial post, it would appear that we have no "free will". There is no outside force causing us to make a certain decision but it does appear that the decision we reach is a very finite one and a direct result of the state of our brain and enviroment at the time of the decision.

The reasons for holding people responsible are quite important. It is all part of our social condition. Without being held responsible, there would be social chaos. Imagine if you felt no giult/remorse and no one would berate or punish you for any action. Obviously there would be no civilisation.

>>then "you" have no free-will, you are nothing but concious computer

Yes. Not in the sense that [I believe] Nick is thinking. But it is free in respect to nothing else directing my actions/thoughts. Good enough.

>>Now i don't actually think Nick followed my reasoning

Imagine that. Has anyone been following any reasoning around here?

>>Either freewill or omniscience not both.

Neither.

"As I put forward in that initial post, it would appear that we have no "free will". There is no outside force causing us to make a certain decision but it does appear that the decision we reach is a very finite one and a direct result of the state of our brain and enviroment at the time of the decision."

I couldn't agree more, but from Nick's perspective he has a problem, since he does believe "free-will" exists, and he also believes that God is omniscient and the two are mutually exclusive.

"The reasons for holding people responsible are quite important. It is all part of our social condition. Without being held responsible, there would be social chaos. Imagine if you felt no giult/remorse and no one would berate or punish you for any action. Obviously there would be no civilisation."

Yup, which is why ethics evolved.

"Yes. Not in the sense that [I believe] Nick is thinking. But it is free in respect to nothing else directing my actions/thoughts. Good enough"

Aah i see, ok that makes sense, although its a different definition of free-will than is normally used. (I always think language is so limited..... ah well whatcha gonna do)

"Imagine that. Has anyone been following any reasoning around here?"

Heh, well i'd like to think you and I and a few others (with notable exceptions....) in this thread have been folliowing reasoning

I admited there was no direct evidence.

Sorry, I must have been averting my eyes from this thread.

Why should we believe in god if there is no direct evidence?

Wait... No. Why do you keep lying to yourself (and me)? Just because its in a book, does not make it fact. In case you're not picking up on this; That makes the rest of your reasoning invalid. Its all based on what some old text reads. Need I remind you that the greek myths were also written down and preserved? Does that make them historical fact? Guess so...

I knew you were going to say that.

Going by that Idea anything writen down must be considered false.

Your forgeting one key important fact, and that is unlike Greek myths, Budda, ect, the Good News was being preached only a couple of Weeks after he was Crucified, Just 15 minutes from where he was crucifed. The earlist writings were only 25 years from the event and Paul says that recived infomation from 35 AD. There were actul people who could refute the facts at that time, and no one did, for centires. The complete oposite happens in a myth. The greek myths always happend once upon a time, and nothing about Budda was writen until hundreds of years after his life and death.

Now on to Cyde.

HELLO! how many times do I have tell you that LACK OF DISPROOF IS NOT PROOF, YOU CANNOT DISPROVE THE EXISTENCE OF AN INVISIBLE KANGAROO, THAT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE PROOF OF ITS EXISTENCE!!!!!!

Going by that logic you can't send any one to Jail no one not a single person.

Ok, as my last post did not prove the resuraction,

We have 3 possiblites to work from
1. That the disiples stole the body and then lied about everything

2. That the grave was robed but the Disiples did not know, but still belived that they saw Jesus.

3. The resuraction of Jesus actuly happend.

Case Point 1: Deaths of the Disiples
-It is historicaly known all but John died cruel deaths for there belives:
-James was stoned,
-Peter was crucified upside down,
-Thaddaeus was killed with arrows,
-Matthew and James (Zebedee) faced sword deaths
-John himself was boiled in Oil, but survived.

This in itself should rule out 1.

Case Point 2: The Truth of the Mater
-Archogical evidence does dont conter the The New Testement
-Outside Historical Refences do not conter the Writings of the New Testement.
-Eye witness to the events that could refute arguments such as Miricles, and the Resuraction would have made it imposible for the Disiples to lie.
-It it is imposible for the Disiples to have hullicnated.


This clarely kills 1, and starts on 2.

Case Point 3: The tomb it self
-The tomb was well known
-It was guared by 16 romain soiders
-There was a 1.5 ton stone blocking the entrence
-The tomb is historicaly proven that on Sunday there was no body in it.
-The empire's seal is on the tomb.

-This rekills 1, destroys 2, and supports 3.

Here is why

The deciples, or a grave rober would of had to some how dispache of the Soiders without injuring them. Then they would of had to move the Stone, unwrap Jesus, wrap the cloth back up, carry Jesus out and hide him.

No grave rober would ever do that, or ever really could do that. Also it still never explains why the Disiples belive they saw Jesus.
Hallucination has been ruled out, so the only logical belif is that they saw Jesus.

Cyde, lightatdawn the idea of that the gospals are false dosn't work, nor does Jesus beging a myth even one who is based on a real person work. There are coutless articles on this, as well as books.

The proof lies on your shoulders to disprove me. I've given my proof, it's your turn.

I knew you were going to say that.

**** me. You're one of them aren't you. Christ, I'll never question the lord again. What do you suggest for my salvation?

Ok, as my last post did not prove the resuraction,

We have 3 possiblites to work from

You missed one.

4. Fiction

The proof lies on your shoulders to disprove me. I've given my proof, it's your turn.

It feels good to unload a burden doesn't it?

Your god still smells. And it reminds me of horse****.

4. Fiction

It feels good to unload a burden doesn't it?

Your god still smells. And it reminds me of horse****.

That is the same as point 1, witch I disproved.

some nice links

http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/kking/extern2.html
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/kking/extern3.html

That is the same as point 1, witch I disproved.

You are a moron.