Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
GOD
Apr 7, 2010 7:21:17 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2010 7:21:17 GMT -5
it's annoying, I don't believe in god, so I can't really participate in this discussion
|
|
|
GOD
Apr 7, 2010 10:18:31 GMT -5
Post by bunnyfulwanderer on Apr 7, 2010 10:18:31 GMT -5
it's annoying, I don't believe in god, so I can't really participate in this discussion why not? I don't believe in the model of deity that is being discussed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
GOD
Apr 7, 2010 10:41:02 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2010 10:41:02 GMT -5
IMO it's strange for a person who says "I don't believe something like a god exists" to discuss about what exactly god is..
|
|
|
GOD
Apr 7, 2010 11:07:24 GMT -5
Post by Jake on Apr 7, 2010 11:07:24 GMT -5
IMO it's strange for a person who says "I don't believe something like a god exists" to discuss about what exactly god is.. I suppose they can still discuss the concept of a God?
|
|
|
GOD
Apr 7, 2010 11:10:11 GMT -5
Post by SquiggleTag on Apr 7, 2010 11:10:11 GMT -5
heres something If god made everything then what made god ? thats one i hear quite alot
|
|
|
GOD
Apr 7, 2010 13:15:24 GMT -5
Post by bunnyfulwanderer on Apr 7, 2010 13:15:24 GMT -5
heres something If god made everything then what made god ? thats one i hear quite alot lol. reasonable argument, really it is, but generally speaking if we believe in "cause" in the sense of one event sparking another sparking another, some come to conclusion there must have been a first uncuased thing to get the ball rolling and that thing is "God" or more often "Yahweh" it makes a few too many assumptions for my taste, and the answer is also a bit "dues ex machina" (Ironically translated as "God in the machine") but I can at least understand where these people are coming from. It's just a little weird that we decide our abstract God concept can be immune to all the other known logic in the universe, the argument only works if you're willing to accept the god concept is the one and only exception of the rule of "all things must be brought into existence becuase nothing can bring itself into existence" thus he we are, staring the "uncaused, cause" in the face
|
|
|
GOD
Apr 7, 2010 15:51:00 GMT -5
Post by Lex on Apr 7, 2010 15:51:00 GMT -5
Yahweh is in direct reference to the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, not every concept of God.
And IMHO, Yahweh's a dick. I'd never worship him. He doens't exist as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
|
GOD
Apr 7, 2010 19:12:59 GMT -5
Post by bunnyfulwanderer on Apr 7, 2010 19:12:59 GMT -5
Yahweh is in direct reference to the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, not every concept of God. And IMHO, Yahweh's a dick. I'd never worship him. He doens't exist as far as I'm concerned. 1) I know I'm saying usually this argument is used in this manner, even if it doesn't argue for Yahweh specifically. 2) you're entitled to your opinion.
|
|
evets
Meteorite
Posts: 42
|
GOD
Apr 8, 2010 9:55:47 GMT -5
Post by evets on Apr 8, 2010 9:55:47 GMT -5
And IMHO, Yahweh's a dick. I'd never worship him. He doens't exist as far as I'm concerned. *sigh* Can we at least refrain from name-calling and insulting each other's gods? I find that statement rather offensive. :/ I'd much rather continue our civilized dialogue.
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
GOD
Apr 8, 2010 12:04:33 GMT -5
Post by Nakor on Apr 8, 2010 12:04:33 GMT -5
I assume Alex refers to the things Yahweh is cited as doing in the old testament. It would have been better said in another manner, perhaps, but it's worth keeping in mind when discussing the Christian god. The atrocities of the old testament were one of the first things that made me drop my trust in the bible and my denomination, the first of several steps toward concluding religion in general was incorrect.
|
|
evets
Meteorite
Posts: 42
|
GOD
Apr 8, 2010 12:23:48 GMT -5
Post by evets on Apr 8, 2010 12:23:48 GMT -5
I assume Alex refers to the things Yahweh is cited as doing in the old testament. It would have been better said in another manner, perhaps, but it's worth keeping in mind when discussing the Christian god. The atrocities of the old testament were one of the first things that made me drop my trust in the bible and my denomination, the first of several steps toward concluding religion in general was incorrect. How would you feel if I took the person/thing that is most valuable to you above anything else and said "Yeah that person's a dick. I don't think they exist." Even if you think that, its just plain rude and insulting to say it out like that, and it does NOT contribute to the discussion. I'd like to to have a discussion about our beliefs without relying on grade 2 schoolyard insults thanks. Yes you may talk about how you perceive God in OT and how that influences your beliefs. No, you may not call my god a "dick". EDIT: we need a moderator now please. Where's the report post button?
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
GOD
Apr 8, 2010 12:28:31 GMT -5
Post by Nakor on Apr 8, 2010 12:28:31 GMT -5
Like I said, better said in another (less directly insulting) manner.
|
|
|
GOD
Apr 8, 2010 12:42:10 GMT -5
Post by Lex on Apr 8, 2010 12:42:10 GMT -5
IMHO = In my humble opinion.
I said it that way because it's my opinion, and in my opinion, Yahweh is a monster whom I would never worship based on what the New and Old Testament say about him.
|
|
Duffy ze Emu
Meteorite
I'm not egotistical, you're just inferior.
Posts: 8
|
GOD
Apr 8, 2010 13:22:43 GMT -5
Post by Duffy ze Emu on Apr 8, 2010 13:22:43 GMT -5
I have a few reasons for not believing. I know this discussion is not about whether or not you believe, but I think they raise reasonable points. 1) Not a point of discussion, per se, but "God" just doesn't fit into my world view. It just doesn't "click" into place. I cannot conceive it. It doesn't work, according to the laws of my mind. 2) Evil. Why does evil still exist? If he created us in His/Her image, then why are we imperfect? If God is omnipotent, why doesn't he remove this so-called Satan? Why doesn't he teach everyone to be perfect, good? It just doesn't work. 3) Meaningless acts of horror in the Bible. As Alex said, horrifying acts were committed in the Old Testament. I know it's not necessarily meant literally (Although some would have you believe otherwise), why would anyone kid about this sort of stuff? The ark, for instance. All of humanity was destroyed because they were "corrupt". All of them, except 2 people. From here, inbreeding would have been incredibly consistent, considering everyone was related to everyone. I may not know the Bible well (Though I should. As I think it was Dawkins who said "Know your enemy", but the bits I do know contradict each other and are just generally bollocks. I won't go on to other examples; it's mostly all fire and brimstone. No "love" here, though this "God" is meant to be "loving". 4) Lack of proof. Surely there would, somewhere, be proof of God. And if a loving God truly wanted us to get into heaven, or be good people, surely he would want us to believe? Without proof, just going on "It's better safe than sorry" or "God moves in mysterious ways" is like being a sheep following a shepherd. Except the shepherd doesn't exist. It's more like one of those phantom sheep congregations where all the sheep seem to be following is a sheep. Also, sheep are stupid. 5) "Loving". "God" will allow a small infant to die, before it has done anything wrong. "God" will allow millions of innocent people to be slaughtered in "His" name. "God" will let a man who is inherently evil destroy thousands, if not millions, of lives without lifting a finger to stop him, all the while allowing the innocent to die. How could a loving "God" allow this to happen? If God is meant to be omniscient, the "he can't do everything" argument is debunked. "God moves in mysterious ways". This is nonsense. He may work in mysterious ways, sure, but moving in mysterious ways doesn't do anything to help me believe, to salvage my soul. Our human logic may be flawed, but how does merciless slaughter factor into any logic? See point 3. At any rate, I cannot believe, though discussion of God is always interesting.
|
|
Silverrida
Moon
Infinity - So far away yet around us at the same time
Posts: 112
|
GOD
Apr 8, 2010 21:51:57 GMT -5
Post by Silverrida on Apr 8, 2010 21:51:57 GMT -5
in the question of "can god make a boulder so heavy he can not lift it" it presents a problem in and of itself. if he can he has a physical limitation if he can't he has a creative limitation. either way, he can't be all powerful. Trying to explain God's actions and abilities with imperfect human logic seems futile (and blasphemous). God's own perfect logic alone can explain God's perfection. But such perfect logic could never be put in terms us puny humans could understand. Although it is human logic, that doesn't make it any less of an impossibility. Let's assume God can create a boulder so big he cannot lift it. By the definition of the requirement, he CANNOT lift it. That is a requirement. It isn't a syllogism, it isn't inferred, it is a requirement. Therefore, if God creates such a boulder he is required to not be able to lift it. He cannot make it so that he is required not to be able to lift it, then be able to lift it. If he does such trickery, he has not met the requirements. Thus, not all-powerful.
|
|
FranticProdigy
Planet
[AWD:1c]
Im classy because I use words like touch
Posts: 312
|
GOD
Apr 21, 2010 16:41:33 GMT -5
Post by FranticProdigy on Apr 21, 2010 16:41:33 GMT -5
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
Epicurus – Greek philosopher, BC 341-270
|
|
FranticProdigy
Planet
[AWD:1c]
Im classy because I use words like touch
Posts: 312
|
GOD
Apr 21, 2010 16:42:03 GMT -5
Post by FranticProdigy on Apr 21, 2010 16:42:03 GMT -5
heres something If god made everything then what made god ? thats one i hear quite alot Its a paradox, the same is presented with an atheists argument of singularities.
|
|
koralth
Meteorite
Rest is for the dead.
Posts: 44
|
GOD
Apr 21, 2010 22:56:08 GMT -5
Post by koralth on Apr 21, 2010 22:56:08 GMT -5
The clockmaker (Deist) approach to God is the only one that makes even an iota of sense to me, and even then, I don't see that it's at all necessary for explaining the universe as we understand it. Frantic hit the nail on the head here with the quote. The common interpretation of a 'personal' God doesn't make sense. Another point could be that -
- God knows everything - God therefore knows what we'll do before we do it (eliminating the concept of free-will, though some would argue that we still have a choice in our actions, but if God knows what we do before we do it, we'd have to know what he knows we'll do to thwart it, but he'd know we know since he knows EVERYTHING so he'd know we'd act in a different way, so to thwart it we'd have to know he knows we know that he knows, but he'd already KNOW THAT because of our understanding of him, looping us back to - meaning there is no free will. I fail to see how that's flawed human logic at all - the understanding that God knows everything implies the universe is one huge Rube Goldberg machine, ultimately, especially when one considers the laws of thermodynamics and how the universe is slowly ultimately heading towards entropy. Interesting thought, though I'll digress here so as not to bore everyone) - God created everything, knowing what would happen. - Genocides have been perpetrated following God setting in motion existence - Ergo - God should be tried for war crimes and Genocide because there is no free will and God set things up so that people would commit genocides and war crimes.
The common interpretation of divine traits lead to some... depending on your perspective, horrifying or terribly fun, albeit dark implications.
Hey, Frantic, though, have to say - I've heard many atheists use the same argument that one of the other posters here used to defend God - physics don't apply to the beginning. Apparently, the thinking is that if it's happening before existence, how on earth could you hold it to our understanding of the laws of physics, since there was nothing really to apply the laws of physics TO. Therefore, common knowledge of physical laws need not apply to the beginning of the universe.
Grats on 100 posts!
|
|
|
GOD
Apr 22, 2010 0:07:38 GMT -5
Post by Ryan on Apr 22, 2010 0:07:38 GMT -5
I define God to be a creature of a higher dimension than 4. Since humans exist in 4 dimensions - we cannot actually 'view' anything bigger than that. This allows it so we cannot see God.
As we have the power to draw pictures and change the 2d world, so God has the ability to 'draw' and change the 4d world. God is therefore all powerful in our universe.
As we can look at entire 2d picture, God can look at our 4d universe. Therefore he sees all.
Please find a counter example that shows that by my definition of what God is, that he is not all powerful and all seeing in our universe.
|
|
koralth
Meteorite
Rest is for the dead.
Posts: 44
|
GOD
Apr 22, 2010 0:53:54 GMT -5
Post by koralth on Apr 22, 2010 0:53:54 GMT -5
A counter example would be easy to come up with. What's in the past is in the past, and I don't recall something that was in my past ever being changed. In fact, all evidence points to the idea that once something is done, it is in fact quite permanent - the action performed will have happened in that time frame always and forever - and certain significant actions leave evidence of their occurrence. Seldom does something NOT happen and leave evidence of it happening... if what I'm saying makes sense. I'll probably get up in the morning and wonder what the heck I was smoking tonight, but whatever, I'm exhausted, and this isn't the point I want to make, anyway.
Finding counter-EVIDENCE to arbitrary pseudohypotheses is another issue altogether. You're invoking the same cop-out of a rule that Christians everywhere have used for years - 'there's no proof this ISN'T true~!'
In a courtroom, if there is no evidence FOR or AGAINST an idea, let's use a murder accusation as an example, and there's no evidence for or against said murder - no murder weapon, no body - heck, no missing person or missing person report, the courts AND investigators have the strangest tendency to make the bold assumption that there has been no murder - at least in regards to this particular case. The same could be applied to the scientific process.
A researcher when doing objective research attempts to find the truth about some issue and find basic truths surrounding said issue. They form a hypothesis - a tentative statement concerning the interaction between two or more variables, and then they set out to test this hypothesis. If a test yields no evidence whatsoever concerning their hypothesis, they must concede that the tests they ran were inconclusive. The absence of evidence does not constitute them being right about their hypothesis.
My point is this - self-evidence is fallacy, something cannot be inherently self-evident. The lack of external evidence in most of our day to day lives is enough to assume that most of the things there's no evidence for or against don't exist. Zombies, for example... The monstery kind, not the kind that talks and pretends to think for itself but cannot... We can all pretty well safely assume are absolutely not real. It's called cognitive discrimination. Those ideas that we're given as children, or that we provide ourselves to supplement the ideas we're given as children, are given more weight, regardless of how arbitrary or non sequitur the concepts are. From an outsider's point of view, just about all codes of decorum for religion or even secular processions (parades, politics, etc.) seem ridiculous in nature - Someone who doesn't believe in God finds it strange to pray to someone that isn't there, and to self-censor and self-restrict their habits. Someone new to politics may find the codes of decorum during parliamentary meetings strange, inefficient, or even stupid. It all comes back to cognitive discrimination.
I lost track of my point for a moment ago, it's back, though. I'm sure you've heard the statement, "We're all atheists, I just believe in one less God than you". My last paragraph went out to try and demonstrate that in somewhat more empirical terms. The aforementioned statement is truly based on observed phenomenon - The same process goes into rejecting your concept of God as goes into rejecting Zeus, Thor, and their respective pantheons. While it's A-OK to believe, religion is always going to have to cut corners in the logic department and depend on good old faith - it's the nature of the beast. Sure, you can supplement your religion with empirical facts, things that science has observed to be true. However, attributing these phenomena to God will always fall into the logical fallacy of non sequitur, or "It does not follow".
|
|