The Theism/Atheism Discussion

[SpartanPride]

Perhaps not, but does a lack of love warrant the assumtion of imperfection? He can claim he is a God of love, even if he isn't, in order to see what a human's reaction is, in order to obtain knowledge philosphically and scientifically. I would even venture to say that lack of emotion and care for lower beings is not imperfection, it is only being on a higher level, beyond the trivial things of limited sentient beings.

 

If I told my mom I was doing great and school, and I knew I wasn't, that would be a sin. I would be lying. God doesn't get to bend the rules to his favor.

 

How can you explain John 3:16 then if you think he has a lack of emotion and care for lower beings?

[Achilles]

I’m going to regret this, but…my small brain cannot wrap around this. 1st Why would you have to distinguish between God and the expansion?

I suppose you wouldn't. I took the underlying gist of the question to be "which is bigger: god or infinity?"

 

2nd Isn’t it impossible for something to be larger than infinity, simply because infinity has no end?

My daddy always told me that infinity was (at the end of the day) a measure of time, not of distance.

(it's not a matter how far something can reach rather how long it can keep expanding)

To offset the weirdness of that thought, take comfort in knowing that light years are actually a measure of distance

 

It's hard to prove anything about Hell, and I am humble enough to give you that.

*Adds SpartanPride to his buddy list for saying something reasonable*

 

Really, this is what I think about the existence of Hell;

Some of the things in the Bible ARE based on solid evidence.

For instance?

 

The thing is, if anything in the Bible is false, the whole religon is false and cannot be real.

I can only add you to the list once.

 

So based on the fact that their is no evidence that proves they don't exist, if I am a Christian, I have to believe that Hell does exist.

Can't prove a negative. Violates a fundamental rule of logic. You're blowing into the big end of the horn. Turn it around and try again

 

I hope that makes sense to you. I'm not the best at explaining things.

You're struggling with some pretty big ideas and doing a fairly good job with them. Keep it up.

 

Hell was created before the existence of humanity, and we originally created for Lucifer (Satan) and his angels that followed him.

I rather enjoyed Paradise Lost, but never took it for anything other than a very well written poem.

 

*cue literary genius to come along and trash my taste in reading materials with reckless abandon and bruish my feelings in the process*

 

On topic: How do we know this?

 

God didn't make us with sin, he made us with free will. Thanks to Adam and Eve, they abused their free will, and now there is sin...

Well, the sin was eating the apple correct? So if god created the apple and he created eve and ultimately he created lucifer, the garden, et cetera, then surely he did create sin, did he not?

 

If not, then who did?

 

...not God's fault at all.

He could have put that tree anywhere. God can create the universe but not a frickin' wall or an electric fence around a tree? Really?

 

It's like leaving your car unlocked with the windows rolled down and the keys in the ignition and then claiming that you don't bear the slightest responsibility for it being stolen.

 

He gave people free will so they could love God and not be robots.

How do we know this? Deists believe that god created the universe, established all the physical laws, and then disappeared to let nature take it's own course. He doesn't love us, watch over us, judge us after death, or answer any of our prayers. How would you refute this or otherwise defend your hypotheiss against this one? What criteria should I use to determine which of these arguments is the correct one?

 

Nope, not until we die. Which is wierd, because I sort of look forward to Death, to figure this all out. (Unless I'm rotting, in which case I won't be able to )

That was exactly my - nevermind

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

How can you explain John 3:16 then if you think he has a lack of emotion and care for lower beings?

John was a liar.

[SpartanPride]

For instance?

 

Oh you know, artifacts (The none-vilolated ones) and stuff... digsites. The Ark... even though arcording to Palestine it "Doesn't Exist."

 

Bassically the same reasons why they have confirmed other history

 

Can't prove a negative. Violates a fundamental rule of logic. You're blowing into the big end of the horn. Turn it around and try again ?

 

Well that's another thing about Christiaity, it's not all about logic, it's also about faith... and while that might seem completley illogical and stupid to you, it's a big part of Chrisitanity.

 

You're struggling with some pretty big ideas and doing a fairly good job with them. Keep it up.

 

Thanks, I added you to my buddy list as well.

 

How do we know this?

 

Well, the sin was eating the apple correct? So if god created the apple and he created eve and ultimately he created lucifer, the garden, et cetera, then surely he did create sin, did he not?

 

If a mad scientist buys ingredients from a local grocery store to make an invention that turns people into bodily fluids, and it works, does that mean the grocery store created the disgusting-freak-invention?

 

How do we know this? Deists believe that god created the universe, established all the physical laws, and then disappeared to let nature take it's own course. He doesn't love us, watch over us, judge us after death, or answer any of our prayers. How would you refute this or otherwise defend your hypotheiss against this one? What criteria should I use to determine which of these arguments is the correct one?

 

Well... I don't know if these people believe in the Bible, but if they do... I could. I haven't heard of Deists before...

 

 

 

@abovepost: I don't get it? This is supposed to be a joke, right?

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Actually I did mean it as a joke, but now that I think about it, it actually makes a valid point. And on that note, prove that the Bible isn't just the rantings of random people from the Middle Ages.

[Rev7]

^

Could you no less prove that the dictionary isn't just made up?

[Achilles]

“If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason to act in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence.”

If only that had begun "Often,..."

 

I would add, I'm not entirely sure we will ever be on the same page with regards quite a few of the arguments; you remember the old architect/oracle analogy?

Err, no I don't. I think it's my turn to be old and tired today.

 

I was merely trying to point that I do not think my worldview was of any harm, and infact I used it for good; I could post you my final day of school notebook as evidence

I have no doubt that you have many friends, as I know you to be quite the agreeable fellow

 

Still that matter of reasonable vs unreasonable worldviews though

 

The only people whoever seem to have issues with me are other Christians; and thats usually because not only am I pointing out they are not acting particuarlly Jesus like, but have the annoying habbit of winning the insuing debate. (I am aware that currently I'm loosing our discussion).

I promise that when you finally provide that evidence that convinces me to convert, I'll tell everyone that you won.

 

I don't think I'd ever argue the world is full of good people, at my most charitable, I think the world is mostly inhabbited by idiots.

I think you misunderstood my argument.

 

How you feel is beside the point. The point was that, in some cases, by examing the reasoning rather than the argument, you remove some of subjectivity.

 

I think we aren't going to be in agreement over the origins of the universe and in the interests of shortening this for now I shall skip over it if that is acceptable? We could create a origins of the universe thread if there is not one already.

We certainly could, however I don't think that will change the fundamental nature of my argument. "Not A" will not equal "B" whether we're discussing it here or somewhere else.

 

Memo for Achilles; Anthony Flew is infact God; and is the standard by which all rational thought should me measured. (I think I may have just said something heretical).

Well *guffaw*, now that I have the memo...

 

As a philosopher I cannot accept that it is illegitimate to ask the question of the cause of world, or what is the purpose to life; even if the answer is unattainable. While Russel is my 3rd favourite philosopher (after Nietcszhe and Voltaire) he does not live upto his own definition of philosophy at the beggining of History of Western Philosophy.

You seem to be saying this as though he's failed to consider it himself, rather than having considered it, found it to be illegitimate. My 2 cents.

 

Right, I'm affraid my head is getting worse again, so am going to retire to bed

Take care of yourself, sir.

 

John was a liar.

I'll reserve judgment until we can determine whether or not he was on the shrooms when he crafted that (assuming that John 3:16 hasn't been doctored between now and when he wrote it).

 

Oh you know, artifacts (The none-vilolated ones) and stuff... digsites. The Ark... even though arcording to Palestine it "Doesn't Exist."

Okay, but which specific artifacts? What digsites? How are things things evidence for what you seem to think they are evidence for?

 

Just so you don't think I'm being obtuse: archeologists believe that they have found the city of Troy. Would this find somehow validate the events depicted in the Illiad or confirm the existence of the greek pantheon of gods?

 

Well that's another thing about Christiaity, it's not all about logic, it's also about faith... and while that might seem completley illogical and stupid to you, it's a big part of Chrisitanity.

Faith <snip>: firm belief in something for which there is no proof

Belief in the flying spaghetti monster and invisible pink unicorns requires faith as well. Would you care to defend the rationalization of those things also? See what happens when we open that door? All kinds of stuff gets in.

 

If a mad scientist buys ingredients from a local grocery store to make an invention that turns people into bodily fluids, and it works, does that mean the grocery store created the disgusting-freak-invention?

With all due respect, there are some problems with this analogy. Ignoring those for a moment, I'll concede that the grocery store wasn't ultimately responsible, however I think you should probably realize that in the analogy god is the scientist, the store, and the person that made all the ingredients.

 

Well... I don't know if these people believe in the Bible, but if they do... I could.

Deists are a little bit like atheists in that they really don't have much in the way of a central doctrine. I imagine that some of them might follow parts of the bible to varying degrees.

 

I haven't heard of Deists before...

Here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

 

Take care!

[Darth InSidious]

Actually I did mean it as a joke, but now that I think about it, it actually makes a valid point. And on that note, prove that the Bible isn't just the rantings of random people from the Middle Ages.

Papyri preserving all four gospels have been found dating to as early as the second century AD.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

^

Could you no less prove that the dictionary isn't just made up?

It is just made up. People made up words as a way to represent real life objects. A dictionary is simply a collection of agreed upon noises and symbols that represent real life objects.

 

Papyri preserving all four gospels have been found dating to as early as the second century AD.

As Achilles pointed out, the versions we have now aren't necessarily the originals. Also, I could just edit my post to say "random people from the second century AD".

[Achilles]

Papyri preserving all four gospels have been found dating to as early as the second century AD.

P52 is the oldest known manuscript fragment of the New Testament.

 

(Impressive, isn't it? Don't judge too quickly; it has text on the other side too.)

[Darth InSidious]

(Impressive, isn't it? Don't judge too quickly; it has text on the other side too.)

A ~1900-year-old manuscript? I'd say so.

 

@jmac: *shrugs*. That's the price you pay for being specific.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Yeah but Middle Ages sounds better. I mean, is there anyone who views the Middle Ages in a positive light?

[Corinthian]

Primitivists, maybe. And we did learn a lot during the Middle-Ages, mostly about the effectiveness of the cavalry charge.

[Achilles]

A ~1900-year-old manuscript? I'd say so.

Indeed, as a historical artifact it is truly breathtaking.

[Darth InSidious]

Yeah but Middle Ages sounds better.

Well, on those grounds it's excusable.

 

I mean, is there anyone who views the Middle Ages in a positive light?

There's plenty to think of as positive: the foundations of most of the modern academic disciplines are found in the Middle Ages, some of the seminal works on epistemology, philosophy, theology, and dialectic, were written during the period, not to mention the huge military, artistic and political advances made.

Primitivists, maybe.

Unlikely. The principles generally predispose such persons to the prehistoric as far as I can tell.

And we did learn a lot during the Middle-Ages,

Correct.

mostly about the effectiveness of the cavalry charge.

Incorrect.

Indeed, as a historical artifact it is truly breathtaking.

I couldn't put it better.

[Arcesious]

If I told my mom I was doing great and school, and I knew I wasn't, that would be a sin. I would be lying. God doesn't get to bend the rules to his favor.

 

How can you explain John 3:16 then if you think he has a lack of emotion and care for lower beings?

 

Since when do you make the rules? If you presume that God can do anything, he can do anything. He's God, so even if soemthing he does seems incredibly evil against the rules he might be lying that he has, he'd still be peerfect, because the outside veiw of a lower being of God lying is of no consequence to God's perfection. I already explained it.

 

(Remeber that I'm only phrasing it this way in order to adapt to another person's arguments effectively, and for no other reason.)

 

Simply, God could have lied and still be perfect, as explained here:

 

1. Lying doesn't make a being like God imperfect. He could easily lie in order to gain knowledge from the reactiosn of those who beleive and don't beleive him. And the pursuit of knowedge is a quest for perfection, so in this case, it's only meant to make God more perfect.

2. God has lied in other parts of the Bible. Remember this happening all throughout the book of Exodus?:

 

Isrealites: "Let's go worship idols!"

God: "You shall be severly punished for your ignorance!"

Moses: "Please don't hurt them God!"

God: "I'm not changing my mind!"

Moses: "Please, I beg you to spare their lives!"

God: "Ok, I won't punish them if they worship me again."

Isrealites: "We're sorry God! We won't ever do it again!"

God: "I promise not to hurt you!"

Isrealites: "This is gettign boring. Let's go worship idols again!"

God: "You will die for your ignorance!"

etc, etc... so on and so forth...

 

If you say lying makes him imperefect, then how can you also say he knows everything? If he knows everything, surely he can avoid lying...

[SpartanPride]

Since when do you make the rules? If you presume that God can do anything, he can do anything. He's God, so even if soemthing he does seems incredibly evil against the rules he might be lying that he has, he'd still be peerfect, because the outside veiw of a lower being of God lying is of no consequence to God's perfection. I already explained it.

 

(Remeber that I'm only phrasing it this way in order to adapt to another person's arguments effectively, and for no other reason.)

 

Simply, God could have lied and still be perfect, as explained here:

 

1. Lying doesn't make a being like God imperfect. He could easily lie in order to gain knowledge from the reactiosn of those who beleive and don't beleive him. And the pursuit of knowedge is a quest for perfection, so in this case, it's only meant to make God more perfect.

2. God has lied in other parts of the Bible. Remember this happening all throughout the book of Exodus?:

 

Isrealites: "Let's go worship idols!"

God: "You shall be severly punished for your ignorance!"

Moses: "Please don't hurt them God!"

God: "I'm not changing my mind!"

Moses: "Please, I beg you to spare their lives!"

God: "Ok, I won't punish them if they worship me again."

Isrealites: "We're sorry God! We won't ever do it again!"

God: "I promise not to hurt you!"

Isrealites: "This is gettign boring. Let's go worship idols again!"

God: "You will die for your ignorance!"

etc, etc... so on and so forth...

 

If you say lying makes him imperefect, then how can you also say he knows everything? If he knows everything, surely he can avoid lying...

 

God punished the Israelites all the time...

 

I didn't make the rules, but mercy and lying are different things.

 

If a Knight says he will kill another Knight in battle, but then spares him, was the Knight lying?

[Arcesious]

God punished the Israelites all the time...

 

I didn't make the rules, but mercy and lying are different things.

 

If a Knight says he will kill another Knight in battle, but then spares him, was the Knight lying?

 

As did he supposedly punish many other races and supposedly completely wipe out armies of soldiers who didn't know any better. If I were God, I wouldn't kill those people, I'd show them how they were wrong and bring them to 'faith' in myself.

 

Mercy and lying different things? Perhaps, but if God is all-knowing, he would have foreknowledge of everything, and it's much easier to get soemone to listen to you by calmly explaining things than it is to threaten to kill them if they don't straighten up. He's God, he could easily teach and persuade those isrealites to beleive all kinds of things, and never have to worry about them disobeying him again, but without having to resort to violence to keep them under control.

 

The knight was lying. Saying you're not goign to/are going to do something and then not following what you said still, relatively is, lying. Even if it is mercy.

 

Edit/Announcement: I have just recently noticed that this thread is broken... Moderators if you know how to fix it and put the posts back in order please do... Also, some posts recently made seem to be missing...

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

There's plenty to think of as positive: the foundations of most of the modern academic disciplines are found in the Middle Ages, some of the seminal works on epistemology, philosophy, theology, and dialectic, were written during the period, not to mention the huge military, artistic and political advances made.

I didn't say that nothing good happened then, I just said it wouldn't win any awards for "best time to live during". Regarding its reputation, my mind, for one, jumps immediately to "flaming, plague-ridden corpse thrown into a muddy ditch under a gray sky" and not "seminal works on philosophy".

[jonathan7]

Edit/Announcement: I have just recently noticed that this thread is broken... Moderators if you know how to fix it and put the posts back in order please do... Also, some posts recently made seem to be missing...

 

Thats probably because the thread has been 'moderated' i.e. posts that arent here were probably deleted

[Arcesious]

(Very recent posts between Corinthian, SpartanPride, and I were made, and now they're gone. They had total relevence to the topic at hand so it's obviously a bug and not the moderator's fault.)

[Rogue Nine]

No, they really didn't. Which is why they were deleted.

 

Please get back to the topic at hand.

[Jae Onasi]

It has become abundantly clear to me that my level of civility required to discuss religious topics is higher than what people here are able or want to accommodate. I guess I'm too tenderhearted to deal with comments like 'intellectual dishonesty', and it's too much of a barrier for me to overcome to be able to discuss the topic here. I don't want to say things like that to others and I don't want them said to me, either.

 

So, Achilles, I guess you win the argument by default. I even got you a trophy. Sorry I wasted your time.

 

Have a nice day.

[Astor]

I haven't read the whole thread, so I might have got a few things wrong, but...

 

While i'm not sure as to my own beliefs regarding religion, and whether I should believe in one, I won't hold it against people for believing in either - free speech and right to choose should always be the first thing that people believe in.

 

But as to believing in God/Gods/Extra Terrestrial Beings, you can believe in them too much. Take the link below:

 

<WARNING - DO NOT GO TO THIS SITE IF YOU ARE EASILY OFFENDED>

actually, I won't post the link, and save you the mental trauma. But, if you are really into self punishment, the site contains the words 'over' and 'land', just not in that order.

 

No doubt the activities of this so called 'church' are known to some of you here, and I feel they serve as a warning for how far people can take their beliefs.

[Nedak]

So, Achilles, I guess you win the argument by default. I even got you a trophy. Sorry I wasted your time.

 

 

There is really no winning or loosing in this argument... It's all what you perceive.

 

It's good to know we have a smart-**** mod though.

 

Well, I wasn't really trying to be a smart-***, though.... --Jae