NationStates Jolt Archive

I first came up with this when trying to disprove God, and while at first I thought it would work for that it turns out it's really more of a proof that any religion that has a deity with a certain set of characteristics is futile.

On to the actual proof: the line of logic begins in a simple thought experiment designed to predict what a being like God would do. We start by establishing that this being has the following characteristics:
1.Omnipotence
2.Omniscience
3.Free Will
These characteristics are all relatively consistent with those described as belonging to the deities of the various Abrahamic religions.

We then attempt to discern what factors would drive this being to any given course of action. First we can eliminate any factors relating to ease, as this being is omnipotent and as such any action is equally easy to accomplish. We can also eliminate any factors relating to personal happiness, as such a being could gain as much happiness as it desired independent of any outside conditions. Finally, we can eliminate any moral strictures, as an omnipotent being could easily tailor the structure of morality to validate its actions. This sort of logic can be applied to any motivation you can care to think up, and thus time, distance, causality, and any "secret motivations" would all be irrelevant. We can also rule out ignorance of ability, as said being is omniscient and thus by definition knows fully what it is capable of. Thus we can conclude that for this being no act is preferable to any other act. God would also not be compelled to any given action outside of these strictures, on account of having free will.

Because every action is equally preferential to this being, it follows that there is no way to predict this being's actions. In effect, it would operate wholly at random. Thus any form of worship is pointless: even if this being has a long track record of being beneficial to worshippers there is no guarantee that it will continue to be so, nor is there any reason to expect this to be the case. If a coin that you knew was fair got a long string of heads, you would still have to expect that on the next throw it has a 50% chance of getting tails.

There are a few ways out of this proof, all eventually involving a being without one of the three important traits. A non-omnipotent being, such as those worshipped by a variety of pagan religions, would still be a reasonable target of worship. So would one without free will, such as one bound by fate or programmed into a specific series of actions, though this would raise new problems. Any of these solutions applied to Christianity would be deeply heretical.

There is one specific trait that the proof does not address, which bears some explanation. Most Gods of the sort I am describing are also categorized as in some way omnibenevolent. While such a trait means nothing if the being can alter moral law (thus defining whatever action it chooses as an act of benevolence), it does defeat the proof if such a being is limited by an outside law. This secular moral code would require such a being to be incompletely omnipotent so that it was unable to alter the code. This extra-deific code is a concept that most of the Abrahamic religions would find bizarre, but one which is surprisingly interesting to contemplate.

I'd turn all churches into giant cinnamon buns. :)

I'd turn all churches into giant cinnamon buns. :)

Case in point. People, meet the NSer closest to how God would act.

My resume is on file with the central office in case a position opens up. :cool:

snip.


I'm sorry, but I don't think this is a proof except in the most semantic way. If there's a god like this, he doesn't exist in our universe - he is supernatural, not subject to natural laws and the rules that govern our universe. Rules like logic.

You can't constrain a god of the sort you mention by means of logical thought experiments because he's not subject to any of the rules such an experiment relies on.

Personally, I really appreciate the attempt - I _regularly_ swing between a liberal interpretation of christianity and atheism (price of upbringing meeting learning! :D), so like the idea of rationally considering the position of god! :p But neither of my positions, on reflection, can really accept that you can think your way around/through the concept of any divine being of the sort you're talking about.

you know what, i feel sorry for god. there are so many people claiming to preach his/her word, starting wars and commiting sensless acts in his/her name. thats if s/he existed

Elgesh']I'm sorry, but I don't think this is a proof except in the most semantic way. If there's a god like this, he doesn't exist in our universe - he is supernatural, not subject to natural laws and the rules that govern our universe. Rules like logic.

You can't constrain a god of the sort you mention by means of logical thought experiments because he's not subject to any of the rules such an experiment relies on.

Personally, I really appreciate the attempt - I _regularly_ swing between a liberal interpretation of christianity and atheism (price of upbringing meeting learning! :D), so like the idea of rationally considering the position of god! :p But neither of my positions, on reflection, can really accept that you can think your way around/through the concept of any divine being of the sort you're talking about.

Logic would have problems dealing with the supernatural, but only in cases in which the supernatural abscences itself from logic. In this case I try to use only traits that God is described as having, thus using only the logic inherent in the concept. This doesn't require logic on the whole to work, merely some specific parts that are necessary for such a being to exist anyway. All it relies upon is the fact that an unregulatable being is unregulatable. If that logic doesn't work, then the being is quite simply not actually omnipotent, and thus escapes the proof anyway.

Elgesh']I'm sorry, but I don't think this is a proof except in the most semantic way. If there's a god like this, he doesn't exist in our universe - he is supernatural, not subject to natural laws and the rules that govern our universe. Rules like logic.
this would have been an acceptable argument.... if it was the dark ages. unfortunatly, we have progressed since then, and most supernatural phenomina is either explained, or refuted

it turns out it's really more of a proof that any religion that has a deity with a certain set of characteristics is futile.
That's why I've embraced philosophical Buddhism for the past 15 years.
I just haven't hit those brick walls. In the Tibetan tradition, when you look far enough into it (esoteric teachings), it's readily admitted that the unbelievable elements of Tibetan Buddhism are illusory. In fact, everything is.
In the end there's just the void. I welcome it as a heaven more beautific than anything painted with a deistic brush.
It takes some homework-hours to discover that, but I'm offering it up for free-n'-easy right here. ;)

this would have been an acceptable argument.... if it was the dark ages. unfortunatly, we have progressed since then, and most supernatural phenomina is either explained, or refuted

Except for this one. Remember that. Otherwise this thread really would be futile.

That's why I've embraced philosophical Buddhism for the past 15 years.
I just haven't hit those brick walls. In the Tibetan tradition, when you look far enough into it (esoteric teachings), it's readily admitted that the unbelievable elements of Tibetan Buddhism are illusory. In fact, everything is.
In the end there's just the void. I welcome it as a heaven more beautific than anything painted with a deistic brush.
It takes some homework-hours to discover that, but I'm offering it up for free-n'-easy right here. ;)

Yeah, I've had a few problems with Buddhism (mainly that it seems to be the one religion that no-one but me cares to criticize) but at least it's able to avoid the proof, mainly because it's God-being has no free will. And no, I'm not one of those stupid people who think Buddha is a god, I'm talking about Karma, which effectively behaves much like the Abrahamic Gods for certain purposes. Unlike said Gods, Karma is not a free-willed being, and thus conceivably could avoid randomness.

By the way, it's never exactly been made clear to me how minimalist you can be and still be Buddhist. Is Karma always part of Buddhism, or is it optional?

this would have been an acceptable argument.... if it was the dark ages. unfortunatly, we have progressed since then, and most supernatural phenomina is either explained, or refuted

Hey guy, no need to be pointy; I'm just saying, if you're dealing with a potential entity that doesn't exist in your universe, that is not subject to any rules you can actually imagine (existing as he [I'm using 'he' to save my writing a big list of pronouns each time, btw!:p] does in an 'other' place), and cannot possibily be fully analogous to anything you can conceive... it's a bit futile to try to prove his non-existence through any means we can devise, including elements of logic.

Furthermore, I'm not pro-supernatural stuff either! I'm using the word supernatural to denote that if this god exists, he cannot do so in our universe as we understand it, but must be somewhere else - as a shorthand for this, I used 'supernatural'. Apologies for the confusion!

I sure am glad noone has bothered coming up with proof of the futility of arguing on the internet yet. It would take a lot of fun out of my day. But this thread needs more inconsolable and extreme opinions.

I sure am glad noone has bothered coming up with proof of the futility of arguing on the internet yet. It would take a lot of fun out of my day. But this thread needs more inconsolable and extreme opinions.

I don't think anyone actually needs to prove the futility of arguing on the internet, it tends to be assumed. :D

Oy Vey. Here's my view:
Religions are based on faith. This faith is rooted strongly in many people( I'm not one of them, being a reform jew, but meh). So, my point is, it's futile to convince people that god doesn't exist. Also, religion isn't always a bad thing, it depends on interpertation. Many people lead very good lives based on their religion. Not all of them(extremists, crazy cults, etc.), but some.

my 00.02

Finally, we can eliminate any moral strictures, as an omnipotent being could easily tailor the structure of morality to validate its actions.

I think that the main problem with your proof comes in the above statement about morality. We are asked to eliminate moral behavior as a characteristic or motivation for the actions any deity because that deity would be able to tailor morality to suit their own needs. This implies a rather startling view of morality: that it is nothing more and nothing less than what people percieve to be the correct course of action. If we could just 'tailor' people's conception of morality, we would be on the moral high road. This view is again hinted at when, at the end of the sentence, we are told that the purpose of this alteration would be 'to validate its actions'. I choose to believe that morality means a bit more.

I'll try to take an example that everyone here can agree would be immoral: the institution of slavery. Under a conception of morality such as the one used in Vegas's proof, slavery could be, and indeed has been, moral. All one would have to do is to convince society that it is a good thing to do, and since it is validated in the eyes of the people, it is now moral. So, that would mean that slavery in Ancient Egypt, Greece, and Rome, in Europe, America, and just about everywhere else it was put into practice was moral, right? Again, (hopefully) most of us can agree that it was not quite this way.

A second objection is raised, that a deity, even if able to take a moral course of action, still would not be motivated to do so. Again, this operates from a vastly different conception of morality than is the norm. You don't choose to do the morally right thing because it will benifit you, or because you are forced to do so; you do it becasue it is fundamentally the right thing to do. If somebody who trusts you, say a good friend, leaves twenty dollars on the table, and you know they'd never notice, you leave it be, not because it wouldn't be nice to have twenty bucks, nor because you think that that person would be angry, but because it's the right thing to do.

Just as humans are compelled to take the moral high road, I don't think it altogether unreasonable to assume that a deity would be similarly motivated. All organized religions ask you to make certain assumptions: that a deity as described in scripture or otherwise exists; that this deity is understanding and willing to listen to the prayers of his/her/their followers; and that this deity can act in the mortal realm. Similarly, practitioners are asked to assume that this deity is the incarnation of morality, and an example to be followed. Asked to prove this assumption, I will tell you flat out: I can't. Religion is about faith: nothing that it states can be either proved or disproved. As members of an organized religion, we recognize and understand that many do not share our basic assumptions about the nature of religion, and many more do not make them at all. However, I do not think that it is altogether unreasonable to ask, in return, that those who do not share these assumptions accept our right to make them, and believe in them. As such, it seems to me altogether pointless to discuss whether or not organized religion is feasible or not; we will always return to the same conclusion, or rather a lack thereof.

Just to conclude, please don't turn this into a discussion of Christianity or a bible-bashing fest. Threads such as this shouldn't simply be about supporting or opposing the modern Christian perspective, nothing ever gets done. Moreover, please don't tag me as a supporter of that philosophy: I am posting my views as a reform Jew (one of the less conservative sects of Judaism), and would gladly take your side on many of the issues that are raised against Christian moral philosophy. Keep it non-denominational, and if you want to flame, understand that I reserve the right to ignore you.

It's refreshing, to say the least, to see a discussion about refuting any divine element as it falls out of rational and logical thought without it turning into some flame war between two sides that are blinded by their own beliefs either for or against the argument either way.

Of course, I am on the side of logic, in that; I find the idea of a supreme being to be, for the lack of a better word, absurd. Sure, the concept of a god or gods served the ancient people well, they had no idea why things worked they way they did, but as the years passed, and we discovered more and more the folly of just assuming that an event occurred because of some supernatural entity. It strikes me as odd that in this day and age of reason that people would still turn to a way of thinking that enforced the train of thought that it’s better to follow than question why.

Let us also take the omnipotent and omniscient being, why would such a being go through all the trouble of creating, guiding and nurturing such a powerless race such as our, or any? For company?

Yeah, I've had a few problems with Buddhism (mainly that it seems to be the one religion that no-one but me cares to criticize) but at least it's able to avoid the proof, mainly because it's God-being has no free will. And no, I'm not one of those stupid people who think Buddha is a god, I'm talking about Karma, which effectively behaves much like the Abrahamic Gods for certain purposes. Unlike said Gods, Karma is not a free-willed being, and thus conceivably could avoid randomness.

By the way, it's never exactly been made clear to me how minimalist you can be and still be Buddhist. Is Karma always part of Buddhism, or is it optional?
Whoa, a whole lotta questions. And I'm gonna say fuck-all to Buddhist wisdom that demands you don't answer them, you let someone find them out on their own. Why not? I can't go to hell for it. :D

First, Buddhism isn't like "religion" as you know it. I'm very unhappy, actually, with the way we typically hide the truth. We make you work for it, and jump through hoops for years before we give it out.
It's not like religions with Bibles that ask you to believe it straight-up. Instead, we offer a little bit of bullshit, and then expect you to "keep with it" until you "earn" the truth (and here on in I'll use "they", 'cause I am an outsider, even though I regularly attend and love going to "temple").
I really hate that attitude, but what am I gonna do but be honest about what I've learned so far?

Regardless, let me try to answer some of your questions, as best as I can.
Remember, this isn't Christianity. There's no right or wrong. No real fundamentalist literalism. Just experience (namely, mine).

mainly because it's God-being has no free will. And no, I'm not one of those stupid people who think Buddha is a god, I'm talking about Karma, which effectively behaves much like the Abrahamic Gods for certain purposes
Karma is not a free-willed being
Wow. A whole lot to tackle here. "God-Being" makes no sense in Buddhism (and remember, I'm a Tibetan Buddhist, as far as my focus of study/practice goes). To imply, even backhandedly that Karma is a god is to misunderstand Eastern philophy, period, dude. No big guy. No universal personality. No universal judge (karma implies that).
The big secret is that karma isn't that secret. It just means that you get what you put out there, more often than not. Sure, it's dressed up a great deal, but in the end (esoteric) truths, there's not even any difference between right and wrong, let alone something that makes those judgements...
Besides yourself. Your own mother tought you this simple truth when you were, like, three. Be mean, people are mean back. yadda, yadda.
There's more interesting ideas that surround darma, but yo should know it's not a magical force. That's a lie. (I hate that that lie is definitely perpetuated by Buddhists themselves, but hey-- They're only human).

I consider it a travesty that Americans who attend regularly Tibetan Budhist "services" are given information a whole lot sooner than our Tibetan/Eastern counterpats are. And there's often a language devide that prevents us from sharing this "secret" info with our brothers/sisters who are devoting a whole lot more (by being monks) than we are to the "truth". (There's no difference between a truth, or a lie. They're both invalid because there's nothing/everything as the ultimate reality).

I have my own problems with my choice of "religion", but it doesn't stop me from denying my experience. And that's that it's the closest I've ever (and probably will ever) come to the truth/ultimate reality.

Just my .02. A very personal, and subjective perspective, but I hope I've given you something to better base your opinions on.

snip

You've got some rather good arguments, but they stem from a misinterpretation of my point. I'm not claiming that morality is merely what an individual believes is right, otherwise the addition of that comment after the one about happiness would be redundant. Instead I am positing that if there was a universal moral code, God could simply change it. Slavery may be wrong now, and wrong when it happened in Egypt etc., but if an omnipotent being decides that slavery is right, then by the very definition of omnipotence it is right. This is the point of the last paragraph, thinking about what omnipotence means in reference to a universal code of morality. If a deity is truly omnipotent, that which is right or wrong conforms to its whims. It is only if morality is unalterable, thus implying that said being is not omnipotent, that omnibenevolence has any significant meaning.

Whoa, a whole lotta questions. And I'm gonna say fuck-all to Buddhist wisdom that demands you don't answer them, you let someone find them out on their own. Why not? I can't go to hell for it. :D

First, Buddhism isn't like "religion" as you know it. I'm very unhappy, actually, with the way we typically hide the truth. We make you work for it, and jump through hoops for years before we give it out.
It's not like religions with Bibles that ask you to believe it straight-up. Instead, we offer a little bit of bullshit, and then expect you to "keep with it" until you "earn" the truth (and here on in I'll use "they", 'cause I am an outsider, even though I regularly attend and love going to "temple").
I really hate that attitude, but what am I gonna do but be honest about what I've learned so far?

Regardless, let me try to answer some of your questions, as best as I can.
Remember, this isn't Christianity. There's no right or wrong. No real fundamentalist literalism. Just experience (namely, mine).


Wow. A whole lot to tackle here. "God-Being" makes no sense in Buddhism (and remember, I'm a Tibetan Buddhist, as far as my focus of study/practice goes). To imply, even backhandedly that Karma is a god is to misunderstand Eastern philophy, period, dude. No big guy. No universal personality. No universal judge (karma implies that).
The big secret is that karma isn't that secret. It just means that you get what you put out there, more often than not. Sure, it's dressed up a great deal, but in the end (esoteric) truths, there's not even any difference between right and wrong, let alone something that makes those judgements...
Besides yourself. Your own mother tought you this simple truth when you were, like, three. Be mean, people are mean back. yadda, yadda.
There's more interesting ideas that surround darma, but yo should know it's not a magical force. That's a lie. (I hate that that lie is definitely perpetuated by Buddhists themselves, but hey-- They're only human).

I consider it a travesty that Americans who attend regularly Tibetan Budhist "services" are given information a whole lot sooner than our Tibetan/Eastern counterpats are. And there's often a language devide that prevents us from sharing this "secret" info with our brothers/sisters who are devoting a whole lot more (by being monks) than we are to the "truth". (There's no difference between a truth, or a lie. They're both invalid because there's nothing/everything as the ultimate reality).

I have my own problems with my choice of "religion", but it doesn't stop me from denying my experience. And that's that it's the closest I've ever (and probably will ever) come to the truth/ultimate reality.

Just my .02. A very personal, and subjective perspective, but I hope I've given you something to better base your opinions on.

Sorry for making you reveal the cosmic secrets, but ah weil, such is life.

Anyway, I didn't mean to imply that Karma was actually a sentient, personalitied being, that's why I said the part about it not having free will. My point is more that Karma operates in a similar way to many of these beings. It rewards the good and punishes the bad, and it does it through what would have to consist of supernatural means. The difference, and the thing that removes Karma from the bounds of my proof, is that Karma is a force or principle, not a free-willed being. It still occupies a similar role, however.

Oy Vey. Here's my view:
Religions are based on faith. This faith is rooted strongly in many people( I'm not one of them, being a reform jew, but meh). So, my point is, it's futile to convince people that god doesn't exist. Also, religion isn't always a bad thing, it depends on interpertation. Many people lead very good lives based on their religion. Not all of them(extremists, crazy cults, etc.), but some.

my 00.02

Not trying to convince people, not saying religion is bad, thus not really relevant. Still, calmness is appreciated.

Sorry for making you reveal the cosmic secrets, but ah weil, such is life.
That was douchebag. I'm conveying secrets (in a roundabout way) that are seriously kept under lock and key.
I'm revealing the guy behind the curtain, and you're criticizing me for it? Ah, well, sorry to have tried.

Anyway, I didn't mean to imply that Karma was actually a sentient, personalitied being, that's why I said the part about it not having free will. My point is more that Karma operates in a similar way to many of these beings. It rewards the good and punishes the bad, and it does it through what would have to consist of supernatural means. The difference, and the thing that removes Karma from the bounds of my proof, is that Karma is a force or principle, not a free-willed being. It still occupies a similar role, however.
Nevermind. I see why (and have seen it before) why these things aren't "handed out". And I hate that almost as much as I can't stand rediculous protectionism.

I've always wondered, if there's no point to life, why people bother doing anything, and why they don't just kill themselve. I suppose that that would be doing something. But why bother, say, getting up in the morning? We're all going to die anyway, nothing we do REALLY matters... why don't we just all kill ourselves?

I think I'm going to go do that right now. Good night.

I first came up with this when trying to disprove God
Yeah there's no need to read the rest of the post.

Look, it's impossible to either prove or disprove God. To attempt either one is futile. Hence why I'm called someone with "faith."

I've always wondered, if there's no point to life, why people bother doing anything, and why they don't just kill themselve. I suppose that that would be doing something. But why bother, say, getting up in the morning? We're all going to die anyway, nothing we do REALLY matters... why don't we just all kill ourselves?

I think I'm going to go do that right now. Good night.
I've wondered, why do people keep trying to survive if they need a "point" to it?

Of course, I am on the side of logic, in that; I find the idea of a supreme being to be, for the lack of a better word, absurd. Sure, the concept of a god or gods served the ancient people well, they had no idea why things worked they way they did, but as the years passed, and we discovered more and more the folly of just assuming that an event occurred because of some supernatural entity. It strikes me as odd that in this day and age of reason that people would still turn to a way of thinking that enforced the train of thought that it’s better to follow than question why. the atribution of logic to this is somewhat flawed. what is logic? did any one question that,


log·ic (ljk)
n.
The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.

logic was created by man. your attribution of logic is based on your assumption that the existance of God can be comprehended by man.
"the wisdom of men is but foolishness to God" - some verse in the bible.

we cant understand the existence of God because we are feebleminded. i dont mean people are stupid but that most humans believe nothing is beyond our comprehension... this is utterly false, some things just cant be explained, like duh duh duh duuuuuhhhh "the reason we exist" for thousands of years men have asked the same question what is the meaning of life?
men can not be sure because man was not around when life was created, so there in lies a flaw.

now we get to the point of what someone said earlier about how weve explained supernatural phenomenon and its not "God"
but we must ask what if how we explained this phenomenon is just how God did it? wouldnt that prove that god does exist.

Let us also take the omnipotent and omniscient being, why would such a being go through all the trouble of creating, guiding and nurturing such a powerless race such as our, or any? For company?

exactly. company. God was lonely and created life, but he gave us free will to surrender to our instincts and animal drives. i have often wondered the purpose of free will if God wanted us to worship him. wouldnt it just be easier to create life with out free will, and tell them how to live and to worship you,

conclusion i came to, theres a difference between someone being made to love you, and choosing to love you, if you force people to love you it just proves you have power, well everyone knows he has power (assuming like i do that he exists), but if people choose to love you, against what theyre instincts tell them, it proves you are GREAT. God created us to be his children that inherit this earth. He gave us free will, knowing that we are weak(getting into christian theism), he knew we would succumb to the drives of our flesh, which do not follow the aspects of Gods will. God is free of the flesh (and when i say flesh i mean our human instincts) so they do not drive him. he knew we would not be able to with stand so he sent us a gift, a gift, wrapped in a manger, and the rest is history, (Calvery)

Yeah there's no need to read the rest of the post.

Look, it's impossible to either prove or disprove God. To attempt either one is futile. Hence why I'm called someone with "faith."

Ok, here we go:

I dare anyone here to disprove the existence of: Santa, the Tooth Fairy and the dragon in my garage.

"I double dar'ya!"

Ok, here we go:

I dare anyone here to disprove the existence of: Santa, the Tooth Fairy and the dragon in my garage.

"I double dar'ya!"
Easy,

Santa gives no presents, no house at the North Pole, and no flying reindeer as far as science knows
Putting a tooth under my pillow doesn't result in a quarter
and I can fly over to your house and check your garage. Or you can.


But what happens to us after we die? Hmm? I don't suppose YOU'VE died recently have you?


Quite a sad attempt to sound superior I might add.

That was douchebag. I'm conveying secrets (in a roundabout way) that are seriously kept under lock and key.
I'm revealing the guy behind the curtain, and you're criticizing me for it? Ah, well, sorry to have tried.


Nevermind. I see why (and have seen it before) why these things aren't "handed out". And I hate that almost as much as I can't stand rediculous protectionism.

I wasn't trying to criticize you. Blast my foolishness in not using smilies. Seriously, though, so far you haven't given me anything I didn't know about before, so at the moment we're both safe.

You've got some rather good arguments, but they stem from a misinterpretation of my point. I'm not claiming that morality is merely what an individual believes is right, otherwise the addition of that comment after the one about happiness would be redundant. Instead I am positing that if there was a universal moral code, God could simply change it. Slavery may be wrong now, and wrong when it happened in Egypt etc., but if an omnipotent being decides that slavery is right, then by the very definition of omnipotence it is right. This is the point of the last paragraph, thinking about what omnipotence means in reference to a universal code of morality. If a deity is truly omnipotent, that which is right or wrong conforms to its whims. It is only if morality is unalterable, thus implying that said being is not omnipotent, that omnibenevolence has any significant meaning.


ah but your associating God with human insincts. God doesnt think like we do.

logic was created by man. your attribution of logic is based on your assumption that the existance of God can be comprehended by man.
"the wisdom of men is but foolishness to God" - some verse in the bible.

exactly. company. God was lonely and created life, but he gave us free will to surrender to our instincts and animal drives. i have wondered the purpose of free will if God wanted us to worship him. wouldnt it just be easier to create life with out free will, and tell them how to live and to worship you,

conclusion i came to, theres a difference between someone being made to love you, and choosing to love you, if you force people to love you it just proves you have power, well everyone knows he has power (assuming like i do that he exists), but if people choose against what theyre instincts tell them to love you, it proves you are GREAT. god created us to be his children that inherit this earth. He gave us free will, knowing that we are weak(getting into christian theism), he knew we would succumb to the drives of our flesh, which do not follow god. God is free of the flesh (and when i say flesh i mean our human instincts) so they do not drive him. he knew we would not be able to with stand so he sent us a gift, a gift, wrapped in a manger, and the rest is history, (Calvery)

If God is completely incomprehensible to logic, then it is not omnipotent, omniscient, or free willed, as those are all logical concepts. Such conceptions of God are uncommon and irrelevant to my point.

As to the whole free will argument: an omnipotent God could simply decide that free will in non-deific beings is wrong and that coercion is right. Only a being that is not omnipotent would be limited by such concerns.

Easy,

Santa gives no presents
Putting a tooth under my pillow doesn't result in a quarter
and I can fly over to your house and check your garage. Or you can.


But what happens to us after we die? Hmm? I don't suppose YOU'VE died recently have you?


Quite a sad attempt to sound superior I might add.

1. Santa does give presents, and a great layer of the population is with me on this one;
2. Same goes for your feeble attempt to turn your back on the All-Mighty Tooth Fairy;
3. It actually has a roof, but I have seen him there, so he IS there;
4. Yes I have. Clouds are fluffy;
5. Right back at ya.

ah but your associating God with human insincts. God doesnt think like we do.

No, that's the point. God is free of human instincts, in fact because he is free willed and omnipotent he is free of all instincts. Thus right and wrong are totally dependent on his whim, and his whim, unlike human whim, is dependent on nothing whatsoever. Nothing makes any given action preferalbe to such a being.

1. Santa does give presents, and a great layer of the population is with me on this one;
2. Same goes for your feeble attempt to turn your back on the All-Mighty Tooth Fairy.
3. It actually has a roof, but I have seen him there, so he IS there.
4. Yes I have. Clouds are fluffy.
5. Right back at ya.
1. It is not the children who decide on the facts of the universe, it is my pillow.
2. The Tooth Fairy's power was only granted to her by a genie as one of her three wishes. Look it up.
3. Pics. Now.
4. Liar.
5. Let's play catch shall we?

Yeah there's no need to read the rest of the post.

Look, it's impossible to either prove or disprove God. To attempt either one is futile. Hence why I'm called someone with "faith."

1. You can't prove or disprove God (probably), that's why my post doesn't claim to.
2. Concepts are provable or disprovable at the point at which they enter provable grounds. Thus Santa, Tooth Fairy, etc., are disprovable because they claim material effects. Perpetual effectiveness of organized religion is disprovable on its own terms, which I outlined in my post.

1. You can't prove or disprove God (probably), that's why my post doesn't claim to.
2. Concepts are provable or disprovable at the point at which they enter provable grounds. Thus Santa, Tooth Fairy, etc., are disprovable because they claim material effects. Perpetual effectiveness of organized religion is disprovable on its own terms, which I outlined in my post.
Ah, okay. I misjudged you for another hardcore atheist claiming the same thing that hardcore theists claim, intellectual superiority. My apologies.

Ah, okay. I misjudged you for another hardcore atheist claiming the same thing that hardcore theists claim, intellectual superiority. My apologies.

No, that's me in the Buddhist-Bashing thread. When I'm presenting ideas of my own I'm much more rational.

If God is completely incomprehensible to logic, then it is not omnipotent, omniscient, or free willed, as those are all logical concepts. Such conceptions of God are uncommon and irrelevant to my point.

As to the whole free will argument: an omnipotent God could simply decide that free will in non-deific beings is wrong and that coercion is right. Only a being that is not omnipotent would be limited by such concerns.

1. how is omnipotent, and omnisciet and free will logical, they are the exact opposite,

logic would say that no being could exist in more than one spot at one given time,

logic would say that no being could know all and see all,

logic would say that free will doesnt coincide with gods plans of wanting us to worshiping as free will tends to make us go another direction as you have.


no one has denied that God has the power to do that. its not that he cant its that he WONT. that was the sole purpose of having the laws of God writen for men to see. so the laws of God shall be carved in stone and never changed. God in the begining set up laws that would govern our world.

1. It is not the children who decide on the facts of the universe, it is my pillow.
2. The Tooth Fairy's power was only granted to her by a genie as one of her three wishes. Look it up.
3. Pics. Now.
4. Liar.
5. Let's play catch shall we?

1. How dare you? Ageist!
2. As a Tooth Fairy fearing man I resent that you are implying that there is a being above her AND are trying to teach me on the scripture of my religion. I'm tired of this religion bashing in these forums.
3. He's off to get a beer.
4. Take it back or I'll sue you for libel.
5. I don't know what you're talking about.

No, that's the point. God is free of human instincts, in fact because he is free willed and omnipotent he is free of all instincts. Thus right and wrong are totally dependent on his whim, and his whim, unlike human whim, is dependent on nothing whatsoever. Nothing makes any given action preferalbe to such a being.


okay, the laws that God bestowed upon man our the Laws that God governs himself by. thats why following the laws is being God Like. One of the God like rules is letting people make up theyre mind, God bestoyed Free will he can't take it back(im not saying he doesnt have the power to) but if he did he would under mine his own word that was used to creat this world and thus undo its creation

1. how is omnipotent, and omnisciet and free will logical, they are the exact opposite,

logic would say that no being could exist in more than one spot at one given time,

logic would say that no being could know all and see all,

logic would say that free will doesnt coincide with gods plans of wanting us to worshiping as free will tends to make us go another direction as you have.


no one has denied that God has the power to do that. its not that he cant its that he WONT. that was the sole purpose of having the laws of God writen for men to see. so the laws of God shall be carved in stone and never changed. God in the begining set up laws that would govern our world.

How does logic say any such thing? How is it inherently contradictory for any of those three things to be true? In any case, anything expressable linguistically is bound by logic, that's all that logic is.

The issue is why God won't. It is my argument that God has no actual reason not to. Omnipotence means that even time and space are subject to its command, thus it could easily change even nominally perpetual laws by either altering the past or altering the law's perpetuality.

1. You can't prove or disprove God (probably), that's why my post doesn't claim to.
2. Concepts are provable or disprovable at the point at which they enter provable grounds. Thus Santa, Tooth Fairy, etc., are disprovable because they claim material effects. Perpetual effectiveness of organized religion is disprovable on its own terms, which I outlined in my post.

Granted. Let's drop Santa and the Tooth Fairy. What about the dragon who lives in my garage?

okay, the laws that God bestowed upon man our the Laws that God governs himself by. thats why following the laws is being God Like. One of the God like rules is letting people make up theyre mind, God bestoyed Free will he can take it back. If he did he would undo the creation of this world.

Unless God is not actually omnipotent, God can change said laws, even without altering the rest of the universe. That's what omnipotence means.

Unless God is not actually omnipotent, God can change said laws, even without altering the rest of the universe. That's what omnipotence means.

thats not omnipotance, omnipotance is being present everywhere at the same time. what you saying is being All powerful. having the power to control the universe but there is a reason for God not to change it. Something thats been overlooked, mostly probably because you dont believe in God. God loves us unconditionally. You being an athiest would not believe in a God and wouldnt acknowlage that.

Granted. Let's drop Santa and the Tooth Fairy. What about the dragon who lives in my garage?

the only reason you've seen him is from smokin a little too much pot. (no offense but thats one source of halloucinations)

I first came up with this when trying to disprove God, and while at first I thought it would work for that it turns out it's really more of a proof that any religion that has a deity with a certain set of characteristics is futile.

On to the actual proof: the line of logic begins in a simple thought experiment designed to predict what a being like God would do. We start by establishing that this being has the following characteristics:
1.Omnipotence
2.Omniscience
3.Free Will
These characteristics are all relatively consistent with those described as belonging to the deities of the various Abrahamic religions.

We then attempt to discern what factors would drive this being to any given course of action. First we can eliminate any factors relating to ease, as this being is omnipotent and as such any action is equally easy to accomplish. We can also eliminate any factors relating to personal happiness, as such a being could gain as much happiness as it desired independent of any outside conditions. Finally, we can eliminate any moral strictures, as an omnipotent being could easily tailor the structure of morality to validate its actions. This sort of logic can be applied to any motivation you can care to think up, and thus time, distance, causality, and any "secret motivations" would all be irrelevant. We can also rule out ignorance of ability, as said being is omniscient and thus by definition knows fully what it is capable of. Thus we can conclude that for this being no act is preferable to any other act. God would also not be compelled to any given action outside of these strictures, on account of having free will.

Because every action is equally preferential to this being, it follows that there is no way to predict this being's actions. In effect, it would operate wholly at random. Thus any form of worship is pointless: even if this being has a long track record of being beneficial to worshippers there is no guarantee that it will continue to be so, nor is there any reason to expect this to be the case. If a coin that you knew was fair got a long string of heads, you would still have to expect that on the next throw it has a 50% chance of getting tails.

There are a few ways out of this proof, all eventually involving a being without one of the three important traits. A non-omnipotent being, such as those worshipped by a variety of pagan religions, would still be a reasonable target of worship. So would one without free will, such as one bound by fate or programmed into a specific series of actions, though this would raise new problems. Any of these solutions applied to Christianity would be deeply heretical.

There is one specific trait that the proof does not address, which bears some explanation. Most Gods of the sort I am describing are also categorized as in some way omnibenevolent. While such a trait means nothing if the being can alter moral law (thus defining whatever action it chooses as an act of benevolence), it does defeat the proof if such a being is limited by an outside law. This secular moral code would require such a being to be incompletely omnipotent so that it was unable to alter the code. This extra-deific code is a concept that most of the Abrahamic religions would find bizarre, but one which is surprisingly interesting to contemplate.

Well thanks for invalidating millenia of human thought, CyberFruit Merchant. Thanks to your extreme enlightenment, humanity is saved forever. Why hasn't anybody come up with these brilliant ideas before.

Well thanks for invalidating millenia of human thought, CyberFruit Merchant. Thanks to your extreme enlightenment, humanity is saved forever. Why hasn't anybody come up with these brilliant ideas before.

because theyre based on puting human limitations on god........as far as i can tell...

thats not omnipotance, omnipotance is being present everywhere at the same time. what you saying is being All powerful. having the power to control the universe but there is a reason for God not to change it. Something thats been overlooked, mostly probably because you dont believe in God. God loves us unconditionally. You being an athiest would not believe in a God and wouldnt acknowlage that.

You're getting omnipotence mixed up with omniprescence. Omniprescence is being everywhere at the same time, omnipotence is being all powerful. And if you had actually read my first post you would understand that omnipotence also means that said God could A. Stop loving everyone or B. Make any action it takes be defined as an act of love. Don't forget that without human instincts God doesn't have to have a human sense of love.

I wasn't trying to criticize you. Blast my foolishness in not using smilies. Seriously, though, so far you haven't given me anything I didn't know about before, so at the moment we're both safe.
But you (at the least) insinuated that there's some kind of Western equivalent to faith in the supernatural inherent in Buddhism. My point, if you missed it, was that the "big secret" is that there isn't. At least, not according to the path I've gone. That doesn't reflect a single thing you've stated about Buddhism so far.
Granted, I'd ask you to continue, since "popular" Buddhism has all sorts of superstitions attached to it that aren't accepted among the prestiged, elitist few. I could agee that Buddhism, as a cultual phenomenon, has some serious issues to deal with. Namely, hyocrisy. If karma is real, why save info "for later" like a sandwich?
I really don't defend any religion (if you haven't noticed). I felt like you were attacking my experience. Big diff, and I apologize if I misunderstood you.

Well thanks for invalidating millenia of human thought, CyberFruit Merchant. Thanks to your extreme enlightenment, humanity is saved forever. Why hasn't anybody come up with these brilliant ideas before.

Has someone? I was under the impression that there were new ideas in here. Could you give me a link to someone who thought of them first?

You're getting omnipotence mixed up with omniprescence. Omniprescence is being everywhere at the same time, omnipotence is being all powerful. And if you had actually read my first post you would understand that omnipotence also means that said God could A. Stop loving everyone or B. Make any action it takes be defined as an act of love. Don't forget that without human instincts God doesn't have to have a human sense of love.


but where do humans get theyre sense of love if not from God, love isnt of human instinct, because as scientifically proven, that you can get the same feeling of love by eating large amounts of chocolate. but love is more than a feeling, its a bond between two entities. some thing that ties us all together, its not of human origin, because human instincts would tell us that love is illogical.

You've got some rather good arguments, but they stem from a misinterpretation of my point. I'm not claiming that morality is merely what an individual believes is right, otherwise the addition of that comment after the one about happiness would be redundant. Instead I am positing that if there was a universal moral code, God could simply change it. Slavery may be wrong now, and wrong when it happened in Egypt etc., but if an omnipotent being decides that slavery is right, then by the very definition of omnipotence it is right. This is the point of the last paragraph, thinking about what omnipotence means in reference to a universal code of morality. If a deity is truly omnipotent, that which is right or wrong conforms to its whims. It is only if morality is unalterable, thus implying that said being is not omnipotent, that omnibenevolence has any significant meaning.

Ah, but the great thing about religion is, once you toss out fundamentalism, you can determine most of what it is about on a secular stage. If God is the incarnation of morality, then you can determine what is and is not moral on an entirely secular stage, albeit taking care not to directly violate scriptural examples without clear justification, and then apply that to religion.

As for a deity being able to alter morality itself, I would actually disagree. Taking the assumptions I mentioned in my first posts (which I won't ask you to accept, but at least to understand that there are many that do) one comes to the conclusion that, among other things, their deity is the incarnation of morality. This deity does not, however, directly dictate morality, nor does morality dictate the actions of this deity, rather the two are assumed to always coincide. It is not that a deity 'determines' what is moral, he simply provides a perfect example of something which was already there. Morality, just like God, must be assumed to exist infinitely: it neither began nor ended, it was never created and can never be destroyed, it simply is. The claim that modern religion makes is not that God will form morality out of nothing and give you a moral code, rather it is that God will explain to us how to understand an already existing concept, and most recognize that there are other ways to live morally than through adherence to their religious principles.

With that in mind, at least for all Abrahamic religions, God really cannot change morality for he is no more its creator than any of us. Could God theoretically decide that slavery is now right and declare it moral? Yes, of course, yet having accepted the assumption that all of God's actions will be consistent with an already existing concept of morality, this would not happen. Only through rejecting the assumption that all of God's actions are moral could we come to see a deity for whom it is possible to change morality, because the concept of a deity who would directly change morality contradicts an underlying assumption of all Abrahamic religions. Therefore, a deity doesn't do something and make it right, it already was right and his actions are no more than an example. Accepting that a deity is omnipotent does not mean rejecting morality, for the two can coexist if the deity in question is tied to these same moral principles which we hold to be universal and inviolable.

But you (at the least) insinuated that there's some kind of Western equivalent to faith in the supernatural inherent in Buddhism. My point, if you missed it, was that the "big secret" is that there isn't. At least, not according to the path I've gone. That doesn't reflect a single thing you've stated about Buddhism so far.
Granted, I'd ask you to continue, since "popular" Buddhism has all sorts of superstitions attached to it that aren't accepted among the prestiged, elitist few. I could agee that Buddhism, as a cultual phenomenon, has some serious issues to deal with. Namely, hyocrisy. If karma is real, why save info "for later" like a sandwich?
I really don't defend any religion (if you haven't noticed). I felt like you were attacking my experience. Big diff, and I apologize if I misunderstood you.

It's not the same as western style faith, but it still seems to require the supernatural. Again, if Buddhism works without Karma, or if my understanding of Karma (namely that good actions bring good to you and bad actions bring bad to you) is wrong, then Buddhism still has a supernatural force operating within it and thus is on a similar footing to the westerners. Not the same, but there are interesting paralells.

Omnipotence is an impossibility anyways, if you go by logic.

But you (at the least) insinuated that there's some kind of Western equivalent to faith in the supernatural inherent in Buddhism. My point, if you missed it, was that the "big secret" is that there isn't. At least, not according to the path I've gone. That doesn't reflect a single thing you've stated about Buddhism so far.
Granted, I'd ask you to continue, since "popular" Buddhism has all sorts of superstitions attached to it that aren't accepted among the prestiged, elitist few. I could agee that Buddhism, as a cultual phenomenon, has some serious issues to deal with. Namely, hyocrisy. If karma is real, why save info "for later" like a sandwich?
I really don't defend any religion (if you haven't noticed). I felt like you were attacking my experience. Big diff, and I apologize if I misunderstood you.

but eichen what are your views about his attacks on religion?

the only reason you've seen him is from smokin a little too much pot. (no offense but thats one source of halloucinations)

Ok, another Ad Hominem argument. Again libel.

So, if someone says they saw god and starts a church, they're blessed.

Yet you deny the existence of my dragon.

Such double standards.

Oh, maybe its because they make money and get tax exemptions and I don't. That's probably what makes it true.

snip

While I agree that if such a being is always moral by definition that means they can't alter it (or it them) it would mean that unless said morality was mutable said being falls outside of free will, since its actions are in effect programmed into the static code of morality. Thus, it would fall outside the proof anyway.

Omnipotence is an impossibility anyways, if you go by logic.

logically but you know what logic is defined by human perception, logically one would not want to engage in a fight because you might hurt yourself, but you egos wounded your goin in swinging.. humans are illogical

the only reason you've seen him is from smokin a little too much pot. (no offense but thats one source of halloucinations)
nbo offense, kiddo, but pot doesn't cause hallucinations unless you'e predisposed to shizophrenia (do your homework). Anyone claiming such who wasn't "going there" regardless was seeking attention.

Anyone who's done drugs knows that. How old are you again? Seriously...
I'd like to know now that you're posting often.

While I agree that if such a being is always moral by definition that means they can't alter it (or it them) it would mean that unless said morality was mutable said being falls outside of free will, since its actions are in effect programmed into the static code of morality. Thus, it would fall outside the proof anyway.


his static code isnt based of ours ours is based of his.

but where do humans get theyre sense of love if not from God, love isnt of human instinct, because as scientifically proven, that you can get the same feeling of love by eating large amounts of chocolate. but love is more than a feeling, its a bond between two entities. some thing that ties us all together, its not of human origin, because human instincts would tell us that love is illogical.

I'm not going to try to dispute your stance on love, mostly just because it would be a very twisty and in the end irrelevant debate. My point is that whatever the current incarnation of love is, so long as God is omnipotent he can change that incarnation into whatever he feels like.

nbo offense, kiddo, but pot doesn't cause hallucinations unless you'e predisposed to shizophrenia (do your homework). Anyone claiming such who wasn't "going there" regardless was seeking attention.

Anyone who's done drugs knows that. How old are you again? Seriously...
I'd like to know now that you're posting often.

my mommy says im not allowed to give my age to strangers:rolleyes:

but eichen what are your views about his attacks on religion?
I (for the most part) identify with skeptical atheists/agnostics.
Read what I've written. ;)

I'm not going to try to dispute your stance on love, mostly just because it would be a very twisty and in the end irrelevant debate. My point is that whatever the current incarnation of love is, so long as God is omnipotent he can change that incarnation into whatever he feels like.

and thats what makes him GOD

my mommy says im not allowed to give my age to strangers:rolleyes:
You've answered that question to my satisfaction.

While I agree that if such a being is always moral by definition that means they can't alter it (or it them) it would mean that unless said morality was mutable said being falls outside of free will, since its actions are in effect programmed into the static code of morality. Thus, it would fall outside the proof anyway.

So choosing to be moral makes you devoid of free will? I would think that there's a difference between being forced to follow a course of action and choosing to follow that same course of action, even if both bring you to precisely the same place.

logically but you know what logic is defined by human perception, logically one would not want to engage in a fight because you might hurt yourself, but you egos wounded your goin in swinging.. humans are illogical
But is the universe?

Could god microwave that taco so hot that he couldn't eat it?

and thats what makes him GOD

And that's what makes assuming that worshipping him does anything FUTILE.

I thank you for finally acknowledging my point, once you realized what it was. Next time, just read the first post.

There is one specific trait that the proof does not address, which bears some explanation. Most Gods of the sort I am describing are also categorized as in some way omnibenevolent. While such a trait means nothing if the being can alter moral law (thus defining whatever action it chooses as an act of benevolence), it does defeat the proof if such a being is limited by an outside law. This secular moral code would require such a being to be incompletely omnipotent so that it was unable to alter the code. This extra-deific code is a concept that most of the Abrahamic religions would find bizarre, but one which is surprisingly interesting to contemplate.


but youre forgetting one thing, free will allows us to make our own moral code. as ive been seeing as ive reaserched this actual statement through out history the morals of man have grown increasingly apart from that of God

So choosing to be moral makes you devoid of free will? I would think that there's a difference between being forced to follow a course of action and choosing to follow that same course of action, even if both bring you to precisely the same place.

The issue is that if said being is by definition in adherence to a static code of morality then there isn't exactly an element of choice to it. Furthermore, said being would not be choosing in individual cases because it would be following the dictates of said code of morality. Once it gets to choose whether or not to follow the code it can choose to alter the code, thus the code does not limit it.

but youre forgetting one thing, free will allows us to make our own moral code. as ive been seeing as ive reaserched this actual statement through out history the morals of man have grown increasingly apart from that of God

So a free willed God would be able to change its own moral code. Thus it can do whatever it wants. Again, thank you for reinforcing my point.

And that's what makes assuming that worshipping him does anything FUTILE.

I thank you for finally acknowledging my point, once you realized what it was. Next time, just read the first post.
except, God said to worship him, so worshiping isnt futile, its going in accordance with his will, if he changes it then it will no longer be in accordance with his will, and then humans will change. Perks of being the guy who created the universe.

basically heres the story of christianity in a nutshell.


God makes man because hes lonely. (angels before man but ill get to that)

God gives man free will, knowing that man will turn away from him.

God said dont eat from the tree of knowlege. he asked man one simple question, will you obey me, your father who created you.

Men are dead to sin from the time they are born. so naturally man is told not to do something what do they do........they do it.

So now that man has sinned God must cast them out of Eden because Sin is the exact opposite of god. and two opposites cant exist in the same place, so they were sent away to the cold barren world.

now i will have to go back to even before man to the time of angels. God did not give angels free will. They were forced to acknowlage God and do what hes says. Lucifers sole purpose of creation was to stand against god. why? you ask, to be an example. Hell was not created for man. hell was created for lucifer and the angels that fought with him. but god put into the works that anyone who is not godly cannot enter heaven, and if you are not godly you are rebelling against him, so thats where you go. God hates seeing man sent to hell. He doesnt want us there, so God acting "logically" gave us a way out. he sent his son to die. and upon the cross at calvary all of mens sin was taken and placed on to jesus. jesus carried the burden of sin for you.. the gift of imortality is a gift from a benevolant dictator. its there all the time infront of you, all you have to do is take it

So a free willed God would be able to change its own moral code. Thus it can do whatever it wants. Again, thank you for reinforcing my point.

but the fact that he can do it does not prove that worshiping god is feeble.

you make good points but it again your looking at it from an athiest side of view.

try something for me... an expirament... embrace the possibility that theyre may be a god, and actually read the bible, or the korhan, the tora, and see if none of it strikes a chord.

except, God said to worship him, so worshiping isnt futile, its going in accordance with his will, if he changes it then it will no longer be in accordance with his will, and then humans will change. Perks of being the guy who created the universe.


The point is that it is just as likely that he will change it as that it will remain the same. There is no reason to expect that following God's will will get you anything, even if it has gotten people benefits in the past. To summarize, this is a being you can't count on to act in any particular way, so claiming that people should act in any given way in response to it is pointless.

You know what I think the whole argument is about? Irreverance.

Everyone too emotionally involved in the subject needs to embrace the idea. you aen't that special. I know I'm not.
My little ideas could never swallow the tuth any moe than my dog could eventually understand algebra. The point is moot.
Whatever our silly little conceptions, they're (at lottery-odds best) only close.

It's the arrogance and self-righteousness that's ungodly, and looked down upon.
What do you hate about those who terrorize America? It works both ways.
Pointing fingers, and trying to tell other people how to act through legislation doesn't make anyone more genuine. Peer pressure never lead to salvation, despite what you may have been led to believe.

In other words, what's the point of these conversations?

So a free willed God would be able to change its own moral code. Thus it can do whatever it wants. Again, thank you for reinforcing my point.

Now, I never took philosophy classes, and get bored quickly, so please, be patient with me, I'm just trying to understand, OK? :)

You seem to be assuming that your free willed God _would_ change its/the universal moral code - why do you assume that? Because it could? Free will doesn't imply random action, does it?

Right, that's my first query - if I'm going wrong, please, talk me through it! :D

but the fact that he can do it does not prove that worshiping god is feeble.

you make good points but it again your looking at it from an athiest side of view.

try something for me... an expirament... embrace the possibility that theyre may be a god, and actually read the bible, or the korhan, the tora, and see if none of it strikes a chord.

I didn't say feeble, I said futile. Basically what I mean is that behaving in the way God has wanted you to in the past is no guarantee that it's how it wants you to behave in the present. Thus, worshipping it serves no purpose, and is thus futile.

As to the last paragraph: so you're telling me there's something in there that you can't explain to me, and no-one else can explain to me, and yet if I read it I will magically understand? I think we have a testable hypothesis here, ladies and gents. And a very unsupportable one. Why can't you simply refute the argument instead of referring me to a book that might have it in it.

The point is that it is just as likely that he will change it as that it will remain the same. There is no reason to expect that following God's will will get you anything, even if it has gotten people benefits in the past. To summarize, this is a being you can't count on to act in any particular way, so claiming that people should act in any given way in response to it is pointless.

its called faith jack.. its called trust... if u cant Trust GOD who can you trust

Elgesh']Now, I never took philosophy classes, and get bored quickly, so please, be patient with me, I'm just trying to understand, OK? :)

You seem to be assuming that your free willed God _would_ change its/the universal moral code - why do you assume that? Because it could? Free will doesn't imply random action, does it?

Right, that's my first query - if I'm going wrong, please, talk me through it! :D

The morality argument is just one in a series of things that influence human free will but would not limit God's. There is no guarantee that God would change the moral code, just as there is no guarantee that God won't change it, as either action is equally preferable. Thus assuming that God will chose one option or the other is unwarranted.

its called faith jack.. its called trust... if u cant Trust GOD who can you trust

You can trust people. People have instincts, morals, limits set on the excercise (not existence, but excercise) of their free will. I can trust a person not to do something because I can reasonably assume they're not likely to. God does not have these limits, and thus there is no reason to trust it.

I didn't say feeble, I said futile. Basically what I mean is that behaving in the way God has wanted you to in the past is no guarantee that it's how it wants you to behave in the present. Thus, worshipping it serves no purpose, and is thus futile.


Ah!!! Wait, I see your point about free will/moral code now!

But, if we're moving from a generic god to the christian one, one of the _main_ ideas in christianity is that 'yesterday, today, forever' god is constant and the same. He doesn't chose to exersize his free will to change his moral code, but keeps it eternal, I understand...? It's not 'assumed that god won't change his moral code', but a given of christianity that he won't, based on his promises in the bible. Yes, you could say he had his fingers crossed, but there comes a point when arguing the unknowable becomes silly :p

Elgesh']Ah!!! Wait, I see your point about free will/moral code now!

But, if we're moving from a generic god to the christian one, one of the _main_ ideas in christianity is that 'yesterday, today, forever' god is constant and the same. He doesn't chose to exersize his free will to change his moral code, but keeps it eternal, I understand...?

But again, if such a being can't change the "yesterday, today, forever" principle, then its not omnipotent. If it can change it, then it has no reason not to. Thus you can't reasonably expect it to do one thing or another. There is no incentive of any sort for God to stay the same unless God is not actually omnipotent.

I didn't say feeble, I said futile. Basically what I mean is that behaving in the way God has wanted you to in the past is no guarantee that it's how it wants you to behave in the present. Thus, worshipping it serves no purpose, and is thus futile.

As to the last paragraph: so you're telling me there's something in there that you can't explain to me, and no-one else can explain to me, and yet if I read it I will magically understand? I think we have a testable hypothesis here, ladies and gents. And a very unsupportable one. Why can't you simply refute the argument instead of referring me to a book that might have it in it.

im trying to get you to understand what your trying to tear down. i could explain it to you but weed be hear all night, ive been a practicing christian for 3 years now, and i still dont have all the answers, and i never will, y because i cant comprehend it all its too much for a feeble human brain. before i was a christian i was an agnostic, I figuered there was a god but didnt care either way but then i got hit right between the eyes with it, i went to a deciple now meeting, then i went home and read up on it, and i came to the conclusion my self that God exists and that the Christian God is the right one. God promised that he would never change his word. thats why it was written down, so that it would stay the same through out the ages. now sure its been minorley altered up by some rogue people, and it has changed a little, but the fundemental truth is the same, God loves you and wants you to be with him in heaven, and he gave us a way to go there.

The issue is that if said being is by definition in adherence to a static code of morality then there isn't exactly an element of choice to it. Furthermore, said being would not be choosing in individual cases because it would be following the dictates of said code of morality. Once it gets to choose whether or not to follow the code it can choose to alter the code, thus the code does not limit it.

So in that case any deity bound to a particular set of ideals doesn't fall under your proof? That pretty much encompasses all of them.

But again, if such a being can't change the "yesterday, today, forever" principle, then its not omnipotent. If it can change it, then it has no reason not to. Thus you can't reasonably expect it to do one thing or another. There is no incentive of any sort for God to stay the same unless God is not actually omnipotent.

it has no reason not to change it but it also has no reason to change it,

your point is valid.

but i throw it in the same boat as how can devine preordination coexist with free will,

we cant understand how it works, were just human, hes the one with all the brains

But again, if such a being can't change the "yesterday, today, forever" principle, then its not omnipotent. If it can change it, then it has no reason not to. Thus you can't reasonably expect it to do one thing or another. There is no incentive of any sort for God to stay the same unless God is not actually omnipotent.

Sorry, made this clearer in my edit, which obv. you didn't see, apologies!

But I never said, nor was it implied, that god _couldn't_ change his principles, only that he choses not to; and I'm sorry, but 'if it can change it, then it has no reason not to' isn't a statement of logic, but a woolly assertion! The same is true of 'There is no incentive of any sort for God to stay the same unless God is not actually omnipotent' - you're asserting that, there's no logic to back that up.

So in that case any deity bound to a particular set of ideals doesn't fall under your proof? That pretty much encompasses all of them.

It depends upon the type of binding and the type of ideals. Most of said deities are assumed to be the creators (and thus presumably the destroyers) of their own sets of ideals. A morality that was not created by God but instead precedes and guides it is outside the realm of my proof because it is such a rare concept, though as I discussed in the last paragraph of my original post a very interesting one. Most of the main religions define morality as God's rules to others, rather than someone else's rules on God.

Elgesh']Sorry, made this clearer in my edit, which obv. you didn't see, apologies!

But I never said, nor was it implied, that god _couldn't_ change his principles, only that he choses not to; and I'm sorry, but 'if it can change it, then it has no reason not to' isn't a statement of logic, but a woolly assertion! The same is true of 'There is no incentive of any sort for God to stay the same unless God is not actually omnipotent' - you're asserting that, there's no logic to back that up.

finally someone comes to my rescue.....ive been trying to say that all night but could find the right words.

Elgesh']Sorry, made this clearer in my edit, which obv. you didn't see, apologies!

But I never said, nor was it implied, that god _couldn't_ change his principles, only that he choses not to; and I'm sorry, but 'if it can change it, then it has no reason not to' isn't a statement of logic, but a woolly assertion! The same is true of 'There is no incentive of any sort for God to stay the same unless God is not actually omnipotent' - you're asserting that, there's no logic to back that up.

The logic was that anything that could be an incentive (to that or to anything) doesn't exist in the case of an omnipotent being. Every action is potentially equally easy, moral, pleasurable, fun, etc., because they can be made so. I went through a few examples of this in my original post, but it can be generalized to just about anything. God would have no incentive to take any given course of action, and thus assuming it will take any given course of action is fallacious.

The logic was that anything that could be an incentive (to that or to anything) doesn't exist in the case of an omnipotent being. Every action is potentially equally easy, moral, pleasurable, fun, etc., because they can be made so. I went through a few examples of this in my original post, but it can be generalized to just about anything. God would have no incentive to take any given course of action, and thus assuming it will take any given course of action is fallacious.

his incentive is that he loves us, but you dont believe in that, the bible explains it man, why he does his stuff ex.

john 3:16 for god so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that all may not perish but through him may have eternal life.

It depends upon the type of binding and the type of ideals. Most of said deities are assumed to be the creators (and thus presumably the destroyers) of their own sets of ideals. A morality that was not created by God but instead precedes and guides it is outside the realm of my proof because it is such a rare concept, though as I discussed in the last paragraph of my original post a very interesting one. Most of the main religions define morality as God's rules to others, rather than someone else's rules on God.

Morality doesn't have to precede God to fall outside of that category, it simply cannot com directly from him or be found only through him. I don't want to speak for others, but at least my own religion (minus the hyper-Orthodox) would take this approach, so I'm safe :). As for the rest of them, you've got a valid point, and I'll leave it to them to defend themselves; it's time for me to get some sleep.

it has no reason not to change it but it also has no reason to change it,

your point is valid.

but i throw it in the same boat as how can devine preordination coexist with free will,

we cant understand how it works, were just human, hes the one with all the brains

Depending on what you mean by divine preordination, it actually can logically. If you mean that everything is predestined, then they can't coexist, but that doesn't matter because every denomination that I've read about that claims that souls are predestined also denies the concept of free will. If by preordination you mean prediction, frankly I've always found the "knowledge=causation" argument to be more than a little hokey.

In any case, these things are comprehensible to the point that they are written in comprehensible english. Logic is merely language.

The logic was that anything that could be an incentive (to that or to anything) doesn't exist in the case of an omnipotent being. Every action is potentially equally easy, moral, pleasurable, fun, etc., because they can be made so. I went through a few examples of this in my original post, but it can be generalized to just about anything. God would have no incentive to take any given course of action, and thus assuming it will take any given course of action is fallacious.

basically you trying to find every reason why God might not exist, now try and find reasons why he might exist, cross reference, and see where your at.

his incentive is that he loves us, but you dont believe in that, the bible explains it man, why he does his stuff ex.

john 3:16 for god so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that all may not perish but through him may have eternal life.

And you forget that I already addressed the love argument. That's ok, as a loving forumite I forgive you.

but the fact that he can do it does not prove that worshiping god is feeble.

you make good points but it again your looking at it from an athiest side of view.

try something for me... an expirament... embrace the possibility that theyre may be a god, and actually read the bible, or the korhan, the tora, and see if none of it strikes a chord.

That's the worst way to go about it. If anything, that's the main thing that drives people away.

The best way is to get a terrible desease (or someone close get it) or generally something that leaves you desperate (like beeing kidnaped or something) and survive it (obviously).

Then you'll join the ranks that subsidize some church, which is probably already filthy rich and gets tax benefits. Hum... I wonder if I could do that with my dragon...

basically you trying to find every reason why God might not exist, now try and find reasons why he might exist, cross reference, and see where your at.

I did state at the beginning of my original post that I wasn't arguing anything about existence and nonexistence, right? Just checking.

That's the worst way to go about it. If anything, that's the main thing that drives people away.

The best way is to get a terrible desease (or someone close get it) or generally something that leaves you desperate (like beeing kidnaped or something) and survive it (obviously).

Then you'll join the ranks that subsidize some church, which is probably already filthy rich and gets tax benefits. Whom... I wonder if I could do that with my dragon...

and you know what, churches arent filthy rich, the money we give to the church, goes to things, the only reason why churches dont pay taxes is because of seperation of church and state

its called faith jack.. its called trust... if u cant Trust GOD who can you trust
"God"? That's always a prerequisite for you people.
How arrogant.

People say “I’m a Christian” the way certain politicians say “I have integrity”. When people brag that they have religious faith, I hear “stupidity.” Faith is saying, “I will ignore my God-given gifts for discerning reality and instead throw my lot in with blind belief in something that was forced into my head before I could even think.”
Isn’t that how we get adults in this world who fight wars based on which contrived fairytale they were brought up on? But you don’t know who the Man in the Sky is, and we do.”
Our own president said during the 2000 campaign that he didn’t believe one could get into heaven if not a Christian. He had to backpedal on it because non-Christians vote, but millions of Christians who aren’t running for anything would endorse that view wholeheartedly.
The words: “I am the way, the truth, and the life: and no man cometh unto the Father but by me.”
Not a lot of wiggle room there. Put that next to “There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet,” and it’s pretty much “pick a side.” One lane open on the highway to heaven.
Of course, when you shut off your brain from rational analysis, any book is "the only truth" (dangerous.)
9-11 was a faith-based intitiative. To think that's "
what we need more of" here, to me, is akin to being a terrorist, since the cause is clear.

Unless your religion can be all-inclusive, it's a dangerous cult. End of story, and we've seen the proof.

Attack at will.

wait wait the worst thing he could do his get both sides of the info, understand where were coming from and make up his mind based on contrasting views rather than one sided.

man... all i can say is COMMUNIST! silence disenting view points so everyone will have the same view

Hey, for the others on this thread: isn't there a communist equivalent to Godwin?

The logic was that anything that could be an incentive (to that or to anything) doesn't exist in the case of an omnipotent being. Every action is potentially equally easy, moral, pleasurable, fun, etc., because they can be made so. I went through a few examples of this in my original post, but it can be generalized to just about anything. God would have no incentive to take any given course of action, and thus assuming it will take any given course of action is fallacious.

I'm sorry, mate, that's getting more and more spurious. Given the constraints, the concept of the christian god I believe we're debating, your argument is not logical. You didn't originally factor in the christian idea of god voluntarily choosing to make his morality eternal, his nature eternal, and you're ignoring it again now! Furthermore, and I'm afraid, more importantly (certainly more cornily :)), you've left out the most important concept of the christian god, that he is love; he loves us. Why would he randomly change himself once committed to us?

Those are the concepts you need to work with if you're trying to disprove the christian god, but you haven't factored them into your model. The god you've described is a capricious, random divinty sharing little in common with the god you were trying to disprove.

(I'd like to restate that I've a foot in both the atheist and liberal christian camps, but neither of them can possibly see that you've begun to make your case :confused: )

Organised religion is organised crime.

Dunno who said that.I think maybe Osho.

"God"? That's always a prerequisite for you people.
How arrogant.

People say “I’m a Christian” the way certain politicians say “I have integrity”. When people brag that they have religious faith, I hear “stupidity.” Faith is saying, “I will ignore my God-given gifts for discerning reality and instead throw my lot in with blind belief in something that was forced into my head before I could even think.”
Isn’t that how we get adults in this world who fight wars based on which contrived fairytale they were brought up on? But you don’t know who the Man in the Sky is, and we do.”
Our own president said during the 2000 campaign that he didn’t believe one could get into heaven if not a Christian. He had to backpedal on it because non-Christians vote, but millions of Christians who aren’t running for anything would endorse that view wholeheartedly.
The words: “I am the way, the truth, and the life: and no man cometh unto the Father but by me.”
Not a lot of wiggle room there. Put that next to “There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet,” and it’s pretty much “pick a side.” One lane open on the highway to heaven.
Of course, when you shut off your brain from rational analysis, any book is "the only truth" (dangerous.)
9-11 was a faith-based intitiative. To think that's "
what we need more of" here, to me, is akin to being a terrorist, since the cause is clear.

Unless your religion can be all-inclusive, it's a dangerous cult. End of story, and we've seen the proof.

Attack at will.






um.......im not even gonna bother

Originally Posted by The sons of tarsonis
"wait wait the worst thing he could do his get both sides of the info, understand where were coming from and make up his mind based on contrasting views rather than one sided.

man... all i can say is COMMUNIST! silence disenting view points so everyone will have the same view"

ROTFLOL!

I must have really struck close to home with that one.

Dude, for a christian you don't take the "love" thing very seriously. I forgive you. :fluffle:

um.......im not even gonna bother
Plugged. :p

Originally Posted by The sons of tarsonis
"wait wait the worst thing he could do his get both sides of the info, understand where were coming from and make up his mind based on contrasting views rather than one sided.

man... all i can say is COMMUNIST! silence disenting view points so everyone will have the same view"

ROTFLOL!

I must have really struck close to home with that one.

Dude, for a christian you don't take the "love" thing very seriously. I forgive you. :fluffle:


youll notice that i deleted that comment, i missunderstood what you had said sry i jumped the gun

Plugged. :p

not plugged, more like amazed at how closed minded you are

Elgesh']I'm sorry, mate, that's getting more and more spurious. Given the constraints, the concept of the christian god I believe we're debating, your argument is not logical. You didn't originally factor in the christian idea of god voluntarily choosing to make his morality eternal, his nature eternal, and you're ignoring it again now! Furthermore, and I'm afraid, more importantly (certainly more cornily :)), you've left out the most important concept of the christian god, that he is love; he loves us. Why would he randomly change himself once committed to us?

Those are the concepts you need to work with if you're trying to disprove the christian god, but you haven't factored them into your model. The god you've described is a capricious, random divinty sharing little in common with the god you were trying to disprove.

(I'd like to restate that I've a foot in both the atheist and liberal christian camps, but neither of them can possibly see that you've begun to make your case :confused: )

any chance of u coming over fully to the christian side, we need good speakers like you... god knows im not doing so well.....but atleast im trying

Elgesh']I'm sorry, mate, that's getting more and more spurious. Given the constraints, the concept of the christian god I believe we're debating, your argument is not logical. You didn't originally factor in the christian idea of god voluntarily choosing to make his morality eternal, his nature eternal, and you're ignoring it again now! Furthermore, and I'm afraid, more importantly (certainly more cornily :)), you've left out the most important concept of the christian god, that he is love; he loves us. Why would he randomly change himself once committed to us?

Those are the concepts you need to work with if you're trying to disprove the christian god, but you haven't factored them into your model. The god you've described is a capricious, random divinty sharing little in common with the god you were trying to disprove.

(I'd like to restate that I've a foot in both the atheist and liberal christian camps, but neither of them can possibly see that you've begun to make your case :confused: )

I realize that the normal Christian God does not act the way I'm describing, but what I'm saying is that that is no particular reason for it to continue to not act that way. Even if said being has committed itself to make its morality eternal, it has no motivation to stay bound by those commitments unless it is not truly omnipotent. Same thing with the love issue: even if God is required to be all-loving (which would already make him non-omnipotent) he can decide what constitutes an act of love. He has no reason to be bound by what the current concepts of love are, nor does he need to stay with what he has previously done. An omnipotent being could conceivably change the very way it thinks. Even if this being has a long history of being nice to people, there is no reason to assume that it will be nice in the future, no matter what it says to the contrary, simply because any action that said being could take would be equally preferable.

and you know what, churches arent filthy rich, the money we give to the church, goes to things, the only reason why churches dont pay taxes is because of seperation of church and state

1. The catholic church sure is. I don't know about the others, but if they're springing around all the time, it must be a good business.

2. Separation of Church and State is exactly why they're a business like any other. The tax benefits are due to tradition.

1. The catholic church sure is. I don't know about the others, but if they're springing around all the time, it must be a good business.

2. Separation of Church and State is exactly why they're a business like any other. The tax benefits are due to tradition.

well the catholic church doesnt count. theyve got enough going on and theyre the richest because theyre so fudging...........OLD!!

protestantism is only about half as old and we keep splitting into new sects. cause the pope is stupid.

1. The catholic church sure is. I don't know about the others, but if they're springing around all the time, it must be a good business.

2. Separation of Church and State is exactly why they're a business like any other. The tax benefits are due to tradition.

and believe what you wanna believe, but the reason that ive helped build churches in comunities and different countries is to spread the word of god, not make money.

and tax breaks apply to all religions

I sure am glad noone has bothered coming up with proof of the futility of arguing on the internet yet. It would take a lot of fun out of my day. But this thread needs more inconsolable and extreme opinions.
alrighty then . . . .wait . .. i dont believe that god exists . . .drat! . . . oh wait .. . were SAVED! here comes tarsonis!!!

not plugged, more like amazed at how closed minded you are
Your won style of writing gives you away, even in burst-sentences! :p
You may be a boy, but you've done treaded into manterritory...

If you had any retort at all, you woulda tore me a new one.

That was blatant, for-the-world-to-see passive-aggressive bullshit.
Play ball or cheerlead. Just be honest about which you're doing.

alrighty then . . . .wait . .. i dont believe that god exists . . .drat!


HEATHEN MAY YOU FOREVER BURN IN HELLL YOULL ALL BURN IN HELL ALL HAIL THE MIGHTY LORD!!!!


there is that better;)

Your won style of writing gives you away, even in burst-sentences! :p
You may be a boy, but you've done treaded into manterritory...

If you had any retort at all, you woulda tore me a new one.

That was blatant, for-the-world-to-see passive-aggressive bullshit.
Play ball or cheerlead. Just be honest about which you're doing.
lol id rather go somewhere else anjd play hockey lol . . .course i am canadian . . .

I realize that the normal Christian God does not act the way I'm describing...

I'm sorry, friend, but conversation over, there :) It was a fine stab at disproving a god, but if it's not aimed at the one we're talking about, the christian god, I'm not going to get too exicted (from either of my perspectives!:p) about you setting up a target then knocking it down! Eternal, unchaging love is his hallmark, are his concepts, despite his free will not to love and to change, and despite his omnipotence (and all the other omnis I can't spell).

Listen, it's 4.17am here, and I'm knackered! :) Heading away to bed; I have enjoyed reading your posts, and thank you (and everyone else who did, cheers!) for taking the time to read and answer my queries and explain your ideas to a knowlessman. Sorry we couldn't agree, but... well, them's the breaks of debate, I guess!

Hope to see you anon :)

HEATHEN MAY YOU FOREVER BURN IN HELLL YOULL ALL BURN IN HELL ALL HAIL THE MIGHTY LORD!!!!


there is that better;)
lol! sweeet!;)

Your won style of writing gives you away, even in burst-sentences! :p
You may be a boy, but you've done treaded into manterritory...

If you had any retort at all, you woulda tore me a new one.

That was blatant, for-the-world-to-see passive-aggressive bullshit.
Play ball or cheerlead. Just be honest about which you're doing.

fine honestly ive gotten bored with trying to convince people, now im just defending myself

lol id rather go somewhere else anjd play hockey lol . . .course i am canadian . . .

Canadas like a loft appartment over a really great party.





KEEP IT DOWN EH!!! ;)

Your won style of writing gives you away, even in burst-sentences! :p
You may be a boy, but you've done treaded into manterritory...

If you had any retort at all, you woulda tore me a new one.

That was blatant, for-the-world-to-see passive-aggressive bullshit.
Play ball or cheerlead. Just be honest about which you're doing.

i have no intrest in at this point in time nit picking your argument.......:yawn: maybe tomorrow sign on and see

Elgesh']I'm sorry, friend, but conversation over, there :) It was a fine stab at disproving a god, but if it's not aimed at the one we're talking about, the christian god, I'm not going to get too exicted (from either of my perspectives!:p) about you setting up a target then knocking it down!

Listen, it's 4.17am here, and I'm knackered! :) Heading away to bed; I have enjoyed reading your posts, and thank you (and everyone else who did, cheers!) for taking the time to read and answer my queries and explain your ideas to a knowlessman. Sorry we couldn't agree, but... well, them's the breaks of debate, I guess!

Hope to see you anon :)

And he stops there. I did link it to the normal concept, but vadever, vot's done ist done. Ah, and for the rest of you, the link was: I'm not saying the being would've acted any differently in the past, merely that its past behavior doesn't guarantee its future behavior. Even if it has acted like the normal Christian god in the past it is equally likely to turn into the FSM in the future.

fine honestly ive gotten bored with trying to convince people, now im just defending myself
Welcome to politics. If you can't run with the big dogs...

Welcome to politics. If you can't run with the big dogs...

if you cant run with big dogs by an uzi and kill them all

And he stops there. I did link it to the normal concept, but vadever, vot's done ist done. Ah, and for the rest of you, the link was: I'm not saying the being would've acted any differently in the past, merely that its past behavior doesn't guarantee its future behavior. Even if it has acted like the normal Christian god in the past it is equally likely to turn into the FSM in the future.


look the point is its not likely because he has no reason to change his own policies. so i mean, i suppose he could change his policies but remeber he could also turn you into a steaming pile of swiss cheese,...wouldnt that be interesting

well the catholic church doesnt count. theyve got enough going on and theyre the richest because theyre so fudging...........OLD!!

Buddhism is older. Don't see any great churchs with loads of gold bathed saints being made by them.

protestantism is only about half as old and we keep splitting into new sects. cause the pope is stupid.

It's not a who is richest contest. I only that for churches to be springing around all the time, it must be a good business. Oh, wait, splitting sects.

and believe what you wanna believe, but the reason that ive helped build churches in comunities and different countries is to spread the word of god, not make money.

Did you actually build them or did you give money to your church?

and tax breaks apply to all religions

Not in my country (Portugal). The Catholic church is favoured. And the last two presidents (20 years) have been agnostic. Go figure.

"God"? That's always a prerequisite for you people.
How arrogant.

People say “I’m a Christian” the way certain politicians say “I have integrity”. When people brag that they have religious faith, I hear “stupidity.” Faith is saying, “I will ignore my God-given gifts for discerning reality and instead throw my lot in with blind belief in something that was forced into my head before I could even think.”
Isn’t that how we get adults in this world who fight wars based on which contrived fairytale they were brought up on? But you don’t know who the Man in the Sky is, and we do.”
Our own president said during the 2000 campaign that he didn’t believe one could get into heaven if not a Christian. He had to backpedal on it because non-Christians vote, but millions of Christians who aren’t running for anything would endorse that view wholeheartedly.
The words: “I am the way, the truth, and the life: and no man cometh unto the Father but by me.”
Not a lot of wiggle room there. Put that next to “There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet,” and it’s pretty much “pick a side.” One lane open on the highway to heaven.
Of course, when you shut off your brain from rational analysis, any book is "the only truth" (dangerous.)
9-11 was a faith-based intitiative. To think that's "
what we need more of" here, to me, is akin to being a terrorist, since the cause is clear.

Unless your religion can be all-inclusive, it's a dangerous cult. End of story, and we've seen the proof.

Attack at will.


um, not really gonna attack but you might have generalized there just a bit;) eg. i personnally think that budhists are not likely to start any wars nor do I think that no christians are open-minded. personally I see religion as an attempt to force someones view of the world on everyone else and whether that be admirable (that would be budhism for me) or horrific (extremists of any religion) it is still an attempt to curtail thought. to me it is the organisations themselves that are horrific rather than the people who subscribe to their beleifs.

And he stops there. I did link it to the normal concept, but vadever, vot's done ist done. Ah, and for the rest of you, the link was: I'm not saying the being would've acted any differently in the past, merely that its past behavior doesn't guarantee its future behavior. Even if it has acted like the normal Christian god in the past it is equally likely to turn into the FSM in the future.
sorry - just for context! -


Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas-Rex
"I realize that the normal Christian God does not act the way I'm describing... "


I'm sorry, friend, but conversation over, there It was a fine stab at disproving a god, but if it's not aimed at the one we're talking about, the christian god, I'm not going to get too exicted (from either of my perspectives!:p) about you setting up a target then knocking it down! Eternal, unchaging love is his hallmark, are his concepts, despite his free will not to love and to change, and despite his omnipotence (and all the other omnis I can't spell).

Listen, it's 4.17am here, and I'm knackered! Heading away to bed; I have enjoyed reading your posts, and thank you (and everyone else who did, cheers!) for taking the time to read and answer my queries and explain your ideas to a knowlessman. Sorry we couldn't agree, but... well, them's the breaks of debate, I guess!

Hope to see you anon :)

if you cant run with big dogs by an uzi and kill them all
You'e talking to a registered Libetarian here. You'd prolly meet better firepower than the Republicans currently overregulate. ;)

Buddhism is older. Don't see any great churchs with loads of gold bathed saints being made by them.



It's not a who is richest contest. I only that for churches to be springing around all the time, it must be a good business. Oh, wait, splitting sects.



Did you actually build them or did you give money to your church?



Not in my country (Portugal). The Catholic church is favoured. And the last two presidents (20 years) have been agnostic. Go figure.

i actually built them on mission trips. and the buddhists dont believe in the need for material goods thats why they dont gain a crap load of money. christianity we realise that to spread the message you need money

look the point is its not likely because he has no reason to change his own policies. so i mean, i suppose he could change his policies but remeber he could also turn you into a steaming pile of swiss cheese,...wouldnt that be interesting
not really . . . .i personally like pie better

You'e talking to a registered Libetarian here. You'd prolly meet better firepower than the Republicans currently overregulate. ;)


as i recall i believe its the liberals who are in favor of gun control

look the point is its not likely because he has no reason to change his own policies. so i mean, i suppose he could change his policies but remeber he could also turn you into a steaming pile of swiss cheese,...wouldnt that be interesting

He has no reason to change his policies, but he also has no reason to stick with them. As a matter of fact he has no reason to do anything. Thus any action, up to and including swiss cheese, is equally likely.

not really . . . .i personally like pie better

well your going to hell so you dont count;)

i actually built them on mission trips. and the buddhists dont believe in the need for material goods thats why they dont gain a crap load of money. christianity we realise that to spread the message you need money
um . . .when you need monney to spread an idea arn't you trying to spread the wrong kind of idea??? eg. kill my coach, archnemisis, friend etc. and i'll give you 1 million dollars??

He has no reason to change his policies, but he also has no reason to stick with them. As a matter of fact he has no reason to do anything. Thus any action, up to and including swiss cheese, is equally likely.

well seeing as people are talking bad about him and no ones getting struck down by lightning bolts, i see no evidence that hes changed our contract

well your going to hell so you dont count;)
:eek: here was me thinkingm i was going to heaven! oh well prob. better pie in hell neway:rolleyes:

um, not really gonna attack but you might have generalized there just a bit;) eg. i personnally think that budhists are not likely to start any wars nor do I think that no christians are open-minded. personally I see religion as an attempt to force someones view of the world on everyone else and whether that be admirable (that would be budhism for me) or horrific (extremists of any religion) it is still an attempt to curtail thought. to me it is the organisations themselves that are horrific rather than the people who subscribe to their beleifs.
I agree. Although I find the problem to reside within the "organization", not the actual religions. Actually, I find that obvious.
I find it offensive, too, whenever reason is curtailed by orthodoxy or "faith".
Faith is a dirty word, in my book. It's synonymous with stupid. And blind.

I think we agree, except I may be moe rabid than you when it comes to irrational beliefs, all things considered. ;)

um . . .when you need monney to spread an idea arn't you trying to spread the wrong kind of idea??? eg. kill my coach, archnemisis, friend etc. and i'll give you 1 million dollars??

when i say needing money i mean you need money to fund missions and stuff not have money and be rich

as i recall i believe its the liberals who are in favor of gun control

Remember the big dogs comment? Uh huh. Well you just confused Libertarianism with Liberalism. Melkor Unchained is very likely to kill you now.

He has no reason to change his policies, but he also has no reason to stick with them. As a matter of fact he has no reason to do anything. Thus any action, up to and including swiss cheese, is equally likely.
I'll go to hell when I die, but I _swear_, last post and I'm gone - I couldn't pass this by - "He has no reason to change his policies, but he also has no reason to stick with them." - eternal, unchanging love. I'm sorry, it's corny, put you've forgotten/ignored it again! Right, now I'm gone - online/offline status'll say I'm away!

well seeing as people are talking bad about him and no ones getting struck down by lightning bolts, i see no evidence that hes changed our contract
*lighting bolt suddenly strikes WOAD*
well cant say I didn't see that one coming
*Woad falls over dead but is suddenly revitalised due to gods love of man*
YAY!:p

:eek: here was me thinkingm i was going to heaven! oh well prob. better pie in hell neway:rolleyes:


heavens full of beautiful women and barrels of beer

hells where you realize the barrels have holes nad the women dont...

and hey what makes you think your going to heaven?(im not being antagonistic i really wanna know your reasoning)

when i say needing money i mean you need money to fund missions and stuff not have money and be rich
i know i was just kinda makin fun of the way u said it . . .not bein serious cause i actually think that many of the christian funded programs are extremely good and helpfull to those in need . . .its just ur beliefs i dont agree with lol

*lighting bolt suddenly strikes WOAD*
well cant say I didn't see that one coming
*Woad falls over dead but is suddenly revitalised due to gods love of man*
YAY!:p

eh thats just coincidence

god promised us he wouldnt punish us on earth

heavens full of beautiful women and barrels of beer

hells where you realize the barrels have holes nad the women dont...

and hey what makes you think your going to heaven?(im not being antagonistic i really wanna know your reasoning)
i dont . . .im an atheist so im definatly going to hell . . . . .

i know i was just kinda makin fun of the way u said it . . .not bein serious cause i actually think that many of the christian funded programs are extremely good and helpfull to those in need . . .its just ur beliefs i dont agree with lol

whats so hard to believe about and inteligent designer, the fact that there might be something bigger than you?

eh thats just coincidence

god promised us he wouldnt punish us on earth
lol

well seeing as people are talking bad about him and no ones getting struck down by lightning bolts, i see no evidence that hes changed our contract

But again, why would striking people with lightning bolts be preferable to any other action? Even using that as evidence doesn't work. God may be following the contract now, but that does nothing to bind him to it a picosecond from now, unless God isn't really omnipotent.

whats so hard to believe about and inteligent designer, the fact that there might be something bigger than you?
ya man and im only six foot two . . . .no what i really dont beleive in (see post above . . .or before . . .or w/e) is that anyone should have certain ideas forced(not exatly the right word . . .) upon them. i think that everyone should be able to chose for themselves what they think in every case and i dont believe that the curch allows this

i dont . . .im an atheist so im definatly going to hell . . . . .


well dude look at it this way your an atheist so you dont believe in anything

so if your right and its just eternal slumber(finally i could get some damned sleep) youll never know

but if your wrong, and there is a god, youll know for ever, and thats not a risk someone should take

"so you saying i should believe in god just so i dont go to hell"

pretty much

as i recall i believe its the liberals who are in favor of gun control
You need to keep up. Do your homework on what the Repuclicans restrict, and what the LP wants to allow.

Republicans are gun pussies. I can say that, because I can back it up.

Join the dark side, Luke. :p

well dude look at it this way your an atheist so you dont believe in anything

so if your right and its just eternal slumber(finally i could get some damned sleep) youll never know

but if your wrong, and there is a god, youll know for ever, and thats not a risk someone should take

"so you saying i should believe in god just so i dont go to hell"

pretty much
ya thats true but see my post above for explination + i dont think that believeing in something so that it might come true is true belief

Elgesh']I'll go to hell when I die, but I _swear_, last post and I'm gone - I couldn't pass this by - "He has no reason to change his policies, but he also has no reason to stick with them." - eternal, unchanging love. I'm sorry, it's corny, put you've forgotten/ignored it again! Right, now I'm gone - online/offline status'll say I'm away!

I addressed the love thing. You all saw me address the love thing. At least three times in this thread I've addressed the stupid love thing. Even the eternal modification of it. Even without the eternal doesn't mean anything argument. Why do I have to argue the same things over and over again in this thread?

Remember the big dogs comment? Uh huh. Well you just confused Libertarianism with Liberalism. Melkor Unchained is very likely to kill you now.
I ignored that. I was being polite. Even libertarians can be nice, on occasion.

ya man and im only six foot two . . . .no what i really dont beleive in (see post above . . .or before . . .or w/e) is that anyone should have certain ideas forced(not exatly the right word . . .) upon them. i think that everyone should be able to chose for themselves what they think in every case and i dont believe that the curch allows this

well the fundamentalists dont allow it but

most protestants believe in this, we just present what our interpretation of the "truth" is and let you make up your mind, if you become a believer there and then when we witness to you AWSOME!! but if you dont, hopefully wever planted a seed in you that well grow in time, but even if you dont believe we still serve god by trying, so for us we cant loose, but you can...

I ignored that. I was being polite. Even libertarians can be nice, on occasion.


and i should of specified when i said im a republican im a "southern republican" which means ive got more armaments in my basement then fort knox

but if your wrong, and there is a god, youll know for ever, and thats not a risk someone should take

"so you saying i should believe in god just so i dont go to hell"

pretty much

That's Pascal's Wager. I think the main criticism goes around the lines of "It's not really faith if you're doing it as an insurance policy".

That's Pascal Wager. I think the main criticism goes around the lines of "It's not really faith if you're doing it as an insurance policy".

There's an even simpler criticism: which God?

I addressed the love thing. You all saw me address the love thing. At least three times in this thread I've addressed the stupid love thing. Even the eternal modification of it. Even without the eternal doesn't mean anything argument. Why do I have to argue the same things over and over again in this thread?
Don't you love it? :)

That's Pascal Wager. I think the main criticism goes around the lines of "It's not really faith if you're doing it as an insurance policy".


well seeing as how the quote came from a comedian, it was kinda the joke, but the purpose of accepting christ is to go to heaven so in a way, chrisianity is an inssurance policy

well the fundamentalists dont allow it but

most protestants believe in this, we just present what our interpretation of the "truth" is and let you make up your mind, if you become a believer there and then when we witness to you AWSOME!! but if you dont, hopefully wever planted a seed in you that well grow in time, but even if you dont believe we still serve god by trying, so for us we cant loose, but you can...
that was actually a very convincing argument and im extremely impressed but I still have a few unanswered (so far) problemes with religion in general. one is that for something that purportes to be to the benifit of everyone it seems like it has started an awful lot of "holy" wars. secondly the fact that much of the USA's populatio seemed to (i dont have a source for this so if ne1 can prove me wrong id be glad to accept that) support bush due to the fact that he was religious. and thirdly because of some of the terrible things done in the name of every god by extremists

we just present what our interpretation of the "truth" is and let you make up your mind, if you become a believer there and then when we witness to you AWSOME!! but if you dont, hopefully wever planted a seed in you that well grow in time, but even if you dont believe we still serve god by trying, so for us we cant loose, but you can...
Shit, I'm already set up. I'm saved and baptised. Plus, I've practiced yogas that could help me to lucidly deal with the Bardo.
I'm set. I'm golden. Have you covered your ass in "other aeas", so to speak?

I addressed the love thing. You all saw me address the love thing. At least three times in this thread I've addressed the stupid love thing. Even the eternal modification of it. Even without the eternal doesn't mean anything argument. Why do I have to argue the same things over and over again in this thread?

because weve accepted that he told us he wont ever change.. so we know he wont ever change

well seeing as how the quote came from a comedian, it was kinda the joke, but the purpose of accepting christ is to go to heaven so in a way, chrisianity is an inssurance policy
See my post above. The crux of Pascal's Wager is, what if you chose the wrong God?

Shit, I'm already set up. I'm saved and baptised. Plus, I've practiced yogas that could help me to lucidly deal with the Bardo.
I'm set. I'm golden. Have you covered your ass in "other aeas", so to speak?

the only area neccessary is where im going after i die, for in this life accepting christ or rejecting him is the most important thing we do,

that was actually a very convincing argument and im extremely impressed but I still have a few unanswered (so far) problemes with religion in general. one is that for something that purportes to be to the benifit of everyone it seems like it has started an awful lot of "holy" wars. secondly the fact that much of the USA's populatio seemed to (i dont have a source for this so if ne1 can prove me wrong id be glad to accept that) support bush due to the fact that he was religious. and thirdly because of some of the terrible things done in the name of every god by extremists
aww still no answer

See my post above. The crux of Pascal's Wager is, what if you chose the wrong God?

Then it's settled, I'll worship every god. That'll take a lot of time though.

No problem, since I'll die of starvation it'll be quick.

See my post above. The crux of Pascal's Wager is, what if you chose the wrong God?

You burn!!!!!!!!!!!!

im sorry as much as islam is a great religion, they dont preach love, they say Allah has will over us and we must obey. That implies that Allah really dont give a crap about them he just wants power over them.

Christianity and Judeism preach about love. However ive chosen christianity because

1. its historically documented
2. it fills in all the holes left by judeism.

the only area neccessary is where im going after i die, for in this life accepting christ or rejecting him is the most important thing we do,
Dude, I'm covered by "the policy" too, but please.
Look past the last 5 pages or so, and can't you see how your argument has degraded from logic to ethereal bullshit (and really confident pseudologic, at that)? That's weird. I haven't had that problem. Is your debate based on faith, and all of those undesirable "can't join a logical debate" bullshit facts, or is it based on empirical details that add up to something concrete?

It helps if you acknowledge this before you stat.

Hey, I like you. You'e strong, and you keep up the front instead of pussying.
These days, America could use moe people like that. I'd just like you to be honest, too, including to yourself.

Then it's settled, I'll worship every god. That'll take a lot of time though.

No problem, since I'll die of starvation it'll be quick.
I'm a libertarian. I'm gonna vote to cut off your "manna fro heaven" welfare-bullshit program come next year.

that was actually a very convincing argument and im extremely impressed but I still have a few unanswered (so far) problemes with religion in general. one is that for something that purportes to be to the benifit of everyone it seems like it has started an awful lot of "holy" wars. secondly the fact that much of the USA's populatio seemed to (i dont have a source for this so if ne1 can prove me wrong id be glad to accept that) support bush due to the fact that he was religious. and thirdly because of some of the terrible things done in the name of every god by extremists

sry i had missed this post.

1. holy wars are the acts of men who want power, the popes of the medieval times were horrible, dont blame the religion for one mans abuses.

2. USA pop supported bush is because we dont trust democrats to do what needs to be done in Iraq, they get all chocked up over political correctness and crap like that, while repubs just do what has to be done, (please dont start a debate of constitutionality and stuff like that)

3. extremists are people who twist religion to serve theyre own purposes, like the fundamentalist Islamics the korhan calls for peace between the jews and christians and muslims cause in the korhan judeochristians arent infedels were people of the book, but america stands for freedom, and they dont want it, so what better way to get support by telling people of extreme faith that its gods will. now i absolutely have faith in god, and ive been called extremist because i refuse to compromise on my beliefs, but ive read enough to know if its really gods will, "God wants us to kill all the Muslims" no he doesnt he wants us be compationate and try to spread the christian word to them

im sorry as much as islam is a great religion, they dont preach love, they say Allah has will over us and we must obey. That implies that Allah really dont give a crap about them he just wants power over them.
Same god, same message.

But that's okay, I wouldn't expect you to understand a religion not sanctioned by White Anglo-Saxons.

I'm a libertarian. I'm gonna vote to cut off your "manna fro heaven" welfare-bullshit program come next year.

WELFARE AND AFRIMATIVE ACTION AND THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT SHOULD ALL DIE!!!!



welfare takes away personal responsability

Afirmative action gives less qualified people jobs some place its okay but in the case of cops or firemen its really dangerous

and hell if the kids dont wanna learn let them drop out.

Same god, same message.

But that's okay, I wouldn't expect you to understand a religion not sanctioned by White Anglo-Saxons.


um sorry but wrong...... true Allah is the god of abraham....BUT, the muslim faith comes from a guy who claims to have heard voices of the arch angel gabriel,.....while nnnnnoooooo one else was around. i mean im sure he heard voices but i dont think it was from god, i have the same thing against mormons. found some gold tablets, while no one else was around had to read them out of a hat, and then when they asked him to repeat it and see if it was word for word he said god was mad and he had to read from a different tablet,

On to the actual proof: the line of logic begins in a simple thought experiment designed to predict what a being like God would do. We start by establishing that this being has the following characteristics:
1.Omnipotence
2.Omniscience
3.Free Will
These characteristics are all relatively consistent with those described as belonging to the deities of the various Abrahamic religions. *snip*
Well, first off #3 is incorrect. God does not have free will, god has God's Will, which basically means God cannot act in any way contrary to his nature. So how does this new "#3.God's Will" impact #1 and #2? It means that God is omnipotent and omniscient within the context of his nature. So what is the Abrahamic God's nature?
-Love
-Creation
-Justice
-Good

Omnipresent love, loving all, believer and non-believer. Omnipresent creation, creating everything in the world in all times (past, present and future). Omnipresent justice, in that everything that happens happens according to his Will, and is automatically Good. (Even the destruction of whole generations of people.)

Omniscience does not apply to God knowing all events that happen on the time-line; on the contrary, it applies to God knowing everything that the human spirit does (remember, religion is a spiritual thing). This is an important distinction, because humans experience the world around them in the present. It applies only to the present, because it applies to what a human does at any given time, not what God sees. It is about human initiative, not Godly observation.

Now that that concepts are better understood, maybe we can start again?

You burn!!!!!!!!!!!!

im sorry as much as islam is a great religion, they dont preach love, they say Allah has will over us and we must obey. That implies that Allah really dont give a crap about them he just wants power over them.

Christianity and Judeism preach about love. However ive chosen christianity because

1. its historically documented
2. it fills in all the holes left by judeism.
I'm not usually shy due to PC, but I have to face facts--

Jesus doesn't make women dress in bee-suits and men don't get glorified by blowing themselves up.
I'll give the "savior" that might grant me eteanl life, since I bought the no-refund ticket a long time ago.

Thoughm doesn't excuse assholes from cutting off God's intention to grant mankind free will...
Ya know, by enacting and legislating freedom-hating laws in the hope that fear=good. Making people do what you want them to do doesn't make it "good". Not even close. That's the difference between a Libewrtarian and a Republican, in general. That's where we disagree.

Well, first off #3 is incorrect. God does not have free will, god has God's Will, which basically means God cannot act in any way contrary to his nature. So how does this new "#3.God's Will" impact #1 and #2? It means that God is omnipotent and omniscient within the context of his nature. So what is the Abrahamic God's nature?
-Love
-Creation
-Justice
-Good

Omnipresent love, loving all, believer and non-believer. Omnipresent creation, creating everything in the world in all times (past, present and future). Omnipresent justice, in that everything that happens happens according to his Will, and is automatically Good. (Even the destruction of whole generations of people.)

Omniscience does not apply to God knowing all events that happen on the time-line; on the contrary, it applies to God knowing everything that the human spirit does (remember, religion is a spiritual thing). This is an important distinction, because humans experience the world around them in the present. It applies only to the present, because it applies to what a human does at any given time, not what God sees. It is about human initiative, not Godly observation.

Now that that concepts are better understood, maybe we can start again?

dude where were u when we needed you, that like just, perfect argument

I'm not usually shy due to PC, but I have to face facts--

Jesus doesn't make women dress in bee-suits and men don't get glorified by blowing themselves up.
I'll give the "savior" that might grant me eteanl life, since I bought the no-refund ticket a long time ago.

Thoughm doesn't excuse assholes from cutting off God's intention to grant mankind free will...
Ya know, by enacting and legislating freedom-hating laws in the hope that fear=good. Making people do what you want them to do doesn't make it "good". Not even close. That's the difference between a Libewrtarian and a Republican, in general. That's where we disagree.

well i believe in freedom of choice and the right to disagree so that would make me a libeterian i guess, but i tend to vote republican..

WELFARE AND AFRIMATIVE ACTION AND THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT SHOULD ALL DIE!!!!



welfare takes away personal responsability

Afirmative action gives less qualified people jobs some place its okay but in the case of cops or firemen its really dangerous

and hell if the kids dont wanna learn let them drop out.
As Upward Thrust would say, Sir, you'e preaching to the peverted. ;)

As Upward Thrust would say, Sir, you'e preaching to the peverted. ;)

so is that agree or dissagree...:confused:

I'm not usually shy due to PC, but I have to face facts--

Jesus doesn't make women dress in bee-suits and men don't get glorified by blowing themselves up.
I'll give the "savior" that might grant me eteanl life, since I bought the no-refund ticket a long time ago.

Thoughm doesn't excuse assholes from cutting off God's intention to grant mankind free will...
Ya know, by enacting and legislating freedom-hating laws in the hope that fear=good. Making people do what you want them to do doesn't make it "good". Not even close. That's the difference between a Libewrtarian and a Republican, in general. That's where we disagree.

dude and PC is overrated. i mean omg theres no greater sin on earth than hurting peoples feelings right. i dont support pcness because its hippoctitical its not okay to make fun of minorities but it is okay to make fun of white christians right.

dude and PC is overrated. i mean omg theres no greater sin on earth than hurting peoples feelings right. i dont support pcness because its hippoctitical its not okay to make fun of minorities but it is okay to make fun of white christians right.


wow i gotta learn to use puntctuation more often.

so is that agree or dissagree...:confused:
you'e still a n00b, so I don't know. Is it that important to you that people agee with you, or that they have the choice to/not to? Do you wish our government to, as fallible humans, decide that for us, in liue of individual libety, personal responsibility, and God-granted free will?

anyway... good debate guys maybe we can continue tomorrow, i for one am tired... and am goin to bed

In other words, do we save ourselves through jesus Christ, or does the government act as an appropriate intermiadary?

anyway... good debate guys maybe we can continue tomorrow, i for one am tired... and am goin to bed
LOL, you'e all tuckered out. Hell, I am too, to be honest.
Good night, and see you around here. :fluffle:

you'e still a n00b, so I don't know. Is it that important to you that people agee with you, or that they have the choice to/not to? Do you wish our government to, as fallible humans, decide that for us, in liue of individual libety, personal responsibility, and God-granted free will?

whether or not you agree with me i could care less, i was just curious, and my view on gov is its majority rule who ever wins wins. i think we should be a full fledged democracy rather than repupblic. that way we wont get these bastards who have agendas and want to make things theyre way.

dude and PC is overrated. i mean omg theres no greater sin on earth than hurting peoples feelings right. i dont support pcness because its hippoctitical its not okay to make fun of minorities but it is okay to make fun of white christians right.
It's all "okay". If you see my posts, you'll find that I don't spae anyone.
That's me.

Good Night. :)

um sorry but wrong...... true Allah is the god of abraham....BUT, the muslim faith comes from a guy who claims to have heard voices of the arch angel gabriel,.....while nnnnnoooooo one else was around.
Well, it's a lot more reasonable than claiming to be the son of a virgin impregnated by some sort of godly penis, don't you think?

i mean im sure he heard voices but i dont think it was from god, i have the same thing against mormons. found some gold tablets, while no one else was around had to read them out of a hat, and then when they asked him to repeat it and see if it was word for word he said god was mad and he had to read from a different tablet,
Notice how you're completely changing the subject?

The message is the same thing in all three religions: Do good by your neighbour, and you'll go to heaven. The three may differ on how exactly to do that, but they are essentially the same.

dude and PC is overrated. i mean omg theres no greater sin on earth than hurting peoples feelings right. i dont support pcness because its hippoctitical its not okay to make fun of minorities but it is okay to make fun of white christians right.
It's all "okay". If you see my posts, you'll find that I don't spare anyone.
That's me.

Good Night. :)

whether or not you agree with me i could care less, i was just curious, and my view on gov is its majority rule who ever wins wins. i think we should be a full fledged democracy rather than repupblic. that way we wont get these bastards who have agendas and want to make things theyre way.
And just when I was starting to like you, you broke out with the "mob rule", pitchforks-and-shovels argument. When you're the hunted, perhaps you'll reconsider the sport.

It's all "okay". If you see my posts, you'll find that I don't spare anyone.
That's me.

Good Night. :)

Ohhh, now thats not true ;)

*licks*

http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert-20051218.html

I addressed the love thing. You all saw me address the love thing. At least three times in this thread I've addressed the stupid love thing. Even the eternal modification of it. Even without the eternal doesn't mean anything argument. Why do I have to argue the same things over and over again in this thread?

You've addressed the eternal love thing - so far as I understand - by saying it's neither truly eternal (could change any minute) nor truly love (can change the definition any minute!). That's not so much 'addressing' it as it is changing the concepts to make them fit your theory... Sorry, but the proof is flawed; philosophers and theologians have been wrestling with stuff like this for 1000s of years; I don't think it's too presumptous of me to say that it was never too likely you'd suddenly solve it in, what, a wee while posting on NS General! :p

I kinda see it this way.If God exists, he is one funny all be it fucked up bastard.If he dosn't it is one funny if fucked up concept.,:p

sry i had missed this post.

1. holy wars are the acts of men who want power, the popes of the medieval times were horrible, dont blame the religion for one mans abuses.

2. USA pop supported bush is because we dont trust democrats to do what needs to be done in Iraq, they get all chocked up over political correctness and crap like that, while repubs just do what has to be done, (please dont start a debate of constitutionality and stuff like that)

3. extremists are people who twist religion to serve theyre own purposes, like the fundamentalist Islamics the korhan calls for peace between the jews and christians and muslims cause in the korhan judeochristians arent infedels were people of the book, but america stands for freedom, and they dont want it, so what better way to get support by telling people of extreme faith that its gods will. now i absolutely have faith in god, and ive been called extremist because i refuse to compromise on my beliefs, but ive read enough to know if its really gods will, "God wants us to kill all the Muslims" no he doesnt he wants us be compationate and try to spread the christian word to them

ya that does make sense except that to me it seems like faith can be twisted in any way to suit whomever wants to use it for their own purposes. i think that bush may have done this and others (like extremists) certainly do. while I think that most people of faith are good people who are doing what they beleive is right and I think in that case faith is perfect for them, I will still not worship a god who seems to allow such acts to be commited in his name.

Well, it's a lot more reasonable than claiming to be the son of a virgin impregnated by some sort of godly penis, don't you think?


Notice how you're completely changing the subject?

The message is the same thing in all three religions: Do good by your neighbour, and you'll go to heaven. The three may differ on how exactly to do that, but they are essentially the same.
not as rediculous as it sounds. . .I mean look at the choices one of the other religions (I think it was norse but cant remeber) said that god came to a woman as a shower of gold and then impregnated her . . .how does that work:confused:

http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert-20051218.html
lol sweeet

I kinda see it this way.If God exists, he is one funny all be it fucked up bastard.If he dosn't it is one funny if fucked up concept.,:p

The way I see it, it's one funny and fucked up world :).

There is one specific trait that the proof does not address, which bears some explanation. Most Gods of the sort I am describing are also categorized as in some way omnibenevolent. While such a trait means nothing if the being can alter moral law (thus defining whatever action it chooses as an act of benevolence), it does defeat the proof if such a being is limited by an outside law. This secular moral code would require such a being to be incompletely omnipotent so that it was unable to alter the code. This extra-deific code is a concept that most of the Abrahamic religions would find bizarre, but one which is surprisingly interesting to contemplate.

Actually, I would think that it would be the worshippers of such Gods that define its benevolence. Any action in itself is neither good or bad. It's just that through spin-doctoring that actions are seen as good and bad. For every cause, there are positive and negative effects, unless there are no effects, in which case, it's not really worth mentioning.

Since no Athiest or Christian can prove thier beliefs either way, I would like to offer a challenge of a different kind.

Im not asking for anyone to prove God exists.

Prove to me, that the scriptures attributed to him, are indeed, divine in nature, or EVEN HISTORICALLY ACCURATE.

Further, I would also add that while it cannot be proven that God exists, it cannot also be proven to to ever have had any relationship with any person EVER.
While all christians will claim to "have had a relationship with God", none of them can actually expalin what this is, means, or what actually tyranspired to make them think this had happened.

because theyre based on puting human limitations on god........as far as i can tell...
This is probably the most sane statement that will be put forth in this whole debate. :)

*Gasp! Gasp! Pant-pant-pant-pant*

Slogging through 14 pages of NS General is not fun... Sadly, it is neccessary at times.

An argument against Vegas Rex's disproof of omipotent, omniscient, free-willed gods:

[Devil's advocate]
A god which is omnipotent and omniscient and free-willed is equally likely to choose any option at the moment.

However. Omniscience involves knowing the future, because the future is part of 'all'.

For this reason, there are an infinite number of futures, all of them known by this god, and all of them put in action by this god.

If this god were to change his mind part of the way through, he would not be omniscient, because he would have been wrong about the future.

Ergo, this god has free will, but only at the chalkboard. God must--freely--plan his course, which may be ANY course he pleases, and involves an unpredictable choice among infinite possible choices (because of omniscience).

After the planning stage, however, this god may enact one and only one plan, lest he invalidate omniscience.

Since this god is omniscient and is the one who enacts the plan, whatever it may be, the question of him losing his free will because of 'predestination' is invalid; omniscience invalidates frame of reference, since he could picture exactly how he would feel in every instant of eterninty.
[/Devil's advocate]

I'm pretty sure Occam's razor is the only reliable way to go about establishing logical evidence against the existance of God.

-Feil

*Gasp! Gasp! Pant-pant-pant-pant*

Slogging through 14 pages of NS General is not fun... Sadly, it is neccessary at times.

An argument against Vegas Rex's disproof of omipotent, omniscient, free-willed gods:

[Devil's advocate]
A god which is omnipotent and omniscient and free-willed is equally likely to choose any option at the moment.

However. Omniscience involves knowing the future, because the future is part of 'all'.

For this reason, there are an infinite number of futures, all of them known by this god, and all of them put in action by this god.

If this god were to change his mind part of the way through, he would not be omniscient, because he would have been wrong about the future.

Ergo, this god has free will, but only at the chalkboard. God must--freely--plan his course, which may be ANY course he pleases, and involves an unpredictable choice among infinite possible choices (because of omniscience).

After the planning stage, however, this god may enact one and only one plan, lest he invalidate omniscience.

Since this god is omniscient and is the one who enacts the plan, whatever it may be, the question of him losing his free will because of 'predestination' is invalid; omniscience invalidates frame of reference, since he could picture exactly how he would feel in every instant of eterninty.
[/Devil's advocate]

I'm pretty sure Occam's razor is the only reliable way to go about establishing logical evidence against the existance of God.

-Feil
But God doesn't have "free will", God has God's Will.

Since no Athiest or Christian can prove thier beliefs either way, I would like to offer a challenge of a different kind.

Im not asking for anyone to prove God exists.

Prove to me, that the scriptures attributed to him, are indeed, divine in nature, or EVEN HISTORICALLY ACCURATE.

Further, I would also add that while it cannot be proven that God exists, it cannot also be proven to to ever have had any relationship with any person EVER.
While all christians will claim to "have had a relationship with God", none of them can actually expalin what this is, means, or what actually tyranspired to make them think this had happened.

I'll take this challenge. Kinda.
The divine nature of the holy scriptures cannot be proven divine through any logic or discovery channel research that you would accept. That's the whole concept of the divine; that which is beyond our grasp. Check up on your Descartes for this.
As far as historical accuracy, again; I have personally looked very deeply into this subject myself and, as always, even pure factual history, thanks to poor writing or ambiguity, can leave things to be interpreted however you want. i know that the Exodus as described in the Torah/Old Testament and the King/Prophets Joshua, David and Solomon are all found in secular texts as well, mainly Egyptian or Assyrian histories. Also Josephus correlates a lot of the Old Testament
Of course, there's JC. The man existed, whether or not as God Incarnate is again faith. Note, no Hebrew or Roman texts deny the "miracles" but instead cite them as demonry, witchcraft or sorcery. But it is mentioned.
But you wont find a lot of true christians or jews arguing you here, because it specifically says in the Bible that the truth of God comes "not in the wisdom of men but in the power of God" (1st Corinthians 2:5, if you're interested). Figured this needed clearing up, since people seem to get pretty steamed when very few people want to argue on this issue (from the strongly religious view point)
Lastly, I would address your notion that no one can explain the "relationship with God" thing you seem to so thoroughly despise. When people say they can not explain it, that is an answer that makes perfect sense if you think about it. If they feel the presence of an omnipitent Father, how could they explain that to someone who doesn't even believe in Him? It's like explaining colors to someone who has been blind their entire life. Again, a Descartes theory, about not being able to comprehend what you can not fathom. Makes perfect sense. Again, this is also correlated in the Bible (1st Corinthians, 1:18-30, if you are still interested).
Lastly, the notion on the will of God mentioned above as a "devil's advocate stance" is . . . well thought out, but not neccessarily the most accurate from the traditional Judeo-Christian standpoint. Free will applies to man, not really God; and that free will boils down only into one choice: sin or righteousness. Martin Luther can tell you more about this, but this is the only free will humans have, if one was to argue from the Abrahamic God standpoint. Hence, particular failure in God's plan (wars going the wrong way, people launching genodices) exist as things God did not want on earth, but nothing is great enough to change to overall course.
Sorry if I rambled a tad; just thought I could through a new (more traditionally religious) perspective. Any questions?

Of course, there's JC. The man existed, whether or not as God Incarnate is again faith.

So is the assumption of his existence as a man. While everyone "knows" there are thousands of records from eyewitnesses mentioning him, noone on this forum (or elsewhere) has actually been able to show one. Documents written after 200 AD after all are probably not from an eyewitness...

But God doesn't have "free will", God has God's Will.

Violation of the conditions layed down in the opening post. The god being discussed is one with free will.
--

The Squeaky Rat- What do you call the gospels, if not records of eyewitnesses mentioning Jesus? They were written, albiet several decades after the events, by individuals who claimed to have known him, and it is likely that at least Luke interviewed eyewitnesses.

It seems far more likely that the man existed and was a famous cleric, quite possibly even a master of the placebo known as faith healing, and that a religion developed around a common belief in his divinity. While individuals might be willing to die for a delusion that they saw as concrete reality, it is highly unlikely that they would martyr themselves for the sake of a lie that they knew to be a lie.

Violation of the conditions layed down in the opening post. The god being discussed is one with free will.
God forbide that anyone should violate the OP's "conditions". This thread should be re-named Futility of the Non Believers.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10159893&postcount=202

But God doesn't have "free will", God has God's Will.

Despite my abandonment of this thread to the carrion birds, this post caught my eye.

What do you mean by God's Will as opposed to free will? What's the difference in terms of the proof?

*Gasp! Gasp! Pant-pant-pant-pant*

Slogging through 14 pages of NS General is not fun... Sadly, it is neccessary at times.

An argument against Vegas Rex's disproof of omipotent, omniscient, free-willed gods:

[Devil's advocate]
A god which is omnipotent and omniscient and free-willed is equally likely to choose any option at the moment.

However. Omniscience involves knowing the future, because the future is part of 'all'.

For this reason, there are an infinite number of futures, all of them known by this god, and all of them put in action by this god.

If this god were to change his mind part of the way through, he would not be omniscient, because he would have been wrong about the future.

Ergo, this god has free will, but only at the chalkboard. God must--freely--plan his course, which may be ANY course he pleases, and involves an unpredictable choice among infinite possible choices (because of omniscience).

After the planning stage, however, this god may enact one and only one plan, lest he invalidate omniscience.

Since this god is omniscient and is the one who enacts the plan, whatever it may be, the question of him losing his free will because of 'predestination' is invalid; omniscience invalidates frame of reference, since he could picture exactly how he would feel in every instant of eterninty.
[/Devil's advocate]

I'm pretty sure Occam's razor is the only reliable way to go about establishing logical evidence against the existance of God.

-Feil

Hmm...while I'm in the neighborhood I'll also tackle this.

The issue is that omniscience is not predestination. God can take action at any given point. While God knows all that will happen, including all that it will decide, that doesn't mean that there will be any sort of consistency in those decisions. God could decide to value free will up until 2006 and then value swiss cheese. When God decides this is irrelevant, he could have planned the change of heart since time immemorial. It still makes said being just as unpredictable.

I'll take this challenge. Kinda.
The divine nature of the holy scriptures cannot be proven divine through any logic or discovery channel research that you would accept. That's the whole concept of the divine; that which is beyond our grasp. Check up on your Descartes for this.


So, you agree that its divinity cannot be backed up at all.
Wich makes sense, if you cannot prove that God exists, you cannot prove that the bible was divinely inspired.

As far as historical accuracy, again; I have personally looked very deeply into this subject myself and, as always, even pure factual history, thanks to poor writing or ambiguity, can leave things to be interpreted however you want. i know that the Exodus as described in the Torah/Old Testament and the King/Prophets Joshua, David and Solomon are all found in secular texts as well, mainly Egyptian or Assyrian histories. Also Josephus correlates a lot of the Old Testament

Correlates, but all too often misinterperets.
For example, there is much more evidence that the Hebrewsand the warrior tribe know as the "Hu-bri", are indeed, the same people.
This may be the reason why when Moses left Egypt, he simply walked out of the place, free to go, before Pharoah changed his mind.

This means, the Hebrews were NOT slaves, as is widely believed now.
In fact, they were probably infantry and mercenaries, hired to protect Eygpt from the North.

I could go into further detail about Moses' military strategy and several passages in the bible that support this.


, there's JC. The man existed, whether or not as God Incarnate is again faith.

I believe he did likely exist, as well, but can you prove this?
Is there any proof of his life?
Ive heard that "roman documents exist wich show his name" but its a common name for the time, and I have never seen such documents.




Where?

[quote]
tly, I would address your notion that no one can explain the "relationship with God" thing you seem to so thoroughly despise.

Thoroughly despise?
Not really, I dont despise the idea of having a relationship with God, I just believe that every single person who claims to have had such a thing, is deluding themsleves into believing it happened.
Their own minds rationalize the outcome they desire.



When people say they can not explain it, that is an answer that makes perfect sense if you think about it. If they feel the presence of an omnipitent Father, how could they explain that to someone who doesn't even believe in Him?

They could try....none succeed to say anything with any merit.
If you were to try and explain your relationship with your mother, even though I have never met her, its one that can be reasonably explained.
Even if you were to explain a supernatural relationship, when say, you may have seen a ghost, and I asked you what you felt, and saw, you could reasonably explain that wich you saw, and experienced.

With God, no one has ever given me an explanation that can prove to me, that the Christian in question hasnt imagined, or fabricated any such feelings, or events.

Keep in mind, I wasnt always a militant athiest.

The issue is that omniscience is not predestination. God can take action at any given point. While God knows all that will happen, including all that it will decide, that doesn't mean that there will be any sort of consistency in those decisions. God could decide to value free will up until 2006 and then value swiss cheese. When God decides this is irrelevant, he could have planned the change of heart since time immemorial. It still makes said being just as unpredictable.

True.

Hmm...while I'm in the neighborhood I'll also tackle this.

The issue is that omniscience is not predestination. God can take action at any given point. While God knows all that will happen, including all that it will decide, that doesn't mean that there will be any sort of consistency in those decisions. God could decide to value free will up until 2006 and then value swiss cheese. When God decides this is irrelevant, he could have planned the change of heart since time immemorial. It still makes said being just as unpredictable.
Why would an omniscient being need to change plans?

Yeah, I've had a few problems with Buddhism (mainly that it seems to be the one religion that no-one but me cares to criticize) but at least it's able to avoid the proof, mainly because it's God-being has no free will. And no, I'm not one of those stupid people who think Buddha is a god, I'm talking about Karma, which effectively behaves much like the Abrahamic Gods for certain purposes. Unlike said Gods, Karma is not a free-willed being, and thus conceivably could avoid randomness.

By the way, it's never exactly been made clear to me how minimalist you can be and still be Buddhist. Is Karma always part of Buddhism, or is it optional?

In all fairness, there's a very good reason why karma isn't a free-willed being:

It isn't a being at all, it's a property of other beings.

Despite my abandonment of this thread to the carrion birds, this post caught my eye.

What do you mean by God's Will as opposed to free will? What's the difference in terms of the proof?

From what I can tell...

Assume a god that, rather than being a blank slate with free will, is omniscient and omnipotent, but bound by an intial nature with certain inviolable qualities. This god would have free will limited by these inviolable qualities: just as we humans have free will but cannot walk through walls because of our base nature, the god has free will, but cannot do things that are contrary to his nature. (Obviously, one of the things that has to be contrary to his nature is changing his nature, else we're back to the same thing again.)

Therefore, the Jewish/Christian/Moslem religion is not futile, because many modern sects of those religions hold that their god posesses only limited free will, limited by his inviolable initial nature.

Despite my abandonment of this thread to the carrion birds, this post caught my eye.

What do you mean by God's Will as opposed to free will? What's the difference in terms of the proof?
I posted this earlier:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10147733&postcount=175

This is probably the most sane statement that will be put forth in this whole debate. :)
Hey, praise for Tarsonis!!!!!

So this thread pickin' up yet?

So this thread pickin' up yet?
/me picks it up and tosses it.

I don't get religious people. Especially the Jehovahs. They come around and you are mean to them, but they keep coming back anyway. How do you make them go away? I even answered the door naked once. They didn't even blink. What the hell is wrong with them? Do they take drugs before they go knocking on people's doors? Valium or something?

/me picks it up and tosses it.
;)

Why would an omniscient being need to change plans?

Maybe the same reason why most of us have to change our undies.
I mean (i should add) due to usual wear and tear and hygienal/composure reasons, NOT the reasons persay that most avid internet surfers NEED to ... ;)

Bleah. As if i weren't uncomfortable enough ...

<snip>.We start by establishing that this being has the following characteristics:
1.Omnipotence
2.Omniscience
3.Free Will
These characteristics are all relatively consistent with those described as belonging to the deities of the various Abrahamic religions.<snip>

You missed trancendence, which, by its very nature, renders your attemts to explain and understand God unsound. Theists have the advantage of throwing that quality of God into the works whenever there is a conclusion they dislike...