NationStates Jolt Archive

It does. Because a being that exists outside of time would not be bound to knowing the outcome before it happened. It's not predective. It's an outcome. We tend to limit our thinking to time because we're wired that way.

Because of that, though, free will doesn't exist or it's impossible for anything to exist outside of time or the existence of something that can recognize the 100% outcome after it occurs doesn't matter. The options aren't the options you offered but three entirely different options.

Yes, other options exist. I should have said, you have three options if you want to go on believing in god and free will.

The way I see it, it doesn't matter if god exists outside of time or not. All that changes is how he knows the future, but it doesn't change the important fact that he already knows our future before we made the choice.

Yes, other options exist. I should have said, you have three options if you want to go on believing in god and free will.

The way I see it, it doesn't matter if god exists outside of time or not. All that changes is how he knows the future, but it doesn't change the important fact that he already knows our future before we made the choice.

Not before. Before is a word bound by time. He knows our future after we made the choice, it just so happens that, being outside of time, there is no difference for God between your birth and the moment you made the choice.

Also, your options don't account for the third option I offered, that the existence of something unbound by time does not have anything to do with free will.

number tens not an answer and the simplest answer to all those questions is "god doesn't exist". As to jesus. Anyone here wanna claim theyve seen him?

How is it not an answer?

Care to try and prove your assertion?

Not before. Before is a word bound by time. He knows our future after we made the choice, it just so happens that, being outside of time, there is no difference for good between your birth and the moment you made the choice.

Yes, I understand the idea of a god sitting outside of time and therefore is able to see all time in one instant, so to speak. So, when I am experiencing the moment of my birth, He can also view the instant when I am typing these words.

Do you see how that implies that the second moment already exists and that it has been predetermined that I will actualise that potentiality, at the same moment when I am still experiencing my birth?

Also, your options don't account for the third option I offered, that the existence of something unbound by time does not have anything to do with free will.

Like I said, I am discussing omniscience and free will. if it doesn't have anything to do with free will, why should I address it?

Yes, I understand the idea of a god sitting outside of time and therefore is able to see all time in one instant, so to speak. So, when I am experiencing the moment of my birth, He can also view the instant when I am typing these words.

Do you see how that implies that the second moment already exists and that it has been predetermined that I will actualise that potentiality, at the same moment when I am still experiencing my birth?

If there is anything outside of our time-based universe (which happens to be the most prevailing scientific theory), then yes, the moment "already" exists, so to speak. By the very nature of existing outside time, when the moment came to be is irrelevent. Their existence doesn't change the order of ours or that we made a choice.

And, again, not PREdetermined, since PRE is a time-based term. It was determined by you, in your own time. The fact that I know the outcome AFTER you did it, but that AFTER is not relevant to me, doesn't change that it's relevant to you and that I didn't know until AFTER as far as you're concerned.


Like I said, I am discussing omniscience and free will. if it doesn't have anything to do with free will, why should I address it?

You're missing the point. You did not list that possibility. You're trying to discuss the other points, but when you eliminate a very real possibility without addressing it, it's a circular argument.

I want to discuss how you're a nazi.

Why do I think you're a nazi? Well, there's only one possibility... that you're a nazi.

Why don't I want to discuss the possibility that you're not a nazi? Because we're discussing how you're a nazi so the possibility you're not isn't relevant.

See how that doesn't work. The possibility that free will exists and the existence of a being outside of time doesn't affect it negates your three possibilities and is thus relevant.

(For the record, I'm certainly not accusing you of being a nazi. It's simply an example of why you must consider all options even those you aren't looking to discuss.)

yes but no. You have an educated idea of what they are going to do. being omnipotent means controlling everything!!!! including choice. therefore no free will. Also being omniscient means knowing everything past present and future therefore your decisions are already made therefore no free will
It does?

Definition: all-powerful: possessing complete, unlimited, or universal power and authority

Yes if a being is capable of controlling everything that means it is capable of controlling choice throwing the idea of free will out the window.

Being capable of doing something does not mean that you will do something.
So, again, fail.

Woah...

What did I miss? How has this thread lasted this long?

Easy, people are refraining from flaming.

lolol

you really give jhahannam a run for his money in the humor department. maybe the 2 of you should get together and work up some routines that you can take on the road.

Except I think Kirch is actually serious. :(

If you are an educated Christian, I would like to talk with you today about an important and interesting question. Have you ever thought about using your college education to think about your faith? Your life and your career demand that you behave and act rationally. Let's apply your critical thinking skills as we discuss 10 simple questions about your religion.

Cool Faith and Reason, like chocolate and peanut butter they go great together. (Ironically I'm allergic to peanut butter but ignore that for now. I am not allergic to reason.)

So here is question 1: Why won't God heal amputees?

First of all you need to understand the idea of a miracle. Miracles do not happen because we want to show how God loves to violate the laws of the universe or for show or display. A miracle to save a person's life is one thing, especially if in so doing it can save souls in the process. A miracle to restore a limb on the other hand is more self centered.

So the second question is: Why are there so many starving people in our world?

Because we are unwilling to feed them. God's answer to starving people is you. Yes you. Me too. Greed causes starving people. Greed comes from us.

Third question: Why does God demand the death of so many innocent people in the Bible? Look up these verses:

Once upon a time the kids were very bad. Gold calves and everything. It wasn't a good time. Punishment and discipline were required. Especially because they wanted to party with the neighbors. That in a nutshell is the LAW, which you reference. So as the LAW is fufilled and the children are grown up (well not really) I'm skipping this one.

Question 4: Why does the Bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense?

The Bible contains a lot of "scientific" nonsense, long before the scientific method come to think about it. The latest scientific ideas of the time, such as the notion of the separation of the waters by a great dome is clearly in the Bible. Mind you a lot of that scientific stuff was later proven wrong by science. This happens all the time. You really should look at all the stupid ideas of the Greeks, and the stupid ideas of the Middle Ages, and the stupid ideas of the Industrial Age.

- God did not create the world in 6 days 6,000 years ago like the Bible says.

The Bible doesn't actually say anything about 6,000 years. That's derived from people who take it way to literally. The structure of the 6 days is exceptionally symbolic and is used to map into the seven day week which was used by the neighbors.

- There was never a worldwide flood that covered Mt. Everest like the Bible says.

Mt. Everest is not mentioned in the Bible.

- Jonah did not live inside a fish's stomach for three days like the Bible says.

How do you know? Actually the time isn't important, it's code words since the common belief was that after three days you were really really dead.

- God did not create Adam from a handful of dust like the Bible says.

Again, how do you know? Even though its a metaphore, it's impossible to prove a specific when there is no evidence whatsoever. Did Brutus really stab Ceasar or did he trip at the last second and miss. We will never know. And no one really cares!

Question 5: Why is God such a huge proponent of slavery in the Bible?

Slavery comes in many forms and while we normally think of the type of Slavery practiced in the 19th century United States, this was far from the common norm. Slavery of those people captured as a result of war was common. Since there was a general tendency in the LAW to discourage the people from seeking the lowest common denominator of culture (and froeign god worship) the alternate for foreigners was genocide. As the Gospels suggest there are many things in the law because of the hard hearts of those stiff necked people.

Question 6: Why do bad things happen to good people? That makes no sense. You have created an exotic excuse on God's behalf to rationalize it.

Sorry I won't answer that question. You're going to have to find it all out on your own. You have to rephraise the question. Once you do that correctly you will come up with the answer. Forty Two. So come back when you have the right question.

Question 7: Why didn't any of Jesus' miracles in the Bible leave behind any evidence? It's very strange, isn't it? You have created an excuse to rationalize it.

You completely miss the point of all of Jesus' miracles. Jesus' miracles was that he forgave sins; he gave insight to those who could not see; he enabled those who were outcast to re-enter society. All of the curing stuff was simply a proof of his ability to the real important miracles. People still argue over "evidence." Look at Global Warming as an example. Miracles aer personal, and they are self evident to the one who receives them.

Question 8: How do we explain the fact that Jesus has never appeared to you? Jesus is all-powerful and timeless, but if you pray for Jesus to appear, nothing happens. You have to create a weird rationalization to deal with this discrepancy.

How very Thomas like of you. It's also a very bad idea of prayer.

Question 9 – Why would Jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood? It sounds totally grotesque, doesn't it? Why would al all-powerful God want you to do something that, in any other context, sounds like a disgusting, cannibalistic, satanic ritual?

"[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God" (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).

And finally, Question 10 – Why do Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians? Christians get married in front of God and their Christian friends, all of whom are praying to God for the marriage to succeed. And then they say, "What God has put together, let no man put asunder." God is all-powerful, so if God has put two people together that should seal the deal, right? Yet Christians get divorced at the same rate as everyone else. To explain this, you have to create some convoluted rationalization.

There is nothing in marriage that suggests the people will be true to their oaths and bonds. The answer is that everyone sins. Even Christians.

If there is anything outside of our time-based universe (which happens to be the most prevailing scientific theory), then yes, the moment "already" exists, so to speak. By the very nature of existing outside time, when the moment came to be is irrelevent. Their existence doesn't change the order of ours or that we made a choice.

Why would having something existing outside of time automatically imply that our future is knowable? Couldn't this being sit outside of time and watch the roiling chaos of our unknowable future slowly dwindle as we moved throught time? I don't see how having an outside spectator automatically implies certain conditions in that which is observed.

And, again, not PREdetermined, since PRE is a time-based term. It was determined by you, in your own time. The fact that I know the outcome AFTER you did it, but that AFTER is not relevant to me, doesn't change that it's relevant to you and that I didn't know until AFTER as far as you're concerned.

Sure, I determined it, but I couldn't have determined something else or else the vision that god had in his timeless place would be wrong.

You're missing the point. You did not list that possibility. You're trying to discuss the other points, but when you eliminate a very real possibility without addressing it, it's a circular argument....See how that doesn't work. The possibility that free will exists and the existence of a being outside of time doesn't affect it negates your three possibilities and is thus relevant.

Sure, that possibility exists, but it would imply that the being is not omniscient, or self-limiting, or can break the laws of logic. It doesn't really matter if this being is sitting in some timeless place or in our spacetime reality.

Why would having something existing outside of time automatically imply that our future is knowable? Couldn't this being sit outside of time and watch the roiling chaos of our unknowable future slowly dwindle as we moved throught time? I don't see how having an outside spectator automatically implies certain conditions in that which is observed.

Again, everything about how you're addressing that suggests that a being outside of time is within time. See, to a being outside of time, there is no slowly, there is no movement through time. I'm unbound and as such, I see you in all of the points you occupy in your lifetime simultaneously. Your description simply has that being existing in a different type of time. It's a limitation of your argument, but not a limitation of the universe. At least, not a demonstrated limitation of the universe.

There is no future to a being outside time. We don't have a future. There is no distance between when you make a decision and the outcome. No distance between your birth and death. If that being observes you, it observes you instantaneously both in birth and death and everywhere in between. And doing so does not change your free will, your existence or your experience.

NOTE: I'll give you this - it's quite possible that to a being outside time that time appears as a dimension like length, just not with the same boundaries we have in time. The problem is for our movement to even be movement, we need a substitute for time, another type of time, which is a major assumption on our part.


Sure, I determined it, but I couldn't have determined something else or else the vision that god had in his timeless place would be wrong.

No, it wouldn't. Because the vision God has was determined by your choice, not the other way around. If you'd determined something else, then that outcome would have been what God's vision was.


Sure, that possibility exists, but it would imply that the being is not omniscient, or self-limiting, or can break the laws of logic. It doesn't really matter if this being is sitting in some timeless place or in our spacetime reality.
No, actually, it doesn't. It would require that our knowledge of mathematics is, in fact, correct. Nothing more. Nothing less. Like I said, by treating that option the way you are, you're starting with conclusion in hand. "Why isn't it a possibility? Because I've already stated that such a thing breaks the bounds of logic. How did I prove it? By stating it in my list of possiblities."

Dentist appt. I'll check in later. I know we don't always get along, but despite my unfortunate indication to Jhaha I actually find the concept interesting even if I feel like I know the outcome. I appreciate your point of view. I'll be back to finish the conversation.

Question 7: Why didn't any of Jesus' miracles in the Bible leave behind any evidence? It's very strange, isn't it? You have created an excuse to rationalize it.

What sort of evidence were you expecting? A T-shirt with the slogan "I went to see Jesus preach and all I got was a fish-sandwich and this lousy T-shirt"?

Um, really? Have you ever seen gravity? Love?

We can observe the effects of gravity, make predictions based on theories of gravitation and subject them to empirical testing. In principle, it could be falsified.

Sure, I determined it, but I couldn't have determined something else or else the vision that god had in his timeless place would be wrong.
You could have determined something else; it's just that God would see that instead if you did.

It's like your memory of the past. You can sit here and think "I had pizza for dinner" because you remember it. If you had chosen to make a chicken korma or a tomato and herb pasta plate then you would remember that, but the fact that you remember not having either of those does not invalidate the decision you could make between the three options.

You can think of it as a variation on "spooky action at a distance", if you will. The decisions you make changes what God sees, always has seen and always will see. In effect, your present action in the face of a timeless overseer sends a wave of information backwards and forwards in time, like a ripple on a lake's surface in response to a raindrop.

There are reasons as to why "free will" may be an illusion, but retrospection is not one of them.

So here is question 1: Why won't God heal amputees?

Humans suffer from imperfection just like every animal, every living thing, every non-living thing. Our own intelligence and creativity has produced amazing medical advances. At this point in time, regrowth of limbs is not one. It may be in the future.

So the second question is: Why are there so many starving people in our world?

A mix of natural disasters and famine and drought. Nature suffers these same consequences. It is part of the natural cycle of the Earth. Capitalism and globalization also have a part in it. We don't need God to redistribute wealth, we can do that ourselves.

Right-wing fundamentalism has produced awful hypocrisy beyond imagination. Many Christians and non-Christians alike have endorsed socialism, which would largely help the world.

Third question: Why does God demand the death of so many innocent people in the Bible?

Every culture of the time period killed many innocent people. This predates the Bible all the way back to the code of Hammurabi. The authors of the time simply wrote relevant to their culture. Pagan and secular cultures were often as violent and brutal.

Question 4: Why does the Bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense?

Many theologians have more recently treated the first books of the Bible as parables rather than history. They are stories meant to illustrate the nature of God and humans. There was not literally a utopian garden with a talking snake, or a whale that swallowed a man and spit him out 3 days later. They have meaning, they just aren't meant to be literal.

Question 5: Why is God such a huge proponent of slavery in the Bible?

Same answer to question 3. It is relevant to culture. Nearly every society endorsed slavery.

Question 6: Why do bad things happen to good people?

Because God never gave us a karma code. The Hindu idea of karma relates directly to reincarnation. The misconstrued and simplified idea "do good things and good things happen" is more of a modern cultural idea than a religious doctrine.

God isn't all controlling. Free will not only applies to humans but to all of nature. Hurricanes turn themselves, virus's spread themselves, etc.

Question 7: Why didn't any of Jesus' miracles in the Bible leave behind any evidence?

Because the people of the time neither had the technology or desire to preserve them.

Relic worship is not healthy and is discouraged by many.

Question 8: How do we explain the fact that Jesus has never appeared to you? Jesus is all-powerful and timeless, but if you pray for Jesus to appear, nothing happens. You have to create a weird rationalization to deal with this discrepancy.

I neither have the desire or need for Jesus to physically appear to me.

If Jesus appeared to a skeptic atheist, they would rationalize it has a hallucination or something generated by their mind. And you can't pray to someone you are sure doesn't exist for their appearance anyway.

People who believe don't ask, people who disbelieve don't ask.

The fact is, there is not a person who sincerely asks for Jesus to appear to them.

Question 9 – Why would Jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood? It sounds totally grotesque, doesn't it? Why would al all-powerful God want you to do something that, in any other context, sounds like a disgusting, cannibalistic, satanic ritual?

It's a metaphor. Even Catholics who still partake in communion believe in the divinity of the things to be consumed. They believe the bread is Jesus's flesh in the idea that Jesus sends his spirit to it. They do not believe that if you test the bread for human DNA that you will find any.

And finally, Question 10 – Why do Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians?

Secular mairrages also involve vows. Maybe not vows to God, but vows nonetheless. Neither Christians nor non-Christians taken these vows for something of great value.

People are flawed. Relationships start, relationships end. Religion does not alter our human nature.



Answered by a liberal Christian Universalist.

I neither have the desire or need for Jesus to physically appear to me.

If Jesus appeared to a skeptic atheist, they would rationalize it has a hallucination or something generated by their mind. And you can't pray to someone you are sure doesn't exist for their appearance anyway.

You can pray someone you think probably doesn't exist for an appearance. I did. Didn't work.

People who believe don't ask, people who disbelieve don't ask.

The fact is, there is not a person who sincerely asks for Jesus to appear to them.

That's a very presumptuous claim.

We can observe the effects of gravity, make predictions based on theories of gravitation and subject them to empirical testing. In principle, it could be falsified.
You don't equate God itself to theories of Gravitation. You equate Theories of God, or Theology, with theories of Gravitation, and God, or the subject of Faith, with Gravity itself.

Just as God is not falsifiable on the basis that its explanation will shift and skew as previous details are refuted, so too is Gravity itself not falsifiable. It can never be in dispute that two bodies of mass are observed to exert a force on one another. Even if it doesn't always work, sometimes it does, and it verifiably has, and thus some explanation needs to account for it. God is a name put to an observation - that of spiritual experience. It may well be that the most appropriate explanation is one of mass delusion, but God will always be the name for this delusion, just as Gravity will remain the name for the force, whatever its cause.

Theories of Gravity are falsifiable, since all we need to do is show where the theories fall down, but then again so too are theories of God by the same process of elimination (although the academic community may be more resistant to change in matters of Theology than they would in science).

The question is not one of "Does God exist?", but rather of "What is God?".

Theories of Gravity are falsifiable, since all we need to do is show where the theories fall down, but then again so too are theories of God by the same process of elimination (although the academic community may be more resistant to change in matters of Theology than they would in science).

However, while the effects of gravity are observable and allow for theories to be formed and tested, no such observations can be made of god in the first place so that all theories about god are subsequently devoid of substance.

The question is not one of "Does God exist?", but rather of "What is God?".

And "Why is there a question for god" ?

Again, everything about how you're addressing that suggests that a being outside of time is within time.

No, that's just a consequence of describing a timeless place using language that can not describe such a place.

See, to a being outside of time, there is no slowly, there is no movement through time. I'm unbound and as such, I see you in all of the points you occupy in your lifetime simultaneously.

I am clear on that.

Your description simply has that being existing in a different type of time. It's a limitation of your argument, but not a limitation of the universe. At least, not a demonstrated limitation of the universe.

I am not arguing that God lives in a different type of time.

We don't have a future. There is no distance between when you make a decision and the outcome. No distance between your birth and death. If that being observes you, it observes you instantaneously both in birth and death and everywhere in between. And doing so does not change your free will, your existence or your experience.

What does the observer see from this timeless place? If the observer sees your entire life, then that says that the events that occur in what you call your future are known to some being.


NOTE: I'll give you this - it's quite possible that to a being outside time that time appears as a dimension like length, just not with the same boundaries we have in time. The problem is for our movement to even be movement, we need a substitute for time, another type of time, which is a major assumption on our part.

Any idea of what a timeless observer would see when looking at our time is bound to be full of assumptions. For example, your model seems to assume that our timeless observer would see only one continuous moment that encompassed all the moments of the timeline, and that there is only one of these time-moments.

No, it wouldn't. Because the vision God has was determined by your choice, not the other way around. If you'd determined something else, then that outcome would have been what God's vision was.

So then this timeless place could not contain this information until after I made the decision? That would imply that this timeless place or vision would be affected by time.

If that's the case, how is a timeless place affected by time, as it would need to be if the above was true?

No, actually, it doesn't. It would require that our knowledge of mathematics is, in fact, correct. Nothing more. Nothing less. Like I said, by treating that option the way you are, you're starting with conclusion in hand. "Why isn't it a possibility? Because I've already stated that such a thing breaks the bounds of logic. How did I prove it? By stating it in my list of possiblities."

If the timeless observer were to be in the timeless place and saw my entire life, and then came into our timely reality at the moment of my birth, it would have the knowledge of my future. I would then do one of two things. I could either live my entire life exactly as the observer saw it, which would definitely suggest I have no free will, or I would deviate from the observer's vision, in which case the vision would have been wrong.

Now, we can get around this by stating that the timeless observer does not ever appear in our physical reality. n other words, god can't know my future and still be present to me and allow me free will all at the same time. Unless I lose either my free will, or god's omniscience, or god's presence in our reality.

There you go, I was wrong about there being only three options. There's a fourth. God limits himself by not interacting with the temporal plane so that his timeless knowledge does not exist in logical contradiction to our own free will.

Dentist appt. I'll check in later. I know we don't always get along, but despite my unfortunate indication to Jhaha I actually find the concept interesting even if I feel like I know the outcome. I appreciate your point of view. I'll be back to finish the conversation.

I'll give you this: you are being far more polite than the last time. Thank you for that.

You don't equate God itself to theories of Gravitation. You equate Theories of God, or Theology, with theories of Gravitation, and God, or the subject of Faith, with Gravity itself.

Just as God is not falsifiable on the basis that its explanation will shift and skew as previous details are refuted, so too is Gravity itself not falsifiable. It can never be in dispute that two bodies of mass are observed to exert a force on one another. Even if it doesn't always work, sometimes it does, and it verifiably has, and thus some explanation needs to account for it.

You're confusing 'unfalsifiable' with 'never falsified'. We could wake up tomorrow and find that things weren't attracted to other things any more (although we wouldn't have long to observe and remark on this for...), and thus falsify Gravity. There's no conceivable observation that could falsify a hiding-God.

God is a name put to an observation - that of spiritual experience. It may well be that the most appropriate explanation is one of mass delusion, but God will always be the name for this delusion, just as Gravity will remain the name for the force, whatever its cause.

Now you're just redefining terms. I (and, I think, Jocabia) are using 'God' to refer to an entity with certain defining characteristics. I won't presume to define his beliefs for him, but I think he'll agree that, at a minimum, this 'God' is a conscious being.

Theories of Gravity are falsifiable, since all we need to do is show where the theories fall down, but then again so too are theories of God by the same process of elimination (although the academic community may be more resistant to change in matters of Theology than they would in science).

Theologies and religions either migrate over time to a position where they're impossible to falsify or they outright deny reality. Scientific theories, by contrast, are expected to prove their worth by making risky predictions: a 'theory' which says merely "the Sun is probably hot, although it might not be" isn't a theory at all.

The question is not one of "Does God exist?", but rather of "What is God?".

Actually the question is "Why are you trying to redefine a term which already has a perfectly good definition?" It's the same question that should have been posed to Gould when he wrote his embarrassingly bad Rock of Ages.

We can observe the effects of gravity, make predictions based on theories of gravitation and subject them to empirical testing. In principle, it could be falsified.

Of course. He was talking about the requirement to "see" things. I was kidding around, because there is nothing scientific about such a requirement.

Of course. He was talking about the requirement to "see" things. I was kidding around, because there is nothing scientific about such a requirement.

Ah, fair play then. :)

You're confusing 'unfalsifiable' with 'never falsified'. We could wake up tomorrow and find that things weren't attracted to other things any more (although we wouldn't have long to observe and remark on this for...), and thus falsify Gravity. There's no conceivable observation that could falsify a hiding-God.
Such an observation would not falsify Gravity. Things were still attracted to each other before tomorrow, and thus the fact that they aren't any more would be encapsulated within any theories about Gravity. Or rather, the fact that they used to be attracted to one another would be incorporated within theories about the new model of the world from which Gravity is no longer an operational force; the legacy of Gravity as a description of the force would remain and the search to describe the phenomenon of its sudden inactivity would be a feature in new Gravitational theories.

Unless of course you're positing that science would suddenly seek to treat Gravity as though it never existed?

Now you're just redefining terms. I (and, I think, Jocabia) are using 'God' to refer to an entity with certain defining characteristics. I won't presume to define his beliefs for him, but I think he'll agree that, at a minimum, this 'God' is a conscious being.

Actually the question is "Why are you trying to redefine a term which already has a perfectly good definition?" It's the same question that should have been posed to Gould when he wrote his embarrassingly bad Rock of Ages.
No other such definition currently exists. That's why I'm challenging it. There is no singular and effective definition for what everybody understands by God, save through one common factor; that of its role as the source of religious faith. I believe it is impossible to get any more concrete definition of God than that, because somewhere along the line it will conflict with what people mean by it.

If you have a better one, feel free to state it. Heck, it probably deserves a topic of its own.

Theologies and religions either migrate over time to a position where they're impossible to falsify or they outright deny reality. Scientific theories, by contrast, are expected to prove their worth by making risky predictions: a 'theory' which says merely "the Sun is probably hot, although it might not be" isn't a theory at all.
No system of Theology is today in a position where it is impossible to falsify. They are, in many places, false, with no signs of changing, in some places uncertain pending future information and continuously positing unjustified conclusions of the meagre information provided, but this is a consequence of apathy, comfort and self-delusion rather than one of the subject matter itself.

Religion exposes and exploits an innate trait of humans in society. It is important that we analyse and explain this trait in a calm and objective manner without pretending it doesn't exist or condescendingly treating it as a form of stupidity.

No other such definition currently exists. That's why I'm challenging it. There is no singular and effective definition for what you, I or anybody else understands by God, save through one common factor; that of its role as the source of religious faith. I believe it is impossible to get any more concrete definition of God than that, because somewhere along the line it will conflict with what people mean by it.
There are hundreds of thousands of definitions for the word "God" all with a different set of characteristics. At the moment, we're discussing the so called Abrahamic-type god, especially the Old Testament version. It's indeed crucial to know wich type of god you are discussing, even though we can't really challenge the type of god, you can only challenge the characterics of the god.

However, while the effects of gravity are observable and allow for theories to be formed and tested, no such observations can be made of god in the first place so that all theories about god are subsequently devoid of substance.
All current theories about god are devoid of scientific substance, by and large. People do not learn about how god works then go and turn water into wine or cause the sky to rain bread or what have you. However, knowing why people believe what they do does have useful consequences socially - particularly in politics, charity work and when you have to keep up conversation with your wider family circle, Jehovah's witnesses or the awkward guys at the university Christian Union.

No, that's just a consequence of describing a timeless place using language that can not describe such a place.
It's not flawed, exactly. You just applied future to the wrong object. It's your future. To it, it simply is.
I am clear on that.

I am not arguing that God lives in a different type of time.
I know. I was simply pointing out the possibility.
What does the observer see from this timeless place? If the observer sees your entire life, then that says that the events that occur in what you call your future are known to some being.
Certainly. Just like Jimmi Hendrix's future is know to you.
Any idea of what a timeless observer would see when looking at our time is bound to be full of assumptions. For example, your model seems to assume that our timeless observer would see only one continuous moment that encompassed all the moments of the timeline, and that there is only one of these time-moments.
Actually, no. I pointed out earlier that there's a theory that every potential outcome occurs, this doesn't change discussion in any relevant way. There is also the belief there are other universes and other times, but again, that wouldn't be relevant to the availability of choice to you.
So then this timeless place could not contain this information until after I made the decision? That would imply that this timeless place or vision would be affected by time.

If that's the case, how is a timeless place affected by time, as it would need to be if the above was true?
There is no after. The point is that you make the decision in some point within time, but because there is no time there, for all intents it just is. I know cause and effect, in our limited understanding of it, is bound by time, but don't let our limitation be a logical one. You assume it's understanding limits your choices, but you've not demonstrated why it would causally do so. You've already said that implying cause in one direction is time-based, why is it okay for you to do it in the other direction?

It would also have to be affected by time in order for your claim to be true, as fact has it.
If the timeless observer were to be in the timeless place and saw my entire life, and then came into our timely reality at the moment of my birth, it would have the knowledge of my future. I would then do one of two things. I could either live my entire life exactly as the observer saw it, which would definitely suggest I have no free will, or I would deviate from the observer's vision, in which case the vision would have been wrong.
Why? You've already made the choice, you just don't know the outcome yet. Much like Jimi Hendrix has already made all the choices of his life, but it doesn't change the will behind them.

Now, if I went back and somehow interacted with Jimi or other things in the time he existed, I would be changing the events and we're no longer talking about all things being equal. Things have changed which many would argue violates the very idea of a timeline and is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. However, if I simply went back and observed without interacting, then how would this be any different than watching home movies?
Now, we can get around this by stating that the timeless observer does not ever appear in our physical reality. n other words, god can't know my future and still be present to me and allow me free will all at the same time. Unless I lose either my free will, or god's omniscience, or god's presence in our reality.
God's presence in our reality without effect would make no difference whatsoever and thus wouldn't change that I traveled my life and made my choices. They would still be mine and I would have still made them regardless of the outcomes being understood by someone else by observing a time after I made those choices. You assume that knowledge before the event eliminates my ability to choose, but if that knowledge is a result of my choice, as it would be if my choice was observed, then we must agree that knowledge of my choices after I make them exist already. The problem with all of this is you are requiring time to be linear and requiring anything that interacts with it to be equally linear. If my time simply doesn't match yours, making it possible for me to observe your future somehow before your past, this doesn't change the choices you make nor your ability to make them.

Observation already occurs. Your issue is with the order in which it occurs, which is only relevant to beings limited to our same linear time.
There you go, I was wrong about there being only three options. There's a fourth. God limits himself by not interacting with the temporal plane so that his timeless knowledge does not exist in logical contradiction to our own free will.
Or God would have to know that His interaction happened. For example, if he gives you comfort a moment before you die. No one else is aware of it. It doesn't change how you die, but only your perception of it, and it's at a moment when you can no longer convey this comfort to anyone else (let's assume for the argument you've become a catatonic for the last moment of your life). God interacted with the world. I'm carelessly moving about the world. My free will hasn't changed. It's not stopping me from freely choosing. It hasn't changed those choices.

I would agree that if God interacts with the world and that interaction is relevant to my choice then my choice isn't entirely free. This isn't particularly different than you interacting with me and affection my choices in any relevant way, however.
I'll give you this: you are being far more polite than the last time. Thank you for that.
For the record, I intend for most of my comments to be more light-hearted than they sound in writing. I recognize that I sound angry, but I really don't take these things as seriously as it sounds. I just suck at verbal communication. It's a handicap. You wouldn't pick on the handicapped, would you?

By the by, as long as it's not particularly relevant, feel free to trim down the number of quote boxes per post. I'm trying to do the same. I'd like to make it possible for others to follow our argument, particularly Jhaha, if he comes back, since this is very similar to our discussion last night.

There are hundreds of thousands of definitions for the word "God" all with a different set of characteristics. At the moment, we're discussing the so called Abrahamic-type god, especially the Old Testament version.
Doesn't the "where did God come from?" argument rule the Abrahamic gods out instantly, though?

I see a lot of people asking where it says that god would answer prayers, but no one pointing out where, sooo:


And Jesus answered and said to them, "Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, `Be taken up and cast into the sea,' it will happen. "And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive." (Matthew 21:21-22 NAS)

Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. (Matthew 7:7-8 NAB)

Amen, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, 'Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it shall be done for him. Therefore I tell you, all that you ask for in prayer, believe that you will receive it and it shall be yours. (Mark 11:24-25 NAB)

And whatever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it. (John 14:13-14 NAB)

Doesn't the "where did God come from?" argument rule the Abrahamic gods out instantly, though?

Ah, the famous argument of the origin of God. The sofists have an interesting theory. Check them out.

Ah because you, as a teacher are infallible.

When did I say that? You're going to have to try much harder than that to twist my saying "I've seen adolescent logic and it can be rife with fallacy" into "I AM INFALLIBLE!" In fact, I don't think you can do it. I think you're trying to affect an air of smugness and pseudo-intellectual bullying on order to make yourself feel superior to those whose faith is valuable to them. Whatever gets you through the night, pal, but leave me and my words out of it.

true but id claim thats age independant

Would you? Who cares? "Adolescent" can be an age-independent adjective, but I never said it wasn't. All I was saying (and I'm disappointed that I must re-state something so obvious) was that in my position, I come into regular contact with logic and arguments that make very little if any sense. I did say it was common in adolescents and post-adolescents, but let's face it, that particular brand of logic knows no age in some people.

I tell you what: when you learn to read someone's post and perhaps ask for clarification before talking shit about them and inferring what was never implied, I'll be pleased to consider anything you post as something worth more than a truckload of dead rats in a tampon factory.

1)lol agian I Wasnt trying to prove the lack of god!!!!!!!! All i said was that lack of god was the simplest answer to the guys questions. Anything you infer from that is your own problem.

Kinda frustrating when someone pulls that shit on you, isn't it? ;)

First I want to say that as a fellow atheist. I'm sickened by your lust for insult here. You're telling people what they think and what to think rather than welcome possible alternate views. To me, atheists in your close-minded group are as bad as many extreme Christians.

And THAT's the name of THAT tune. Well put.

I didn't read the whole thread, but I've read OP.

OP. You seem to think that all christians are contemplative fools. They are not. Before asking them to ask themselves questions, you should have sought answers to these questions yourself. There are many answers, and some of them make sense.

The easiest answer to your very basic questions that can be answered by anyone would be: Free Will.

And maybe I'm wrong, but up 'til now I was sure christianity did not include only those who believe the Bible is an absolute reference and should never be taken metaphoricaly.

Sorry for spelling.

Such an observation would not falsify Gravity. Things were still attracted to each other before tomorrow, and thus the fact that they aren't any more would be encapsulated within any theories about Gravity. Or rather, the fact that they used to be attracted to one another would be incorporated within theories about the new model of the world from which Gravity is no longer an operational force; the legacy of Gravity as a description of the force would remain and the search to describe the phenomenon of its sudden inactivity would be a feature in new Gravitational theories.

Things looked as if they were attracted to things yesterday. The fact that this no longer appears to be the case might be because the nature of the Universe has changed, or it might be because our basis for observation has altered. Either way, Gravity would be falsified: we'd know that things don't necessarily attract one another (hell, even now one could argue that things only appear to attract one another and that they don't really).

No other such definition currently exists. That's why I'm challenging it. There is no singular and effective definition for what you, I or anybody else understands by God, save through one common factor; that of its role as the source of religious faith. I believe it is impossible to get any more concrete definition of God than that, because somewhere along the line it will conflict with what people mean by it.

If you asked me what I understood by the word 'God' I'd suggest a lot of characteristics, but 'the origin of religious belief' wouldn't be one of them. Many believers would agree with me, as they'd ascribe some religious beliefs to demons and false prophets rather than God...

If you have a better one, feel free to state it. Heck, it probably deserves a topic of its own.

As the Great Dawn has pointed out, this is a thread about the Christian God.

No system of Theology is today in a position where it is impossible to falsify. They are, in many places, false, with no signs of changing, in some places uncertain pending future information and continuously positing unjustified conclusions of the meagre information provided, but this is a consequence of apathy, comfort and self-delusion rather than one of the subject matter itself.

I can think of any number of unfalsifiable theological doctrines. To name but three: God exists in the form of a Trinity, Baptism is necessary for salvation and the Christian God created the world 6,000 years ago but disguised it to make it look older.

How would you go about falsifying these?

Religion exposes and exploits an innate trait of humans in society. It is important that we analyse and explain this trait in a calm and objective manner without pretending it doesn't exist or condescendingly treating it as a form of stupidity.

Define religion.

I didn't read the whole thread, but I've read OP.

OP. You seem to think that all christians are contemplative fools. They are not. Before asking them to ask themselves questions, you should have sought answers to these questions yourself. There are many answers, and some of them make sense.

The easiest answer to your very basic questions that can be answered by anyone would be: Free Will.

And maybe I'm wrong, but up 'til now I was sure christianity did not include only those who believe the Bible is an absolute reference and should never be taken metaphoricaly.

Sorry for spelling.

I think this encompasses far more than free will, but I essentially agree with your statement. I sense some anger in the OP's remarks.

I sound like Master Yoda.

I see a lot of people asking where it says that god would answer prayers, but no one pointing out where, sooo:


And Jesus answered and said to them, "Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, `Be taken up and cast into the sea,' it will happen. "And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive." (Matthew 21:21-22 NAS)

Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. (Matthew 7:7-8 NAB)

Amen, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, 'Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it shall be done for him. Therefore I tell you, all that you ask for in prayer, believe that you will receive it and it shall be yours. (Mark 11:24-25 NAB)

And whatever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it. (John 14:13-14 NAB)

Let me add Mark 16:17-18 to that:

And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."

By the by, as long as it's not particularly relevant, feel free to trim down the number of quote boxes per post. I'm trying to do the same. I'd like to make it possible for others to follow our argument, particularly Jhaha, if he comes back, since this is very similar to our discussion last night.

Jo, my whole point was that a God is not limited by human frameworks, like logic or time, and while in a human "linear" context omniscience takes my choice away, I've been saying from the beginning that God (if one exists) isn't limited to our logic or linear temporal perspective.

I said from the beginng, God (if there is one) can break the rules however it wants to be unharmed by paradox. If the way you're saying he does that is by being outside linear time, its exactly that ability that I've been pointing out.

Omniscience, by linear human logic, destroys free will. But it doesn't disprove God, because God can be above the rules (be being "outside of time", if you want to call it that). So that he can omniscience WITHOUT harming free will, but ONLY by being above and outside human linear logic.

I've been trying to say that from the beginning.

I think this encompasses far more than free will, but I essentially agree with your statement. I sense some anger in the OP's remarks.

I sound like Master Yoda.

I'm telling you guys, the OP is faking. I'd bet my McDermott on it. He already admitted to getting that shit his "friend's friend's myspace page" or something, and to continue the joke, he disingenuously claims to "totally agree with it".

He doesn't buy his own bullshit. He's lampoonin, like I often do, but I'm callin' him on it.

Jo, my whole point was that a God is not limited by human frameworks, like logic or time, and while in a human "linear" context omniscience takes my choice away, I've been saying from the beginning that God (if one exists) isn't limited to our logic or linear temporal perspective.

I said from the beginng, God (if there is one) can break the rules however it wants to be unharmed by paradox. If the way you're saying he does that is by being outside linear time, its exactly that ability that I've been pointing out.

Omniscience, by linear human logic, destroys free will. But it doesn't disprove God, because God can be above the rules (be being "outside of time", if you want to call it that). So that he can omniscience WITHOUT harming free will, but ONLY by being above and outside human linear logic.

I've been trying to say that from the beginning.

Violating the temporal perspective is enough. Violating logic is not required. Logicaly, once the former happens, choice can happen without violating omniscience.

I'm telling you guys, the OP is faking. I'd bet my McDermott on it. He already admitted to getting that shit his "friend's friend's myspace page" or something, and to continue the joke, he disingenuously claims to "totally agree with it".

He doesn't buy his own bullshit. He's lampoonin, like I often do, but I'm callin' him on it.

He got it from a friend's MySpace?!:eek:
Blah, then call him out on it and kick his arse. I'll be cheering you.:D

Violating the temporal perspective is enough. Violating logic is not required. Logicaly, once the former happens, choice can happen without violating omniscience.

As you yourself said, we're hardwired to see things linearly. I consider it part of human logic to see things that way.

If there is a God, he/she isn't limited that way.

I think our disconnect is, for me, being outside the rules, whether of time or linear perspective or whatever, means the same rules of logic don't apply to you.

What I'm saying is, omniscience and free will violates human linear time based logic, but a God wouldn't be under those constraints.

Logic is governed by axioms; God's are different, so his/her logic is different.


Let me put it to you this way: A human axiom is temporal perspective, so that's part of human logic. God doens't have the same axiom, so he can violate our logic because it doesnt' apply to him.

He got it from a friend's MySpace?!:eek:
Blah, then call him out on it and kick his arse. I'll be cheering you.:D

Oh, yeah. If you can stomach to wade through this, he goes downhill quick. I didn't have to square off with him at all, he was shredded almost instantly by multiple posters, both religious and unreligious folk alike.

Again, I don't think he buys it himself. He's a'poonin.

When did I say that? You're going to have to try much harder than that to twist my saying "I've seen adolescent logic and it can be rife with fallacy" into "I AM INFALLIBLE!" In fact, I don't think you can do it. I think you're trying to affect an air of smugness and pseudo-intellectual bullying on order to make yourself feel superior to those whose faith is valuable to them. Whatever gets you through the night, pal, but leave me and my words out of it.



Would you? Who cares? "Adolescent" can be an age-independent adjective, but I never said it wasn't. All I was saying (and I'm disappointed that I must re-state something so obvious) was that in my position, I come into regular contact with logic and arguments that make very little if any sense. I did say it was common in adolescents and post-adolescents, but let's face it, that particular brand of logic knows no age in some people.

I tell you what: when you learn to read someone's post and perhaps ask for clarification before talking shit about them and inferring what was never implied, I'll be pleased to consider anything you post as something worth more than a truckload of dead rats in a tampon factory.



Kinda frustrating when someone pulls that shit on you, isn't it? ;)



And THAT's the name of THAT tune. Well put.

sorry my bad and fair enough lol. but as little response. I'd say lack of logic in knowledge is entirely age independent not mostly in adolescents or any other age group for that matter. I didn't mean to say that you were infallible either I just was questioning you position to make that kind of judgment. I mean every argument can make sense to someone and for somebody to judge someone else's argument as being without logic seems at little iffy.

Oh, yeah. If you can stomach to wade through this, he goes downhill quick. I didn't have to square off with him at all, he was shredded almost instantly by multiple posters, both religious and unreligious folk alike.

Again, I don't think he buys it himself. He's a'poonin.

ROFL!:D

But that's not a limitation of omnipotence, its a limitation on any thing that acts.

If you've already seen, through an "entirely educated guess" what everything is going to do, that means that factors exist that allow you to make that prediction.

Those factors evidently existed before I was born, since God knew my actions before I was born.

If God can see those factors (be "educated" about them), then those factors exist and I cannot act contrary to them, whether I'm omnipotent or not.

1) but doesn't that mean you cannot be omnipotent? If you can't dso something then your are not omnipotent no?

1) but doesn't that mean you cannot be omnipotent? If you can't dso something then your are not omnipotent no?

Again, part of being a Being that can create the rules is that You can ignore them at will.

The idea is, even though God (if there is one) CAN do things, He/She might refrain for whatever reason.

How is it not an answer?

Care to try and prove your assertion?

it doesn't answer the question
10) why do religious and non-religious people get divorced at the same rate?
A: because people are not infallible. now that tells us why people get divorced but not why the rate is the same. expand on answer.

I've spent quite a few posts trying to do that. You want me to prove that no ones seen him? how bout you prove that someone has?

But because experience can often make a difference, the general trend he was describing is sound.

The point is, he wasn't claiming infallibility.

fair enough sorry. but im not sure about the age thing . . .. oh well whatever

Again, part of being a Being that can create the rules is that You can ignore them at will.

The idea is, even though God (if there is one) CAN do things, He/She might refrain for whatever reason.

I still do not see how I can be said to have free will if there is a being that has known/will know everything I do and is never wrong about even so much about an out of place hair.

To me if such a being exist then I simply have the illusion of choice, not free will.

Again, part of being a Being that can create the rules is that You can ignore them at will.

The idea is, even though God (if there is one) CAN do things, He/She might refrain for whatever reason.

yes but refraining and not being able to do are two different things. If he/she is in fact omniscient he/she cannot be omnipotent because he/she could not change what he/she knows he/she will do.

fair enough sorry. but im not sure about the age thing . . .. oh well whatever

'ats cool. I didn't really follow the age thing either, as far as what was being claimed. I don't even remember seeing it, so I'm not sure what the premise was.

yes but refraining and not being able to do are two different things. If he/she is in fact omniscient he/she cannot be omnipotent because he/she could not change what he/she knows he/she will do.

How do you know? What if its just decides to use the "many worlds" branch of string theory to create multiple universes and do something different in any one?

Omniscience could let a superdude like God see all possibilities, then pick the one he wants with his omnipotence. If he exists outside of time, and wants to change his mind, he doesn't have to "go back" and change what he predicted, because he's not "in time".

I see a lot of people asking where it says that god would answer prayers, but no one pointing out where, sooo:


And Jesus answered and said to them, "Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, `Be taken up and cast into the sea,' it will happen. "And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive." (Matthew 21:21-22 NAS)

Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. (Matthew 7:7-8 NAB)

Amen, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, 'Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it shall be done for him. Therefore I tell you, all that you ask for in prayer, believe that you will receive it and it shall be yours. (Mark 11:24-25 NAB)

And whatever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it. (John 14:13-14 NAB)

so what do you think those passages actually mean? i certainly havent seen any mountains thrown into the sea...prayers arent answered and never have been--prayers like asking to be healed from an illness--so what did he mean by that?

Somehow I doubt your claim, or at least I hope like hell you take your research to an English professor to actually correct your horrible writing style.

lol i get tired my writing goes right the hell out the window. second actually i used to (my moms an English prof lmao) and ya my writing style isnt actually as bad when im writing formally as when im just doin this stuff.

What proves your ignorant is that anyone discussing the existence of Jesus would bring up certain texts in which he was mentioned if not simply to demonstrate problems with their credibility. There are many texts that are not in the Bible that mention Jesus. For example there are other gospels. And now you've mentioned the Romans. Which Roman texts mention Jesus? (Quick, run to google.) Now, again, if you'd like to discuss the existence of Jesus, it's a thread on its own. This is the last reply you'll get. I'm not here to educate you on arguing.

Ignorant is name-calling. It's relevant to a discussion if you demonstrate you aren't educated on the subject. You have.

bullshit open the thread and lets discus it

I still do not see how I can be said to have free will if there is a being that has known/will know everything I do and is never wrong about even so much about an out of place hair.

To me if such a being exist then I simply have the illusion of choice, not free will.

I agree completely, but only under the axioms of human linear time perspective.

If God is "outside time" part of Him or Her just happens to exist the day after you made your choice, and He is watching you do it from past, present, future, and beyond. Its trippy, and its outside human logic, but a being that is supra-temporal can get away with it.

Why can't we just leave the religious lot alone? I mean, if a God makes them happy, let them be happy.

Thats my excuse for using controlled substances. :D

so what do you think those passages actually mean? i certainly havent seen any mountains thrown into the sea...prayers arent answered and never have been--prayers like asking to be healed from an illness--so what did he mean by that?
Lots of people then simply say (especially regarding the first passage from Matthew 21:21-22) that the person who prayed simply didn't beleive firmly enough.

Personally, I believe Christopher Walken is the Almighty.

I would have to agree.

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/MMPH/239816~Christopher-Walken-Posters.jpg

I agree completely, but only under the axioms of human linear time perspective.

If God is "outside time" part of Him or Her just happens to exist the day after you made your choice, and He is watching you do it from past, present, future, and beyond. Its trippy, and its outside human logic, but a being that is supra-temporal can get away with it.

How can it exist outside of time but still have influence without leave any evidence?

Lots of people then simply say (especially regarding the first passage from Matthew 21:21-22) that the person who prayed simply didn't beleive firmly enough.

then no one in the history of the world has believed firmly enough.

is that what you think the passages mean? that if i believed well enough i really could throw a mountain into the sea?

How can it exist outside of time but still have influence without leave any evidence?

By being superduper enough to remove the evidence. Existing outside of time and being able to see all the ways people might find evidence only makes it easier.

I don't personally believe in any particular God, but any God that exists would certainly have different axioms, and thus different logic.

Thus, it can violate our logic without violating its own. Different rules, different logic.

So I suppose Jewish scholars are unreliable sources too.

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day"

That is a passage from Antiquities of the Jews written by Flavius Josephus. I have also seen various documentaries which have also told of other non-Christian sources about the existence of a man named Jesus back in that time. To say that there was no man named Jesus walking around in that part of the world around 2000 years ago is ridiculous; to say he wasn't the son of God and had divine powers is something completely different

1)Written by people who have a vested interest in others believing that their messiah existed.
2)Written nearly 100 years after his birth
3) contains information about things that I would say obviously didn't happen (ie. Adam and eve)
4)Is basically the Hebrew bible revised some
yes I would say this is an extremely poor source. And if you tried to quote it in any historical argument youd get laughed out of the place. And I'd say that the biblical jesus (ie. the dude who essentially founded Christianity) did not exist. there may have been a person named Jesus walking around but I doubt it.

then no one in the history of the world has believed firmly enough.

is that what you think the passages mean? that if i believed well enough i really could throw a mountain into the sea?
By that logic: indeed. But I don't beleive those passages mean that, I really hold no opinion about them since I simply recognise there is no manual on how to read the bible, or any really really old manuscript (not just religious) in similair style. I also recognise that those texts are só vague, people can get anything out of it. That's why there are gazillion of splinter-groups. The problem is, you can't easely say "I'm right, you're wrong." because you've got nothing to support that.

then no one in the history of the world has believed firmly enough.

is that what you think the passages mean? that if i believed well enough i really could throw a mountain into the sea?

no it isn't Scientology.

it says if you believe enough you could tell a mountain to jump into the sea and it would. completely different.

Let's simplify. What is the probability today that the South will win the Civil War in 1865? The question seems ludicrous, because it's none. Because it's the past, there is only one possible outcome. So either you have to assert that no being can exist outside of the bounds of time, something you certainly can't prove. Or you have to assert that freewill doesn't exist whether or not that being exists. Or you have to assert that knowledge that result from such a being's very nature does not speak to free will. Those are the choices.

1)no i can't prove the existence or dis existence of a being out of time. but lets follow that through. If a being is out of time that means that being does not exist in the physical universe (which contains time as one of its dimensions). Thus that being cannot exist in this universe. which means that said being could not actually be in this universe. meaning (I assume though this could be wrong) that this being couldn't know anything about the specifics of the universe. So free will is not violated.
as to free will frankly im not sure whether we have it or not

1)no i can't prove the existence or dis existence of a being out of time. but lets follow that through. If a being is out of time that means that being does not exist in the physical universe (which contains time as one of its dimensions). Thus that being cannot exist in this universe. which means that said being could not actually be in this universe. meaning (I assume though this could be wrong) that this being couldn't know anything about the specifics of the universe. So free will is not violated.
as to free will frankly im not sure whether we have it or not
Could it even engage any interaction with this dimension? If so, would it be so developed it could create inter-dimensional portals? Lol, this is why religion is so funny: we're talking about an insanly high developed alien from another dimension (wich that "God" would be). Even though it doesn't include dead alien souls posessing humans, it's just as freaky as Scientology ;)

Could it even engage any interaction with this dimension? If so, would it be so developed it could create inter-dimensional portals? Lol, this is why religion is so funny: we're talking about an insanly high developed alien from another dimension (wich that "God" would be). Even though it doesn't include dead alien souls posessing humans, it's just as freaky as Scientology ;)
lol I agree completely.

Could it even engage any interaction with this dimension? If so, would it be so developed it could create inter-dimensional portals? Lol, this is why religion is so funny: we're talking about an insanly high developed alien from another dimension (wich that "God" would be). Even though it doesn't include dead alien souls posessing humans, it's just as freaky as Scientology ;)

This sounds too much like Sci-Fi to be taken seriously. Please.;)

God only gives us what we can handle. as for starvation etc. thats OUR fault not God's. Also, if you truely believe that something will happen it will, if it doesnt there is a reason.

This sounds too much like Sci-Fi to be taken seriously. Please.
No, seriously, that's exáctly what a god like that would be, I just described it using different terms. And yes, indeed it sounds silly, but it's exactly the same, just with different terms. Why would alien souls posessing humans (a small, young sect) sound more sc-fi and less to take seriously then an inter-dimensional space alien creating inter-dimensional portals to create this dimension (millenia old and wildly accepted world religion) we live in. They're equal in absurdity, the only real difference is that the latter is really really old and globally accepted, but that doesn't make it sound less absurd.
God only gives us what we can handle. as for starvation etc. thats OUR fault not God's. Also, if you truely believe that something will happen it will, if it doesnt there is a reason.
We rich and fat Westren folk are the main cause for those starvation problems, yet we are NOT the one who suffer from the dreadful choices we make. Even more, we don't just get away with it, we flourish because of them! It's not that it's God fault those things happen, it's that God allows it to happen.
About the second thing, yes ofcourse there would be a reason then. Problem is, we never hear that reason. Would a judge speak free a murderer just because he sad "well, I have a reason"? I think not. It's really 1 thing that they happen, it's just that God apperantly does not care about explaining, and if he can't that immidiatly cancelles his all-powerfull status.

God only gives us what we can handle. as for starvation etc. thats OUR fault not God's.

Wait, you mean God's not personaly responsible for everything that happens? Darn...

:headbang:It is frustrating to me that intelligent people defend the value of any religion at all, let alone try and defend the existence of some god.

Religion is not good. It is the bedrock for war, persecution, discrimination, perverse behavior, apathy, lazyness, hypocrisy, and the global control of an otherwise rightfully free population.

That being said...disagree with me. Spend time praying for a better world, when you could be physically contributing to improving it. Bash atheists, people of other religions, and gays, while you spread the message of god's love. While you're at it, spread the message of god's love while you spread the message of how god will damn non-believers to an eternity of suffering. Religion is not good.

And it does not exist. I dare you to give me at least one argument for the existence of a god that does not involve faith. There has never been any evidence that a god ever existed and there never will be. Oh, and by the way, of all the historians that were alive during the life of jesus (never existed), not one of them ever documented his existence. There are only four historians that have documented his existence (with the exception of gospal writers): Pliny the younger, Suetonius, Tacitus, and Josephus. The first three never mention him by name, but by title (Christ or Christus). The fourth Josephus has been proven to be a fraud for hundreds of years. There is only one source of record for the life of jesus. The bible.

No religion is flawless. There is no god. Grow up. Accept responsibility for your own actions.

TGD, you don't necessarily need to believe in inter-dimensional portals to be a christian.

No, seriously, that's exáctly what a god like that would be, I just described it using different terms. And yes, indeed it sounds silly, but it's exactly the same, just with different terms. Why would alien souls posessing humans (a small, young sect) sound more sc-fi and less to take seriously then an inter-dimensional space alien creating inter-dimensional portals to create this dimension (millenia old and wildly accepted world religion) we live in.

ZOMG! Tom Cruise has possessed thy body!:eek:

ZOMG! Tom Cruise has possessed thy body!:eek:
Nah that happened millenia ago, Tom Cruise IS possessed! Thát's why he's acting like he does :O

YOU ARE AN ASSWHOLE ATHEIST!!! :upyours::upyours::upyours:

N00b alert!:eek:

Nah that happened millenia ago, Tom Cruise IS possessed! Thát's why he's acting like he does :O

I was joking.;) But yes, Tom Cruise is possessed.

no it isn't Scientology.

it says if you believe enough you could tell a mountain to jump into the sea and it would. completely different.

yes but since that is obviously not true, what do those passages that you quoted mean?

Strat Mania, are you trying to get banned faster than anyone else? Because a lot of people did it at only 1 post.

yes but since that is obviously not true, what do those passages that you quoted mean?

Um, sorry, how do you know it is not true?

Um, sorry, how do you know it is not true?

because it hasnt happened. because ive seen many many true believers make sincere requests of god that they did not receive.

because it hasnt happened. because ive seen many many true believers make sincere requests of god that they did not receive.

How do you know they believed "hard enough"?

This sounds too much like Sci-Fi to be taken seriously. Please.;)

Hey now! sci-fi is real! it reallly really is if you just believe hard enough . . . .*goes red in the face. Collapses*
ok maybe not but it does exist! um . . . just . . .. outside of time! yep now your laws of physics and logic cant touch it ahahahahah I win!

Things looked as if they were attracted to things yesterday. The fact that this no longer appears to be the case might be because the nature of the Universe has changed, or it might be because our basis for observation has altered. Either way, Gravity would be falsified: we'd know that things don't necessarily attract one another (hell, even now one could argue that things only appear to attract one another and that they don't really).
But Gravity isn't the phenomenon that things always attract one another. It's the phenomenon that things are observed to attract one another. The extrapolation of the observation into the future is a consequence of the modelling assumptions behind it, not of the phenomenon itself.

Of course, if Gravity was indeed to stop functioning tomorrow, the entire of Science would be thrown into disarray by the resultant observation that an object's position in time affects the laws that act upon it, thereby totally removing any sense of replicable experiment. But hey, I've made my point, whatever it was.

If you asked me what I understood by the word 'God' I'd suggest a lot of characteristics, but 'the origin of religious belief' wouldn't be one of them. Many believers would agree with me, as they'd ascribe some religious beliefs to demons and false prophets rather than God...
Not their own, you'd find. It's not important what people think about the beliefs of others, because everyone has their own prejudices about how other people think. What I'm looking for is a definition that encompasses the most general unification of what people think about their own understandings of God, or, failing that, what we could at least get people to agree on.

Maybe "The origin of true religious belief"? Nah, we agnostics don't even think that's possible. "The truth behind religious belief"? Possible, but we'd have a hard time getting atheists to admit that God is the true bit in religion.

As the Great Dawn has pointed out, this is a thread about the Christian God.
If by "Christian God" you mean "the entity described in the Christian Bible, which is assumed to be entirely accurate and to be literally interpreted" then such a God has been widely discredited by even a large proportion of active Christians. The Christian God is, exactly, the God revered by those who call themselves Christians, and thus I see no reason why our discussion should not span into this wider understanding of what God is.

I can think of any number of unfalsifiable theological doctrines. To name but three: God exists in the form of a Trinity, Baptism is necessary for salvation and the Christian God created the world 6,000 years ago but disguised it to make it look older.

How would you go about falsifying these?
The basic strategy is to look at the reasons people have for supposing them and disprove either the chain of reasoning or the bases for supposition. For the Trinity God, you could point out the inability to properly distinguish between the roles assigned to the constituent parts. For Saltational Baptism, you could attack the question of the need for and process of salvation and thus outline the purely symbolic nature of the act of baptism. For the 6,000 year disguise, you could point out the dishonest nature of the act and note that it clashes with other aspects of the construction.

Define religion.
My preferred definition is that of "an Institution or category of Institution of beliefs and practices concerning the discovery and expression of identity outside of the known human condition". Make of that what you will - I know Jocabia in particular doesn't like my insistance that religion is necessarily institutional.

Hey now! sci-fi is real! it reallly really is if you just believe hard enough . . . .*goes red in the face. Collapses*
ok maybe not but it does exist! um . . . just . . .. outside of time! yep now your laws of physics and logic cant touch it ahahahahah I win!

*watches DaWoad go red in the face. Goes Master Yoda on him/her*
Patience do not have. Jedi cannot be.

So I suppose Jewish scholars are unreliable sources too.

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day"

That is a passage from Antiquities of the Jews written by Flavius Josephus.

It's a forgery: it doesn't fit with Josephus writing style, it doesn't fit with what we know of his beliefs, it doesn't fit into the context of the passage and it isn't mentioned by anyone before the fourth century.

I have also seen various documentaries which have also told of other non-Christian sources about the existence of a man named Jesus back in that time.

Have you checked them out yourself, or did you take their word for it?

To say that there was no man named Jesus walking around in that part of the world around 2000 years ago is ridiculous

True, we know from Josephus of at least one Jesus who preached repentence and the destruction of Jerusalem, and who was whipped by the Romans for his preachings. This was around 60 to 70 AD if I remember rightly.

Jesus was a very common name at the time.

*watches DaWoad go red in the face. Goes Master Yoda on him/her*
Patience do not have. Jedi cannot be.
OOC:him lol
IC: Sorry Master I will try harder next time. Pulls light saber. uses the the force to summon inter dimensional craft. Travels off to the eighth dimension to ask god personally for more patience and a cooler light saber. (pinks just not my colour).

Ah, the famous argument of the origin of God. The sofists have an interesting theory. Check them out.
*Puzzlement*

Do you mean Sophists, as in the Greek pre-Aristotalian movement devoted to the wisdom of the allegory? Or is this some other group that I'm otherwise unaware of?

YOU ARE AN ASSWHOLE ATHEIST!!! :upyours::upyours::upyours:

Better than being a half-arsed theist. :p

Thank you, I'm here all week!

How do you know they believed "hard enough"?

because in the past 2000 years if no one has believed hard enough the passage is meaningless

The thread is funny.
Can't people see that there is no way to logically disprove the existence of an omnipotent being with a secret agenda?
Have people forgotten how often scientists, logical people, called other people insane and ridiculous only to be proved very wrong shortly after?

Religion has been aggressive, exploited, teaching intolerance... but hey... so has politics, so has psychology, patriotism, honor, heck, even math and biology! Not to speak from entertainment.

Really, Religion is not much different than any other human concept.
And it also taught mercy, love and courage. Saved many peoples lives and continues to do so.

So why is everyone here arguing so heated about something so futile?

"Get behind me, Satan"

because in the past 2000 years if no one has believed hard enough the passage is meaningless

That does not make it "obviously untrue", more like "irrelevant".

What's so great about being rational? XD
Since we know either one or zero religions are correct, that means everyone else has an irrational belief, therefore to be human is to be irrational ^_^

It's a forgery: it doesn't fit with Josephus writing style, it doesn't fit with what we know of his beliefs, it doesn't fit into the context of the passage and it isn't mentioned by anyone before the fourth century.



Have you checked them out yourself, or did you take their word for it?



True, we know from Josephus of at least one Jesus who preached repentence and the destruction of Jerusalem, and who was whipped by the Romans for his preachings. This was around 60 to 70 AD if I remember rightly.

Jesus was a very common name at the time.

The name jesus is a mistranslation of ... Yahshua . . . I think? which means gods will or something like that? I thnik the actual translation of Jesus into hebrew is yÈshÙa

No matter how you try, you simply can not prove God does not exist. Not with "intelligence", logic or imagination.

You don't believe in God. Fair enough. Some people do. You could leave it at that.

Or we could say that those people aren't logical or else they wouldn't be asking for a logical disproof. Rational people don't believe something until it's been proven. They don't ask for a disproof of anything, because that's a stupid, logically impossible idea.

So here is question 1: Why won't God heal amputees?
Why should he? Even death means little to God and he knows it should mean little to us, since, presumably, he also knows exactly what happens when one dies. Most of our fear about all these things comes from uncertainty.
So the second question is: Why are there so many starving people in our world?
Because humans really have no idea how to take care of themselves apparently.
Third question: Why does God demand the death of so many innocent people in the Bible?
I don't know, but since I assume you don't believe in the Bible as fact anyway, what does it matter? Do you complain about people being killed off in Shakespeare's work?
Question 4: Why does the Bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense?
It isn't a textbook, it is a religious text. Omnipotent beings and such tend to not follow what we would consider 'scientific laws'.
Question 5: Why is God such a huge proponent of slavery in the Bible?
I don't think God wrote the Bible, but even if he literally sat down and wrote it, I am not sure what your question is getting at. Obviously most people(fairly recently) have realized or decided that slavery is wrong.
Question 6: Why do bad things happen to good people?
Why do good things happen to bad people? Why do things happen to people? Holy crap! Why do things happen!?! Seriously, there is this thing called life and in it stuff happens. God obviously knows it isn't a big deal compared the eternity you will be spending dead, so neither should you.
Question 7: Why didn't any of Jesus' miracles in the Bible leave behind any evidence?
Well.. they drank the wine and the no-longer-lame man still died of old age and rotted away...
Question 8: How do we explain the fact that Jesus has never appeared to you?
He obviously doesn't want to. I wouldn't want to go popping in and out between the Earth and the Afterlife, assuming I could fly all around space and time.
Question 9 – Why would Jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood?
Why do you not understand symbolism?
Question 10 - Why do Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians?
My guess is that Christians are actually of the same species.. but, most scientists would beg to differ.

That does not make it "obviously untrue", more like "irrelevant".

that would make it irrelevant. i think that there have been plenty of people who sincerely believed who didnt get what they asked for. that makes it obviously untrue.

as such, i wonder what those passages really mean.

that would make it irrelevant. i think that there have been plenty of people who sincerely believed who didnt get what they asked for. that makes it obviously untrue.

as such, i wonder what those passages really mean.

Just because you think that does not make the statement obviously untrue. I think people just don't understand the meaning of those passages, which are true.

The thread is funny.
Can't people see that there is no way to logically disprove the existence of an omnipotent being with a secret agenda?
Have people forgotten how often scientists, logical people, called other people insane and ridiculous only to be proved very wrong shortly after?

Religion has been aggressive, exploited, teaching intolerance... but hey... so has politics, so has psychology, patriotism, honor, heck, even math and biology! Not to speak from entertainment.

Really, Religion is not much different than any other human concept.
And it also taught mercy, love and courage. Saved many peoples lives and continues to do so.

So why is everyone here arguing so heated about something so futile?


what do you mean when you write "Have people forgotten how often scientists, logical people, called other people insane and ridiculous only to be proved very wrong shortly after?"

Just because you think that does not make the statement obviously untrue. I think people just don't understand the meaning of those passages, which are true.

isnt that my question, what do those passages mean?

what do you mean when you write "Have people forgotten how often scientists, logical people, called other people insane and ridiculous only to be proved very wrong shortly after?"
"They said I was mad! Me! Mad! Well I'll show them! I'll show them all! Gwahahaha!"

I know this is a serious discussion (or trying to be) but this REALLY offends me. I can answer all of these questions; I don't have the time to. Instead I want to point-out how much I hate you for desecrating my religion in this matter. You make it sound like we are discussing music or television shows! I believe in freedom of speech but not if it goes too far. This is too far. I wish for this thread to be removed unless there is more room for tolerance shown.

"Oh, we can't rip-on the Muslim or the Hindu because they are very sensitive. I know, lets rip-on the Christians!"

My quote also points out that you never see any threads discussion how Islam or Hinduism is wrong but you see threads bashing Christianity all the time.

what do you mean when you write "Have people forgotten how often scientists, logical people, called other people insane and ridiculous only to be proved very wrong shortly after?"

I mean that logic means NOTHING in the attempt to find the truth, because logic deducts only from what we know and believe in.
Logic is not something suited to base your faith upon, because you never will know all basics necessary to deduct the truth from.
Science always thought itself was so very right, at each moment in history scientists thought to have the perfect logical world view and explanation for everything... and every time they were proved wrong.

isnt that my question, what do those passages mean?

Thanks for admitting you were wrong.

Anyways, the passages that say you can do anything by believing enough is that you should have faith in God, because He will help you in your endeavors.

So, if you really want to move a mountain, you can. Only, you need a shovel and a lot of people. They're metaphorical, much like the whole book.

and did anyone else think that GOD had to explain why an aviator died? (assuming that he died due to an airplane accident)
Not at all. It's not the cause of death that we're looking for. It's the reason some things are permitted to happen, like the sudden death of a friend or loved one, that need the explanations.

Same as the answers to the ten questions, I suspect God has some explaining to do there, too.

Where does it say god is REAL? is there any ACTUAL evidence to prove this, he DID NOT create the Earth 6000 years ago, because there are things that are proven to be BILLIONS of years old. Do you still believe in the imaginary?

No... He made the Earth 6,000 years ago but made it look like things may be billions of years old. :p

No... He made the Earth 6,000 years ago but made it look like things may be billions of years old. :p

It's not like he just couldn't have created freaking TIME along with the rest back then...

Not at all. It's not the cause of death that we're looking for. It's the reason some things are permitted to happen, like the sudden death of a friend or loved one, that need the explanations.

Same as the answers to the ten questions, I suspect God has some explaining to do there, too.

This is a slightly more cynical remark about God than I would have expected from you.

I mean that logic means NOTHING in the attempt to find the truth, because logic deducts only from what we know and believe in.
Logic is not something suited to base your faith upon, because you never will know all basics necessary to deduct the truth from.
Science always thought itself was so very right, at each moment in history scientists thought to have the perfect logical world view and explanation for everything... and every time they were proved wrong.

that is called the scientific method.

logic and science are great tools when used properly. even in religion it can help to figure out what certain things mean.

But Gravity isn't the phenomenon that things always attract one another. It's the phenomenon that things are observed to attract one another. The extrapolation of the observation into the future is a consequence of the modelling assumptions behind it, not of the phenomenon itself.

Of course, if Gravity was indeed to stop functioning tomorrow, the entire of Science would be thrown into disarray by the resultant observation that an object's position in time affects the laws that act upon it, thereby totally removing any sense of replicable experiment. But hey, I've made my point, whatever it was.

And to all extents and purposes, gravity would be falsified: your definition is nothing more than anecdotal evidence, whereas gravity is all about a consistent framework to describe the natural world.

Not their own, you'd find. It's not important what people think about the beliefs of others, because everyone has their own prejudices about how other people think.

In that case your definition of God is inconsistent with your definition of religion. You propose an objective definition of religion, and you say you've chosen your bizarre definition of God because it's one that everyone agrees on, but know you're saying that it doesn't matter whether people regard God as the source of religious belief or not!

It'd be far less confusing for everyone (including yourself I suspect) if you stopped trying to redefine words: you're tying yourself in knots.

What I'm looking for is a definition that encompasses the most general unification of what people think about their own understandings of God, or, failing that, what we could at least get people to agree on.

The traditional definition of God as a sentient, powerful originator of the Universe would fit that bill far better than your definition: more people would agree on it and more people would understand it.

If by "Christian God" you mean "the entity described in the Christian Bible, which is assumed to be entirely accurate and to be literally interpreted" then such a God has been widely discredited by even a large proportion of active Christians. The Christian God is, exactly, the God revered by those who call themselves Christians, and thus I see no reason why our discussion should not span into this wider understanding of what God is.

The Christian God is one who:
1. Is a sentient, powerful entity.
2. Has emotions, and looks kindly on mankind.
3. Is the salvation of man.

Not exactly controversial from a Christian perspective, and far more clear than what you're proposing.

The basic strategy is to look at the reasons people have for supposing them and disprove either the chain of reasoning or the bases for supposition.

How does that falsify anything? You can attack the reasoning and the axioms all you like, but that doesn't mean that the beliefs have been falsified. By that logic, the flaws in attempted arguments for God's existence have falsified God.

For the Trinity God, you could point out the inability to properly distinguish between the roles assigned to the constituent parts. For Saltational Baptism, you could attack the question of the need for and process of salvation and thus outline the purely symbolic nature of the act of baptism. For the 6,000 year disguise, you could point out the dishonest nature of the act and note that it clashes with other aspects of the construction.

None of those are falsificatons.

My preferred definition is that of "an Institution or category of Institution of beliefs and practices concerning the discovery and expression of identity outside of the known human condition". Make of that what you will - I know Jocabia in particular doesn't like my insistance that religion is necessarily institutional.

Personally I don't like the unsupported assumption that religion has truly 'discovered' anything. I'd also point out that absolutely everything is unknown until it's discovered...

There are a lot more problems with it, but I'll leave it at that for now.

Not at all. It's not the cause of death that we're looking for. It's the reason some things are permitted to happen, like the sudden death of a friend or loved one, that need the explanations.

Same as the answers to the ten questions, I suspect God has some explaining to do there, too.

i guess...

ive never expected god to be an airplane mechanic.

the sister of a friend of mine dropped dead the other day at age 28 leaving behind 2 young children. THAT might get a few questions in the afterlife.

Why don't you just answer the questions on your own, since the threads ad nauseum on this prove that you're not interested in the answers or anything except "hurr hurr hurr, ain't Christians stoopit."

Better yet, don't plagiarize.

http://www.google.fr/search?hl=fr&q=f+you+are+an+educated+Christian%2C+I+would+like+to+talk+with+you+today+about+an+important+and+inte resting+question.+Have+you+ever+thought+about+using+your+college+education+to+think+about+your+faith %3F+Your+life+and+your+career+demand+that+you+behave+and+act+rationally.+Let%27s+apply+your+critical +thinking+skills+as+we+discuss+10+simple+questions+about+your+religion.&btnG=Recherche+Google&meta=

that is called the scientific method.

logic and science are great tools when used properly. even in religion it can help to figure out what certain things mean.

Yeah, the problem is, it isn't used properly.
People go around saying 'It isn't!' instead of 'We can't tell yet.'.
Just because it is scientific usus to assume the least complicated of many explanations the right one until proven otherwise, doesn't mean the least complicated of all possible explanations IS the true one.

People just don't seem to understand that 'science' and 'logic' in this matter are just as much based on faith than the religions themself.

Yeah, the problem is, it isn't used properly.
People go around saying 'It isn't!' instead of 'We can't tell yet.'.
Just because it is scientific usus to assume the least complicated of many explanations the right one until proven otherwise, doesn't mean the least complicated of all possible explanations IS the true one.

People just don't seem to understand that 'science' and 'logic' in this matter are just as much based on faith than the religions themself.

it is important to understand that logic is just a tool to the truth, it isnt the truth itself.

The traditional definition of God as a sentient, powerful originator of the Universe would fit that bill far better than your definition: more people would agree on it and more people would understand it.
I guess this is the core of our discussion. The reason I can't acknowledge this definition myself is because it divorces the experience people have that they attribute to God from the theoretical understanding of God. There is but one piece of evidence, one source of knowledge and understanding about religion and divinity that has any shred of credibility, and that is the notion of spiritual experience. It is senseless conjecture to consider God independently of this evidence. Doing so gives you definitions like the one you've just suggested, which results in an entity immediately rejectable by virtue of the creator's creator argument.

The God concept only has meaning relative to our awareness of it. I think any valid definition must acknowledge that.

None of those are falsificatons.
They are inconsistencies, and thus falsifications, of the systems that contain them. That's good enough for what I was pointing out.

Personally I don't like the unsupported assumption that religion has truly 'discovered' anything.
There was a kind of double meaning there. The fictional Men in Black agency "concerns" the discovery of aliens, but that doesn't necessarily mean that their actions are benevolent.

sorry my bad and fair enough lol. but as little response. I'd say lack of logic in knowledge is entirely age independent not mostly in adolescents or any other age group for that matter. I didn't mean to say that you were infallible either I just was questioning you position to make that kind of judgment. I mean every argument can make sense to someone and for somebody to judge someone else's argument as being without logic seems at little iffy.

I see your point.

It's all too easy for most "adults" to dismiss the ideas and experience of youth as bieng trivial, because many of them, and I mean no offense, really are trivial. High school (and even college) is really not the end of the world, and the relief that suffuses those who recognize that is sometimes palpable.

It's also too easy for the young to assume that anyone older than they are can't possibly understand what's going on and that we just dismiss them. Myself, I like to leave open the possibility for exception as much as is prudently possible.

My position is in dealiing with 14-24-year-old students on a regular basis, so I get to see the best and worst of ubbringing-related and peer-related reasoning debacles. That was all I meant to convey. I have made my share of them, in adolescence and beyond. I suppose that I also meant to imply that there's a certain acrid quality to the tang of youthful certainty and logic that makes it all the more...interesting.

YOU ARE AN ASSWHOLE ATHEIST!!! :upyours::upyours::upyours:

WWJF?
Who Would Jesus Flame?

Why don't you just answer the questions on your own, since the threads ad nauseum on this prove that you're not interested in the answers or anything except "hurr hurr hurr, ain't Christians stoopit."

Better yet, don't plagiarize.

http://www.google.fr/search?hl=fr&q=f+you+are+an+educated+Christian%2C+I+would+like+to+talk+with+you+today+about+an+important+and+inte resting+question.+Have+you+ever+thought+about+using+your+college+education+to+think+about+your+faith %3F+Your+life+and+your+career+demand+that+you+behave+and+act+rationally.+Let%27s+apply+your+critical +thinking+skills+as+we+discuss+10+simple+questions+about+your+religion.&btnG=Recherche+Google&meta=



To be fair, he did cite his source and give credit.

1)Written by people who have a vested interest in others believing that their messiah existed.
2)Written nearly 100 years after his birth
3) contains information about things that I would say obviously didn't happen (ie. Adam and eve)
4)Is basically the Hebrew bible revised some
yes I would say this is an extremely poor source. And if you tried to quote it in any historical argument youd get laughed out of the place. And I'd say that the biblical jesus (ie. the dude who essentially founded Christianity) did not exist. there may have been a person named Jesus walking around but I doubt it.

Um, what? Josephus? Me thinks your more than a bit confused. Josephus is quoted in historical arguments. There's speculation that this passage was inserted, but your understanding of Josephus reads like you've found out about him in a blog. If you were in a historical circle and you laughed Josephus of in total, you'd be discredited.

To be fair, he did cite his source and give credit.

About 6 pages in.

About 6 pages in.

On the front page he does have both links.

1)no i can't prove the existence or dis existence of a being out of time. but lets follow that through. If a being is out of time that means that being does not exist in the physical universe (which contains time as one of its dimensions). Thus that being cannot exist in this universe. which means that said being could not actually be in this universe. meaning (I assume though this could be wrong) that this being couldn't know anything about the specifics of the universe. So free will is not violated.
as to free will frankly im not sure whether we have it or not

Um, no. That it is not restrained by time doesn't mean it cannot engage in our universe and more importantly observe it. You're thinking in time very frequently and that limitation is damaging your ability to address the subject.

For example, you use the expression what "he WILL do" which is time-dependent. God, existing out of time, doesn't have to change what he WILL do because it doesn't happen in time and changing is also time-dependent.

On the front page he does have both links.

Um, those two links were copied as well from the link Kat provided. Check it. It's an exact copy including the links.

Sense some anger in the OP's remarks, I do.

I sound like Master Yoda.

Fixed

Oh, yeah. If you can stomach to wade through this, he goes downhill quick. I didn't have to square off with him at all, he was shredded almost instantly by multiple posters, both religious and unreligious folk alike.

Again, I don't think he buys it himself. He's a'poonin.

He was shreaded by me, and defending christianity most certainly does not come naturally to me.

bullshit open the thread and lets discus it

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=545783

Please educate yourself first. The fact you're not aware of non-canonical sources for Jesus makes you uninteresting and unqualified, but I'm willing to wait while you prepare yourself. As you can see, I've posted 500 posts on the subject in a thread that ended just six weeks ago. Forgive me if I'd prefer you had more to bring to the table before I begin again.

it doesn't answer the question
10) why do religious and non-religious people get divorced at the same rate?
A: because people are not infallible. now that tells us why people get divorced but not why the rate is the same. expand on answer.
OK, everyone, regardless of whether they are religious or not, is capable of making bad decisions about who to marry, and whether or not they even should get married.
Better?
I've spent quite a few posts trying to do that. You want me to prove that no ones seen him? how bout you prove that someone has?
I never claimed that anyone has seen him, you, however, have claimed that no-one has seen him. The burden of proof is on you.

Words of the Buddha:
God is false.
Self is Empty.
We are what we think.

Sayings of the buddha:
http://www.buddhanet.net/dhammapada/index.htm

http://www.san.beck.org/Dhammapada.html

*Puzzlement*

Do you mean Sophists, as in the Greek pre-Aristotalian movement devoted to the wisdom of the allegory? Or is this some other group that I'm otherwise unaware of?

Frigg! Sorry Kamsaki-san, I meant the gnostics. They had a theory based on the Demiurge, better known as the theory of the Existence of God. Very interesting.

OOC:him lol
IC: Sorry Master I will try harder next time. Pulls light saber. uses the the force to summon inter dimensional craft. Travels off to the eighth dimension to ask god personally for more patience and a cooler light saber. (pinks just not my colour).

Noted, you´re a him.
*blinks and shakes head, laughing*
Blew a mental fuse, you did, young Jedi.:p

Why don't you just answer the questions on your own, since the threads ad nauseum on this prove that you're not interested in the answers or anything except "hurr hurr hurr, ain't Christians stoopit."

Better yet, don't plagiarize.

http://www.google.fr/search?hl=fr&q=f+you+are+an+educated+Christian%2C+I+would+like+to+talk+with+you+today+about+an+important+and+inte resting+question.+Have+you+ever+thought+about+using+your+college+education+to+think+about+your+faith %3F+Your+life+and+your+career+demand+that+you+behave+and+act+rationally.+Let%27s+apply+your+critical +thinking+skills+as+we+discuss+10+simple+questions+about+your+religion.&btnG=Recherche+Google&meta=

Kat, I've missed you while I've been away. :)

Good to see you still hang around.

What is it with this atheistic preaching? "X ask these 10 questions to yourself" Thats exactly the kind of title I would see on a religious leaflet. People dont want your views forced into their face.

Why do you care?

This is a slightly more cynical remark about God than I would have expected from you.
What? I don't consume the opiate of the masses blindly? How dare I not conform to your preconception? Is that what your saying?

i guess...

ive never expected god to be an airplane mechanic.

the sister of a friend of mine dropped dead the other day at age 28 leaving behind 2 young children. THAT might get a few questions in the afterlife.
That's it exactly. Why should my pals' family be left to take care of themselves? It really doesn't matter if it's an airplane accident, a traffic accident, cancer, or a stroke that causes the untimely death. It only matters that in so many cases, a good person dies and so much is left undone.

I don't buy the "God had other plans..." argument, hence the need for an explanation. I wonder what the 'take a number' ticket will be when I get in line?

That's it exactly. Why should my pals' family be left to take care of themselves? It really doesn't matter if it's an airplane accident, a traffic accident, cancer, or a stroke that causes the untimely death. It only matters that in so many cases, a good person dies and so much is left undone.

IE My uncle and grandpa died on the same day this year Jan 15th, both great people, one worked for salvos the other never even got a fine for speeding.

Anyway, bad people die as well, Hussain, Santa, Easter Bunny, the whole lot of terrorists

That's it exactly. Why should my pals' family be left to take care of themselves? It really doesn't matter if it's an airplane accident, a traffic accident, cancer, or a stroke that causes the untimely death. It only matters that in so many cases, a good person dies and so much is left undone.

I don't buy the "God had other plans..." argument, hence the need for an explanation. I wonder what the 'take a number' ticket will be when I get in line?

*shrug*

if you end up in heaven for eternity what does it matter how long you spent on earth?

No matter how you try, you simply can not prove God does not exist. Not with "intelligence", logic or imagination.

You don't believe in God. Fair enough. Some people do. You could leave it at that. :gundge:

Nor can anyone prove that The Invisible Pink Unicorn does not exist. Not with "intelligence", logic or imagination.

So according to YOUR way of thinking, the IPU DOES exist.

If you are an educated Christian, I would like to talk with you today about an important and interesting question. Have you ever thought about using your college education to think about your faith? Your life and your career demand that you behave and act rationally. Let's apply your critical thinking skills as we discuss 10 simple questions about your religion.

Here is an example of the kind of thing I am talking about: As a Christian, you believe in the power of prayer. According to a recent poll (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42061), 3 out of 4 doctors believe that God is performing medical miracles on earth right now. Most Christians believe that God is curing cancers, healing diseases, reversing the effects of poisons and so on.

So here is question 1: Why won't God heal amputees?

It's a simple question, isn't it? We all know that amputated legs do not spontaneously regenerate in response to prayer. Amputees get no miracles from God.

If you are an intelligent person, you have to admit that it's an interesting question On the one hand, you believe that God answers prayers and performs miracles. On the other hand, you know that God completely ignores amputees when they pray for miracles.

How do you deal with this discrepancy? As an intelligent person, you have to deal with it, because it makes no sense. In order to handle it, notice that you have to create some kind of rationalization. You have to invent an excuse on God's behalf to explain this strange fact of life. You might say, "well, God must have some kind of special plan for amputees." So you invent your excuse, whatever it is, and then you stop thinking about it because it is uncomfortable.

Here is another example. As a Christian, you believe that God cares about you and answers your prayers.

So the second question is: Why are there so many starving people in our world?

Look out at our world and notice that millions of children are dying of starvation. It really is horrific. Why would God be worried about you getting a raise, while at the same time ignoring the prayers of these desperate, innocent little children? It really doesn't make any sense, does it? Why would a loving god do this?

To explain it, you have to come up with some sort of very strange excuse for God. Like, "God wants these children to suffer and die for some divine, mysterious reason." Then you push it out of your mind because it absolutely does not fit with your view of a loving, caring God.

Third question: Why does God demand the death of so many innocent people in the Bible? Look up these verses:

- Exodus 35:2 – God demands that we kill everyone who works on the Sabbath day.

- Deuteronomy 21:18-21 – God demands that we kill disobedient teenagers.

- Leviticus 20:13 – God demands the death of homosexuals.

- Deuteronomy 22:13-21 – God demands that we kill girls who are not virgins when they marry.

And so on… There are lots of verses like these.

It doesn't make any sense, does it? Why would a loving God want us to murder our fellow human beings over such trivial matters? Just because you work on the wrong day of the week, you must die? That makes no sense, does it? In fact, if you think about it, you realize that it is insane. So you create some kind of rationalization to explain these verses.

Question 4: Why does the Bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense? You have a college degree, so you know what I'm talking about. You know how science works. You happily use the products of science every day: your car, your cell phone, your microwave oven, your TV, your computer. These are all products of the scientific process. You know that science is incredibly important to our economy and to our lives.

But there is a problem. As an educated person you know that the Bible contains all sorts of information that is total nonsense from a scientific perspective.

- God did not create the world in 6 days 6,000 years ago like the Bible says.

- There was never a worldwide flood that covered Mt. Everest like the Bible says.

- Jonah did not live inside a fish's stomach for three days like the Bible says.

- God did not create Adam from a handful of dust like the Bible says.

These stories are all nonsense. Why would an all-knowing God write nonsense? It makes no sense, does it? So you create some type of very strange excuse to try to explain why the Bible contains total nonsense.

Question 5: Why is God such a huge proponent of slavery in the Bible? Look up these Bible verses:

- Exodus 21:20-21 – God says that it is OK to own slaves, and it is also OK to beat them.

- Colossians 3:22-24 – Slaves need to obey their masters.

- Ephesians 6:5 – Slaves need to obey their masters just as they would obey Christ.

- 1 Peter 2:18 – Slaves need to obey their masters, even if their masters are harsh .

And so on…

And why do all intelligent people abhor slavery and make it completely illegal? You have to come up with some kind of weird rationalization to explain it.

Question 6: Why do bad things happen to good people? That makes no sense. You have created an exotic excuse on God's behalf to rationalize it.

Question 7: Why didn't any of Jesus' miracles in the Bible leave behind any evidence? It's very strange, isn't it? You have created an excuse to rationalize it.

Question 8: How do we explain the fact that Jesus has never appeared to you? Jesus is all-powerful and timeless, but if you pray for Jesus to appear, nothing happens. You have to create a weird rationalization to deal with this discrepancy.

Question 9 – Why would Jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood? It sounds totally grotesque, doesn't it? Why would al all-powerful God want you to do something that, in any other context, sounds like a disgusting, cannibalistic, satanic ritual?

And finally, Question 10 – Why do Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians? Christians get married in front of God and their Christian friends, all of whom are praying to God for the marriage to succeed. And then they say, "What God has put together, let no man put asunder." God is all-powerful, so if God has put two people together that should seal the deal, right? Yet Christians get divorced at the same rate as everyone else. To explain this, you have to create some convoluted rationalization.

So, we have looked at 10 fascinating questions. In order to believe in God, you have had to create all sorts of strange rationalizations and excuses. If you are an intelligent, college-educated person, all of these excuses and rationalizations probably make you uncomfortable. If you think about it honestly, using the critical thinking skills that you learned in college, you have to admit that your answers to these questions make no sense at all.

Now, let me show you something remarkable. What if you instead assume that God is imaginary? A funny thing happens: the answers to every one of these questions make complete sense. Just look at all ten questions as an intelligent person:

1) Why won't God heal amputees? Because God is imaginary, and he doesn't answer any prayers. Every "answered prayer" is actually a coincidence. All scientific evidence supports this conclusion.

2) Why are there so many starving people in our world? Because God is imaginary, and he is therefore unable to answer their prayers.

3) Why does God demand the death of so many innocent people in the Bible? Because God is imaginary, and the Bible was written by ridiculous, ruthless men rather than any sort of loving being.

4) Why does the Bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense? Ditto. Primitive men wrote the bible, not an all-knowing being.

5) Why is God such a huge proponent of slavery? Ditto.

6) Why do bad things happen to good people? Because God is imaginary and bad things happen at the same statistical rates to everyone.

7) Why didn't any of Jesus' miracles in the Bible leave behind any evidence? Because God is imaginary, and Jesus' miracles are myths.

8) How do we explain the fact that Jesus has never appeared to you? Because God is imaginary.

9) Why would Jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood? Because God is imaginary, and this bizarre ritual came from a pagan religion.

10) Why do Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians? Because God is imaginary.

Do you see what has happened here? When we assume that God exists, the answers to these ten questions make absolutely no sense. But if we assume that God is imaginary, our world makes complete sense.

It's interesting, isn't it? Actually, it's more than interesting – it is incredibly important.

Our world only makes sense when we understand that God is imaginary.

This is how intelligent, rational people know that God is imaginary.

When you use your brain, and when you think logically about your religious faith, you can reach only one possible conclusion: the "god" that you have heard about since you were an infant is completely imaginary. You have to willfully discard rationality, and accept hundreds of bizarre rationalizations to believe in your "god."

Now, let me ask you one last question: Why should you care? What difference does it make if people want to believe in a "god", even if he is imaginary?

It matters because people who believe in imaginary beings are delusional.

It matters because people who talk to imaginary beings are delusional.

It matters because people who believe in imaginary superstitions like prayer are delusional.

It's that simple, and that obvious. Your religious beliefs hurt you personally and hurt us as a species because they are delusional. The belief in any "god" is complete nonsense.

You are a smart person. It is time for you to use your intelligence to free yourself from these delusions. It is time for you to begin thinking like a rational human being, rather than clinging to imaginary friends and childhood fantasies.


http://GodIsImaginary.com

http://WhyWontGodHealAmputees.comAnd it said:

Leviticus 24-16

"And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death."

So are you dead now so chill as the Bible has ancient laws in it that are meant for ancient times, not for a modern society.

:gundge:

Nor can anyone prove that The Invisible Pink Unicorn does not exist. Not with "intelligence", logic or imagination.

So according to YOUR way of thinking, the IPU DOES exist.

Actually, according to that reasoning, you cannot prove whether it does or doesn't exist.

Kat, I've missed you while I've been away. :)

Good to see you still hang around.

Nationstates General is like the Hotel California. ;) You can checkout any time you like, But you can never leave!

Nationstates General is like the Hotel California. ;) You can checkout any time you like, But you can never leave!

And we just can't kill the beast.

<snip>

These questions are rather silly and very shallow. I think you should rethink the reasons why you are an atheist.

These questions are rather silly and very shallow. I think you should rethink the reasons why you are an atheist.

there is no evidence of god... duh

Ephesuronomy, 1:15 "I, God, contractually agree to cure all man's ills pending approval by the general practitioner or other licensed primary care giver meeting the criteria as described in Exodus"

God never promised Free Will. He promised Free Willy, and came through years ago.

God does coddle us, since unlike certain species of mosquito, our genitalia don't explode bloodily upon orgasm. Or maybe yours do, but that's a pre-existing condition.

People are infallible, they're just bad at it.

Wow...there's so much stuff here that I could quote. And not just in my signature, but real life!

there is no evidence of god... duh

Clearly. But what about a watchmaker God, or a "Supreme Way", or a God who uses the natural laws to interfere with the affairs of the natural world? Such a god would leave no evidence for his existence. Scientific evidence is not required for the supernatural realm (since the supernatural supposedly transcends it), it is an additive bonus. Without this evidence, one's suspicion is naturally aroused, however I don't think you've thought this through very well.

OK, everyone, regardless of whether they are religious or not, is capable of making bad decisions about who to marry, and whether or not they even should get married.
Better?

I never claimed that anyone has seen him, you, however, have claimed that no-one has seen him. The burden of proof is on you.
1)yep :) hehehe
2) Cause I'd have to go to every site and every historical work and every person. and some prove I'd done that then show you that non of em had seen him.

Has anyone actually seen Jesus physically, so they can touch him? or was it all in your head?

Has anyone actually seen Jesus physically, so they can touch him? or was it all in your head?

Your really, really bad at this.


Leave the religion debates to athiests that are competent. Youre making us look bad.

I see your point.

It's all too easy for most "adults" to dismiss the ideas and experience of youth as bieng trivial, because many of them, and I mean no offense, really are trivial. High school (and even college) is really not the end of the world, and the relief that suffuses those who recognize that is sometimes palpable.

It's also too easy for the young to assume that anyone older than they are can't possibly understand what's going on and that we just dismiss them. Myself, I like to leave open the possibility for exception as much as is prudently possible.

My position is in dealiing with 14-24-year-old students on a regular basis, so I get to see the best and worst of ubbringing-related and peer-related reasoning debacles. That was all I meant to convey. I have made my share of them, in adolescence and beyond. I suppose that I also meant to imply that there's a certain acrid quality to the tang of youthful certainty and logic that makes it all the more...interesting.

I agree with your position Im sorry I assumed you were coming from the other side you outlined above. My mistake and I apologize for it

Your really, really bad at this.


Leave the religion debates to athiests that are competent. Youre making us look bad.
agreed

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=545783

Please educate yourself first. The fact you're not aware of non-canonical sources for Jesus makes you uninteresting and unqualified, but I'm willing to wait while you prepare yourself. As you can see, I've posted 500 posts on the subject in a thread that ended just six weeks ago. Forgive me if I'd prefer you had more to bring to the table before I begin again.

Souds good start the thread whenever your ready.

Um, no. That it is not restrained by time doesn't mean it cannot engage in our universe and more importantly observe it. You're thinking in time very frequently and that limitation is damaging your ability to address the subject.

For example, you use the expression what "he WILL do" which is time-dependent. God, existing out of time, doesn't have to change what he WILL do because it doesn't happen in time and changing is also time-dependent.

no not true anything that exists in a four dimension is subject to four dimensions. therefore a being that exists in only three (or possibly more than 4 whichever way u wanna argue) cannot exist in a four dimensional space. Therefore god being outside time (ie. being non-affected by four dimensions) means that he/she cannot exist in our universe. as to your argument im not actually sure what you were trying to say? God doesn't have to exist out of time but he can if he wants????? except that your arguing that he does exist out of time at the same time. So he can jump across universes at will. Maybe he is some sort of really advanced alien life form!

1)yep :) hehehe
2) Cause I'd have to go to every site and every historical work and every person. and some prove I'd done that then show you that non of em had seen him.

And you'd still fail. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. You'd have to demonstrate that a particular evidence would necessarily exist and then show that it doesn't in order to even begin demonstrating that Jesus didn't exist. Of course, that would require you to know more about the subject than your posts reflect.

It's equally true that Jesus cannot be demonstrated conclusively to have existed. Really, there isn't enough evidence for a conclusion either way.

no not true anything that exists in a four dimension is subject to four dimensions. therefore a being that exists in only three (or possibly more than 4 whichever way u wanna argue) cannot exist in a four dimensional space. Therefore god being outside time (ie. being non-affected by four dimensions) means that he/she cannot exist in our universe. as to your argument im not actually sure what you were trying to say? God doesn't have to exist out of time but he can if he wants????? except that your arguing that he does exist out of time at the same time. So he can jump across universes at will. Maybe he is some sort of really advanced alien life form!

Based on what? You're declaration of this? You have no evidence. We've never encountered a 3-dimensional creature or a 5-dimensional being, so you're simply making something up and declaring fact.

In fact, weren't you discussing whether or not this was an omnipotent being. Now you're just assuming it's limited based on your rather limited understanding of existence?

Um, what? Josephus? Me thinks your more than a bit confused. Josephus is quoted in historical arguments. There's speculation that this passage was inserted, but your understanding of Josephus reads like you've found out about him in a blog. If you were in a historical circle and you laughed Josephus of in total, you'd be discredited.
1)he's already been discredited as stated above.
2)are you a historian a biblical scholar what?
3) Actually found out about him a while ago in a similar forum and asked my dad lol who is a historian.
4)Which part of what I said (the four points) was wrong? your great at bashing people but no so much at actually addressing their arguments

Based on what? You're declaration of this? You have no evidence. We've never encountered a 3-dimensional creature or a 5-dimensional being, so you're simply making something up and declaring fact.

In fact, weren't you discussing whether or not this was an omnipotent being. Now you're just assuming it's limited based on your rather limited understanding of existence?
no its actually physically impossible. A two dimensional cannot exist in three dimensions for it to do so requires that it have three dimensions. An object with onlky hight and length cannot exist in a place where you need higth length and depth. either it would gain a characteristic or it would have zero as one of the values still giving it three dimensions. Lol wow "In fact, weren't you discussing whether or not this was an omnipotent being. Now you're just assuming it's limited based on your rather limited understanding of existence?" ok one how is one related to the other. second my existence is limited because I said that everything living in four dimensions is subject to four dimensions? I would have thought that was fairly self evident no? you see anything here that has fewer than four dimensions here? no? wow fascinating!

And you'd still fail. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. You'd have to demonstrate that a particular evidence would necessarily exist and then show that it doesn't in order to even begin demonstrating that Jesus didn't exist. Of course, that would require you to know more about the subject than your posts reflect.

It's equally true that Jesus cannot be demonstrated conclusively to have existed. Really, there isn't enough evidence for a conclusion either way.
yep I agree to the first . . . .that was my point its impossible to disprove therefore shouldn't the burden be on someone to prove it? and every time with the bashing? is this your way of arguing. You cant prove your point so you just go over and bash anything and everything they say? Here;s the thing I offered to discuss it with you giving you the opportunity to make me look like a fool if in fact I know as little as you claim yet you declined by bashing me again. So heres what I think. I think you don't know half as much as you claim and your only retaliation against people who actually do/might is to bash them. As too your posts on that long forum read em (speed reading is a wonderful skill) and frankly all I found was you doing what you did here. You bashed anyone who posted something you didn't agree with but couldn't make a coherent argument against until they got sick of you and your . . . .to put it nicely . . . .
crap

1)he's already been discredited as stated above.

No, he hasn't. That passage is in question. It appears to have been editing over time. The original passage seemed to just be a reflection of the beliefs of Christians. No more. No less. Josephus is not discredited.

2)are you a historian a biblical scholar what?

This is relevant, how? You don't have the background to tell if I'm truthful regardless.

Now, if your father would like to log on, I'll be happy to put his credibility to the test. He may very well be very versed on the subject, and if so, his posts will reflect it. Yours don't.

3) Actually found out about him a while ago in a similar forum and asked my dad lol who is a historian.

If your father said that Josephus has been discredited in total, then your father is no historian. I'll tell you what. Since your father is a historian, why don't you turn to him and ask him if there is anything historically useful in the Josephus writings.

Meanwhile, you do realize that history is a vast subject. Saying "my father is a historian" doesn't reflect his knowledge of Roman history.


4)Which part of what I said (the four points) was wrong? your great at bashing people but no so much at actually addressing their arguments

I already told you. It's clear that you're reflecting things you don't understand. Josephus hasn't been discredited. There is a problem with the passage about Jesus and the problem is easy to track because there are easier versions.

Now, if you'd like to start a threa about whether or not Jesus exists, rather than whether or not God exists, I agreed to participate, but please educate yourself first. To everyone who has already done so, the problem is rather obvious.

yep I agree to the first . . . .that was my point its impossible to disprove therefore shouldn't the burden be on someone to prove it? and every time with the bashing? is this your way of arguing. You cant prove your point so you just go over and bash anything and everything they say? Here;s the thing I offered to discuss it with you giving you the opportunity to make me look like a fool if in fact I know as little as you claim yet you declined by bashing me again. So heres what I think. I think you don't know half as much as you claim and your only retaliation against people who actually do/might is to bash them. As too your posts on that long forum read em (speed reading is a wonderful skill) and frankly all I found was you doing what you did here. You bashed anyone who posted something you didn't agree with but couldn't make a coherent argument against until they got sick of you and your . . . .to put it nicely . . . .
crap

You seem to not realize the problem here. No one declared the could evidence the existence of Jesus. Someone made the claim that he does not exist. This claim isn't supported by evidence. That's the point. You can't make a claim without evidence. Period.

Meanwhile, there is evidence for the existence of Jesus. It's simply not conclusive.

I'll tell you what? You claim that all you found was what I'm doing here. How about this? I'll make an agreement with you. If I can't show you twenty posts that demonstrate more understanding of the evidence for Jesus than you've shown in this thread, you self-ban yourself for the week. Agreed?

Or are you honestly claiming you read 500 posts of mine in that thread?

No, he hasn't. That passage is in question. It appears to have been editing over time. The original passage seemed to just be a reflection of the beliefs of Christians. No more. No less. Josephus is not discredited.



This is relevant, how? You don't have the background to tell if I'm truthful regardless.

Now, if your father would like to log on, I'll be happy to put his credibility to the test. He may very well be very versed on the subject, and if so, his posts will reflect it. Yours don't.



If your father said that Josephus has been discredited in total, then your father is no historian. I'll tell you what. Since your father is a historian, why don't you turn to him and ask him if there is anything historically useful in the Josephus writings.

Meanwhile, you do realize that history is a vast subject. Saying "my father is a historian" doesn't reflect his knowledge of Roman history.




I already told you. It's clear that you're reflecting things you don't understand. Josephus hasn't been discredited. There is a problem with the passage about Jesus and the problem is easy to track because there are easier versions.

Now, if you'd like to start a thread about whether or not Jesus exists, rather than whether or not God exists, I agreed to participate, but please educate yourself first. To everyone who has already done so, the problem is rather obvious.
1)I would disagree. but fine its a matter of opinion though the fact that its been edited that much over time would suggest it it might have been and im talking specifically about "Antiquities of the Jews" not about Josephus (that was the original start point.
2)Sure give me a day or two to cotact him and I will. feek free to start a new thread on the matter. And if you want ill give you his name and info so you can check on his crendentials (thatll be TG tho cause I really dont think hed appreciate me spreading his contact info over the net.)
3)Yes but we werent talking bout Josephus were we? I thought we were talking specifically about "antiquities of the jew" and its relevence as proof that god exists
4)evry time. leave out the personally comments you believe im ignorant fine. thats your prerogative. but just because you state it a whole bunch doesn't meant that it is true.

You seem to not realize the problem here. No one declared the could evidence the existence of Jesus. Someone made the claim that he does not exist. This claim isn't supported by evidence. That's the point. You can't make a claim without evidence. Period.

Meanwhile, there is evidence for the existence of Jesus. It's simply not conclusive.

I'll tell you what? You claim that all you found was what I'm doing here. How about this? I'll make an agreement with you. If I can't show you twenty posts that demonstrate more understanding of the evidence for Jesus than you've shown in this thread, you self-ban yourself for the week. Agreed?

Or are you honestly claiming you read 500 posts of mine in that thread?
lol yes i did and I found some of em pretty interesting and I agree that the general agreement at the end of the thread was that you couldn't prove the existence or disexistance of jesus thus he/she why believe in him/her. And I agree you cant conclusively prove that jesus did or did not exist. It's highly likely that there was someone of that name some time around then. Its also highly likely that that person did not found Christianity. Finally its fairly likely that this Christ figure did not do many of the things stated in the bible. Finally go for it. show me 20 quotes where you prove that you know more than me on this subject. um how are you gonna prove that thats the case though? I haven't quoted anything at all. Nor does the fact that you don't agree with what I'm saying demonstrate a lack of knowledge on my part

1)I would disagree. but fine its a matter of opinion though the fact that its been edited that much over time would suggest it it might have been and im talking specifically about "Antiquities of the Jews" not about Josephus (that was the original start point.

Oh, dear God. Who do you think wrote Antiquities of the Jews?


2)Sure give me a day or two to cotact him and I will. feek free to start a new thread on the matter. And if you want ill give you his name and info so you can check on his crendentials (thatll be TG tho cause I really dont think hed appreciate me spreading his contact info over the net.)

I assure you he'll tell you about the historical significance of Josephus. But of course, the fact you have to ask HIM is the problem. You continually evidence you don't have enough background to make an interesting argument.


3)Yes but we werent talking bout Josephus were we? I thought we were talking specifically about "antiquities of the jew" and its relevence as proof that god exists

Uh, what? Again, Josephus was the author. And we were talking about its relevance to the existence of JESUS.

4)evry time. leave out the personally comments you believe im ignorant fine. thats your prerogative. but just because you state it a whole bunch doesn't meant that it is true.

Your claims that are unsourced have only you for credibility. YOU are on trial here, son. So put up a better argument or keep hearing about how you're not.

I really like this jocabia btw "Accepting something is possible is not the same as treating it as probable. " so why accept the existence of god as probable (as many Christians do).

Here, let me help you out. Here are a few of your statements that demonstrate my point.

1)Written by people who have a vested interest in others believing that their messiah existed.

You were speaking of Antiquities of the Jews. Jesus was not Josephus' messiah. Josephus was not a follower of Jesus.

2)Written nearly 100 years after his birth

Antiquities was written in the first century. You're estimate is off by more than 30% and likely closer to 40%. That's a failing grade.

4)Is basically the Hebrew bible revised some

This is just so far from true that it's astounding. It's setting about to evidence the events of the Hebrew Bible and as such some parts of it are problematic, but it's historically signific. That it's historically significant is undisputed.

Oh, dear God. Who do you think wrote Antiquities of the Jews?
1)not my point were talking bout the credibility of the work not the author.



I assure you he'll tell you about the historical significance of Josephus. But of course, the fact you have to ask HIM is the problem. You continually evidence you don't have enough background to make an interesting argument.
2)what wha?????



Uh, what? Again, Josephus was the author. And we were talking about its relevance to the existence of JESUS.
3)and by his existence the existence of god but ya that was a typo lol.


Your claims that are unsourced have only you for credibility. YOU are on trial here, son. So put up a better argument or keep hearing about how you're not.

cool aight can I have a day to do some research and prep. one?? then I'll start the thread aight? until then the issue (as far as I'm concerned is in abayince.)

I really like this jocabia btw "Accepting something is possible is not the same as treating it as probable. " so why accept the existence of god as probable (as many Christians do).

Entirely different question, isn't it? I suspect nearly every Christian would give you a different answer. Given that not only Christians believe in God, the answer would in fact be even broader than that.

Here, let me help you out. Here are a few of your statements that demonstrate my point.

1)Written by people who have a vested interest in others believing that their messiah existed.

You were speaking of Antiquities of the Jews. Jesus was not Josephus' messiah. Josephus was not a follower of Jesus.

2)Written nearly 100 years after his birth

Antiquities was written in the first century. You're estimate is off by more than 30% and likely closer to 40%. That's a failing grade.

4)Is basically the Hebrew bible revised some

This is just so far from true that it's astounding. It's setting about to evidence the events of the Hebrew Bible and as such some parts of it are problematic, but it's historically signific. That it's historically significant is undisputed.

no but he was a Jew (who also have Jesus christ as a . . .prophet? I believe sorry really not well versed on that one.)
no its thought to be written around 84-93 thats nearly a century no?
as too the last one yes I'm sorry I stretched that point wayyy to far. But as you've said it is a "history of the jews "stretching back to the creation of adam and eve which is not credible as far as I'm concerned again give me literally 2 days and ill start a thread about this.

Entirely different question, isn't it? I suspect nearly every Christian would give you a different answer. Given that not only Christians believe in God, the answer would in fact be even broader than that.

true the answers might be interesting though

Oh, dear God. Who do you think wrote Antiquities of the Jews?
1)not my point were talking bout the credibility of the work not the author.

If you wanted to have a pont that would actually stand up, you'd be talking about the credibility of the passage, which has been discredited (in the form held by Christian scholars today). The book hasn't and is held to be a highly significant historical document. Many historical documents are biased. It doesn't make the relevant and sourced histories incredible.


I assure you he'll tell you about the historical significance of Josephus. But of course, the fact you have to ask HIM is the problem. You continually evidence you don't have enough background to make an interesting argument.
2)what wha?????

See what I mean? You still don't realize that you've continually contradicted yourself. That you've continually pretended to have knowledge you clearly just found, since your original posts didn't reflect them. And you continually make it clear your understanding of them could be found in the first three sentences of Wikipedia.

Uh, what? Again, Josephus was the author. And we were talking about its relevance to the existence of JESUS.
3)and by his existence the existence of god but ya that was a typo lol.

The existence of Jesus doesn't evidence for or against God, my friend. At all.


Your claims that are unsourced have only you for credibility. YOU are on trial here, son. So put up a better argument or keep hearing about how you're not.

cool aight can I have a day to do some research and prep. one?? then I'll start the thread aight? until then the issue (as far as I'm concerned is in abayince.)

You need to do research? Hmmm... it's almost like I suggested that in my first reply to you.

on a totally different point I love how the two of us have essentially hijacked this thread lol

no but he was a Jew (who also have Jesus christ as a . . .prophet? I believe sorry really not well versed on that one.)

Sorry? They, especially then, regarded him as a false prophet. There is a strong belief that early Christianity was anti-semetic and given that there is the belief that he was killed as a result of Jewish priests, I suspect that Jews only a few decades later weren't singing the praises of Christ. Regardless, none of this is relevant to the passage which isn't likely to have been written by Josephus, but then why make an argument that's accurate? Just keep guessing.


no its thought to be written around 84-93 thats nearly a century no?
as too the last one yes I'm sorry I stretched that point wayyy to far. But as you've said it is a "history of the jews "stretching back to the creation of adam and eve which is not credible as far as I'm concerned again give me literally 2 days and ill start a thread about this.

Nearly a century after what? Jesus was said to have died at most 67 years before that, if we go with the earliest date for the death of Jesus and the latest for the writing of Antiquities. It's likely to be less than 60 years distance. By that token, a D on a test is nearly a perfect score.

If you wanted to have a pont that would actually stand up, you'd be talking about the credibility of the passage, which has been discredited (in the form held by Christian scholars today). The book hasn't and is held to be a highly significant historical document. Many historical documents are biased. It doesn't make the relevant and sourced histories incredible.

again bring this up in two days cool? well start there ill answer there.



See what I mean? You still don't realize that you've continually contradicted yourself. That you've continually pretended to have knowledge you clearly just found, since your original posts didn't reflect them. And you continually make it clear your understanding of them could be found in the first three sentences of Wikipedia.

lol what you claim that from me not understanding how your answer related to my post????


The existence of Jesus doesn't evidence for or against God, my friend. At all.

Nope but it effects the original post of this thread which was trying to prove that god didn't exist thus has a bearing on that (even tho i think those questions were frankly stupid) and ya I said it was a typo already.



You need to do research? Hmmm... it's almost like I suggested that in my first reply to you.
Yep agreed I didn't prep to get into an argument about jesus and my last final is in tomorrow so I haven't had the chance too but again coupla days and i will

[QUOTE=Jocabia;13614054]Sorry? They, especially then, regarded him as a false prophet. There is a strong belief that early Christianity was anti-semetic and given that there is the belief that he was killed as a result of Jewish priests, I suspect that Jews only a few decades later weren't singing the praises of Christ. Regardless, none of this is relevant to the passage which isn't likely to have been written by Josephus, but then why make an argument that's accurate? Just keep guessing.

Sorry already said I wasn't well versed on Judaism I'm not. I dredged up some old memory of that being the case and obviously it isn't.



Nearly a century after what? Jesus was said to have died at most 67 years before that, if we go with the earliest date for the death of Jesus and the latest for the writing of Antiquities. It's likely to be less than 60 years distance. By that token, a D on a test is nearly a perfect score.

I distinctly rember saying it was written nearly one hundred years after his BIRTH I also remember your claim that that was more than 60% off thats all I was answering too.

And I agree you cant conclusively prove that jesus did or did not exist. It's highly likely that there was someone of that name some time around then.

And I'd say that the biblical jesus (ie. the dude who essentially founded Christianity) did not exist. there may have been a person named Jesus walking around but I doubt it.

Notice how these are entirely contradicatory?


Another one -

Jesus is seen only in the bible.

2)eheheheheh quote me a source that names jesus other than the bible.

You've since admitted that the existence of Jesus is referenced in other documents. The credibility of the Bible and those other passages that reference Jesus can certainly be questioned, but you denied their existence. That statement alone demonstrates an astounding lack of background on the subject.

[QUOTE=Jocabia;13614054]Sorry? They, especially then, regarded him as a false prophet. There is a strong belief that early Christianity was anti-semetic and given that there is the belief that he was killed as a result of Jewish priests, I suspect that Jews only a few decades later weren't singing the praises of Christ. Regardless, none of this is relevant to the passage which isn't likely to have been written by Josephus, but then why make an argument that's accurate? Just keep guessing.

Sorry already said I wasn't well versed on Judaism I'm not. I dredged up some old memory of that being the case and obviously it isn't.

Nearly a century after what? Jesus was said to have died at most 67 years before that, if we go with the earliest date for the death of Jesus and the latest for the writing of Antiquities. It's likely to be less than 60 years distance. By that token, a D on a test is nearly a perfect score.

I distinctly rember saying it was written nearly one hundred years after his BIRTH I also remember your claim that that was more than 60% off thats all I was answering too.

Ah, so a B or C on a test in nearly 100%, yeah?

(I checked. You did say birth, though, I'm not sure why the birth would be relevant, since Josephus was discussing the existence of Jesus.)

Notice how these are entirely contradicatory?


Another one -





You've since admitted that the existence of Jesus is referenced in other documents. The credibility of the Bible and those other passages that reference Jesus can certainly be questioned, but you denied their existence. That statement alone demonstrates an astounding lack of background on the subject.

Fair enough lack of clarification I should have said two things. Both that I was talking about Jesus as a biblical figure (ie. the messiah who can walk on water etc.) and that there were other sources but they are questionable.

as to the first set thats not contradictory. A biblical jesus didn't as far as I believe exist though a guy named jesus may have but his name wouldn't have been jesus. It woulda been Yahshua (which actually sounds more like Joshua to me thought it nearly translates to jesus)

[QUOTE=DaWoad;13614065]

Ah, so a B or C on a test in nearly 100%, yeah?

(I checked. You did say birth, though, I'm not sure why the birth would be relevant, since Josephus was discussing the existence of Jesus.)

actually It really wasn't that relevant. and no but an A is (84-93=an A where im from anyway)

If you wanted to have a pont that would actually stand up, you'd be talking about the credibility of the passage, which has been discredited (in the form held by Christian scholars today). The book hasn't and is held to be a highly significant historical document. Many historical documents are biased. It doesn't make the relevant and sourced histories incredible.

again bring this up in two days cool? well start there ill answer there.



See what I mean? You still don't realize that you've continually contradicted yourself. That you've continually pretended to have knowledge you clearly just found, since your original posts didn't reflect them. And you continually make it clear your understanding of them could be found in the first three sentences of Wikipedia.

lol what you claim that from me not understanding how your answer related to my post????


The existence of Jesus doesn't evidence for or against God, my friend. At all.

Nope but it effects the original post of this thread which was trying to prove that god didn't exist thus has a bearing on that (even tho i think those questions were frankly stupid) and ya I said it was a typo already.



You need to do research? Hmmm... it's almost like I suggested that in my first reply to you.
Yep agreed I didn't prep to get into an argument about jesus and my last final is in tomorrow so I haven't had the chance too but again coupla days and i will

Didn't prep? You claim you were aware of the extra-biblical sources for Jesus and remembering that you were aware of them require you to prep?

And I suggested you prep a long time ago and you got pissed. Turns out I was right. It's almost like I've done this before.

actually It really wasn't that relevant. and no but an A is (84-93=an A where im from anyway)

Hmmm... how sad. Even in the military a 92 was the lowest A.

Fair enough lack of clarification I should have said two things. Both that I was talking about Jesus as a biblical figure (ie. the messiah who can walk on water etc.) and that there were other sources but they are questionable.

as to the first set thats not contradictory. A biblical jesus didn't as far as I believe exist though a guy named jesus may have but his name wouldn't have been jesus. It woulda been Yahshua (which actually sounds more like Joshua to me thought it nearly translates to jesus)

You're seriously going to squirm that badly. You exactly said that in addition to their not being the biblical Jesus but there was no Jesus at all. Then you said there almost certainly was.

You clearly said there were no extra-biblical sources for Jesus, which I originally challenged and you restated even more vehemently. Now, you're going to claim you were unclear?

Oh, and you're a researcher who just happens to have a relatively poor command of English, right? And your father is a historian who claim Josephus has been entirely discredited? I'm interested what the next attempt to deny the obvious problems in your argument will be.

Hmmm... how sad. Even in the military a 92 was the lowest A.

ya canada . . . 80-a lol

You're seriously going to squirm that badly. You exactly said that in addition to their not being the biblical Jesus but there was no Jesus at all. Then you said there almost certainly was.

You clearly said there were no extra-biblical sources for Jesus, which I originally challenged and you restated even more vehemently. Now, you're going to claim you were unclear?

Oh, and you're a researcher who just happens to have a relatively poor command of English, right? And your father is a historian who claim Josephus has been entirely discredited? I'm interested what the next attempt to deny the obvious problems in your argument will be.

lol I don't have a relatively poor command of English I do have a relatively poor command of spelling and grammar when I don't give a shit about what I'm writing. As to the second yes. Would you like me too write entirely formally (ie. in the third person etc.). And I wasn't unclear I was on the other had vague. Want me to bring up some of the things you've claimed over your postings? there are some interesting ones in the 500 you posted about jesus.

Didn't prep? You claim you were aware of the extra-biblical sources for Jesus and remembering that you were aware of them require you to prep?

And I suggested you prep a long time ago and you got pissed. Turns out I was right. It's almost like I've done this before.

no you called me ignorant . . .there is a difference. Its like me saying you may be affiliated with a god rather than your a closed minded bible thumper.

no you called me ignorant . . .there is a difference. Its like me saying you may be affiliated with a god rather than your a closed minded bible thumper.

You don't know what ignorant means?

By fact, the latter would be inaccurate. Very inaccurate, in fact, though I wouldn't expect you to undersand why.

You've admitted to being ignorant, even you don't like the term. You are ignorant on this subject. You've proven it through your posts and your admissions. I'm sorry it offends you for me to call them as they are, but them's the facts, Jack.

lol I don't have a relatively poor command of English I do have a relatively poor command of spelling and grammar when I don't give a shit about what I'm writing. As to the second yes. Would you like me too write entirely formally (ie. in the third person etc.). And I wasn't unclear I was on the other had vague. Want me to bring up some of the things you've claimed over your postings? there are some interesting ones in the 500 you posted about jesus.

Oh, yeah. Let's here them. It should be fun. I'd love to have you critique my understanding. Since I found problems in, oh, about 9 out of 10 posts relevant to Jesus, you should have 450 problematic posts to choose from, no? Hehe. I wonder if you'll find me claiming there are no extra-biblical sources for Jesus.

And, yes, spelling and grammar are part of your command of English. You aren't aware of the relevance of spelling and grammar to English.

You don't know what ignorant means?

By fact, the latter would be inaccurate. Very inaccurate, in fact, though I wouldn't expect you to undersand why.

You've admitted to being ignorant, even you don't like the term. You are ignorant on this subject. You've proven it through your posts and your admissions. I'm sorry it offends you for me to call them as they are, but them's the facts, Jack.

no i agree ur not close minded nor a bible thumper it was just an example

all you's are wrong there is no god YET !

if Mr T and Chuk norris had a baby THAT WOULD BE GOD! :)

I asked myself those ten questions and i answered them all. Dyakovo answered them all basically, i could add more but last time i did that DaWoad and I had a very extensive argument. I'd just like to add one point, however...

It sounds to me your not very accepting of other peoples cultures and religions. I personally don't give a f#$# about whether your an anti-sematic jew living in Israel e.t.c MAYBE instead of attempting to denounce others beliefs you should personally consolidate your own. Being Christian, Buddhist, Islamic, Jewish, Zorastian, Athiest, Agnostic e.t.c is a personally choice. And possible accepting other people's beliefs would make the World a much better place.

Oh, yeah. Let's here them. It should be fun. I'd love to have you critique my understanding. Since I found problems in, oh, about 9 out of 10 posts relevant to Jesus, you should have 450 problematic posts to choose from, no? Hehe. I wonder if you'll find me claiming there are no extra-biblical sources for Jesus.

And, yes, spelling and grammar are part of your command of English. You aren't aware of the relevance of spelling and grammar to English.
im entirely aware of spelling and grammar but this is an online forum not a peer edited review or journal. I frankly dont care much what happens here as it effects me in no way. And there is a difference between ignorance and lack of preparation. Even you cant argue otherwise.
anyway I'm out good night all

I asked myself those ten questions and i answered them all. Dyakovo answered them all basically, i could add more but last time i did that DaWoad and I had a very extensive argument. I'd just like to add one point, however...

It sounds to me your not very accepting of other peoples cultures and religions. I personally don't give a f#$# about whether your an anti-sematic jew living in Israel e.t.c MAYBE instead of attempting to denounce others beliefs you should personally consolidate your own. Being Christian, Buddhist, Islamic, Jewish, Zorastian, Athiest, Agnostic e.t.c is a personally choice. And possible accepting other people's beliefs would make the World a much better place.

heheh o i totally respect others beliefs just I find this fun. Discussion is my thing and I enjoy discussion about anything. and wha? an anti-semetic jew???? anyway I enjoy discussion and the only thing where people seem passionate enough to actually discuss something is religion. Finally Honestly I couldn't care less about what anyone else believes as long as they don't try to convert me and as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. (ie. right wing religious extremists of any religion who hate all gays.). Lol and im not denouncing anything I never once claimed that Christianity etc. shouldn't exist I just questioned the existence of god (and in this case jesus). And i have consolidated my beliefs. I'm an agnostic who strongly doubts god exists and sees most organized religion as an attempt to gain power but also as a good way to motivate people to do good things. (contradictory much?)

That's the beauty of a God...they can walk in paradox unharmed, be and not be, step in between confliciting predicates as easily as we might walk from our kitchen to our pool room.

I don't happen to believe in any particular one myself, but the very first requirement I would have of a God if I wanted one is that it would have to be impenetrable to something as trifling as a contradiction that would devastate anything limited by things like logic.

Haven't you ever read the Hitchhikers Guide to The Galaxy?

im entirely aware of spelling and grammar but this is an online forum not a peer edited review or journal. I frankly dont care much what happens here as it effects me in no way. And there is a difference between ignorance and lack of preparation. Even you cant argue otherwise.
anyway I'm out good night all

If you don't know there are extra-biblical sources that mention Jesus, then it's ignorance, not lack of preparation. Ignorance can often be corrected with enough preparation, especially in regards to history. A lack of preparation isn't necessarily ignorance, but there's no way to claim that your lack of knowledge about the extra-biblical sources is anything but a demonstration of ignorance.

As far as grammar and spelling, it's a necessary part of communication. It makes it more likely that your posts will be understood and/or read. You're certainly not going to be taken seriously on a forum with as many educated people as this if you don't care about what you have to say enough to make a modicum of effort at making it comprehensible.

Jocabia, the longer I watch this exchange, the more I'm convinced that he's humping your leg while you try to keep a straight face. Notice how DaWoad's grammar and style get way better around the time he declares he's going to bed.
He's faking a clueless teenager.

Jocabia, the longer I watch this exchange, the more I'm convinced that he's humping your leg while you try to keep a straight face. Notice how DaWoad's grammar and style get way better around the time he declares he's going to bed.
He's faking a clueless teenager.

He's clearly not what he claims to be. I can tell that much. As far as the bit about being a joke, I can see some merit to that. There are some major inconsistencies in what he appears to know. One minute he thinks there are no extra-biblical source, the next he mentions some things about Antiquities that wouldn't be the first one would jump on if they just looked them up.

Either way, I'm unimpressed, but I'm willing to give him an opportunity to impress if I see a different poster after the two days he said he needs to prep.

If you don't know there are extra-biblical sources that mention Jesus, then it's ignorance, not lack of preparation. Ignorance can often be corrected with enough preparation, especially in regards to history. A lack of preparation isn't necessarily ignorance, but there's no way to claim that your lack of knowledge about the extra-biblical sources is anything but a demonstration of ignorance.

As far as grammar and spelling, it's a necessary part of communication. It makes it more likely that your posts will be understood and/or read. You're certainly not going to be taken seriously on a forum with as many educated people as this if you don't care about what you have to say enough to make a modicum of effort at making it comprehensible.

So far as the statement above is concerned the burden of proofs on you. Either that or you are so full of yourself that you start by assuming all people are ignorant which would actually explain quite a lot. As to the bottom part, there are many people out there who have an even worse command of the English language than I do. This is an online forum. How often do you see anyone posting in full formal English? As to being taken seriously, so far no one has outright ignored me so I'm going to assume that someone is actually reading what I'm writing.

He's clearly not what he claims to be. I can tell that much. As far as the bit about being a joke, I can see some merit to that. There are some major inconsistencies in what he appears to know. One minute he thinks there are no extra-biblical source, the next he mentions some things about Antiquities that wouldn't be the first one would jump on if they just looked them up.

Either way, I'm unimpressed, but I'm willing to give him an opportunity to impress if I see a different poster after the two days he said he needs to prep.

There are two options as I see it. Either I am a clueless teenager who likes to pretend he (or possibly she) knows everything, or I'm sufficiently educated that I can play the clueless teenager well enough that it seems nearly real. which 1 du u think its dude?

So far as the statement above is concerned the burden of proofs on you. Either that or you are so full of yourself that you start by assuming all people are ignorant which would actually explain quite a lot. As to the bottom part, there are many people out there who have an even worse command of the English language than I do. This is an online forum. How often do you see anyone posting in full formal English? As to being taken seriously, so far no one has outright ignored me so I'm going to assume that someone is actually reading what I'm writing.

You're correct. And I proved it. You explicitly said there are no extra-biblical sources for Jesus. And when challenged stated it even more explicitly. The ignorance of that statement has already been shown.

I don't start by assuming you're ignorant. I follow the evidence. When you post an ignorant statement, I reasonably assume that it's representative of your beliefs. Now, if you were faking or something, that's a whole other thing, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

Who is talking about "full, formal English"? We're asking you to demonstrate just the basic command my nephew is expected to show when he writes a note to his mother. He's 10. I think expecting you to have the grasp of spelling and grammar my nephew has is quite reasonable. If you'd like I could ask him to transcribe one of your posts and show you that his spelling and grammar would be demonstrably better.

As for whether people are going to incorporate into their impression of you (notice few people are replying to you):
Jocabia, the longer I watch this exchange, the more I'm convinced that he's humping your leg while you try to keep a straight face. Notice how DaWoad's grammar and style get way better around the time he declares he's going to bed.
He's faking a clueless teenager.

Like I said, I follow the evidence, and you're not giving of a lot of evidence that you're capable of the level on conversation you're trying to jump into. Prove me wrong. I'd be ecstatic. Take the two days, become educated on the topic and return with just a little effort in your posts. Show us you care enough about your argument that we should. I mean this sincerely. I'm trying to help you.

(Though, given the age of your nation and the number of posts while incorporating the rather inconsistent levels of knowledge and spelling problems, I strongly suspect, like the above poster, that you're taking a piss.)

There are two options as I see it. Either I am a clueless teenager who likes to pretend he (or possibly she) knows everything, or I'm sufficiently educated that I can play the clueless teenager well enough that it seems nearly real. which 1 du u think its dude?

Actually, it doesn't seem real. As you can see, someone else noticed the rather glaring inconsistencies. As I've shown, I don't tend to jump to conclusions. I try to treat people like they're honest until I'm sure they're not.

And you missed part of the second option "or I'm so insecure about the level of my knowledge that I don't want to make arguments and be forced to support them well. Instead, I'm going to pretend to be someone else and attempt to make an argument using the fallacy that if one side is wrong (my fake side) the other side is right.)

Unfortunately, regardless of which you are, it reflects poorly on you. It demonstrates a poor understanding of the subject, a low level of confidence in yourself and an unfortunate unstanding of what makes for effective debate. Now, if you were funny like Jhaha, at least there would be SOME value to your input.

By the by, playing a clueless teenager doesn't require any more education than a clueless teenager has.

There are two options as I see it. Either I am a clueless teenager who likes to pretend he (or possibly she) knows everything, or I'm sufficiently educated that I can play the clueless teenager well enough that it seems nearly real. which 1 du u think its dude?
I'm intrigued. There's a subtle sense of self-importance in here, which leads me to suspect that the teenager isn't just an act, but you could just be pleased at having done what you set out to do.

I suspect that you are a slightly more clued in teenager than your act is portraying, but you are nonetheless young and more than a little antagonistic towards the social constructs you find yourself in; the kind of kid that is proud of downloading illegal music, talks badly about his family to his classmates and wants to be a stockbroker when he grows up.

I'm intrigued. There's a subtle sense of self-importance in here, which leads me to suspect that the teenager isn't just an act, but you could just be pleased at having done what you set out to do.

I suspect that you are a slightly more clued in teenager than your act is portraying, but you are nonetheless young and more than a little antagonistic towards the social constructs you find yourself in; the kind of kid that is proud of downloading illegal music, talks badly about his family to his classmates and wants to be a stockbroker when he grows up.

The amusing bit is that he thinks that if he tells us he was taking a piss, we'll suddenly be impressed that he "pulled it off". It's kind like how we should be impressed when a guy in a bar pretends he's not married and almost gets away with it. I mean, that's talent, right?

"Or I'm sufficiently educated that I can play the unmarried fella well enough that it seems nearly real?"

People like Jhaha are impressive in their ability to entertaining and to rope people in while being utterly obvious in what they're doing. It's a spectacular skill that demonstrates a confidence to be treated like an idiot when you know you aren't, and to recognize that the better-educated and swifter among us will be in on the joke. Then there's the other kind...

Actually Kamsaki-Myu your pretty close. I'm in my first year of university and could probably still be considered a teenager. I am slightly antagonistic towards the social constructs I find myself in although not those social constructs which you have listed. I I'm not actually proud of downloading music though I admit freely to doing so on occasion and I love my family to pieces and would never speak badly of them to anyone.'m actually A Bio-Medical Toxicology student and I would really like to be a doctor "when I grow up". Jocabia, I am actually agnostic and I don't believe that Jesus was real but if your still interested in starting that thread I think a real discussion about the subject could be fun (though I highly doubt it will be, in any way, conclusive).

Actually Kamsaki-Myu your pretty close. I'm in my first year of university and could probably still be considered a teenager. I am slightly antagonistic towards the social constructs I find myself in although not those social constructs which you have listed. I I'm not actually proud of downloading music though I admit freely to doing so on occasion and I love my family to pieces and would never speak badly of them to anyone.'m actually A Bio-Medical Toxicology student and I would really like to be a doctor "when I grow up". Jocabia, I am actually agnostic and I don't believe that Jesus was real but if your still interested in starting that thread I think a real discussion about the subject could be fun (though I highly doubt it will be, in any way, conclusive).

And your main nation's name is...

And your main nation's name is...

Actually I don't have one. I played NS for a long time solely for the game itself and not for the forum. I only started playing in the forum just before I left NS. I came back to it, more out of boredom than anything else, less than a month ago.

Actually I don't have one. I played NS for a long time solely for the game itself and not for the forum. I only started playing in the forum just before I left NS. I came back to it, more out of boredom than anything else, less than a month ago.

do you ever stop arguing?

do you ever stop arguing?
Nope :). I enjoy arguing too much to want to stop, but that wasn't arguing. That was just me providing information in response to a question.

And we just can't kill the beast.

Could be, wit here isn't so comparable with "steely knives" as much as "frothy tongue-stamps"

Not the only thing you're done with after 3 strokes.

I had to, it's the lawNah, he's got staying power. Just check my sig!
*points emphatically*

Oh. My. I--I didn't even prepare a speech or anything.

You could give a eulogy. I'll give the appropriate gestures and movements.