• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Attention Atheists: Validity Issues

rocketman

Out there...
Dear Tiberius, as you may have read by now I'm not unhappy with Stemann's proposal that this whole debate may be a waste of time, but you have obviously put a lot of work into your post so I will do you the courtesy of answering your main points, leaving aside Stemann's wisdom for the moment. Please keep in mind that I only set out to show that there were possibilites as to why your alledged contradictions mightn't hold water, as for the theistic direction this thread is now headed in I say up front that my following answers may not be up to the standard of some of the resident theists hereabouts, who may be of more help to you on the finer points of scripture.

Tiberius said:
More the suffering that can go before the death.

Totally agree, suffering is bad. Personally, I can see no justification whatsoever for the whole mindless, senseless nature of this tragic world's suffering. However [bear with me] if there really is a plan to show us humans the result of sin and/or rejecting God/being cut off from God etc, and there was something overwhemingly important at stake, such as eternity [one free of suffering at that], then, as much as it pains me to do so, I could accept that there needs to be a certain amount of history written to show beyond all doubt and in refutation of all argument that his way is better. This would be neccessary for we beings of free will to make a choice, because, as I understand the theistic position, once eternity is granted, it is not withdrawn [else it wouldn't be eternity]. I can't think of higher stakes, can you? This sort of thing is next to impossible for most people to accept, and I can understand that, but I still believe that this is a logical possibility that circumvents your first alledged contradiction.

Tiberius said:
Puts that tree in the Garden of Eden when he didn't want Adam and Eve to eat from it, even though he knew for a fact that they would. Is that wise?
The kids have to get out into the real world sooner or later. If you had offspring and you knew they would make mistakes would you keep them inside forever? This event, poetically described in Genesis, is the first recorded example of us going our own way - naturally the parent has to allow this issue to unfold in order to deal with it. If we didn't have free will he could have just programmed us, and before we get into a debate over whether we have free will I simply say that the texts are written as if we do.

Tiberius said:
So you say that even God doesn't like having to use death as a punishment. Why then does he do it so often for such trivial reasons? And why on earth did you yourself say, "And by the way, this death you speak of, you've experienced it?" like it wasn't really that bad after all?
He takes us all eventually. It's bad for those who remain, but you and I can't speak with authority for those who do not. Many theists hold that death is not the end. So, can the deity who switched us on do it again if he wishes? Is he a murderer then? No. But the command "you shall not murder.." has always been contrasted with commands regarding, say, capital punishment. The distinction between lawful and unlawful killing is a fundamental part of every nations laws. Say, ever been to a chinese funeral?

Tiberius said:
What in the world are you talking about? Logic isn't explainable by physics.
Exactly, thank you, that's what I was saying. Now that you agree they are seperate, which came first, the logic or the physics? This is why the rock-argument is broken! I still believe this circumvents your second alledged contradiction.

Tiberius said:
If there are things that God can't do, then he is not omnipotent. And thus he is not God.
You have crafted an interesting definition of omnipotent. My dictionary says: "Having greater unlimited power." Now why would it have to use the word 'greater' in there? Because the emphasis is as much on the word power as it is on the word unlimited. Some people think omnipotent means absolute unlimited power, but that kind of comic book notion does not belong in a debate like this. Taken another way, why would YHWH plead with pathetic little humans and even have to rock up as one of them if he has absolute power? Omnipotent literallly means 'all power'. You may use the term to mean 'unlimited power' but then you wouldn't be arguing against the God of the bible. So then, you are referencing some strange god who has absolute power, as opposed to the God of the Hebrews who is almighty. [can do anything that can be done/all power, not all powers].

Tiberius said:
Oh really?
Does God decieve? Your simplistic interpretations of scripture have been refuted many times over. Off the top of my head I remember that the two quotes from Jeremiah are accepted by scholars as his outburst at God, consistent with all his other complaints. The wording there in the original Hebrew actually means to 'seduce' anyway. He was hoping for something to happen but God allowed him to be seduced by the idea. God makes animals that trick each other with camoflauge too, doesn't mean that kind of thing is evil. The bible is full of God allowing people to be decieved if that's what they want [sounds odd, but there you go]. Your quote from Ezekial is bogus. Please quote from a modern translation of the text. The quote from 1 Kings is out of context on it's lonesome, [shocking lack of scholarship here!], the rest of the passage is there for all to read, same goes for the quote from 2 Chronicles. Notice the verse from 2 Thess simply says that he allows them to believe a lie, not that he himself lied. I agree that he allows people to be decieved, it's one of the risks you take when you give someone free will and let them decide things for themselves.

to be continued...
 

rocketman

Out there...
..continued

Tiberius said:
Do you see how the ability to know the future 100% is contradictory with free will?
No I certainly do not, if we are talking about God. The 'future' is entirely dependant on his will in the first instance! You are confusing him with someone who needs to change his mind. I'll ask you what I asked Stemann: "If you spend the day making decisions without having changed your mind did you lack free will that day?" The problem is not that he doesn't have a choice once he has decided something, the problem is that you proceed from the premise that he might not be able to make the right choice in the first place. And despite the biblical account indicating that his purpose for us is pre-ordained, nowhere does it say that he has already made all the decisions he is ever going to make. Regardless, the concept that his will is the basis of any future allows for a logical possibility that circumvents your third alledged contradiction.

Tiberius said:
And if you don't see that, please explain to me how God can choose to avoid destroying Humanity if he knows 100% for sure that he will.
Please see last answer above.

Tiberius said:
And you are saying that these can be done, despite them contradicting many known laws of science?
That could easily be a whole different debate on it's own. If we knew exactly how and why the laws of science are what they are then you might have a point, but until then I don't see how we can prove/disprove the supernatural.

Tiberius said:
Incidently, wouldn't that mean that prayer is just a waste of time?
No, of-course not. As I pointed out to you a page or two ago, God allows for the possibilities generated by his free-willed offspring ahead of time. I see no reason for believers not to pray.

Tiberius said:
And that has an affect on anything above the subatomic level?
It was a metaphor for goodness sakes.

Tiberius said:
This seems to me that you are just defining God into existence by saying defining the existence of everything as relying on God.
No, that's what the bible says, I'm simply pointing out to you that your alledged contradictions of this particular deity are not neccessarily free of problems of their own.

Tiberius said:
Of course, because the only way to explain the contradictions in God is to invent more and more levels of complexity to explain the contradictions in the levels above.
Or, alternatively, one could provide logical possibilites that would circumvent the alledged contradictions, not to mention pay more accurate attention to the claims made about the deity in the first place.;)

Tiberius said:
What's the difference between creating a square circle and creating a rock so heavy that God can't lift it? A square circle is just as invalid as that rock.
In this space-time, sure, which is the point: the argument relied more on physics than it did on logic. If it relied on logic it would have taken into account the biblical claims of power and will regarding God, unless you want to persist in making him in some other image...

Tiberius said:
Ah, but you are presupposing what you wish to prove. Do you see the flaw in that?
Pardon me? Do you see the flaw in assuming what it is that I wish to prove? I have provided three examples of why your three alledged contradictions aren't neccessarily so, and that's all I've done. Oh, and I've demonstrated why the concept of will is so important in any debate like this.

Stay well Tiberius.
:)
 

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
rocketman said:
Please keep in mind that I only set out to show that there were possibilites as to why your alledged contradictions mightn't hold water, as for the theistic direction this thread is now headed in I say up front that my following answers may not be up to the standard of some of the resident theists hereabouts, who may be of more help to you on the finer points of scripture.

Just trying to show that atheism is valid because the theistic alternative has little validity as far as I am concerned.

However [bear with me] if there really is a plan to show us humans the result of sin and/or rejecting God/being cut off from God etc, and there was something overwhemingly important at stake, such as eternity [one free of suffering at that], then, as much as it pains me to do so, I could accept that there needs to be a certain amount of history written to show beyond all doubt and in refutation of all argument that his way is better.

So there are people sentenced to an eternity of hell to teach them a lesson? What good is that if they can never put what they learn into practice?

The kids have to get out into the real world sooner or later. If you had offspring and you knew they would make mistakes would you keep them inside forever? This event, poetically described in Genesis, is the first recorded example of us going our own way - naturally the parent has to allow this issue to unfold in order to deal with it. If we didn't have free will he could have just programmed us, and before we get into a debate over whether we have free will I simply say that the texts are written as if we do.

And let's not forget that God set us up to make that mistake in the first place by putting that tree in the garden with full knowledge what would happen!

He takes us all eventually. It's bad for those who remain, but you and I can't speak with authority for those who do not. Many theists hold that death is not the end. So, can the deity who switched us on do it again if he wishes? Is he a murderer then? No. But the command "you shall not murder.." has always been contrasted with commands regarding, say, capital punishment. The distinction between lawful and unlawful killing is a fundamental part of every nations laws. Say, ever been to a chinese funeral?

So, we are sentenced to death because we made a mistake that God set us up to make? is that fair?

Exactly, thank you, that's what I was saying. Now that you agree they are seperate, which came first, the logic or the physics? This is why the rock-argument is broken! I still believe this circumvents your second alledged contradiction.

Logic came first. logic explains physics. Physics does not explain logic.

I honestly have no idea what you are saying here....

You have crafted an interesting definition of omnipotent. My dictionary says: "Having greater unlimited power." Now why would it have to use the word 'greater' in there? Because the emphasis is as much on the word power as it is on the word unlimited. Some people think omnipotent means absolute unlimited power, but that kind of comic book notion does not belong in a debate like this. Taken another way, why would YHWH plead with pathetic little humans and even have to rock up as one of them if he has absolute power? Omnipotent literallly means 'all power'. You may use the term to mean 'unlimited power' but then you wouldn't be arguing against the God of the bible. So then, you are referencing some strange god who has absolute power, as opposed to the God of the Hebrews who is almighty. [can do anything that can be done/all power, not all powers].

So then God is bound by logic? is that why he can't make a rock so heavy he can't lift it, because such a rock is a logical impossibility?

Does God decieve? Your simplistic interpretations of scripture have been refuted many times over. Off the top of my head I remember that the two quotes from Jeremiah are accepted by scholars as his outburst at God, consistent with all his other complaints. The wording there in the original Hebrew actually means to 'seduce' anyway. He was hoping for something to happen but God allowed him to be seduced by the idea.

So he was actually saying, "Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly seduced this people"? :areyoucra

God makes animals that trick each other with camoflauge too, doesn't mean that kind of thing is evil.

And they are protecting their lives, aren't they? If I see that lottery ticket you have is a winner but I tell you you didn't win so I can claim it for myself, am I protecting myself from a predator? We are talking about very different things...

The bible is full of God allowing people to be decieved if that's what they want [sounds odd, but there you go]. Your quote from Ezekial is bogus. Please quote from a modern translation of the text.

perhaps you could quote it for me? And why is that translation any less bogus than any other translation? or have you a means of verifying the accuracy of translations to the originals? Kinda hard when we don't have the originals.

The quote from 1 Kings is out of context on it's lonesome, [shocking lack of scholarship here!], the rest of the passage is there for all to read, same goes for the quote from 2 Chronicles. Notice the verse from 2 Thess simply says that he allows them to believe a lie, not that he himself lied.

So in that lottery ticket example, it would be fine if I let you believe the ticket was worthless even if I knew it was worth 30 million dollars? A lie of omission is still a lie.

I agree that he allows people to be decieved, it's one of the risks you take when you give someone free will and let them decide things for themselves.

Um, how can God take a risk? he's supposed to know everything, after all...
 

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
rocketman said:
No I certainly do not, if we are talking about God.

Okay, let me explain it differently.

Adam and Eve ate from the tree, and God chose to punish them for it.

Now, God new from the moment that he created Adam, and even before, that Adam and Eve would break the rules, yes? Let me quote John 21:17 - "Lord, thou knowest all things."

Thus, God also knew that he would punish Adam and Eve, yes?

So, we can imagine God creating the earth and saying, "I'm going to punish Adam and Eve soon after I create them for eating from the tree."

Now, let me ask you....

Is there any way for God to have chosen not to punish Adam and Eve?

There are two possible answers, each with their problem.

Yes, he could have chosen not to punish Adam and Eve. How then could he know that he would punish them? I mean, God knew for certain. If God knew for certain that he'd punish them, and then didn't punish them after all, wouldn't that mean that God was wrong when he knew for a fact that he'd punish them? Wouldn't it also mean that when God knew for a fact that he didn't really know after all?

No, God could not have chosen to let them off without punishment. If God can't make that choice, how can he have any choice? How can God have free choice when he is bound by what he knows and can't change it?

The 'future' is entirely dependant on his will in the first instance!

You say this as an explanation, but you rely on God existing in the first place. Circular logic.

You are confusing him with someone who needs to change his mind. I'll ask you what I asked Stemann: "If you spend the day making decisions without having changed your mind did you lack free will that day?"

But I have the ability to change my mind. You are saying it is impossible for him to change his mind. very different things.

The problem is not that he doesn't have a choice once he has decided something, the problem is that you proceed from the premise that he might not be able to make the right choice in the first place.

So God knew everything that he was every going to do long ago? So he's just acting out the part? Poor God. Life must be very boring for him.

And despite the biblical account indicating that his purpose for us is pre-ordained, nowhere does it say that he has already made all the decisions he is ever going to make. Regardless, the concept that his will is the basis of any future allows for a logical possibility that circumvents your third alledged contradiction.

If God knows everything, wouldn't he already know all the decisions he's ever going to make?

And I don't see how "God's will is the basis of the future" is any kind of answer. it does not explain anything to me. It's about as enlightening as saying, "The Flying Spaghetti Monster's wobbles are the bassis for the future."

That could easily be a whole different debate on it's own. If we knew exactly how and why the laws of science are what they are then you might have a point, but until then I don't see how we can prove/disprove the supernatural.

So in the meantime we are to accept the possibility of something which has no basis in anything we have learnt about the universe through rational, testable, repeatable and verifiable means, just because you say so? That's ludicrous! The same logic would require you to accept the possibility that I am a flourescant orange beaver on Mars that's controlling the mind of a pecking chicken that thinks it's a major Hollywood director to make it peck the keys I want it to on the keyboard! That logic requires us to entertain any ridiculous idea. Do you really think that is a valid way to go through life?

No, of-course not. As I pointed out to you a page or two ago, God allows for the possibilities generated by his free-willed offspring ahead of time. I see no reason for believers not to pray.

Okay, two issues with that.

Firstly, how can we have free will if God knows what we will do? How can I have free will to wear a blue shirt tomorrow if God already knows 100% sure for a fact that I will wear a red shirt?

Secondly, if God has already made the right choice and isn't going to change it, what good will prayer possibly do? if you are diagnosed with a terrible illness, You can pray to God for him to cure you. But God has already made a decision about curing you, and that decision isn't going to change - you said so yourself. And if he's going to cure you, you don't need to pray to him to do it - he's going to do it anyway. And if he's not going to cure you, then you aren't going to be cured, so your prayers will have no affect.

Prayer is useless.

No, that's what the bible says, I'm simply pointing out to you that your alledged contradictions of this particular deity are not neccessarily free of problems of their own.

So then you are saying that God's power is indeed limited? May I point out:

Genesis 18:14 said:
Is any thing too hard for the LORD?

Job 42:1-2 said:
Then Job answered the LORD, and said, I know that thou canst do every thing....

Jeremiah 32:17 said:
Ah Lord God! ... there is nothing too hard for thee.

Jeremiah 32:27 said:
Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for the Lord?;

Matthew 19:26 and Mark 10:27 said:
With God all things are possible.

Luke 18:27 said:
The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.

Or, alternatively, one could provide logical possibilites that would circumvent the alledged contradictions, not to mention pay more accurate attention to the claims made about the deity in the first place.;)

The claims I get come from the Bible.

And if there were such logical possibilities that circumvent the alleged contradictions, why is there no unanimous decision in Christianity about what exactly God's abilities are?

In this space-time, sure, which is the point: the argument relied more on physics than it did on logic. If it relied on logic it would have taken into account the biblical claims of power and will regarding God, unless you want to persist in making him in some other image...

So you're saying he can create a square circle, he just can't do it here.

Pardon me? Do you see the flaw in assuming what it is that I wish to prove? I have provided three examples of why your three alledged contradictions aren't neccessarily so, and that's all I've done. Oh, and I've demonstrated why the concept of will is so important in any debate like this.

Assuming what you wish to prove: You are attempting to explain God, but in order to do so, you need to refer to God. If you don't see why it is illogical to do this, go into Microsoft Excel, go to cell A1 and enter the formula =A1. And see what it says. That is another example of circular reasoning, and just like that, in this instance, you are relying on the existence of God to explain God.

Stay well Tiberius.
:)

And you. :)
 

rocketman

Out there...
A lot of good points there Tiberius, here we go..

Tiberius said:
So there are people sentenced to an eternity of hell to teach them a lesson? What good is that if they can never put what they learn into practice?
The lesson is life, not hell. I personally don't see that scripture supports an eternal hell for you and I. An eternal death maybe, if that's what we choose..

Tiberius said:
And let's not forget that God set us up to make that mistake in the first place by putting that tree in the garden with full knowledge what would happen!
You can't make creatures of free will and then force them to do the right thing. So if you know ahead of time that they will stuff things up then you make sure there is a framework in place that will allow all the lessons to be learnt in the shortest possible time, maybe even allow a catalyst to actually speed it up, say, Satan, not to mention letting the chaos feed fuel to itself, such as allowing people to be decieved by others; and while we're at it, allow in the midst of this history the introduction of the solution ahead of time, say, Jesus, and start getting things ready for when suffering will finally be gone. The scripture is clear that the Jesus plan was in the pipe before Adam even showed up and spoiled the party.

Tiberius said:
Logic came first. logic explains physics. Physics does not explain logic. I honestly have no idea what you are saying here....
Don't I know it. Look, I'm sorry I can't explain it any better. I just don't see that one can hold a contradiction to God on a matter where the causal sequence of will/logic/physics is violated.

Tiberius said:
So then God is bound by logic? is that why he can't make a rock so heavy he can't lift it, because such a rock is a logical impossibility?
Try it this way - Let's replace the term rock with "free-willed offspring". Now then, ask yourself if the following statement proves a contradiction of God: Can an all-powerful God make a free-willed offspring with a will so completely free that he cannot force it to love him? So your question is headed in the right direction! His logical limits are always self-imposed, self-imposition always requiring an act of will. Will, logic, physics, in that order. How could he will himself into a contradiction? See what I'm saying?

Tiberius said:
So he was actually saying, "Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly seduced this people"? :areyoucra
It's meant there not in an erotic context but an enticing context [I'd say 'tempting' but others may confuse that with being tempted into sin]. It's a perfectly valid use of the word, but the word decieve is a more common translation because it better explains how Jeremiah felt in our language.

Tiberius said:
And they are protecting their lives, aren't they? If I see that lottery ticket you have is a winner but I tell you you didn't win so I can claim it for myself, am I protecting myself from a predator? We are talking about very different things...
Have a good look at where God allowed people to be decieved and study the context.

Tiberius said:
perhaps you could quote it for me? And why is that translation any less bogus than any other translation? or have you a means of verifying the accuracy of translations to the originals? Kinda hard when we don't have the originals.
You quoted Ezekial 14:9 as
"And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet."
which looks like it is from the archaic King James. The NIV translates it as:
"And if a prophet is enticed to utter a prophecy, I the LORD have enticed that prophet.."
Notice the word entice there? Similar to what Jeremiah was saying. Also, notice the value of having a modern, scholastically translated version of an ancient text? Totally changes the meaning. I prefer the NIV because of the large number of scholars and language specialists who worked on it, and the very large number of denominations [over 13] who all had to agree on it. I also like how it takes into account the dead sea scrolls and the Samaritan Pentateuch, and so on. The more recent NRSV Version may even be better. As for the originals, no, I don't believe we have them. From a scholarly point of view, how problematic is that? If we are talking about the NT for example, there are more than 5000 ancient Greek manuscripts, 10000 from the ancient latin vulgate and over 9000 other earlier versions. That's 24000 or so copies and portions. The very next best thing from antiquity would be Homer's Iliad, with 600 odd manuscript copies, and then we see that the first complete preserved text is from as recently as the 13th century. Hmm. The book of Isaiah is easily the best example of an accurately preserved ancient text, imho. Also, for the NT, There are at least 200 years between the originals and the earliest versions we have, but then, no scholar would allow debate on the authenticity of Herodotus just because the earliest available manuscript we have to work from is 1300 years newer than the long lost originals. In our little debate the trail of breadcrumbs is not as critical as the claims that the text makes. Btw, if I take the spirit of what you are saying correctly then we may as well throw all of history away.



Tiberius said:
So in that lottery ticket example, it would be fine if I let you believe the ticket was worthless even if I knew it was worth 30 million dollars? A lie of omission is still a lie.
Depends what the purpose of ommission is.

An accessory to lying. An accessory to murder. An accessory to stealing. And so on. If God creates offspring with free will and allows them to experience the consequences of sin [and therefore permit them to sin] he is guilty only of giving them free will. If one of the offspring are going to sin anyway what extra guilt does he carry if he directs where the results of that sin go? What other choice has he got if he wants his imperfect offspring to be salvaged? Love will do what it takes. Besides, he has personally offered to take on the eternal spiritual consequences himself. There's that Jesus thing again.

Tiberius said:
Um, how can God take a risk? he's supposed to know everything, after all...

Love takes risks! Ever had kids? Creating offspring with free will is the biggest roll of the dice in history my friend.

to be continued...
 

rocketman

Out there...
...continued

Tiberius said:
Is there any way for God to have chosen not to punish Adam and Eve?
Please see what I said in my last post where I talked about a solution being in place beforehand.

Tiberius said:
You say this as an explanation, but you rely on God existing in the first place. Circular logic.
Then so is yours. What good would your alledged contradictions be if God wasn't mentioned in them? Just because I mention God
doesn't mean that I am saying he exists. Am I not simply trying to show you that your alledged contradictions can be circumvented?

Tiberius said:
But I have the ability to change my mind. You are saying it is impossible for him to change his mind. very different things.

I didn't say it was impossible for him to change his mind, did I? Like I said, he can allow for variability ahead of time, from free-willed beings for example. It's the quality of his decisions in the first place that you seem to have trouble with.

Tiberius said:
So God knew everything that he was every going to do long ago? So he's just acting out the part? Poor God. Life must be very boring for him.
If he has already decided everything he is ever going to decide, then sure, I guess he's bored. And I'd say that we just invented a new god.

Tiberius said:
If God knows everything, wouldn't he already know all the decisions he's ever going to make?
He knows all that can be known. Where he makes an offspring with free will he makes provision for all the possibilites that may arise from that situation. If he doesn't know everything is he still God? Yes. For example, deliberatley making a creature of free will is an act of self-imposing a particular logical limit. Personally I see a difference between complete foreknowledge and complete awareness. I like this line from the Wikipedia entry on omniscience : "Omniscience is the capacity to know everything, or at least everything that can be known..."

Tiberius said:
And I don't see how "God's will is the basis of the future" is any kind of answer. it does not explain anything to me. It's about as enlightening as saying, "The Flying Spaghetti Monster's wobbles are the bassis for the future."
It is hard to get one's head around, for sure. Think of it as a cause and effect scenario if that helps, not that it is really constrained by time.. If you keep glossing over the fundamental aspect of the will of this god-model we are using then you will never get it. Hmm, spaghetti, you're making me hungry.:eat:

Tiberius said:
So in the meantime we are to accept the possibility of something which has no basis in anything we have learnt about the universe through rational, testable, repeatable and verifiable means, just because you say so? That's ludicrous! The same logic would require you to accept the possibility that I am a flourescant orange beaver on Mars that's controlling the mind of a pecking chicken that thinks it's a major Hollywood director to make it peck the keys I want it to on the keyboard! That logic requires us to entertain any ridiculous idea. Do you really think that is a valid way to go through life?

Okay already. You originally asked me: "And you are saying that these can be done, despite them contradicting many known laws of science?" In other words, do miracles happen? What's so wrong with my answer, which basically said that we can neither
prove nor disprove such a thing? Did I demand that you accept that they happened? No. I don't care what you think, [:hug: actually I do but you know what I mean] but if we are going to try to prove that God is subject to contradiction by a clash of his own powers then we have to mention those powers in order to make our case. Savvy? Doesn't mean we believe in them or not. See Stemman's wisdom? We probably shouldn't be debating this anyway. Hmm, chicken , now you're really making me hungry.:chicken:

Tiberius said:
Firstly, how can we have free will if God knows what we will do? How can I have free will to wear a blue shirt tomorrow if God already knows 100% sure for a fact that I will wear a red shirt?
You're not listening. He allows for variations ahead of time. Hard science tells us that time is a flexible malleable thing that had to have a beginning. If God made time he can certainly peek ahead without changing your free-willed decisions. That's good to know isn't it? In the modern age of science your decrepit argument needs to be killed off.

Tiberius said:
Secondly, if God has already made the right choice and isn't going to change it, what good will prayer possibly do? ... Prayer is useless.
Like I keep saying, he allows for possibilities ahead of time. Prayer is seen as degrading by some. It was meant to be a whisper in the ear between two close beings, not the ritualistic 'duty' that some demand it be. I have honestly observed inexplicable events that occured after heartfelt petitions were made to 'God' by others, and those events certainly made my very technically-oriented mind sit up and take note. And I've observed many go unanswered, which is what I would expect, after all, not everything a child asks for is granted, and reasons are not always given. Again, none of us adults like to be treated like children, but that is definitely the relationship that is presented in scripture. Do we know what is really good for us? What was the name of that tree that Eve ate from again? By 'knowing good and evil', humanity fell from where it was. We trusted our own understanding of what was best for us, and don't all kids do that from time to time?

Tiberius said:
So then you are saying that God's power is indeed limited?
The claims I get come from the Bible.
And from a better translation by the looks of it. You must keep in mind that God has deliberatley disallowed himself from doing certain things, like exercising your will for you, and the fact that he is constantly pleading with his offspring shows that he can't force them to love him. So the verses are true, but their application is not what you make it out to be. This is an overall context, but I'll focus in on the last verse you quote, Luke 18:27. Why would Jesus, in verse 16, ask the people to recieve his kingdom as a little child would recieve it, lest there be no other way to recieve it? Why doesn't it say something like "I/My Dad are all powerful now you hereby recieve it as you should, and they did, and they were saved.."??? Because, Tiberius, he has chosen not to be able to do that! The bible is full end-to-end of the things that God cannot do because of the logical-limit he has self-imposed, namely, our free-will. And it is full end-to-end of the claim that he can do anything, so either everyone involved in this whole bible-thing missed the point or you are missing the overall context. All-powerful does not have to mean all powers.

Tiberius said:
And if there were such logical possibilities that circumvent the alleged contradictions, why is there no unanimous decision in Christianity about what exactly God's abilities are?
Excellent point. Now then, which of the variations are you using as the god-model you wish to show is subject to contradiction? See what I've been doing? I've shown you that within the variations there exist god-models that are not subject to your application of alledged contradiction [imho]. You might complain that the target keeps moving but if a logical circumvention can be reasonably supported by an agreed upon translation of scripture then your hypothesis remains unproven. And no, you can't complain about the mention of God as a defense if the mention of God is critical to your attack.

Tiberius said:
So you're saying he can create a square circle, he just can't do it here.
Given what he's done with quantum physics and spacetime in general I'd say yes.

Tiberius said:
Assuming what you wish to prove: You are attempting to explain God, but in order to do so, you need to refer to God. If you don't see why it is illogical to do this, go into Microsoft Excel, go to cell A1 and enter the formula =A1. And see what it says. That is another example of circular reasoning, and just like that, in this instance, you are relying on the existence of God to explain God.
Like it or not, your argument against God regarding contradictions that flow from a clash of his powers relies on you mentioning his powers in the context of his possible existence. If one wanted to disprove your hypothesis one would NOT have to try to prove God, they would simply have to show that your allegations don't fully address the claims made about God or show where logical possibility can still circumvent the allegations. You say the claims contradict each other, I say that you can choose from the available options a set of claims that don't. The claims may rely on the existence of God, but if we can't show a contradiction then that existence may still be possible, unless you want to try to disprove his existence another way... I have relied on the existence of the claims, which you too must do if you are to succeed, because it is the integrity of the claims themselves you are disputing, and disputed them successfully you have not, in my humble opinion. There is no circular logic here, only a difference of opinion.

Unless you come up with a new atheistic argument that I've not heard before I'm going to call it a day here. I wonder what chicken and spaghetti go like together:slap:

You're a good sport Tiberius.
 

pandamonk

Active Member
rocketman said:
Love takes risks! Ever had kids? Creating offspring with free will is the biggest roll of the dice in history my friend.
I agree that to us it is a risk. But God sees all time at a glance, apparantly, and is omniscient. So therefore he would have known exactly everything that would happen before he created. There cannot be a risk if you know what the outcome will be.
 

Æsahættr

Active Member
I realise there's a big complicated debate going on here but I'm just going to come in against the OP. I haven't read the entire thread yet so apologies if I'm just repeating things that have already been said.

I would like to bring Betrand Russell's teapot to mind in defence of strong atheism. For those not familiar with that, this is a hypothetical teapot orbitting the Sun. There is no evidence whatsoever for this teapot, but nor is there any direct evidence against.

Now, if you ask most people if they believe that there is a teapot orbitting the Sun, they would say no. But going further than that, if you asked people "would you be prepared to say that you believe that there is no teapot orbitting the Sun?" I expect most people would say no.

I would like to ask those who critisise the strong atheist position if deep down, they genuinelly do not hold a negative belief about such things as Sun-orbitting teapots, unicorns, dragons etc.

For that matter, if the strong atheistic position is illogical, then so is every religious belief beyond a very vague belief that there is something supernatural. Monotheistic and polytheistic beliefs are incompatible, so if you believe in Allah or Yahweh, so implicitly believe that Thor and Woden do not exist, and vice versa.

The reason that it is logical to be a "strong a-teapotist" is that the burden of proof is on the person making a positive claim, despite at least one statement to the contrary earlier in this thread. To what extent we rely on a strong burden is dependant upon how important the matter is, and to what extent it contradicts existing beliefs we have. If someone was to approach me and claim to be my father, I would demand a high burden of proof, because it is a very important question, and because I already have what I believe to be a fairly high level of evidence that someone else is my father, which is a contradictory statement. For that reason, I need a higher level of evidence that the new person is my father than the level of evidence I have that the person I have always thought of as my father is my father.

Similarly, whether God exists is possibly the most important matter that there could be. I believe I can also make a fair argument that certain other beliefs I hold are contradictory to His existance, with a fair degree of evidence on their side.
If you want an example of this - so far, every single thing in the Universe has been shown to obey the laws of thermodynamics. At present, that is reasonable evidence to suggest that these laws are universal. Now, it is indeed possible that God made these laws, and that they do not apply to Him. But that means that the laws are not universal; at least something in existance does not obey them. This means that evidence that the laws of thermodynamics are universal is evidence against the existance of God, unless evidence from another source for the existance of God is great enough to mean that I must revise my beliefs such that the laws of thermodynamics are not universal.

Lastly, there is one more argument I wish to make against the OP's attack on strong atheism, which is that it is partly a strawman argument. Strong atheism does not imply knowing 100% that God does not exist. It means taking the view that, all evidence considered, it is reasonable to assume that God does not exist, but that if evidence was to be presented to the contrary, the position would need to be revised.
 

rocketman

Out there...
pandamonk said:
I agree that to us it is a risk. But God sees all time at a glance, apparantly, and is omniscient. So therefore he would have known exactly everything that would happen before he created. There cannot be a risk if you know what the outcome will be.

This is kind of a new twist on an old argument so I feel compelled to answer it.

You say that God is not taking a risk if he knows what the outcome will be, and I say he cannot have an outcome if he doesn't first take the risk! The process had to start somewhere. Your assumption here is that God sees all time at a glance BEFORE he WILLS that timeframe into being. Time is merely physical. The physics depend on the logic, the logic depends on the will. Why does he have to will everything that will ever be willed already? :areyoucra
 

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
rocketman said:
The lesson is life, not hell. I personally don't see that scripture supports an eternal hell for you and I. An eternal death maybe, if that's what we choose..

Then why Hell if not a punishment?

You can't make creatures of free will and then force them to do the right thing. So if you know ahead of time that they will stuff things up then you make sure there is a framework in place that will allow all the lessons to be learnt in the shortest possible time, maybe even allow a catalyst to actually speed it up, say, Satan, not to mention letting the chaos feed fuel to itself, such as allowing people to be decieved by others; and while we're at it, allow in the midst of this history the introduction of the solution ahead of time, say, Jesus, and start getting things ready for when suffering will finally be gone. The scripture is clear that the Jesus plan was in the pipe before Adam even showed up and spoiled the party.

In otherwords, it's okay to encourage people to do terrible things if they were going to do them anyway?

That's apalling.

Don't I know it. Look, I'm sorry I can't explain it any better. I just don't see that one can hold a contradiction to God on a matter where the causal sequence of will/logic/physics is violated.

So you explain away the contradictions by eliminating the rules of logic?

Try it this way - Let's replace the term rock with "free-willed offspring".

Sure, if you can prove to me that the two are identical. otherwise what you are saying is not different than, "I went driving in my car, but let's replace the term car with the term apple."

Now then, ask yourself if the following statement proves a contradiction of God: Can an all-powerful God make a free-willed offspring with a will so completely free that he cannot force it to love him? So your question is headed in the right direction! His logical limits are always self-imposed, self-imposition always requiring an act of will. Will, logic, physics, in that order. How could he will himself into a contradiction? See what I'm saying?

Are you just assuming that God has limited himself? And Aren't you only saying that God imposes limitations to avoid the contradictions? Wouldn't that make those limitations neccessary? And if they are neccessary, how can they be an act of will?

It's meant there not in an erotic context but an enticing context [I'd say 'tempting' but others may confuse that with being tempted into sin]. It's a perfectly valid use of the word, but the word decieve is a more common translation because it better explains how Jeremiah felt in our language.

It's also very confusing.

Have a good look at where God allowed people to be decieved and study the context.
Love to, but I don't have time.

You quoted Ezekial 14:9 as
"And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet."
which looks like it is from the archaic King James. The NIV translates it as:
"And if a prophet is enticed to utter a prophecy, I the LORD have enticed that prophet.."
Notice the word entice there? Similar to what Jeremiah was saying.

So why was the mistake made at all? Is it saying that prophecies are deception? And why is the NIV more accurate than KJV? Somehow, i get the feeling that the newer translations are considered more accurate merely because they change some of the confusing parts so they are easier to understand. But we must remember that making it easier to undrerstand does not equate to making it more accurate.

Also, notice the value of having a modern, scholastically translated version of an ancient text?

Words that were couched in metaphor to begin with, then translated so many times, and we go and translate it some more? What method do we have of verifying the accuracy of the translations?

Totally changes the meaning.

And that's something that bothers me. How could previous translations get it so wrong?

I prefer the NIV because of the large number of scholars and language specialists who worked on it, and the very large number of denominations [over 13] who all had to agree on it.

So it's not the most accurate, it's a compromise?

I also like how it takes into account the dead sea scrolls and the Samaritan Pentateuch, and so on. The more recent NRSV Version may even be better. As for the originals, no, I don't believe we have them. From a scholarly point of view, how problematic is that? If we are talking about the NT for example, there are more than 5000 ancient Greek manuscripts, 10000 from the ancient latin vulgate and over 9000 other earlier versions. That's 24000 or so copies and portions. The very next best thing from antiquity would be Homer's Iliad, with 600 odd manuscript copies, and then we see that the first complete preserved text is from as recently as the 13th century. Hmm. The book of Isaiah is easily the best example of an accurately preserved ancient text, imho. Also, for the NT, There are at least 200 years between the originals and the earliest versions we have, but then, no scholar would allow debate on the authenticity of Herodotus just because the earliest available manuscript we have to work from is 1300 years newer than the long lost originals. In our little debate the trail of breadcrumbs is not as critical as the claims that the text makes. Btw, if I take the spirit of what you are saying correctly then we may as well throw all of history away.

I'd like to see support of these claims from non-apologetic websites please.

Depends what the purpose of ommission is.

God omitted to tell them that it was a lie when he both knew, had the ability to tell them the truth and had no problem telling them the truth. God let them believe a lie when he could have prevented it. Is this okay? I don't see how.

An accessory to lying. An accessory to murder. An accessory to stealing. And so on. If God creates offspring with free will and allows them to experience the consequences of sin [and therefore permit them to sin] he is guilty only of giving them free will.

But he did more than that. He put the tree in Eden when it's only purpose was to allow Humans to sin, and let's not forget that he knew it would happen! It's just as negligent as the parent who leaves the gun on the table for the kid to blow his brother's brains out. And I would expect better from a god.

If one of the offspring are going to sin anyway what extra guilt does he carry if he directs where the results of that sin go? What other choice has he got if he wants his imperfect offspring to be salvaged? Love will do what it takes. Besides, he has personally offered to take on the eternal spiritual consequences himself. There's that Jesus thing again.

You've got to be kidding me. What sort of defense is that? It's like teaching your kid to kill people because, "he was going to do it anyway, so I thought I'd help him do it."

That is a shocking attitude.

It's like that guy they caught who was one of the planers of September 11. If his defense was, "It was going to happen anyway, even if I wasn't going to be involved," would you accept it? Of course not! And yet you accept it from God.

Love takes risks! Ever had kids? Creating offspring with free will is the biggest roll of the dice in history my friend.

But for a god who knows every detail of everything you'll ever do, where's the random chance? Where IS this roll of the dice you speak of?
 

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
rocketman said:
Please see what I said in my last post where I talked about a solution being in place beforehand.

Circular logic, Jesus being the solution only works if you already believe. I don't. Besides, the whole lack of evidence thing. You know what I mean.

Then so is yours. What good would your alledged contradictions be if God wasn't mentioned in them? Just because I mention God
doesn't mean that I am saying he exists. Am I not simply trying to show you that your alledged contradictions can be circumvented?

What in the world are you saying? There wouldn't be any need to point out the contradictions if God wasn't involved! The contradictions show why claiming the involvement of a god is unlikely. And it seems to me that you are indeed trying to show the existence of God.

I didn't say it was impossible for him to change his mind, did I? Like I said, he can allow for variability ahead of time, from free-willed beings for example. It's the quality of his decisions in the first place that you seem to have trouble with.

You said, "You are confusing him with someone who needs to change his mind." Were you not saying that God does not need to change his mind? How can you claim that God can cahnge his mind when you have yourself said it is never neccessary for God to do so?

If he has already decided everything he is ever going to decide, then sure, I guess he's bored. And I'd say that we just invented a new god.

Yeah we probably did that last time too.

He knows all that can be known. Where he makes an offspring with free will he makes provision for all the possibilites that may arise from that situation. If he doesn't know everything is he still God? Yes. For example, deliberatley making a creature of free will is an act of self-imposing a particular logical limit. Personally I see a difference between complete foreknowledge and complete awareness. I like this line from the Wikipedia entry on omniscience : "Omniscience is the capacity to know everything, or at least everything that can be known..."

Again, I think you are redefining God's powers to eliminate the contradictions and problems you see.

It is hard to get one's head around, for sure. Think of it as a cause and effect scenario if that helps, not that it is really constrained by time.. If you keep glossing over the fundamental aspect of the will of this god-model we are using then you will never get it. Hmm, spaghetti, you're making me hungry.:eat:

It's not hard to get your head around, it's impossible and just technobabble to provide something that appears to be an explanation. When examined closely, this explanation says absolutely nothing.

Okay already. You originally asked me: "And you are saying that these can be done, despite them contradicting many known laws of science?" In other words, do miracles happen? What's so wrong with my answer, which basically said that we can neither prove nor disprove such a thing? Did I demand that you accept that they happened? No. I don't care what you think, [:hug: actually I do but you know what I mean] but if we are going to try to prove that God is subject to contradiction by a clash of his own powers then we have to mention those powers in order to make our case. Savvy? Doesn't mean we believe in them or not. See Stemman's wisdom? We probably shouldn't be debating this anyway. Hmm, chicken , now you're really making me hungry.:chicken:

But that still leaves us in the ridiculous position of having to accept the possibility of any stupid claim. I turn into a squirrel at night and a blue whale by dawn and dusk. Can you prove it isn't true? No? Then you must accept the possibility!

No, I didn't think you would.

You're not listening. He allows for variations ahead of time. Hard science tells us that time is a flexible malleable thing that had to have a beginning. If God made time he can certainly peek ahead without changing your free-willed decisions. That's good to know isn't it? In the modern age of science your decrepit argument needs to be killed off.

Hang on.....

So does God know what I am going to wear tomorrow or not? First you said he can't because I have free will, now you say he can by just taking a peek ahead.

You are contradicting yurself.

By the way that comment calling my argument decrepit is very flattering. So much so that if you say something similar again I might just show it to a moderator and share the fun.

Learn some manners.

Like I keep saying, he allows for possibilities ahead of time.

What's with the use of plurals? Either something will happen or it won't. Things don't happen in several different ways. They only happen in one way, and God is meant to know what that one way is.

And I've observed many [prayers] go unanswered, which is what I would expect, after all, not everything a child asks for is granted, and reasons are not always given.

Yes, very true. Unfortunately the Bible says that we will get whatever we pray for, no matter what.

Again, none of us adults like to be treated like children, but that is definitely the relationship that is presented in scripture. Do we know what is really good for us? What was the name of that tree that Eve ate from again? By 'knowing good and evil', humanity fell from where it was. We trusted our own understanding of what was best for us, and don't all kids do that from time to time?

Yes, it is bad for us to know the differnece between good and evil! We should remain ignorant! We need God to show us everything! We should not have tried to know for ourselves!

Maybe that's why God created us, so we'd be dependent on him. We aren't God's children, we're his pets. he created us for the same reason we decide to put an aquarium in the living room.

"Oh yes," said God. "A universe with some people would look quite nice next to the lamp..."

And from a better translation by the looks of it. You must keep in mind that God has deliberatley disallowed himself from doing certain things, like exercising your will for you, and the fact that he is constantly pleading with his offspring shows that he can't force them to love him.

But doesn't that mean that God can also allow himself as well? Thus he can still exercise my free will. Your argument doesn't make sense.

So the verses are true, but their application is not what you make it out to be.

I've seen that claim - "You misunderstand!" - given as an explanation so many times. I've come to learn it means, "You have to find a complicated interpretation that dances around the issue and confuses people so they think an explanation has been provided."

This is an overall context, but I'll focus in on the last verse you quote, Luke 18:27. Why would Jesus, in verse 16, ask the people to recieve his kingdom as a little child would recieve it, lest there be no other way to recieve it? Why doesn't it say something like "I/My Dad are all powerful now you hereby recieve it as you should, and they did, and they were saved.."??? Because, Tiberius, he has chosen not to be able to do that!

And again, if he has chosen NOT to do that, then he is also capable of choosing to do it as well! Thus it is not impossible for him and he can do it whenever he wants! Your argument falls apart!

The bible is full end-to-end of the things that God cannot do because of the logical-limit he has self-imposed, namely, our free-will. And it is full end-to-end of the claim that he can do anything, so either everyone involved in this whole bible-thing missed the point or you are missing the overall context. All-powerful does not have to mean all powers.

No, he can do them, all you're doing is saying, "God doesn't do it because he doesn't want to." God not being able to force my free will is no different from me not being able to eat at the moment. I can still do it, I'm just choosing not to.

Excellent point. Now then, which of the variations are you using as the god-model you wish to show is subject to contradiction? See what I've been doing? I've shown you that within the variations there exist god-models that are not subject to your application of alledged contradiction [imho].

Such a thing is easy to do when you make it up as you go.

You might complain that the target keeps moving but if a logical circumvention can be reasonably supported by an agreed upon translation of scripture then your hypothesis remains unproven. And no, you can't complain about the mention of God as a defense if the mention of God is critical to your attack.

So if an explanation can be found in scripture, then that scripture must be right?

No wonder people find things in scripture that support whatever they want. It's the only way to keep it going.
 

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
Given what he's done with quantum physics and spacetime in general I'd say yes.

You're just guessing, aren't you? or can you support that claim?

Like it or not, your argument against God regarding contradictions that flow from a clash of his powers relies on you mentioning his powers in the context of his possible existence.

So what? My argument against the existence of Harry Potter regarding the contradictions in those books would mention powers in the context of the possible existence of wizards. it means nothing.

If one wanted to disprove your hypothesis one would NOT have to try to prove God, they would simply have to show that your allegations don't fully address the claims made about God or show where logical possibility can still circumvent the allegations.

yeah, well, how long have people been doing that? I've seen arguments for the non-existance of God that are hundreds of years old. Whereas people can't prove those arguments against God wrong because they always use flawed information, the only reason people don't accept the claims against God is because they constantly reinterpret scripture to suit what they want.

You say the claims contradict each other, I say that you can choose from the available options a set of claims that don't.

yes, let's just pick what we want and sweep the rest under the carpet where no one will see.

The claims may rely on the existence of God, but if we can't show a contradiction..

because we're ignoring those ones...

...then that existence may still be possible, unless you want to try to disprove his existence another way...

Such as those things you conviniently chose to ignore.

I have relied on the existence of the claims...

Only because they support your position.

which you too must do if you are to succeed

No, I don't care about success. I care about finding the truth. And that requires intellectual honesty, which doesn't happen by picking and choosing what you want to consider.

because it is the integrity of the claims themselves you are disputing, and disputed them successfully you have not, in my humble opinion.

No, it is you picking and choosing the claims you use. If you want me to take you seriously, look at EVERYTHING, not just the bits you like.

There is no circular logic here, only a difference of opinion.

There is circular logic when you don't look at the full picture, because required parts are missing. Circular logic, and intellectual dishonesty.

Unless you come up with a new atheistic argument that I've not heard before I'm going to call it a day here.

I'll keep using the old ones until I hear a good answer. I haven't yet.
 

rocketman

Out there...
Tiberius said:
Such as those things you conviniently chose to ignore.
I have ignored nothing. I have considered all of your arguments carefully, I even said you have some good points. I can see that you still do not understand some of the key concepts I've been asserting.

Tiberius said:
Only because they support your position.
Now all of a sudden they support my position? I agree, they do indeed.

Tiberius said:
No, I don't care about success. I care about finding the truth. And that requires intellectual honesty, which doesn't happen by picking and choosing what you want to consider.
I meant success in finding the truth. Now, about this intellectual honesty, tell me something - if ten people make a claim about a long lost friend being still alive after having been presumed dead, and you can show that nine of them have contradicited themselves but one hasn't, would you rule out the long lost friend's existence based on the other nine? Don't you see that I am merely trying to make a logical argument, not trying to prove God exists? I don't think disproving the contradiction allegations will prove his existence any more than me standing on my head would. My attempt to show that the contradictions may not stick to the god-model in no way proves, nor is it an attempt to prove, that God exists. Don't confuse my position. If there is a god-model to which your claims don't stick then your claims alone do not cancel out God, and no, the theists claims, even if they were contradiction-free, don't prove him to be real either. At the end of the day, even atheists rely on a certain interpretation of scripture. Anyway, I like what Stemman said.

Tiberius said:
By the way that comment calling my argument decrepit is very flattering.
I don't understand how you came to take that word to heart. The word was used only to describe the idea that time is fixed. I would call the flat-earth argument a decrepit argument also. If the use of the word offended you in anyway then I sincerely apologize.
 

KirbyFan101

Resident Ball of Fluff
Tiberius...

No matter show strong an argument against God you can conduct, you're still unlikely to convert anyone. People don't believe in God because it is logical, so proving God is illogical is of little consequence. People believe because, above all else, they fear being alone both in their lives and in their universe. Remember that an intelligent man can out-argue anyone, but a wise man knows which arguments are worthwhile. :D

Either way, some great points, I loved reading it.
 

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
I know.

I still find it fun.

I believe in god because of this, this and this.
Those arguments are flwed because of that, that and that.
Well, nyah, I don't care, I'm gonna believe anyway.

If I did that to support my belief in the Easter Bunny, you'd all laugh at me. Why is it any different with God?
 

thewaitingroom

New Member
Religion is the problem with the world. Ever since the dawn of mankind there has been two things war and beliefe/hope in something greater than ourselfs. In recent history religion has been a major player in almost every human conflict. There was WWII which millions of people died because of a handful of persons religious views. In the past few years religion has dominated every conflict the human race has been in, the genocides in Africa (all based on cultural/religious tension). The middle east has become a swamp where factions of relgious extremists can fester. The US has not been any better, now our country is ruled by a hollow face that is filling our diverse country with the idea that there is one god and one religion with his every "god bless america" at the end of every speech. He says this as if god is on our side, when we arefighting and killing an extremist group because god said he was on their side. All this killing because of GOD. Its not just the Christian faith that is the problem it is all of them (even though the christian faith is based on a book that was created by a bunch of men sitting around in the 5th century so they could have better control over their subjects). As Marx said "religion is the opiate of the people" it dulls the pain of life when what we should be doing is trying to fix the problems of the world instead of dulling them with hopes and ideals of a greater being that can make it all go away and that the earth is not home, heaven is. The human race has to fix its' own problems not rely on god. To do this we as the human race and keepers of this plant have to act as one. We must drop the boundries, starting with the oppressive religious hold on our people.
 

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
thewaitingroom, while I agree with you, this thread is for discussion about the validity of atheism, not if religion is the cause of problems. Please stay on topic.
 

Hacker

Well-Known Member
Athiests cannot PROVE that a God doesn't exist just as well as a believer can prove it except for the mere fact that there is no other explanation of creation, besides evolution which is ALSO acquiring the knowledge through reading words, just like a Bible has words to justify that a GOd does exist.(even though many of the quotes are misconstrued). I never seen the slow process of evolution to occur in front of my eyes just like you never seen God in front of your eyes, but just look how intelligent our universe and existance is. Have you ever studied the human body, it's magnificant and NOT one human will ever have the ability to create a human (without cloning of course and reproduction)etc. How do you explain the energy or force of a small egg transforming to a total human being with a brain, and nervous system etc. It didn't just appear out of nowhere! When you take an atom for instance and you try to identify the END of it, it turns out to NEVER end, it's infinite, just like we are, just like the universe always was and just like the universe will always be(in my opinion of course.);) How could a scientist explain where the atom starts? by some scientific theory of course right? Not fact. It's all theories, not factual evidence enough to prove without taking one person's intellect into account just because HE/SHE agrees with it. Evidence of evolution is actually SEEING it take place right in front of your eyes, in the present just like most athiests expect to see GOd with their eyes as proof.
 

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
Athiests cannot PROVE that a God doesn't exist just as well as a believer can prove it except for the mere fact that there is no other explanation of creation, besides evolution which is ALSO acquiring the knowledge through reading words, just like a Bible has words to justify that a GOd does exist.

Firstly, it is possible to prove that a particular type of God cannot exist in the same way that we can prove there are no square circles or even prime numbers greater than two. If we can show that a property of a god is in direct contradiction with what we know to be true about the universe, that will indeed prove that such a God cannot exist.

Secondly, eviolution is not an idea and a bunch of words. There is evidence to support in the form of dating techniques and the fossil record. religion has no such supporting evidence.

Thirdly, on what are you basing the claims that the Bible and evolution are the only two possible explanations?

I never seen the slow process of evolution to occur in front of my eyes just like you never seen God in front of your eyes, but just look how intelligent our universe and existance is.

As I said before, there is a wealth of evidence in the fossil record for evolution. Don't dismiss something just because you can't see the whole thing with your own eyes.

Also, in what way is the universe intelligently designed?

An intelligent design has several features by which we can recognise it as an actual design.

  • it carries out a specific purpose.
  • All parts contribute to this purpose
  • There are no superfluous parts.

What then is the purpose of the universe? To provide a home for Humans? if so, does the second feature apply? Do all parts of the universe contribute to making the universe a home for Humans? No. In what way does a star 10 billion light years away contribute to making the universe fit for humans? Does the third feature apply? No, the mentioned star is superfluous. The purpose iof the universe is not to provide a place for humans to exist. The design (if it is a design at all) is so weak for that purpose that it is beyond belief that such a bad design could come from a God.

The universe is not designed, and even if it is, it's not an intelligent one.

Finally, I don't see how you can claim there is no evidence for God, and then turn around and cite the "intelligence and design" of the universe as though that was evidence for God.

Have you ever studied the human body, it's magnificant and NOT one human will ever have the ability to create a human (without cloning of course and reproduction)etc.

So magnificent, yet we get sick? We have an appendix we don't need? The eyes are quite weak compared to the eyes of other animals. We aren't magnificent.

And you've also said that we can't do it, then gone on to mention the ways we already can do it. Your point falls apart; you've acknowledged that we can already do what you just said we can't do. Why don't reproduction and cloning count?

How do you explain the energy or force of a small egg transforming to a total human being with a brain, and nervous system etc. It didn't just appear out of nowhere!

Of course not. That's why we have this stuff called food, perhaps you've heard of it. You see, we eat food and our bodies can take the parts from the food and use those parts to make new cells. of course it doesn't come from nothing.

When you take an atom for instance and you try to identify the END of it, it turns out to NEVER end, it's infinite, just like we are, just like the universe always was and just like the universe will always be(in my opinion of course.)

On what are you basing your claim that atoms never end? And on what are you basing your claim that Humans will never end? And the whole Big Bang (which has a ton of supporting evidence) tends to discount your idea of the universe always being.

How could a scientist explain where the atom starts? by some scientific theory of course right? Not fact. It's all theories, not factual evidence enough to prove without taking one person's intellect into account just because HE/SHE agrees with it.

Firstly, you are misinterpretting the word "theory". A theory is something that allows us to THEORISE about what we will find in the universe.

The theory of gravity allows us to theorise about how objects will behave in a gravity well. And when we actually go and try it out, what happens matches what we theorised. This is how we test our theories. if the results we get in the real world don't match what the theory tells us, then we either throw the theory away or alter it to make it more accurate.

So there IS factual evidence for theories. That evidence is the theory explaining exactly what we see in the real world.

Evidence of evolution is actually SEEING it take place right in front of your eyes, in the present just like most athiests expect to see GOd with their eyes as proof.

Evidence of evolution is finding in the real world exactly what the theory of evolution tells us will be there.

Evolution tells us there will be forms of horse, for example, that are less advanced than the horses we have today. We go out, and that's exactly what we find.

Evolution also tells us that simple plants such as algae will appear before more complex forms like flowers. We go out and that's exactly what we find.

There is plenty of evidence for evolution.

And we have also seen evolution take place. There is a lake in Africa that had a portion of it cut off years and years ago. There were fish living in this lake, and they were separated into two populations by the event, the original population, and a second population that was stuck in this cut off part. We can clearly see how these fish have adapted over time to suit their new environment.
 

Hacker

Well-Known Member
First off, a theory is defined as "a belief or principle that yields action or assists comprehension or judgment."
Evolution is a theory.
Secondly
1. evolution had never been observed, what hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically diferent animal,

2.Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics beyond doubt.

3. There are no transitional fossils that life originated and evolution proceeds by random chance. Out of the millions of fossils in the world, not ONE transitional form has been found. All known species show up ABRUPTLY in the fossil record WITHOUT intermediate forms, thus contributing to the fact of special creation.

Evolution is unfortnately a mere possiblity, but not a mere fact. There's more arguments that I can present to disprove it being a fact, but like I said, it's possible but VERY unlikely and in my opinion, it will never be proven as a fact.
 
Top