God Proof - Take 1

[BilliardsBall]

There are many things that you've said that needs to be addressed. It is my cognitive reasoning abilities that allow me to conclude, that the act of any carnivore killing its prey for food, has nothing to do with its sense of morality. Do you think that our early human hunter gatherers were immoral to kill to provide food for their families? Do you think that they and the lions, didn't play a vital role in maintaining the balance of nature? Why do you think that there are more prey, then there are predators? More insects, than there are birds? More plants than there are insects, birds, and herbivores? We are all animals by definition. Do you think that male lions committing infanticide are aware that they are committing an immoral act? Both actions are instinctive, and serve a purpose(surviving and reproducing).

I don't see the connection between the behavior of the mob, and the biological, chemical, and environmental changes that effect twins, once they are born. If food reserves are very low, people will revert back to their suppressed tribal nature. They will do anything to acquire food, protect their family, and defend their territory. I used the gas shortage scare to demonstrate what people are capable of doing in a crises. Just imagine what a world wide food shortage would cause?

How is God evil or impotent? If God is omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent, then how can any evil exist in the world? Power can't change knowledge. Therefore a paradox exists. Since all three terms are mutually exclusive and logically contradictory, all three can't exist at the same time. Therefore, God is limited(impotent), ambivalent, or evil. I don't think that disease, hunger, thirst, suffering, and our genetic and hormone systems, have any relevance to free-will? Since a God would know all possible causes, and all possible outcomes, free-will would have no relevance at all. In other words, since evil exists in this world, only Occam's Razor should apply. There is no God. There is no evidence for a God. There is only humans creating their own God(s) to placate their fears, and conceptualize their hopes as being rational.

The definitions of the words, you can look up yourself. But, good is to cause the least pain, the lest suffering, and the least hardship to another living creature. Evil is the opposite of good, and is determined by its action and its intent. Instinctual behavior is the involuntary genetic expressed information we receive from our ancestors. Instincts are amoral attributes. Genetic expressions are also amoral. A psychopath's autonomic nervous system is wired totally different than most people. They have no pathways to empathy or compassion for others. Are their malevolent actions immoral or amoral like the lion? Or, does any immoral act require at least the ability to know the difference between good and evil? Or, right from wrong?
.

God IS limited. He freely chose (omnipotent, free willed) to share power with humans. Read the Gan-Eden story. "You can do X, name Y, even obey or disobey Z, but you will experience death."

God can do anything, including allowing sinners to sin of their free will, and then judge them.

I don't know what "food shortage mentality" has to do with two twins, raised in one home, one of whom is a serial killer, the other a Christian pastor. FREE WILL. JUDGMENT. MORAL ACCOUNTABILITY.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

What is the oldest known writing/stele?

What is the oldest known agrarian civilization?

Do these date back one or two million years, do you think?

Does it matter? We have artifacts that are far-far older than the bible's silliness. The bible does not date to earlier than around 500BCE after all. It's written to seem older, but it simply isn't.

For starters? The Hebrews did not have writing until well after Babylonians captured them, and gave them the idea. Kind of lame for a God's Chosen People. Is it unreasonable for god to have taught is Special Teacher's Pets, writing? Apparently so! Smarter and wiser civilizations figured that out without the bible god's "wisdom"....

So, clearly, your claim that the Golden Meme goes back to Adam is utterly without merit.

Moreover? I would love to see how you could possibly insert "do unto others" into the Eden narrative! That would take some serious editing or something...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

God IS limited. He freely chose (omnipotent, free willed) to share power with humans. Read the Gan-Eden story. "You can do X, name Y, even obey or disobey Z, but you will experience death."

God can do anything, including allowing sinners to sin of their free will, and then judge them.

I don't know what "food shortage mentality" has to do with two twins, raised in one home, one of whom is a serial killer, the other a Christian pastor. FREE WILL. JUDGMENT. MORAL ACCOUNTABILITY.

So. Not really an actual god, then. And a most immoral one on top of all that, too!

Shame. It had a good run. Perhaps it's time to put away Bronze Age not-gods.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

God IS limited. He freely chose (omnipotent, free willed) to share power with humans. Read the Gan-Eden story. "You can do X, name Y, even obey or disobey Z, but you will experience death."

God can do anything, including allowing sinners to sin of their free will, and then judge them.

I don't know what "food shortage mentality" has to do with two twins, raised in one home, one of whom is a serial killer, the other a Christian pastor. FREE WILL. JUDGMENT. MORAL ACCOUNTABILITY.

Now you are just making-up excuses. You have absolutely no idea what is in the mind of a God. It was you that brought up twins. I was pointing out that people would do anything to protect, defend, and feed themselves, and their families. I was drawing your attention to a basic survival instinct that humans share with other animals. You, for some reason, asserted to what happens to twins that are raised by different parents. I have no idea what this has to do with our instinctual and primary drives. I was not talking about nature vs. nurture. I was talking about how all people would behave in a global food shortage. Therefore, not the same.

In one sentence you claim that, "God is limited.". In the next sentence you claim that, "God can do anything,..". Which one is it? He can't be both, or He would be a contradiction. You have no idea if a God has given us free-will, or can establish if free-will even exists. Are you really saying, that a God gives us free-will, and then judges us on how we use it? This is not the moral actions of a God, that I would want to follow. Since free-will is an attribute given to us by a God, then all our actions should be moral. Why does God change the nervous systems of some to create psychopaths and sociopaths? Why the need for evil, disease, suffering, and thousands of religions, which also affect free will? So is God, both moral and immoral, and stacking the deck to affect choice? I personally don't believe we have free-will, anymore that other animals do.

You are an adult. You have the right to believe that the tooth fairy is real if you want to. But you do not have the right to call others sinners, or threaten them with hell because of their imaginary sins. You do not have the right to infect the minds of children, or any other vulnerable people in our society. You do not have the right to create your own fallacy-riddled logic, to convince yourself, and avoid your burden of proof. If you are so secure in your beliefs, why do you feel the need to spread your beliefs to others? Are you searching for approval and validation? Or, simply to prove to yourself that your beliefs are not silly and immature? Or, does the association with something greater than yourself, give you a greater sense of self-importance? You know it only took one little boy, to convince hundreds of people that the Emperor was NOT wearing any clothes. Why can't you just keep your personal beliefs to yourself? Or, at least until you can present one objective piece of evidence to support it?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Does it matter? We have artifacts that are far-far older than the bible's silliness. The bible does not date to earlier than around 500BCE after all. It's written to seem older, but it simply isn't.

For starters? The Hebrews did not have writing until well after Babylonians captured them, and gave them the idea. Kind of lame for a God's Chosen People. Is it unreasonable for god to have taught is Special Teacher's Pets, writing? Apparently so! Smarter and wiser civilizations figured that out without the bible god's "wisdom"....

So, clearly, your claim that the Golden Meme goes back to Adam is utterly without merit.

Moreover? I would love to see how you could possibly insert "do unto others" into the Eden narrative! That would take some serious editing or something...

Interesting, even taking the 500 BCE date, we have amazing prophecies that have been fulfilled, thank God.

 

[BilliardsBall]

So. Not really an actual god, then. And a most immoral one on top of all that, too!

Shame. It had a good run. Perhaps it's time to put away Bronze Age not-gods.

Again, I don't understand the basis you are using (random?) to state, "God is immoral, even though if God exists, morality is His to define, based on...)?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Now you are just making-up excuses. You have absolutely no idea what is in the mind of a God. It was you that brought up twins. I was pointing out that people would do anything to protect, defend, and feed themselves, and their families. I was drawing your attention to a basic survival instinct that humans share with other animals. You, for some reason, asserted to what happens to twins that are raised by different parents. I have no idea what this has to do with our instinctual and primary drives. I was not talking about nature vs. nurture. I was talking about how all people would behave in a global food shortage. Therefore, not the same.

In one sentence you claim that, "God is limited.". In the next sentence you claim that, "God can do anything,..". Which one is it? He can't be both, or He would be a contradiction. You have no idea if a God has given us free-will, or can establish if free-will even exists. Are you really saying, that a God gives us free-will, and then judges us on how we use it? This is not the moral actions of a God, that I would want to follow. Since free-will is an attribute given to us by a God, then all our actions should be moral. Why does God change the nervous systems of some to create psychopaths and sociopaths? Why the need for evil, disease, suffering, and thousands of religions, which also affect free will? So is God, both moral and immoral, and stacking the deck to affect choice? I personally don't believe we have free-will, anymore that other animals do.

You are an adult. You have the right to believe that the tooth fairy is real if you want to. But you do not have the right to call others sinners, or threaten them with hell because of their imaginary sins. You do not have the right to infect the minds of children, or any other vulnerable people in our society. You do not have the right to create your own fallacy-riddled logic, to convince yourself, and avoid your burden of proof. If you are so secure in your beliefs, why do you feel the need to spread your beliefs to others? Are you searching for approval and validation? Or, simply to prove to yourself that your beliefs are not silly and immature? Or, does the association with something greater than yourself, give you a greater sense of self-importance? You know it only took one little boy, to convince hundreds of people that the Emperor was NOT wearing any clothes. Why can't you just keep your personal beliefs to yourself? Or, at least until you can present one objective piece of evidence to support it?

Easy! No need to scream at me based on semantics. Obviously, I meant God, who is omnipotent (can do what He wishes) is also SELF-limited (shares power with man).

And I feel the need to proselytize outside RForums, as you asked, for I know God personally, and need to follow Him, not you. Why not keep atheism to yourself until you have objective evidence? Why not follow your own standards?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Interesting, even taking the 500 BCE date, we have amazing prophecies that have been fulfilled, thank God.

Really? Care to name.... one?

Note: In order to qualify for "prophesy" it cannot be some generic "people will get angry" or "some country will conquer Israel" or anything like that-- those are merely guesses.

Note: In order to qualify as "prophesy" the original text has to have been written before the supposed events in question. You cannot claim "prophesy" if the text was written later (as is the case with about 50% of the so-called "bible prophesies"...)

Finally? The "prophesy" cannot be some generalistic claim either--that's also just guessing.

With that in mind, do you have any left?

Oh by the way: Jesus cannot possibly be the Messiah as "prophesied" for any number of reasons-- his name for one thing. But he doesn't even have a proper linage from David-- Joseph wasn't his actual father, according to the story. So, right outta the box, that's a Fail.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Again, I don't understand the basis you are using (random?) to state, "God is immoral, even though if God exists, morality is His to define, based on...)?

Might DOES NOT make Right. Sorry about that.

Your god--- IF IT EXISTED-- would be Immoral by any modern standard. (going by it's activities as listed in the bible)

I would think an Immortal, All-knowing being would be aware of this handicap, and fix it...

 

[Trailblazer]

How is God evil or impotent? If God is omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent, then how can any evil exist in the world?

Evil exists because humans commit evil acts. More precisely, God gave humans free will and a brain. Some people use their brain to do good deeds, others use their brain to do evil deeds, and there are many shades of gray in between.

Power can't change knowledge. Therefore a paradox exists. Since all three terms are mutually exclusive and logically contradictory, all three can't exist at the same time. Therefore, God is limited (impotent), ambivalent, or evil.

God is none of those things. Rather God is hands-off when it comes to human behavior. God is in no way responsible for human behavior because God gave humans a brain and free will. Humans are thus responsible for their own moral behavior because they have free will, and that is what the entire justice system is based upon. Only if someone is mentally ill or mentally challenged are they not responsible for their own actions, because their brain is not functioning properly. Free WIll, Determinism, and the Criminal Justice System

I don't think that disease, hunger, thirst, suffering, and our genetic and hormone systems, have any relevance to free-will? Since a God would know all possible causes, and all possible outcomes, free-will would have no relevance at all.

No, free will does not apply to everything in life. There are certain things to which man is forced and compelled, such as sleep, death, sickness, injuries and misfortunes; these are not subject to the will of man, and he is not responsible for them, for he is compelled to endure them. But in the choice of good and bad actions man is free, and he commits them according to his own will.

God is not evil because there is suffering in the world because that presumes that a good God should prevent suffering. It does not account for the fact that there is a reason for suffering. If there was no reason for suffering God would not have created a world in which humans suffer.

In other words, since evil exists in this world, only Occam's Razor should apply. There is no God.

That is completely illogical because it presumes that if God existed, God would prevent all evil in the world just because he can and knows how, since God is omnipotent and omniscient. It does not matter what God can do or what God knows. It would be impossible for God to prevent evil unless God took away human free will, and if God took away free will we would not be human anymore. We would be robots controlled by God.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Easy! No need to scream at me based on semantics. Obviously, I meant God, who is omnipotent (can do what He wishes) is also SELF-limited (shares power with man).

And I feel the need to proselytize outside RForums, as you asked, for I know God personally, and need to follow Him, not you. Why not keep atheism to yourself until you have objective evidence? Why not follow your own standards?

You have no conception about the nature of the infinite, anymore than you have about the nature of time. You are just making excuses to support your logic, with this sad appeal to logos and pathos. You do not know God personally. You may think that you've had some subjective experience with God. But, having demonstrable knowledge of that experience, I don't think so. There are billions of people that also know their God as well. Is there a different God for every person to know? If God is omnipotent, and omniscient, why can't He eliminate evil, suffering, and diseases in the world, without sacrificing human free-will?

And I feel the need to proselytize outside RForums, as you asked, for I know God personally, and need to follow Him, not you. Why not keep atheism to yourself until you have objective evidence? Why not follow your own standards?

What I do or don't believe in is irrelevant. You are the one making the extraordinary claims. You are the one claiming that a supernatural all-knowing and all-powerful entity exists, and will provide everlasting life for all those that believe and follow Him(not her). Since I see no objective evidence that suggests that any of this is true or possible, my decision not to believe is based entirely on the total lack of evidence. I can provide mountains of objective evidence to suggest, that it is impossible for a God to exist within our physical reality without being detected. All you need to provide is just ONE objective verifiable piece evidence that would even suggest, that prayer works, miracles happen, the paranormal or the supernatural exists, that your God is God, that any violation of the physical laws can occur, any verifiable example of a fulfilled prophecy, or just one resurrection. Belief is the absence of any verifiable evidence. Therefore, you only believe that you know God.

Since you can't do any of these things, you are only making a belief claim, not a knowledge claim. As an adult human you can believe in anything you want. I choose to follow the evidence, not the absence of evidence. Once the non-evidenced door is open to this "slipper slope", all other myths and superstitions become rational. If you tell a lie enough times to children or the mentally vulnerable, then much of it will stick. Like Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny. God simply becomes a surrogate for control. The default position for morality. You are not responsible for your actions, God is. You do not do these horrible acts, it is God telling you to do them. God is simply an imaginary excuse to justify your own actions, and behavior.

I certainly don't expect or want anyone to follow me. One human being has the same biological worth, as any other human being. I want people to critical think outside the constraints of their religious self-imposed Dogma. I want people to NOT spend their lives preparing only for their death. I want people to never loose their innocence for discovery, or their ability to excel. I want people to regain the inner strength that was subverted by early religious indoctrinations. Finally, I want people to ask questions and critically evaluate the answers from any religious or scientific dogma. If people did this, there would be no reason for people to believe in anything but themselves, and to trust their own abilities. Just ask yourself, how would you demonstrate to someone that a God exists? You can't. But, how would you demonstrate that Gravity exists? How would you avoid the arguments from ignorance, circular reasoning, or begging the question? No presuppositional arguments can avoid any of these fallacies. And, no presuppositional argument can present any testable verifiable evidence, as well.

So, unless you are a God or demigod yourself, you know nothing that exists outside of this reality .Just like the rest of us. So unless your extraordinary claim is based on extraordinary evidence, keep it to yourself. Why do you feel the need to infect the most vulnerable people of society? They can't intellectually protect themselves from you imposing your fact-less beliefs onto them. If you think that you are so right, then prove it.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Evil exists because humans commit evil acts. More precisely, God gave humans free will and a brain. Some people use their brain to do good deeds, others use their brain to do evil deeds, and there are many shades of gray in between.

God is none of those things. Rather God is hands-off when it comes to human behavior. God is in no way responsible for human behavior because God gave humans a brain and free will. Humans are thus responsible for their own moral behavior because they have free will, and that is what the entire justice system is based upon. Only if someone is mentally ill or mentally challenged are they not responsible for their own actions, because their brain is not functioning properly. Free WIll, Determinism, and the Criminal Justice System

No, free will does not apply to everything in life. There are certain things to which man is forced and compelled, such as sleep, death, sickness, injuries and misfortunes; these are not subject to the will of man, and he is not responsible for them, for he is compelled to endure them. But in the choice of good and bad actions man is free, and he commits them according to his own will.

God is not evil because there is suffering in the world because that presumes that a good God should prevent suffering. It does not account for the fact that there is a reason for suffering. If there was no reason for suffering God would not have created a world in which humans suffer.

That is completely illogical because it presumes that if God existed, God would prevent all evil in the world just because he can and knows how, since God is omnipotent and omniscient. It does not matter what God can do or what God knows. It would be impossible for God to prevent evil unless God took away human free will, and if God took away free will we would not be human anymore. We would be robots controlled by God.

Were you not the one that stated to me on "Is Atheism a Religion" thread(post #578) that, "I have three atheists on another forum who send me so many posts I can barely keep up on this forum anymore, so just give me the word and you won't hear from me again."? Do you remember my reply(post #590)? To avoid providing you with any more opportunities to proselytize your answers to promote your cultist faith, or listening to you denying even the most obvious things, I said, "So. WORD!". What other excuses in your scripted bag of approved responses will you use to justify ignoring my answer(too cryptic?). Although, at least your intellectual dishonesty is still consistent with your illogical and biased rhetoric. Since pride was not the last thing to leave you, I won't ignore your same-o same-o nonsense posts.

Evil exists because humans commit evil acts. More precisely, God gave humans free will and a brain. Some people use their brain to do good deeds, others use their brain to do evil deeds, and there are many shades of gray in between.

How would you define Evil? Do you think that it is just the opposite of Good? That would just make evil relative, wouldn't it? What is the difference between immoral and evil? If God is good and everything God does is good, then His gift of free-will should also be good. But if having free-will can cause evil, then free-will can't be all good. But God is all-good. Since God is also all-knowing, He knew that humans having free-will would cause evil, pain and suffering. Therefore, God is either not all-good or not all-powerful. He could even be evil or impotent. Also, the argument for free-will has nothing to do with diseases and natural disasters. How do you explain their existence? Using science to explain these events is quite simple. And, its explanations don't create any mutually inconsistent paradoxes. So, trying to force-fit "God did it all", is only convincing to those that are already convinced.

You seem to love making truth and knowledge claims, don't you? At what point in man's evolution did God give humans a brain and free-will? How did He do it. What evidence demonstrates this? Don't worry these questions are all rhetorical, since you or any other human would not have a clue. Our Justice System, is based on levels of accountability for your actions, as well as protecting society from your actions. No one is totally responsible for their actions. Psychopaths are born with a different autonomic nervous system, that prevents them from having any empathy. Sociopaths are made/created by society by reinforcing extreme social factors. Our behavior is more genetically controlled, and less subjectively controlled.

Evil exists because humans commit evil acts. More precisely, God gave humans free will and a brain. Some people use their brain to do good deeds, others use their brain to do evil deeds, and there are many shades of gray in between.

God is not evil because there is suffering in the world because that presumes that a good God should prevent suffering. It does not account for the fact that there is a reason for suffering. If there was no reason for suffering God would not have created a world in which humans suffer.

More of your silly circular reasoning, begging the question, and deliberate nonsensical obfuscations. So, man is the cause of all evil? The fact that God gave him a brain and a free-will, has nothing to do with His level of culpability? Do you think that He didn't know what man would do with these gifts? If I give you a gun knowing that you would commit an evil act, am I not culpable for your actions? Even an 8 yo can see this obvious relationship. If there was a true God there would be no suffering at all, period. Would I expect this from the entity that created me? Damn right I would. The sentence highlighted is the silliest thing I have heard. There is absolutely no reason for an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing entity, to rationalize a need for world-wide suffering. No matter how many mysterious ways He works.

So, God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, but he can't control the free-will of the creatures He created? He is powerless to stop the suffering, evil, and diseases that His creatures endure? Maybe God should take away man's free-will? It couldn't be any worst than having them. How do you know so much about the nature of a God? How do you know what a God can and cannot do?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Really? Care to name.... one?

Note: In order to qualify for "prophesy" it cannot be some generic "people will get angry" or "some country will conquer Israel" or anything like that-- those are merely guesses.

Note: In order to qualify as "prophesy" the original text has to have been written before the supposed events in question. You cannot claim "prophesy" if the text was written later (as is the case with about 50% of the so-called "bible prophesies"...)

Finally? The "prophesy" cannot be some generalistic claim either--that's also just guessing.

With that in mind, do you have any left?

Oh by the way: Jesus cannot possibly be the Messiah as "prophesied" for any number of reasons-- his name for one thing. But he doesn't even have a proper linage from David-- Joseph wasn't his actual father, according to the story. So, right outta the box, that's a Fail.

You didn't know that both Joseph and Mary descended from King David directly?

You hadn't heard that Daniel prophesied four empires including Alexander's and Rome's?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Might DOES NOT make Right. Sorry about that.

Your god--- IF IT EXISTED-- would be Immoral by any modern standard. (going by it's activities as listed in the bible)

I would think an Immortal, All-knowing being would be aware of this handicap, and fix it...

I didn't say "might makes right", rather, I asked, "How can you use your subjective moral code to judge the creator/author/definer of morals?"

I ask you now, "why are your modern moral standards superior to ancient standards?" Are people more moral now than before at the root of what makes them people/moral agents?

 

[BilliardsBall]

You have no conception about the nature of the infinite, anymore than you have about the nature of time. You are just making excuses to support your logic, with this sad appeal to logos and pathos. You do not know God personally. You may think that you've had some subjective experience with God. But, having demonstrable knowledge of that experience, I don't think so. There are billions of people that also know their God as well. Is there a different God for every person to know? If God is omnipotent, and omniscient, why can't He eliminate evil, suffering, and diseases in the world, without sacrificing human free-will?



What I do or don't believe in is irrelevant. You are the one making the extraordinary claims. You are the one claiming that a supernatural all-knowing and all-powerful entity exists, and will provide everlasting life for all those that believe and follow Him(not her). Since I see no objective evidence that suggests that any of this is true or possible, my decision not to believe is based entirely on the total lack of evidence. I can provide mountains of objective evidence to suggest, that it is impossible for a God to exist within our physical reality without being detected. All you need to provide is just ONE objective verifiable piece evidence that would even suggest, that prayer works, miracles happen, the paranormal or the supernatural exists, that your God is God, that any violation of the physical laws can occur, any verifiable example of a fulfilled prophecy, or just one resurrection. Belief is the absence of any verifiable evidence. Therefore, you only believe that you know God.

Since you can't do any of these things, you are only making a belief claim, not a knowledge claim. As an adult human you can believe in anything you want. I choose to follow the evidence, not the absence of evidence. Once the non-evidenced door is open to this "slipper slope", all other myths and superstitions become rational. If you tell a lie enough times to children or the mentally vulnerable, then much of it will stick. Like Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny. God simply becomes a surrogate for control. The default position for morality. You are not responsible for your actions, God is. You do not do these horrible acts, it is God telling you to do them. God is simply an imaginary excuse to justify your own actions, and behavior.

I certainly don't expect or want anyone to follow me. One human being has the same biological worth, as any other human being. I want people to critical think outside the constraints of their religious self-imposed Dogma. I want people to NOT spend their lives preparing only for their death. I want people to never loose their innocence for discovery, or their ability to excel. I want people to regain the inner strength that was subverted by early religious indoctrinations. Finally, I want people to ask questions and critically evaluate the answers from any religious or scientific dogma. If people did this, there would be no reason for people to believe in anything but themselves, and to trust their own abilities. Just ask yourself, how would you demonstrate to someone that a God exists? You can't. But, how would you demonstrate that Gravity exists? How would you avoid the arguments from ignorance, circular reasoning, or begging the question? No presuppositional arguments can avoid any of these fallacies. And, no presuppositional argument can present any testable verifiable evidence, as well.

So, unless you are a God or demigod yourself, you know nothing that exists outside of this reality .Just like the rest of us. So unless your extraordinary claim is based on extraordinary evidence, keep it to yourself. Why do you feel the need to infect the most vulnerable people of society? They can't intellectually protect themselves from you imposing your fact-less beliefs onto them. If you think that you are so right, then prove it.

I'm sensing a little goalpost shifting here, and perhaps, some deep hurt. I apologize for what you may have experienced in the past, but I am in love with God, and I usually don't have people step on my love relationships with "unless you have extraordinary, testable, verifiable, falsifiable evidence that person X loves you..."

And no, I don't want to follow you or have you follow me. I ask that you explore Jesus Christ on your terms. Sounds like you need to 1) ask Jesus for evidence personally 2) seek love and truth in your life IMHO.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I'm sensing a little goalpost shifting here, and perhaps, some deep hurt. I apologize for what you may have experienced in the past, but I am in love with God, and I usually don't have people step on my love relationships with "unless you have extraordinary, testable, verifiable, falsifiable evidence that person X loves you..."

And no, I don't want to follow you or have you follow me. I ask that you explore Jesus Christ on your terms. Sounds like you need to 1) ask Jesus for evidence personally 2) seek love and truth in your life IMHO.

I certainly don't expect or want anyone to follow me.

Does this even remotely sounds like I want anyone to follow me? So why do you imply that I've asked you to follow me? "And no, I don't want to follow you or have you follow me.". The problems that I have had in my life, are probably no more or no less than anyone else. As I learn to work out my problems in life, I grow more confident in myself, with every decision I make. I begin to learn more about just who I am, and just what my limits are. I've learn that I am billons of times more unique than anyone else on the planet. I've learned to trust my senses and my ability to reason. I gained new knowledge from every decision that I make, whether they were right or wrong.

Love is the "madness of the Gods". It is the sexual drive that allows us to seek a mate like any other animal. It has been romanticized in movies and print to mean something else. I'm afraid that nature doesn't read novels or watch movies. In either case we are talking about a basic human drive, like hunger and thirst. I personally rate honesty, reliability, respect, and devotion higher than love. IMHO.

I do have "...extraordinary, testable, verifiable, falsifiable evidence that person X loves you(me)". Do you have this same evidence that your God loves you? Does your God speak to you? Does your God do things for you? Does your God manifest Himself/herself to you? Does your God answer your prayers? Does your God in anyway help you physically or factually? If not, I think that your relationship is unrequited and unreciprocated, like a stalker's relationship. If so, what is your objective evidence?

Personally, I find reality as my source for unlimited love and happiness. But to each their own.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Interesting, even taking the 500 BCE date, we have amazing prophecies that have been fulfilled, thank God.

Actually we don't. What we have are verses reinterpreted after the fact.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You didn't know that both Joseph and Mary descended from King David directly?

You hadn't heard that Daniel prophesied four empires including Alexander's and Rome's?

No, you don't know Mary's decent. Matthew and Luke in all probability both made up Jesus's line of decent. Luke and Matthew were both written in a rather ham handed manner to match prophesy. After the fact when the differences were noted that was when the various excuses for the Biblical errors were invented.

 

[Trailblazer]

Were you not the one that stated to me on "Is Atheism a Religion" thread(post #578) that, "I have three atheists on another forum who send me so many posts I can barely keep up on this forum anymore, so just give me the word and you won't hear from me again."? Do you remember my reply(post #590)? To avoid providing you with any more opportunities to proselytize your answers to promote your cultist faith, or listening to you denying even the most obvious things, I said, "So. WORD!". What other excuses in your scripted bag of approved responses will you use to justify ignoring my answer(too cryptic?). Although, at least your intellectual dishonesty is still consistent with your illogical and biased rhetoric. Since pride was not the last thing to leave you, I won't ignore your same-o same-o nonsense posts.

No, you never gave me a direct answer telling me not to post to you again."So. WORD!" means absolutely nothing to me.

Do you ever have anything positive to say? What a way to live. You do not have to beat me or my position down to raise yourself up if you think your position is the right one. Do you see me critiquing your atheist position? No, I never do that. That is why I have so many atheist friends. They used to beat me down until they figured out I have no interest in convincing them of anything, I just like them as fellow human beings and I like having discussions with them. They learn things and I learn things.

I do not need any excuses for posting on this forum. If you say “please do not post to me” I will not post to you again directly, but I can still post on this thread, note what you said, and have a response to it. You do not own this forum.

I did not post on this thread to talk about my religion so please do not bring it up.

How would you define Evil? Do you think that it is just the opposite of Good? That would just make evil relative, wouldn't it? What is the difference between immoral and evil? If God is good and everything God does is good, then His gift of free-will should also be good. But if having free-will can cause evil, then free-will can't be all good. But God is all-good. Since God is also all-knowing, He knew that humans having free-will would cause evil, pain and suffering. Therefore, God is either not all-good or not all-powerful. He could even be evil or impotent.

Please spare me the illogical arguments. I have heard them before and I have the same conversation going on another forum. Notably, out of all the atheists on that forum, he is the only one who has such an argument. So now I will correct some of your illogic.

Immorality is what causes humans to commit evil acts.

Free will is not good or bad, it just is. Without free will we could not do good or evil, because we could not do anything at all. Free will is what makes us human. If we had no free will we would be no different from the lower animals who act on instinct.

Since God is also all-knowing, He knew that humans having free-will would cause evil, pain and suffering. So what? It is not God’s fault that humans commit evil acts. It is humans’ fault because humans have a brain and free will. God is in no way responsible to prevent evil acts just because God is omnipotent. The only way God could prevent evil acts of humans is if God took away human free will or overrode it. If God did that humans would no longer be human, they would be God’s robots. This is logic 101 stuff.

Also, the argument for free-will has nothing to do with diseases and natural disasters. How do you explain their existence? Using science to explain these events is quite simple. And, its explanations don't create any mutually inconsistent paradoxes. So, trying to force-fit "God did it all", is only convincing to those that are already convinced.

No, free will has nothing to do with diseases and natural disasters. Those exist because of the way God created the natural world and the human body. There is no paradox because there is no reason to think that humans should live a life without any suffering, and otherwise that means God is evil. Suffering serves a purpose, to help humans learn and grow and become stronger. God knows that and that is one reason suffering exists.

You seem to love making truth and knowledge claims, don't you? At what point in man's evolution did God give humans a brain and free-will? How did He do it. What evidence demonstrates this?

At a certain point in human evolution man became differentiated from the lower animals and man was endowed with a soul. The soul is what makes us human and that is associated with the brain. The human soul gives us the ability to think in the abstract and problem solve, which makes it possible for us to differentiate between good and evil and make free will decisions.

Our Justice System, is based on levels of accountability for your actions, as well as protecting society from your actions. No one is totally responsible for their actions. Psychopaths are born with a different autonomic nervous system, that prevents them from having any empathy. Sociopaths are made/created by society by reinforcing extreme social factors. Our behavior is more genetically controlled, and less subjectively controlled.

Everyone is responsible for their actions unless they are mentally ill or mentally challenged. That is why sociopaths and psychopaths are convicted criminals. These are personality disorders, not mental illnesses. The reasons for them are complex, but nobody can say they are not responsible for their crimes because they have a fully-functioning brain and free will to choose.

More of your silly circular reasoning, begging the question, and deliberate nonsensical obfuscations. So, man is the cause of all evil? The fact that God gave him a brain and a free-will, has nothing to do with His level of culpability? Do you think that He didn't know what man would do with these gifts? If I give you a gun knowing that you would commit an evil act, am I not culpable for your actions?

God is not in any way culpable for human free will choices to commit evil acts just because God gave man free will and God knew what some humans would do with it. God have man a brain and free will to choose and God also sends Messengers to guide humans so they will choose to do good rather than evil.

Even an 8 yo can see this obvious relationship. If there was a true God there would be no suffering at all, period. Would I expect this from the entity that created me? Damn right I would. The sentence highlighted is the silliest thing I have heard. There is absolutely no reason for an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing entity, to rationalize a need for world-wide suffering. No matter how many mysterious ways He works.

Who are you to say that if there was a God there would be no suffering at all? That is just your fallible human expectation. Only atheists have such ridiculous expectations and not all atheists have them. Thank God that most atheists are rational and they just accept suffering as part of the human condition. They do not blame god.

But if humans followed the instructions of the Messengers then suffering would be minimal. It will be that way in the distant future.

So, God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, but he can't control the free-will of the creatures He created?

He is powerless to stop the suffering, evil, and diseases that His creatures endure? Maybe God should take away man's free-will? It couldn't be any worst than having them. How do you know so much about the nature of a God? How do you know what a God can and cannot do?

I do not know anything about the nature of God or what God could or could not do, but hypothetically speaking an omnipotent God can do anything, so God could control human free will. However, if God controlled human free will we would all be robots, not humans. If God had wanted to control humans God would not have created humans with free will to make their own choices.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

No, you never gave me a direct answer telling me not to post to you again."So. WORD!" means absolutely nothing to me.

Do you ever have anything positive to say? What a way to live. You do not have to beat me or my position down to raise yourself up if you think your position is the right one. Do you see me critiquing your atheist position? No, I never do that. That is why I have so many atheist friends. They used to beat me down until they figured out I have no interest in convincing them of anything, I just like them as fellow human beings and I like having discussions with them. They learn things and I learn things.

I do not need any excuses for posting on this forum. If you say “please do not post to me” I will not post to you again directly, but I can still post on this thread, note what you said, and have a response to it. You do not own this forum.

I did not post on this thread to talk about my religion so please do not bring it up.

Please spare me the illogical arguments. I have heard them before and I have the same conversation going on another forum. Notably, out of all the atheists on that forum, he is the only one who has such an argument. So now I will correct some of your illogic.

Immorality is what causes humans to commit evil acts.

Free will is not good or bad, it just is. Without free will we could not do good or evil, because we could not do anything at all. Free will is what makes us human. If we had no free will we would be no different from the lower animals who act on instinct.

Since God is also all-knowing, He knew that humans having free-will would cause evil, pain and suffering. So what? It is not God’s fault that humans commit evil acts. It is humans’ fault because humans have a brain and free will. God is in no way responsible to prevent evil acts just because God is omnipotent. The only way God could prevent evil acts of humans is if God took away human free will or overrode it. If God did that humans would no longer be human, they would be God’s robots. This is logic 101 stuff.

No, free will has nothing to do with diseases and natural disasters. Those exist because of the way God created the natural world and the human body. There is no paradox because there is no reason to think that humans should live a life without any suffering, and otherwise that means God is evil. Suffering serves a purpose, to help humans learn and grow and become stronger. God knows that and that is one reason suffering exists.

At a certain point in human evolution man became differentiated from the lower animals and man was endowed with a soul. The soul is what makes us human and that is associated with the brain. The human soul gives us the ability to think in the abstract and problem solve, which makes it possible for us to differentiate between good and evil and make free will decisions.

Everyone is responsible for their actions unless they are mentally ill or mentally challenged. That is why sociopaths and psychopaths are convicted criminals. These are personality disorders, not mental illnesses. The reasons for them are complex, but nobody can say they are not responsible for their crimes because they have a fully-functioning brain and free will to choose.

God is not in any way culpable for human free will choices to commit evil acts just because God gave man free will and God knew what some humans would do with it. God have man a brain and free will to choose and God also sends Messengers to guide humans so they will choose to do good rather than evil.

Who are you to say that if there was a God there would be no suffering at all? That is just your fallible human expectation. Only atheists have such ridiculous expectations and not all atheists have them. Thank God that most atheists are rational and they just accept suffering as part of the human condition. They do not blame god.

But if humans followed the instructions of the Messengers then suffering would be minimal. It will be that way in the distant future.

I do not know anything about the nature of God or what God could or could not do, but hypothetically speaking an omnipotent God can do anything, so God could control human free will. However, if God controlled human free will we would all be robots, not humans. If God had wanted to control humans God would not have created humans with free will to make their own choices.

I think that any rational thinking person would have no trouble interpreting the meaning of "SO, WORD", in the context it was written. But, if you want to feign ignorance, I don't care. So let me make this clear to you. I am not interested in being used to promote and proselytize your cultists beliefs. I don't believe that any human being can become a superhuman messenger of a God, or that the Baha'i religion will become the dominate world-wide religion. I am not interested in providing you the platform to cut copy and paste your cultists scriptures and approved cultists sites. Would you like me to list again all of the pasted scriptures you love to flood your posts with, in your response to posters? Even in this post, why would you say, "But if humans followed the instructions of the Messengers then suffering would be minimal. It will be that way in the distant future.". Just more nonsense. How do you know this? Because Baha'u'llah told you so? That would be even sillier. Your arguments are always composed of deflections, denials, dismissals, or just parroted scripted responses. It is like arguing with a child. In the end, you always wind-up arguing with yourself, while you pull all the strings. So unless you would like to use your own thoughts and ideas, or can demonstrate some cognitive level of reasoning ability, then find another mark to proselytize your beliefs with. I'm not interested. Lets move on.

I don't know you as a human being. All I know is your level of disingenuousness. You lure people in with the claim that you have proof that God and the Messenger of God exists. But when you are asked to produce the evidence, you blame other for not accepting the evidence you produce. You never admit when you are wrong. You twist, deflect, misrepresent, or obfuscate any rational inquiry, to protect and maintain your position of being right. The minute you believe in the supernatural, you become no different than any other religion. You only believe that you are right, because you've convinced yourself that you are right. But outside the choir, you are wrong. You say, "I did not post on this thread to talk about my religion so please do not bring it up.". Yet your posts tell a different story. I don't speak for other atheist, but I spend a lot of time on my posts to make them as clear and as simple as possible. So, when you simply dismiss, ignore, distort, avoid, and misrepresent my points, I do get peeved at your blatant dishonesty.

If immorality causes people to do evil acts, then what causes immorality? Is it the Evil acts that people do? Oops, that would be circular, wouldn't it?

Free will is not good or bad, it just is. Without free will we could not do good or evil, because we could not do anything at all. Free will is what makes us human. If we had no free will we would be no different from the lower animals who act on instinct.

Have you first established that free will even exists? No. Do you know if humans even have free-will? No. Do you know if other animals have or do not have free-will? No. Does having free-will separate us from other animals? No, we are still animals. Without free-will are we would not be humans. Of course not, we are still human. Just more of your rhetorical nonsense. No evidence presented at all.

Your "God's robot" argument to absolve your God's culpability, is a strain on anybody's train of logic. I serious doubt that you have ever been in a logics classroom, let alone understands its principals. Especially, after seeing how you arrived at your, "God not wanting us to be robots" conclusion. I believe that God isn't culpable because He doesn't exist, anymore than your imaginary Messenger exists. Now I truly have evidence to back-up my claim. Shall we compare both our evidence?

It is pointless to argue over the culpability of God, without first establishing His existence. Therefore the argument itself becomes a philosophical trap. This also applies to Omniscience and omnipotence, since neither has been established as fact. My statement was that if the God you claim was all-good and all-knowing, and all-powerful, then there should be no evil or suffering in the world. It is a completely logical concern, based on completely logical premises. Your response was "Who are you to say that if there was a God there would be no suffering at all? That is just your fallible human expectation. Only atheists have such ridiculous expectations and not all atheists have them. Thank God that most atheists are rational and they just accept suffering as part of the human condition.". This self-serving in-depth level of response, truly says it all.

Finally, and please think really hard about this, what is it that makes a person responsible or not responsible for his actions? At what point does this thing determine the nature of what is a normal action? What is the difference between mentally ill, and mentally challenged? Never mind, I don't expect a rational answer.