Logical Analysis Of The Existence Of God!

[Jenyar]

And how can "objective morality" change? It is objective by definition. A changing "objective morality" is not objective.

That's why I prefer to use "objective moral authority", although I haven't been consistent about it.

 

[Silas]

So, no answer to my charge that you were making an argument by reference to Authority, then? (I thought there was something about Nietzsche being atheist, but I've never read him, I'm afraid.)

You take offense that I quote a philosopher but you don't know his work?

And then you answer your own question:

Would your reaction therefore have been the same if I quoted little Jimmy around the corner? But I have to point out, your argument is also "by reference to Authority": your own authority.

Yes it would, and I'm expressing an opinion, not imposing authority. Now you're arguing with your own arguments, so I wouldn't accuse you of referencing Authority in these later posts. What I was objecting to was a whole post where you appeared to be quoting Nietzsche and Sartre and then implying that the argument was irrefutable because it was Nietzsche and Sartre, and weren't they the greatest philosophers ever? By all means cite Nietzsche and anyone else you wish to, but don't claim (as you seemed to do) that the strength of the argument derived from its originator.

This thing of worth being externally "assigned" is a matter of your personal faith, therefore nothing to do with logic.

That remains to be seen. The logic goes this way: if something does not have intrinsic worth, all "worth" must be assigned. Do you believe life has intrinsic worth, and if so, what is the logic behind it?

Yes, I believe life has intrinsic worth, and I could explain why at length. But that is to do with my opinion, not logic. No truly logical statement begins "I believe....... therefore". That isn't logic, it's faith.

Well, as has been argued above, there is no objective morality. I still don't see where this gets us as far as having a logical reason for rejecting atheism. If you happen to be a theist, but in fact there is no God, your assigned value is no less arbitrary or subjective than the atheist's.

There's no logical reason to reject atheism if you accept nihilism (the logical consequence of there being no objective morality or moral authority). The problem is, it seems you don't accept nihilism.

I think we can boil this down to: I am a moral person, with a moral compass, who will endeavour to do moral things, therefore it is illogical for me to disbelieve in a God who would give me reason to do those moral actions.

But being moral makes me feel good, and doing bad things makes me feel guilty. I'm answering to myself, and my subjective morality is stronger than an imposed morality from any God. My personal morality would not permit me to act like God does, so clearly He and I have different moral codes. There is no objective way to determine who has the better morals, but mine sound better: (Assume I'm God.) I do not believe in eternal punishment for those who don't believe in me but are true to themselves; I do not believe in eternal punishment full stop; I do believe in some punishment; I will not allow any document to be dedicated to me which simultaneously claims that I send people to eternal punishment and claims that I am all Loving and all Merciful. Now, God does do all those things, supposedly (or at least according to some beliefs), but I'm sure he has a very good reason for doing them. It just seems to me that it makes him look like a hypocrite. Now, what is the moral basis for my moral bases? Merely that I do not want to appear a hypocrite? Possibly. How moral is that?

That sounds like you did not understand a single word I wrote at that point. There is life after death ..... for other people. Not a personally experienced life after death or any other form of immortality. So, not inconsistent with the rejection of God at all.

Oh, so you revert to externally assigned worth only when it suits your argument, otherwise it is "just my personal faith"? Your "life after death" scenario assumes that other people may validly think your life has worth just because they happened to know you (or of you).

Er, no, it assumes that I try to live my life as if I might make a difference to other people, or in the hope that it does.

Not being a family man, I cannot state with any certainty that other people validly think my life has worth. I have a mother and a brother and a sister who would presumably grieve at least for a while, but I've not made a lasting difference to their lives (other than my mother's of course! But nothing that outlasts me.) Otherwise I only have people that I consider friends, who can't be said to have been affected by me.

On the other hand, imagine I were to have children: maybe they would grow up hating me and consider me utterly worthless and not worth my time on Earth - but at the very least those children would validate my life through their mere existence! That's not a matter of faith, surely? That's a matter of fact (except for the extreme solipsisitic position, which I do not subscribe to - there was a Universe before I was born, and it will continue after I die).

But as you say, that's there personal faith, and has nothing to do with logic. From atheism, it logically follows that your life is worth no more or less than anybody else, whether someone thinks it was or not. Unless you think worth is intrinsic (internally objective), which you'll have to explain.

Well, yes - it's true - my life is worth no more or less than anybody else. I am a total egalitarian, at least partly thanks to my atheism.

Because it supposes you've not been "fooled" into seeking morality where there isn't any. That doesn't mean your conclusions should logically be any different than my conclusion from Buddhism: your life - and therefore what you do - makes no difference in the overall scheme of things, and hence any "morality" is just a smoke screen for personal preferences.

Right! And.....?

As I tried to explain, my definition of atheism extends to a rejection of the supernatural. Buddhist karma theory is based on perception of what makes a good balance and preaches effects after your death on your "next life". Since there is no actual rational basis for these beliefs, I accept Buddhism is Atheistic, but I would not call Buddhists "atheists" and I would not say that believers in Buddhism subscribe to atheism.

As has happened to me before, the link you posted actually worked against the point you were trying to make. Buddhists aren't atheists just because they don't believe in a Creator God. In fact the page you linked states that many Buddhist sects have incorporated deities of various kinds, on top of which there is certainly an amount of Buddha-worship.

Maybe you didn't understand my point. It didn't depend on whether some sects of Buddhism eventually embraced the idea of deities. My point rests on how the lack of a moral authority (or what you call atheism) makes any morality into a farce, and any "worth" subjective and arbitrarily assigned.

Why is any morality a farce? I have a personal system of values, that assigns life and its continuation a higher value over death, and that assigns lack of pain and suffering a higher value than pain and suffering. I don't believe in God, but I believe in all the other people who could live or die, suffer pain or be free of pain, because of what I did. Just because you claim that those morals are not objective, doesn't really mean that they might not actually be objective. That this Universe has brought forth Life that can see and experience the Universe is to me an indisputably Good Thing. On that basis, I think my morals have some value and indeed logic!

 

[Jenyar]

And then you answer your own question:Yes it would, and I'm expressing an opinion, not imposing authority. Now you're arguing with your own arguments, so I wouldn't accuse you of referencing Authority in these later posts. What I was objecting to was a whole post where you appeared to be quoting Nietzsche and Sartre and then implying that the argument was irrefutable because it was Nietzsche and Sartre, and weren't they the greatest philosophers ever? By all means cite Nietzsche and anyone else you wish to, but don't claim (as you seemed to do) that the strength of the argument derived from its originator.

My only hope was that it might encourage more serious thinking, but it seems it hasn't.

Yes, I believe life has intrinsic worth, and I could explain why at length. But that is to do with my opinion, not logic. No truly logical statement begins "I believe....... therefore". That isn't logic, it's faith.

Alright, then at least we share that faith. Logic isn't needed, we can realize it intuitively.

I think we can boil this down to: I am a moral person, with a moral compass, who will endeavour to do moral things, therefore it is illogical for me to disbelieve in a God who would give me reason to do those moral actions.

You have a conscience; God judges it. It's not that He gives you "reason", but that He holds you accountable.

But being moral makes me feel good, and doing bad things makes me feel guilty. I'm answering to myself, and my subjective morality is stronger than an imposed morality from any God. My personal morality would not permit me to act like God does, so clearly He and I have different moral codes. There is no objective way to determine who has the better morals, but mine sound better: (Assume I'm God.) I do not believe in eternal punishment for those who don't believe in me but are true to themselves; I do not believe in eternal punishment full stop; I do believe in some punishment; I will not allow any document to be dedicated to me which simultaneously claims that I send people to eternal punishment and claims that I am all Loving and all Merciful. Now, God does do all those things, supposedly (or at least according to some beliefs), but I'm sure he has a very good reason for doing them. It just seems to me that it makes him look like a hypocrite. Now, what is the moral basis for my moral bases? Merely that I do not want to appear a hypocrite? Possibly. How moral is that?

That our lives have real consequences doesn't make God a hypocrite. It just means you don't like the consequences. Like you said, your morality is your personal preference. Criminals don't like jail, but not believing in justice doesn't make them moral. According to their preferences, they might kill with a clear conscience. Does this mean they're innocent?

Er, no, it assumes that I try to live my life as if I might make a difference to other people, or in the hope that it does.

Not being a family man, I cannot state with any certainty that other people validly think my life has worth. I have a mother and a brother and a sister who would presumably grieve at least for a while, but I've not made a lasting difference to their lives (other than my mother's of course! But nothing that outlasts me.) Otherwise I only have people that I consider friends, who can't be said to have been affected by me.

On the other hand, imagine I were to have children: maybe they would grow up hating me and consider me utterly worthless and not worth my time on Earth - but at the very least those children would validate my life through their mere existence! That's not a matter of faith, surely? That's a matter of fact (except for the extreme solipsisitic position, which I do not subscribe to - there was a Universe before I was born, and it will continue after I die).

Would you have some reason to expect them to validate your existence - your authority over things they don't understand yet - like God might expect we recognize Him as Creator?

Well, yes - it's true - my life is worth no more or less than anybody else. I am a total egalitarian, at least partly thanks to my atheism.

Why should criminals be judged by other people's standards? Don't they deserve the same rights as you no matter what people think? Otherwise, how can you say their worth doesn't depend on exernal judgement (i.e. intrinsic)?

Why is any morality a farce? I have a personal system of values, that assigns life and its continuation a higher value over death, and that assigns lack of pain and suffering a higher value than pain and suffering. I don't believe in God, but I believe in all the other people who could live or die, suffer pain or be free of pain, because of what I did. Just because you claim that those morals are not objective, doesn't really mean that they might not actually be objective. That this Universe has brought forth Life that can see and experience the Universe is to me an indisputably Good Thing. On that basis, I think my morals have some value and indeed logic!

It's not a farce if you believe it has worth beyond what you assign it. Otherwise you might as well not call it "morality", and just say this is what you like to do at the moment, and at the moment you'd like to take other people into account, but later you might not. If there is any kind of objectivity, some consistency that doesn't depend on how you feel at the moment, it at least points to something external, something that doesn't depend on you.

And it's circular to say you believe in "good" because the universe is "good" if you don't recognize any objective measurement. The universe just is, and whatever you think of it is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things unless it is intrinsically good. Like for instance when God declared it good, and that value is independent of what anyone else thinks.

 

[yank]

You have a conscience; God judges it. It's not that He gives you "reason", but that He holds you accountable.

what crap??? are we biologically-programmed robots doing what god made us for???

Why should criminals be judged by other people's standards? Don't they deserve the same rights as you no matter what people think? Otherwise, how can you say their worth doesn't depend on exernal judgement (i.e. intrinsic)?

well there are a set of basic ethics that we need to follow to make this world a better place... and these ethics are broken when your god & religion are introduced in humanity!

 

[scorpius]

quote
What is important within my life is to bring some measure of happiness to other people.

But why?

www.atheists.org/Atheism/ethics.html

 

[psycho-sth-african]

Hi
Just a quick thing to think about.

If we Christians are wrong then so what we still enjoyed our life the same as the rest of you. But what if we are right and you are wrong? Then well to to put in nicely you are stuffed. Well thats my few senteces for today.
Bye
Jako

 

[SnakeLord]

~Jesus prophesied that he would die on the cross and then rise from the dead. Not only did he do that but he got the amount of days right as well. Jesus's tomb remains empty to this day and historical records say that there was a Jesus Christ who was a prophet.

Lol.

~There are many objects from the Bible that can be found today such as Noah's Ark(it's in a glacier on a mountain I think) and the wheels of the chariots of Pharoah's army that drowned in the Red Sea.

Lol * 2

1-more wars

Where? I must have missed them while I was snoozing.

2-worldwide disease and hunger

That's what happens when god creates a country so damn hot that nothing grows, then throws in a lot of diseases for the mere sake of it.. I guess god just hates black people.

3-children rebelling against parents

Speak for yourself. My daughter is perfect.

4-the leaders of some of the religions today could probably be the false prophet(there are many dangerous cults today such as Eckankar, Mormanism, jehovah's Witnesses, etc)

They're all dicks.

5-much more earthquakes

Ah the joys of being an Englishman. What's an earthquake?

6-strange weather patterns(like snow in June, prolonged summer, etc)

As an Englishman I can appreciate that. So.. because it rained yesterday it's proof of god? LOL capitalised.

~countless angel sightings and visions of Jesus(they can't ALL be liars)

*sigh* The world is full of lunatics.

There were less species back then because there wasn't much time for evolution to kick in much, therefore, for example, there were no dogs, only wolves, there were no cats, only the wild carnivirous variety of feline, etc.

Ehehehe.. Still it's nice to see a religious nut appreciating evolution even if he did fudge it up bigtime.

I do agree that there was much evolution throughout the years, humans have taken advantage of evolution by cross breeding animals to get pets or work animals so it's entirely possible that there were so few species that there would be enough room for them all.

You're right. That leaves around 20 animals less to fit on the ark. Lol.

As far as the location of the Ark, thousands of people have claimed to get a glimpse of the Ark in Mount Ararat.

Can you name me more than 5 of those "thousands"?

Also remember, the Bible uses a lot of symbolism anyways so most of the stuff in the Bible could say one thing but mean something completely different.

So we agree it's all complete bollocks?

Or from another perspective: suicide bombers also live only once.

Gotta hate religious people. And no, suicide bombers generally think they get another life.

 

[Silent Serenity]

How can you just say, "gotta hate religious people"? It's like saying we all act the same and think the same way about the religion we follow. That's rather ignorant. Everyone has their own specific reasons for believing or not believing, it doesn't mean we should be avoided, as people not to interact with.

 

[SnakeLord]

How can you just say, "gotta hate religious people"?

Would that not be what jesus wanted? Remember, he did not come to bring peace, happiness, or anything remotely caring or loving - but to bring a sword. To set a man against his father, a woman against her mother. To have people in the world not liking other people in the world. It's the very reason he came here, so why question it when I do as he wanted me to?

It's like saying we all act the same and think the same way about the religion we follow. That's rather ignorant.

Certainly, which means it's kind of lucky I never hinted at such a thing. If anything it's the exact opposite. Religious people all think and act differently, using the bible as a giant pick and mix to decide what words of god they personally want to accept, and what words of god they reject as nonsense. I'd be far more impressed if you did think and act the same way.

it doesn't mean we should be avoided, as people not to interact with.

Luckily we have the right to choose who we spend our time with.

 

[Silent Serenity]

Would that not be what jesus wanted? Remember, he did not come to bring peace, happiness, or anything remotely caring or loving - but to bring a sword. To set a man against his father, a woman against her mother. To have people in the world not liking other people in the world. It's the very reason he came here, so why question it when I do as he wanted me to?

That's like the complete opposite of why he came lol...what bible have you been reading?

Certainly, which means it's kind of lucky I never hinted at such a thing. If anything it's the exact opposite. Religious people all think and act differently, using the bible as a giant pick and mix to decide what words of god they personally want to accept, and what words of god they reject as nonsense. I'd be far more impressed if you did think and act the same way.

I agree with the fact that some people do pick and mix, but there are people who use it to make their lives better so that they have morals, values and can build strong families. All I'm trying to say is, that the religious prats that have fucked up can't represent people who do believe, it comes down to the individual's interpretation of their belief and how they use it.

Luckily we have the right to choose who we spend our time with.

That is right, we are very lucky!

 

[SnakeLord]

That's like the complete opposite of why he came lol...what bible have you been reading?

Any bible you like. But tell you what, let's just put jesus on ignore for a moment and you set the record straight.

Once you're done ignoring the words of jesus and have set the rest of humanity on the right lines, feel free to read Matthew 10:34

"Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a son against father, daughter against mother, daughter in law against mother in law..." etc.

I agree with the fact that some people do pick and mix, but there are people who use it to make their lives better so that they have morals, values and can build strong families.

So what are you getting at? That atheists and non-religious people don't have morals or values and can't 'build strong families'? That's certainly what you seem to be implying.

All I'm trying to say is, that the religious prats that have fucked up can't represent people who do believe

But they do. Perhaps that's not how things should be, but it is how they are.

That is right, we are very lucky!

Well, that's a personal thing I guess. Don't suppose we can talk for some poor young child dying of thirst in Africa.

 

[Silas]

Yes, I believe life has intrinsic worth, and I could explain why at length. But that is to do with my opinion, not logic. No truly logical statement begins "I believe....... therefore". That isn't logic, it's faith.

Alright, then at least we share that faith. Logic isn't needed, we can realize it intuitively.

But I thought your point was to prove the illogicality of atheism? I was responding to a previous statement of yours in which you talked of logic, but included the phrase "I believe", and I was just pointing out the incompatibility of those viewpoints. "I believe" is subjective. Logic has to be objective.

I think we can boil this down to: I am a moral person, with a moral compass, who will endeavour to do moral things, therefore it is illogical for me to disbelieve in a God who would give me reason to do those moral actions.

You have a conscience; God judges it. It's not that He gives you "reason", but that He holds you accountable.

Whoops! You've smuggled God in through the back door. Since I don't believe in God, but am busy justifying my moral position to you, how does bringing God into it counter my argument? Your God judges your conscience. I am not accountable to God.

But being moral makes me feel good, and doing bad things makes me feel guilty. I'm answering to myself, and my subjective morality is stronger than an imposed morality from any God. My personal morality would not permit me to act like God does, so clearly He and I have different moral codes. There is no objective way to determine who has the better morals, but mine sound better: (Assume I'm God.) I do not believe in eternal punishment for those who don't believe in me but are true to themselves; I do not believe in eternal punishment full stop; I do believe in some punishment; I will not allow any document to be dedicated to me which simultaneously claims that I send people to eternal punishment and claims that I am all Loving and all Merciful. Now, God does do all those things, supposedly (or at least according to some beliefs), but I'm sure he has a very good reason for doing them. It just seems to me that it makes him look like a hypocrite. Now, what is the moral basis for my moral bases? Merely that I do not want to appear a hypocrite? Possibly. How moral is that?

That our lives have real consequences doesn't make God a hypocrite. It just means you don't like the consequences. Like you said, your morality is your personal preference. Criminals don't like jail, but not believing in justice doesn't make them moral. According to their preferences, they might kill with a clear conscience. Does this mean they're innocent?

I didn't say God was a hypocrite because of our lives' consequences, I said he appeared to be a hypocrite because he allows the one book dedicated to him and considered Authoritative, to say contradictory things about him, and also he seems to demand higher moral values from his Creation than He is willing to demonstrate himself. I do not presume to know God's mind, but from where I'm standing (a mere mortal) it seems to be hypocritical. And I was explaining that if I were God I would not allow that.

Er, no, it assumes that I try to live my life as if I might make a difference to other people, or in the hope that it does.

Not being a family man, I cannot state with any certainty that other people validly think my life has worth. I have a mother and a brother and a sister who would presumably grieve at least for a while, but I've not made a lasting difference to their lives (other than my mother's of course! But nothing that outlasts me.) Otherwise I only have people that I consider friends, who can't be said to have been affected by me.

On the other hand, imagine I were to have children: maybe they would grow up hating me and consider me utterly worthless and not worth my time on Earth - but at the very least those children would validate my life through their mere existence! That's not a matter of faith, surely? That's a matter of fact (except for the extreme solipsisitic position, which I do not subscribe to - there was a Universe before I was born, and it will continue after I die).

Would you have some reason to expect them to validate your existence - your authority over things they don't understand yet - like God might expect we recognize Him as Creator?

Of course, I was assuming in my example that my family had personally known me or at least had tangible proof of my existence. Then they "validate" my existence by their existence, and there is a historical record of my having been their progenitor. But I was only taking an extreme position. I would hope my life would be validated by the way I interacted with my family and with other people. I don't presume such validation (as you seem to think God does make such a presumption).

Well, yes - it's true - my life is worth no more or less than anybody else. I am a total egalitarian, at least partly thanks to my atheism.

Why should criminals be judged by other people's standards? Don't they deserve the same rights as you no matter what people think? Otherwise, how can you say their worth doesn't depend on exernal judgement (i.e. intrinsic)?

Society - human beings - decides the law, and everybody has the same rights under the law. They do have the same rights as me. Also you're assuming that criminals have some kind of different moral code to everybody else, and I don't think that's the case. They know when they've done wrong, but they allow their own selfishness to override that. Clearly the existence of God makes no difference to them, since many criminals are sincere believers.

Why is any morality a farce? I have a personal system of values, that assigns life and its continuation a higher value over death, and that assigns lack of pain and suffering a higher value than pain and suffering. I don't believe in God, but I believe in all the other people who could live or die, suffer pain or be free of pain, because of what I did. Just because you claim that those morals are not objective, doesn't really mean that they might not actually be objective. That this Universe has brought forth Life that can see and experience the Universe is to me an indisputably Good Thing. On that basis, I think my morals have some value and indeed logic!

It's not a farce if you believe it has worth beyond what you assign it. Otherwise you might as well not call it "morality", and just say this is what you like to do at the moment, and at the moment you'd like to take other people into account, but later you might not. If there is any kind of objectivity, some consistency that doesn't depend on how you feel at the moment, it at least points to something external, something that doesn't depend on you.

But morality is taking other people into account. Everything depends on how others see us. Those who care less about that are less moral because they behave in ways that society deems unacceptable.

And it's circular to say you believe in "good" because the universe is "good" if you don't recognize any objective measurement. The universe just is, and whatever you think of it is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things unless it is intrinsically good. Like for instance when God declared it good, and that value is independent of what anyone else thinks.

I stated that the Universe was good because it gave rise to life that could experience the Universe. If it had not done so there would be no Good at all, or Bad, just nothing. Just a quantum universe forever unresolved. Since there is something rather than nothing, I think it's perfectly rational to regard that as Good rather than Bad. Your opinion that the Universe is Good solely because God is supposed to have said so reduces Good to meaninglessness. Aren't you allowed your own opinion as to the Goodness or otherwise of the Universe? Surely you simply agree with God that His Universe is Good, rather than accept the fact as diktat?

And then you answer your own question:Yes it would, and I'm expressing an opinion, not imposing authority. Now you're arguing with your own arguments, so I wouldn't accuse you of referencing Authority in these later posts. What I was objecting to was a whole post where you appeared to be quoting Nietzsche and Sartre and then implying that the argument was irrefutable because it was Nietzsche and Sartre, and weren't they the greatest philosophers ever? By all means cite Nietzsche and anyone else you wish to, but don't claim (as you seemed to do) that the strength of the argument derived from its originator.

My only hope was that it might encourage more serious thinking, but it seems it hasn't.

Jenyar, don't you dare ever suggest that I'm not thinking seriously about this debate we're having. For my part I've been trying to give your posts the respect I feel they deserve. Maybe my posts are less than nothing to you, but I would still like you to give them the courtesy of assuming they were written with some serious thought.

 

[jayleew]

So you agree that there is no such thing as objective morality?
Then why do you claim that it exists, and why do you claim that for it to exist their must be a god?

And how can "objective morality" change? It is objective by definition. A changing "objective morality" is not objective.
Your ideas are confused and I am not sure I am understanding your point.
Morality is of the time.
It is therefore not objective.

You are right.
I failed to explain myself. Objective morality does not need God to exist, but in order to keep morality the same it has to have an objective set of ethics that does not change. If we don't like the ten commandments for a reference to morallity, we need something in its place. Otherwise, morality that changes will change for the better or the worse (in theory). But add human nature and instinct (which is to look out for oneself and everything that oneself holds dear), and the odds are that morality will get worse. Understand that we are now talking about morality and not how morality is any proof of the existence of God.

 

[Sarkus]

You are right.
I failed to explain myself. Objective morality does not need God to exist, but in order to keep morality the same it has to have an objective set of ethics that does not change. If we don't like the ten commandments for a reference to morallity, we need something in its place. Otherwise, morality that changes will change for the better or the worse (in theory). But add human nature and instinct (which is to look out for oneself and everything that oneself holds dear), and the odds are that morality will get worse. Understand that we are now talking about morality and not how morality is any proof of the existence of God.

And this is where the concept of religion has its benefits. I can not argue against the benefits that religion brings to people. I see it first hand and know that religion has a powerful, albeit psychological, effect on people.
I think the problem with your argument is that you are coming from the viewpoint of suddenly removing religion - in which case things will undoubtedly deteriorate because people will no longer have the crutch on which to support their lives. And, like you, they see chaos arising from the current "order" that religion seems to bring.
But consider a society that has never had religion, never had a belief in god - and its entire moral/ethical system is based purely on living together harmoniously in society.
Or do you feel that such a society can never exist because it would have self-destructed before it got anywhere, purely through lack of an (artificial) ethical objective?

This may be true, we will probably never know (unless, I guess, we meet another society that has no concept of religion / god etc). But to me this adds weight to the idea that religion was founded by man to control the populace, to create a harmonious society - not because it was true (which I realise is not the point of your comments, but I feel it needed to be said).

 

[jayleew]

And this is where the concept of religion has its benefits. I can not argue against the benefits that religion brings to people. I see it first hand and know that religion has a powerful, albeit psychological, effect on people.
I think the problem with your argument is that you are coming from the viewpoint of suddenly removing religion - in which case things will undoubtedly deteriorate because people will no longer have the crutch on which to support their lives. And, like you, they see chaos arising from the current "order" that religion seems to bring.
But consider a society that has never had religion, never had a belief in god - and its entire moral/ethical system is based purely on living together harmoniously in society.
Or do you feel that such a society can never exist because it would have self-destructed before it got anywhere, purely through lack of an (artificial) ethical objective?

This may be true, we will probably never know (unless, I guess, we meet another society that has no concept of religion / god etc). But to me this adds weight to the idea that religion was founded by man to control the populace, to create a harmonious society - not because it was true (which I realise is not the point of your comments, but I feel it needed to be said).

Hmm...everything you say is interesting.

As you expected, I have a problem with implying that this adds weight to the idea that religion was founded by man.

I could just as easily add counter weight with the same evidence saying that God knew that religion benefits man, so he showed religion to man.

The problem with saying that in the context of Christianity is that true Christians should not be religious; like saying it is against God's law to work on the Sabbath when God wishes for us to do good especially on the Sabbath (which may require work). Instead, they should have a personal relationship with God as everyone else did in the Bible. A set of ethics that is not bent on what is right or wrong according to Christian tradition, but what the creator wishes (which is perfect love and justice).

 

[MarcAC]

I was responding to a previous statement of yours in which you talked of logic, but included the phrase "I believe", and I was just pointing out the incompatibility of those viewpoints. "I believe" is subjective. Logic has to be objective.

Heh. Belief is intrinsic to everything stated except maybe existence such that you can't disbelieve it and maintain any respectable amount of sanity.

What you are really saying is that logic has to be based on agreement of beliefs which then renders the statement "I believe" moot. That is what "objective" is - "agreement on the subjective".

I agree though, belief has it's basis in faith - if you believe something, you have faith in something such that logic has it's basis in faith.

 

[Silent Serenity]

Any bible you like. But tell you what, let's just put jesus on ignore for a moment and you set the record straight.

Once you're done ignoring the words of jesus and have set the rest of humanity on the right lines, feel free to read Matthew 10:34

"Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a son against father, daughter against mother, daughter in law against mother in law..." etc.

Sweet, I can explain this: 10:34 - Jesus did not come to bring the kind of peace that glosses over deep differences just for the sake of superficial harmony. Conflict and disagreement will arise between those who choose to follow Christ and those who don't. Yet we can look forward to the day when all conflict will be resolved.

10:34 - 39 - Christian commitiment may seperate friends and loved ones. In saying this, Jesus was not encouraging disobedience to parents or conflict at home. Rather, he was showing that his presence demands a decision. Because some will follow Christ and some won't, conflict inevitably arise. As we take our cross and follow him, our different values, morals, goals and purposes set us apart from others.

These explanations come from the Life Application Study Bible.

My input for you to take on board:

Matthew 13.14 "These people will listen and listen, but not understand; they will look and look, but not see, because their minds are dull, and they have stopped up their ears and have closed their eyes, otherwise their eyes would see, their ears would hear, their minds would understand, and they would turn to me, says God, and I would heal them." - I thought this was a very good way of describing peoples attitudes to Christians.

Do you have anymore "proof" that Jesus was here for no good? Or did you pick and mix like all Christians apparently do? That's what you said.

So what are you getting at? That atheists and non-religious people don't have morals or values and can't 'build strong families'? That's certainly what you seem to be implying.

No, I was implying that Christians use their faith in order to do this, that is their strength, when it is used correctly. Of course atheists and non-religious people build strong relationships and their lives on morals and values, they just don't do it throught God and Jesus.

But they do. Perhaps that's not how things should be, but it is how they are.

That is a very unreasonable way of thinking, it's generalising all Christians. You are implying that people should descriminate against Catholics and Christians. Look what happened when someone stood up and said that Jews were evil? I don't understand why non-religious people can't accept us for what we believe, why do you need to be so against it? Esspecially since it is freedom of choice to believe or not.

Well, that's a personal thing I guess. Don't suppose we can talk for some poor young child dying of thirst in Africa.

Nope, I was talking about myself in my own life and those who have it all but still want more.

 

[Athelwulf]

Only when he sins - falls short of perfection. Remember how Adam and Eve suddenly realized they were naked? They didn't become conscious, they became conscious of their limitations.

Are you basically saying that a being can be conscious without being conscious of its limitations?

I find it interesting that no one else is willing to discuss this.

 

[Jenyar]

Are you basically saying that a being can be conscious without being conscious of its limitations?

I find it interesting that no one else is willing to discuss this.

Maybe "limitations" isn't exactly the right word, since I'm sure they were aware of what their physical abilities, but I imagine that they weren't aware of being "less than" or "ashamed of" anything until their was something "more". Instead of being fully human, they were now less than God (since they gained with their knowledge God's perspective on things), and instead of being exactly as they were created, they were now ashamed of themselves. Instead of being perfect, they were now sinners.

 

[Cyperium]

A LOGICAL ANALYSIS OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

Here are some or perhaps all of the attributes that define god:
SINGULARITY (there can only be one)
OMNISCIENCE (all-knowing; having unlimited knowledge)
OMNIPOTENCE (all-powerful; having unlimited power)
OMNIPRESENCE (present everywhere)
OMNI-BENEVOLENT (all-good)
OMNI-SENTIENCE (all-true)

These generally accepted attributes of God are logically flawed.
Following are some points as to why:

1. It is impossible for both OMNISCIENCE and OMNIPOTENCE to exist in
the same being, since a being that knew the future would be powerless
to change it, (it knows the future, but if it can change it, it still
knows what the future's going to be like after it has been changed; so
there's no point in changing the future because it already knows -
which leads to this inability to alter the future) and a being that
could change the future could not know it in advance. (it can change
the future and it also knows what's there in the future; well how can
he know what's there in the future if he's ultimately going to change
it?)

The logical flaw here is that you are trying to understand God...

2. An OMNIPRESENT being could not perceive, for one perceives from a
perspective that is not identical with the object of perception, and
such a viewpoint would be lacking for an OMNIPRESENT being!

Perceiving doesn't necessarily require a viewpoint. Again, you try to visualize what God sees which is impossible or at least extremly hard. Though we all have a glimpse of that sight. For instance you are aware of things behind you and you can at the same time you talk think of other things to say and strategically change the line of conversation. You think too less of yourself while trying to imagine God from your own perspective (which is, needless to say really, pointless).

3. It is even impossible for a perfect being to think; for perfection
doesn't require thinking. Thinking is only necessary if one lacks
perfection and has questions unanswered; as for this being, it is
OMNISCIENCE!

Who said that God needs something? Why should we do only what is necessary? Is that perfection? Whatever the case, saying that thinking is only necessary because lack of answers is jumping to conclusions. I don't allways think because I lack answers, sometimes I just think because it's soothing and well...you know? Why should you expect that God is not capable of thoughts? It's a gift from Him. Sure it may help us arrive at answers, but that doesn't mean that God can't think because He knows it all.

4. OMNIPOTENT means all powerful, with no restrictions. You could do
what ever you wish to do if you were OMNIPOTENT. That means that if
there was such a being it could create something that is
undestroyable. But if it was undestroyable he could not destroy it.
Therefore he would not be OMNIPOTENT. Now, on the other hand if he
couldn't create something that he couldn't destroy he still wouldn't
be OMNIPOTENT!

Ok, I've thought about this for a while and I remembered a story in the Bible:

Genesis 32:24-32 Where Jacob wrestled God and won (that's also where the name "Israel" comes from "he who strives with God").

If God could make Himself equally weak/strong as Jacob then why couldn't He create a stone in that state then destroy it in another state?

Whatever the case, we still don't know enough to understand Gods power fully.

5. There might be something beyond "all-powerful" and if god cannot do
that, once again, he's not all powerful. but, contrary-wise, if he
can, then what he considers to be "all-powerful" isn't really
OMNIPOTENCE afterall!

This is just a case of "I'm the best!", "well, I'm better than you!", "no I'm better!", everybody knows the first sentence is unbeatable. There is no better than the best. So you create a imaginary impossibility then try to use it against God. God knows the truth.