Logical Analysis Of The Existence Of God!

[SnakeLord]

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.

jesus came to bring that conflict and disagreement. The only way it could be resolved would be if we all go against what jesus wants. Oh and kindly don't limit conflict and disagreement to between jesus followers and non-jesus followers. Need I start bringing up all the different jesus following sects that can't even agree on the basics and have been exterminating each other since the myth was created? But that's what he wants, that's what he came for.. so I guess if you're a true follower you'll just keep having conflicts and disagreements instead of any kind of peace.

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.

But that's only because your mind is dull, your eyes are closed and your ears have been stopped up. You listen and listen but don't understand it's all complete bollocks. It's a good way of describing a christian, not so much "peoples" attitudes towards them.

Do you have anymore "proof" that Jesus was here for no good?

Sure, I'll work on it when you show any "proof" that jesus even existed.

Or did you pick and mix like all Christians apparently do? That's what you said.

No. When I use the term 'pick and mix' I refer to how a person extracts one specific thing, (i.e a rule), while ignoring the others. As an example someone telling everyone how important god's laws are and yet not even being circumcised, eating pork and doing all the things god ruled against while somehow trying to state he is righteous and follows god's laws.

Is there a biblical line where jesus says he did come to bring peace? Maybe he did somewhere and I just got distracted by all the annihilation and end of the world threats.

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.

Well at least one christian who doesn't claim us as all moral-less scumbags. See, god and jesus ain't needed.

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.

What I said was that's how things are. It's not a personal choice on my part, and nor did I imply that people should discriminate against the various sects of christianity let alone anyone else. But that is how humans work. When you are a representative of a company, religion, etc your behaviour can and does reflect negatively on everyone from that company, religion, etc.

 

[jayleew]

jesus came to bring that conflict and disagreement. The only way it could be resolved would be if we all go against what jesus wants. Oh and kindly don't limit conflict and disagreement to between jesus followers and non-jesus followers. Need I start bringing up all the different jesus following sects that can't even agree on the basics and have been exterminating each other since the myth was created? But that's what he wants, that's what he came for.. so I guess if you're a true follower you'll just keep having conflicts and disagreements instead of any kind of peace.

Well, until the time when sin is removed from the Earth.

Sure, I'll work on it when you show any "proof" that jesus even existed.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/10/1021_021021_christianrelicbox.html

No. When I use the term 'pick and mix' I refer to how a person extracts one specific thing, (i.e a rule), while ignoring the others. As an example someone telling everyone how important god's laws are and yet not even being circumcised, eating pork and doing all the things god ruled against while somehow trying to state he is righteous and follows god's laws.

It is the 'pick and mix' Christians who are prevelantly part of Christianty that has distorted and create a stereotype of all people bearing the name of Christ in your eyes. I can attest to not being 'pick and mix' and can give a small number of followers I know personally, who are true Christ followers. I know others, but not personally.

Is there a biblical line where jesus says he did come to bring peace? Maybe he did somewhere and I just got distracted by all the annihilation and end of the world threats.

Matthew 10:
34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. 37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

You see he came right the wrong. Where our fathers and forefathers were wrong, he came to warn us to be skeptical of what we are taught by anyone else - which is going to cause division. Love blinds, and Jesus said this so that we trust in him first before anyone else. He said this to command us to rise up against wrong and not compromise Christ's teachings, no matter who we stand against. His teachings are going to split the world in two.

Here is a more precise interpretation of the scripture in question:
http://www.ccel.org/j/johnson_bw/pnt/PNT01-10.HTM

What I said was that's how things are. It's not a personal choice on my part, and nor did I imply that people should discriminate against the various sects of christianity let alone anyone else. But that is how humans work. When you are a representative of a company, religion, etc your behaviour can and does reflect negatively on everyone from that company, religion, etc.

Yes, it is sad that my so-called brothers and sisters painted a bad picture of their Christianity and what it means to them, rather than taking the Word as the only authority.

 

[cole grey]

Darkeyedbeauty said -'religious philosophers' don't really fit the definition of philosopher.
Yank agrees.

Well, by your definition, i.e., a SEEKER of truth, as opposed to a person with the answers, an anti-religious philosopher is also a contradiction.
But I'm sure there will be no rush to strike all non-agnostic philosophers from the philosophy textbooks.

Like a very informed person once said, "people don't want to know the truth, they just want someone to agree with them."

 

[SnakeLord]

Well, until the time when sin is removed from the Earth.

Why wait?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...anrelicbox.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/06/0618_030618_jesusbox.html

Better luck next time.

Also it seems you misunderstood what "proof" means.

It is the 'pick and mix' Christians who are prevelantly part of Christianty that has distorted and create a stereotype of all people bearing the name of Christ in your eyes. I can attest to not being 'pick and mix' and can give a small number of followers I know personally, who are true Christ followers. I know others, but not personally.

And here you show that you're no different whatsoever, trying to claim to be and know other "true christ followers", when everyone claims that very same thing. Your version of what it is to be "true", is merely a different pick and mix to what they consider to be "true".

He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Love blinds, and Jesus said this so that we trust in him first before anyone else.

I notice you used "trust" in your wording instead of "love" which is what, given your last quote, he said. But wait.. you then say that "love blinds", while quoting jesus saying to love him more than anyone - which would lead to the highest level of blindness. I clearly am not worthy because I love my daughter and wife more than cloud beings and ancient jews, but frankly I find it sickening to think you love some ancient dead guy more than your own children all because an old book tells you to. You're obviously blind.. as you stated.

http://www.ccel.org/j/johnson_bw/pnt/PNT01-10.HTM

Precise? It's an opinion, nothing more.

 

[enton]

God is God. You cannot compare your self to Him. God is not omniscient. God is not omnipotent. God is not omnipresent. From everlasting to everlasting God is God. You cannot add to Him neither can you subtract from Him. You may change but the God of gods is immutable.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

God is God. You cannot compare your self to Him. God is not omniscient. God is not omnipotent. God is not omnipresent. From everlasting to everlasting God is God. You cannot add to Him neither can you subtract from Him. You may change but the God of gods is immutable.

*************
M*W: You made that very claim on the previous thread. You said, "Very simple! The proof of God is within me, in my christianity."

You're an idiot.

 

[Hapsburg]

God is God. You cannot compare your self to Him. God is not omniscient. God is not omnipotent. God is not omnipresent. From everlasting to everlasting God is God. You cannot add to Him neither can you subtract from Him. You may change but the God of gods is immutable.

So, in other words, you can't explain how you god is supposed to exist, and ergo is a logical fallacy within itself...
Jesus H. Tittyfucking Tapdancing Christ on a Stick! You are thciker than the earth's crust, aren't you?
If you cannot prove that god exists, logically and sanely, then you cannot prove jack fucking shit.

 

[Chatha]

A man on a cross, holy water, priests, rabis, the quaran. It all just doesn't look like a higher plane to me. I think a higher plane wouldn't be so mundane and superficial. A higher plane wouldn't have to write more than 300 pages as his holy book. I always thought a higher plane would be a little less superficial and materialistic but just plane spectacular...spiderman is more spectacular than many religion...and he is just a man

 

[enton]

*************
M*W: You're an idiot.

That's your opinion and it doesn't have anything to do with it's very meaning since as I've senses you're mean.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

That's your opinion and it doesn't have anything to do with it's very meaning since as I've senses you're mean.

*************
M*W: You don't know me, and neither do water or ellion. You think you know me from my posts, but you haven't read everything I've written. Selfishly, you've only read what I replied to you. I have no patience for xians and no compassion for them either. Until 9 million of your xian male cohorts have been sacrificed in the place of my 9 million sisters, mothers, aunts, grandmothers and cousins murdered by the Inquisition, my crusade will continue.

 

[enton]

*************
M*W: You don't know me, and neither do water or ellion.

For what purpose should one have to know you? Are you unique or eccentric?

You think you know me from my posts,

No. I don't even think what words to use when I respond to your post.

but you haven't read everything I've written.

It's a waste of time to read baseless accusations/assumptions/opinions. Well, if you are an authority who has followers, maybe I will read your entire dissertations.

Selfishly, you've only read what I replied to you. I have no patience for xians and no compassion for them either.

And what does xians mean? I don't belong to x-men, although I appreciated the movie director and its casts.

Until 9 million of your xian male cohorts have been sacrificed in the place of my 9 million sisters, mothers, aunts, grandmothers and cousins murdered by the Inquisition, my crusade will continue.

You said, you have no compassion but now you are showing hatred for xians (I think, you were mentioning about x-men). I remember people in that movie who happened to hate Professor X-men. By the way, what Inquisition were you reminiscing? If you are recounting about the "Papal Inquisition", go to that City-State and tell "their" father to resurrect your relatives.

 

[psycho-sth-african]

So, in other words, you can't explain how you god is supposed to exist, and ergo is a logical fallacy within itself...
Jesus H. Tittyfucking Tapdancing Christ on a Stick! You are thciker than the earth's crust, aren't you?
If you cannot prove that god exists, logically and sanely, then you cannot prove jack fucking shit.

Now there are 3 ways of explaining the existance of God, one has allready been used, and I myslef dont like that particular one. There is the famous kalaam cosmological argument, and just do a search and you'll find that. The other one i wrote down somewhere in these forum site. sO just check all my posts from a while ago and you'll find it.

 

[yank]

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

what's wrong in reasoning out something that has plagued mankind since ages?

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).

im talkin bout real perception ie. real sight through your own eyes...
i donn think you understood my point!
take a book on a table fur instance..
now u can see only that side of the book from which you face it...
and since god is present everywhere... he'd see the book frum all possible sides thus making the logical definition of "perception" irrelevant!

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.

ok so you think sometimes because its soothing for you!
can you just tell me one of your thoughts which seems "just" sooothing for you involving no particullar reasoning?

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").

first things first, as Richard Dawkins stated in one of his speeches "people will believe in books written thousands of years ago but will still turn a blind eye towards proven realities by intellectuals of today"
please donn get references frum the bible or any religious scripture fur that matter... its highly obsolete to mention em in a neo-intellectual discussion!

 

[yank]

There is the famous kalaam cosmological argument, and just do a search and you'll find that.

Arguments for the Existence of God
Craig’s Kalaam Cosmological Argument

The main argument

1. Either the universe had no beginning, or it just popped into existence, or it came into existence because it was caused by an eternal, uncaused being for which there is no further explanation.
2. The universe did not just pop into existence out of nothing.
3. The universe had a beginning.
4. So, the universe came into existence because it was caused by an eternal, uncaused being for which there is no further explanation. (1-3)
5. If the universe came into existence because it was caused by an eternal, uncaused being for which there isno further explanation, then (something quite like) God exists.
6. So, (something quite like) God exists. (4,5)

and how do u append to the creation of god?
did he just pop out of nothing... no there has to be something that created it and we call him as.......?

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

Yank, as the argument states, "or it came into existence because it was caused by an eternal, uncaused being for which there is no further explanation."

I repeat two things: "Eternal," and "for which there is no further explanation."

What the argument is pushing is that there HAS to be something that is uncaused, and therefore eternal and needs no explanation. Obviously, the arguer doesn't believe that the universe is that thing ("The universe had a beginning."), therefore there must be something else. Whatever else that something is, it must be uncaused, and needing no explanation. THAT, OR the universe was ULTIMATELY created by an uncaused cause. By this I mean that there may have been a chain of "creators," so to speak, which ultimately began from an uncaused cause. However, at this point, there is no need to bring in that chain (and that argument has flaws, which I won't get into right now).

Basically, this initial cause, were we to call it God, was not created, nor did it pop out of nothing. Quite simply, it has always been. Furthermore, were we to call this God, such that it contained those attributes you stated at the beginning of this thread, which includes omnipresence, this works even better. This is because Omnipresence doesn't simply mean "exists everywhere." A more full meaning of the term would be "simultaneously existing in all places, and simultaneously existing at all points in time." This is what is called the Eternal Present.

Hence, there can be no "prior" to such a being, since it exists in all time frames.

 

[yank]

What the argument is pushing is that there HAS to be something that is uncaused, and therefore eternal and needs no explanation. Obviously, the arguer doesn't believe that the universe is that thing ("The universe had a beginning."), therefore there must be something else. Whatever else that something is, it must be uncaused, and needing no explanation. THAT, OR the universe was ULTIMATELY created by an uncaused cause. By this I mean that there may have been a chain of "creators," so to speak, which ultimately began from an uncaused cause. However, at this point, there is no need to bring in that chain (and that argument has flaws, which I won't get into right now).

ok u tell me one thing...
how can the arguer assume that there is "something else" which is uncaused and needs no explanation??
on the same basis i can assume that the universe itself is uncaused...
where are we going with this?
but why would he want to introduce a divine being as the creator of the universe? because we have no answer to "who created he universe?"
so religious freaks always come up with stupid theories just to fill in where science fails to answer!

Basically, this initial cause, were we to call it God, was not created, nor did it pop out of nothing. Quite simply, it has always been. Furthermore, were we to call this God, such that it contained those attributes you stated at the beginning of this thread, which includes omnipresence, this works even better. This is because Omnipresence doesn't simply mean "exists everywhere." A more full meaning of the term would be "simultaneously existing in all places, and simultaneously existing at all points in time." This is what is called the Eternal Present.

Hence, there can be no "prior" to such a being, since it exists in all time frames.

woa there! omnipresence doesnt imply existing in all time frames...
it literally means existing everywhere at once!
omni - all, everywhere & not all time!

i think you need to check on a dictionary!

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

The formulation of the uncaused cause argument doesn't come from religion, but rather philosophy. The answer to your question has to do with the idea of finity versus infinity. Logically, if we say that the universe is finite, then it cannot be an uncaused reality. However, if we say that the universe is infinite we run into logical inconsistencies (actually infinite, that is. read Aristotle's treatment of Actual Infinities and Potential Infinities... the universe could be potentially infinite but not actually infinite). Hence, that the universe cannot be actually infinite implies that it has temporal boundaries (ie, beginning). So, because the universe is finite, and not infinite, with beginning, a cause, it cannot be an uncaused reality, denoting the necessity of a necessary being.

As for the term, omnipresent. Omni comes from Latin, you're right, and you're also right that it means all. Present has two meanings in English. It can mean the moment in time accociated with the immediately occurring. It can also mean that you are in a specific place relative to something else (ie, in his presence, in my presence. I am present at the meeting, etc...), and usually references placement at a particular time. Omnipresence then, naturally, refers both to all times, as well as all places relative to all other places, referenced in all times.

 

[yank]

interesting stuff...
even i believe that the universe isn't infinite..
big bang comes to the rescue...
and its obvious something caused the big bang but why term the cause as god?

 

[c7ityi_]

even i believe that the universe isn't infinite..

Why not?

and its obvious something caused the big bang but why term the cause as god?

How could something come from nothing? Why would "it" (nothing) explode? What could possibly "cause" it when there is "nothing"?

 

[yank]

Why not?

well, the big bang theory states that the universe aint infinite...
it had a start!

How could something come from nothing? Why would "it" (nothing) explode? What could possibly "cause" it when there is "nothing"?

thats wat everyone is tryin to find out!