Proof that the Christian god cannot exist
- Thread starter Cris
- Start date
Chris,
Perhaps you will disregard my posting because I readily admit to being an agnostic, but I feel impelled to point out that your initial posting and argument have a fatal logical flaw: omniscience is NOT incompatible with free will, because preknowledge is not necessarily control. I am not God, but I can observe a person taking a course of action that I know will have sad consequences; I can allow this scenario to procede, so that the child I'm watching will learn that defying the law of gravity will cause the tower of blocks to fall. I have presented the child with the blocks, but I have not compelled her to build an unstable stack; she has the power to decide to re-engineer the tower before it falls. Omniscience is not determinism.
Additionally, the idea that God is omniscient, all-powerful, eternal and good predates the Catholic Church and Christ by a few hundred years. It is a construct of Greek philosophers in reaction against the mythology of the times; the Olympian Gods were simply amplified humans, more powerful and mostly more corrupt than humans. The question posed was: if God exists, what is His nature? Their answer was that He must be Perfect!!! (Pardon my use of "He" but "She" is just as sexist and "It" implies an unaware object.) Then they decided that perfection meant omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, eternal (unchanging) and benevolent. If for a moment you can imagine God existing, you can certainly imagine the cosmic laughter at the idea of humans telling Him what He could and couldn't be.
These Greek philosophers were setting up a straw man... er, God, who could easily be knocked down by someone like you. It is clearly not the Jehovah of the Israelites, who can be seen to mature throughout the Old Testament from an imperious despot to the self-sacrificing Christ of the New Testament; that is not an unchanging God.
The "Perfect" God is self-contradictory, because humans judge goodness on the basis of benefit to humans, or humanity, perhaps is better. A God who "sees" brutality in Kosovo or Chicago and does nothing to stop it can't be "good." Of course it's possible that the Earth exists as a reform school for deviant souls, and misery that we experience is intended to help us understand and empathize with other beings....karma? Or perhaps God is not benevolent toward humans, or at least humans lik me; that doesn't make Him nonexistent, just someone I won't like very much.
All your argument would accomplish, if it were not flawed, is discrediting of one view of God. All you are saying is, "If God exists, then this and this and this, therefor God doesn't exist." I am agnostic because I feel and logically reason that a God who can be defined by humans is not a God, but a reflection of the minds of the humans who agree on the definition. That includes the definition that God does not exist. You can argue that it is possible that God does not exist, and I agree, but I don't see how you can prove nonexistence.
Perhaps you will disregard my posting because I readily admit to being an agnostic, but I feel impelled to point out that your initial posting and argument have a fatal logical flaw: omniscience is NOT incompatible with free will, because preknowledge is not necessarily control. I am not God, but I can observe a person taking a course of action that I know will have sad consequences; I can allow this scenario to procede, so that the child I'm watching will learn that defying the law of gravity will cause the tower of blocks to fall. I have presented the child with the blocks, but I have not compelled her to build an unstable stack; she has the power to decide to re-engineer the tower before it falls. Omniscience is not determinism.
Additionally, the idea that God is omniscient, all-powerful, eternal and good predates the Catholic Church and Christ by a few hundred years. It is a construct of Greek philosophers in reaction against the mythology of the times; the Olympian Gods were simply amplified humans, more powerful and mostly more corrupt than humans. The question posed was: if God exists, what is His nature? Their answer was that He must be Perfect!!! (Pardon my use of "He" but "She" is just as sexist and "It" implies an unaware object.) Then they decided that perfection meant omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, eternal (unchanging) and benevolent. If for a moment you can imagine God existing, you can certainly imagine the cosmic laughter at the idea of humans telling Him what He could and couldn't be.
These Greek philosophers were setting up a straw man... er, God, who could easily be knocked down by someone like you. It is clearly not the Jehovah of the Israelites, who can be seen to mature throughout the Old Testament from an imperious despot to the self-sacrificing Christ of the New Testament; that is not an unchanging God.
The "Perfect" God is self-contradictory, because humans judge goodness on the basis of benefit to humans, or humanity, perhaps is better. A God who "sees" brutality in Kosovo or Chicago and does nothing to stop it can't be "good." Of course it's possible that the Earth exists as a reform school for deviant souls, and misery that we experience is intended to help us understand and empathize with other beings....karma? Or perhaps God is not benevolent toward humans, or at least humans lik me; that doesn't make Him nonexistent, just someone I won't like very much.
All your argument would accomplish, if it were not flawed, is discrediting of one view of God. All you are saying is, "If God exists, then this and this and this, therefor God doesn't exist." I am agnostic because I feel and logically reason that a God who can be defined by humans is not a God, but a reflection of the minds of the humans who agree on the definition. That includes the definition that God does not exist. You can argue that it is possible that God does not exist, and I agree, but I don't see how you can prove nonexistence.
notes ... or, sticking my nose in
* Accepting that the concept of "right and wrong" is valid,
* Accepting that moral responsibility arises from this abstract right and wrong, and
* Accepting that an omniscient being need not be omnipresent or omnicapable,
... we can assert that an omniscient being is limited in efficacy as relates right and wrong only by the means of information broadcast and reception available to said entity and its intended audience.
Of the three concepts individually, we can note a couple things, as well:
1) Is an omniscient being excused from morality?
2) To what moral responsibilities would an omniscient being be obliged?
I would assert that an omniscient being is not excused from morality. Life is life, and necessary standards prevail. Human convention prescribes a certain degree of morality which seems to be basic: the most successful societies have noted--if not honored--various forms of the maxim Thou shall not kill. Arbitrary mortal anarchy will extinct a population, any population. To exist within a mortal context and to possess omniscience does not excuse the entity from moral obligation.
Furthermore, I would assert that while principle demands no more obligation of the omniscient entity than it demands of anyone else, the practical effect is observably greater. After all, if you see the truck coming, and the child in the street, are you not guilty of some moral cruelty if you stand by and watch the accident merely because it's a slow afternoon? Does any person, regardless of omniscience, have an obligation to attempt to alleviate known potential for human tragedy? Is telling a child not to play with matches an overextension of one's moral boundaries? Is it somehow aggressive and therefore inappropriate to tell someone to move because the ceiling is about to come down on them?
When considering issues of omniscience in tandem with notions of God, we see certain conditions change dramatically. The above points become subject to two considerations:
* Certain attributions of God hold that God is not only omniscient, but also has immutable will (e.g.--Christianity). Such an assertion has the effect of nullifying free will: every "choice" a soul undertakes is planned and predetermined by God, for nothing happens without that God's will. In the abstract, this has the effect of making a host of immorality moral. A murder can be deemed moral if God wills it to be; there is even a Sufi (Islamic) tale that makes this point, though the established historical pattern of Christianity is to find more selfish, mortally-concerned justifications for murder. In the case of those gods who combine omniscience and immutable will, there is no escaping the determinism of a cruel God.
* God, the omniscient, is bound to morality lest there be two concurrent standards of God's will (entirely possible, but it's not my place to detail the paradigm; such would merely give the more desperate theists something to cling to, and I'm of the opinion that they can do their own homework if they're sincere). In this case, God either shirks moral responsibility, or claims a separate standard, for, knowing the outcome and designing morality, God is well aware that conditions have required immorality, and that the effects of that necessary immorality include the proliferation of more arbitrary immoralities. God, who judges, subjects people to conditions, knowing full well what the outcome will be, and then deems the outcome immoral. I submit that God is irresponsible at best, and cruel at worst: He knows, yet continues to ignore His own standard, and then punishes mercilessly in the name of Love. This does not seem to describe free will.
I also find both intriguing and encouraging the notion that yes, God can make mistakes. This is the first of a list of things I require of the Christian God before it reconciles itself with its dogmatic aspect. The things Christians believe of God are often contradictory, and given license by the notion that one is not supposed to ask such questions about God. I know I've been harping on the point about the sacrifice of the intellect, but it's not like I'm making the term up. And the failure to reconcile the impossibilities of Christian theology marks a primary effect of that sacrifice.
Then again, you weren't aiming at me in the first place. So I guess there's that.
Anyway, that seems to be my small change.
thanx much,
Tiassa
First, a note on omniscience.
* Accepting that the concept of "right and wrong" is valid,
* Accepting that moral responsibility arises from this abstract right and wrong, and
* Accepting that an omniscient being need not be omnipresent or omnicapable,
... we can assert that an omniscient being is limited in efficacy as relates right and wrong only by the means of information broadcast and reception available to said entity and its intended audience.
Of the three concepts individually, we can note a couple things, as well:
1) Is an omniscient being excused from morality?
2) To what moral responsibilities would an omniscient being be obliged?
I would assert that an omniscient being is not excused from morality. Life is life, and necessary standards prevail. Human convention prescribes a certain degree of morality which seems to be basic: the most successful societies have noted--if not honored--various forms of the maxim Thou shall not kill. Arbitrary mortal anarchy will extinct a population, any population. To exist within a mortal context and to possess omniscience does not excuse the entity from moral obligation.
Furthermore, I would assert that while principle demands no more obligation of the omniscient entity than it demands of anyone else, the practical effect is observably greater. After all, if you see the truck coming, and the child in the street, are you not guilty of some moral cruelty if you stand by and watch the accident merely because it's a slow afternoon? Does any person, regardless of omniscience, have an obligation to attempt to alleviate known potential for human tragedy? Is telling a child not to play with matches an overextension of one's moral boundaries? Is it somehow aggressive and therefore inappropriate to tell someone to move because the ceiling is about to come down on them?
When considering issues of omniscience in tandem with notions of God, we see certain conditions change dramatically. The above points become subject to two considerations:
* Certain attributions of God hold that God is not only omniscient, but also has immutable will (e.g.--Christianity). Such an assertion has the effect of nullifying free will: every "choice" a soul undertakes is planned and predetermined by God, for nothing happens without that God's will. In the abstract, this has the effect of making a host of immorality moral. A murder can be deemed moral if God wills it to be; there is even a Sufi (Islamic) tale that makes this point, though the established historical pattern of Christianity is to find more selfish, mortally-concerned justifications for murder. In the case of those gods who combine omniscience and immutable will, there is no escaping the determinism of a cruel God.
* God, the omniscient, is bound to morality lest there be two concurrent standards of God's will (entirely possible, but it's not my place to detail the paradigm; such would merely give the more desperate theists something to cling to, and I'm of the opinion that they can do their own homework if they're sincere). In this case, God either shirks moral responsibility, or claims a separate standard, for, knowing the outcome and designing morality, God is well aware that conditions have required immorality, and that the effects of that necessary immorality include the proliferation of more arbitrary immoralities. God, who judges, subjects people to conditions, knowing full well what the outcome will be, and then deems the outcome immoral. I submit that God is irresponsible at best, and cruel at worst: He knows, yet continues to ignore His own standard, and then punishes mercilessly in the name of Love. This does not seem to describe free will.
I wanted to comment here that the Greeks had much less at stake; immortality was a different philosophy, then, and the Greek-derived Unmoved Mover had no personality traits: no hates, no loves, no pleasures, no rules, no writ-in-stone morals, no pride, no disrespect .... The Greek-derived Mover gave people far less reason to be knocked down.
Here we reach an issue of faith that is difficult to debate. The dichotomy 'twixt starting points is a key factor. Historically, Christianity can be seen to have usurped the Jewish covenant rhetorically; the divine change of personality becomes intriguing. Furthermore, the Christian assumption of continuity of God's grace is a purely internalized one: the best demonstration we have of that inheritance of covenant and continuity of grace is a smattering of anti-Judaic propaganda written by Christian apologists in the first couple of centuries after Christ. I look at it historically, whereas many view the issue with unwavering faith.
I also find both intriguing and encouraging the notion that yes, God can make mistakes. This is the first of a list of things I require of the Christian God before it reconciles itself with its dogmatic aspect. The things Christians believe of God are often contradictory, and given license by the notion that one is not supposed to ask such questions about God. I know I've been harping on the point about the sacrifice of the intellect, but it's not like I'm making the term up. And the failure to reconcile the impossibilities of Christian theology marks a primary effect of that sacrifice.
It is difficult to define my personal theism, as Cris is well aware. Agnostic is not a term I choose to apply to myself. However, you will find absolutely no argument from me on this point.
Then again, you weren't aiming at me in the first place. So I guess there's that.
Anyway, that seems to be my small change.
thanx much,
Tiassa
Tiassa,
Thanks for your comment. Regarding morality applied to God: if we were to assume the existence of such an entity, not bound by our mortal material existence, and supposing that there is a spiritual aspect of ourselves, which is not mortal....
The suffering or even death of a human might be seen by such a God as simply a lesson, rather than a calamity. Is it immoral to punish a child to condition him/her to avoid running into the street? Our morality might be quite shortsighted. What is to the antelope, murder, is, to the lion, lunch. Our attitude toward death on the veldt depends on which species we feel greater empathy with. (It puzzles me that religious groups convinced of an afterlife are so preoccupied with preserving the life of the fetus, and so convinced that execution is the ultimate punishment. The prospect of a life in prison scares me more than an early death.)
This is the kind of unanswerable issue that the Taoists warn us is a waste of time and energy. I guess I'm using it as creative avoidance to avoid doing my laundry.
Thanks for your comment. Regarding morality applied to God: if we were to assume the existence of such an entity, not bound by our mortal material existence, and supposing that there is a spiritual aspect of ourselves, which is not mortal....
The suffering or even death of a human might be seen by such a God as simply a lesson, rather than a calamity. Is it immoral to punish a child to condition him/her to avoid running into the street? Our morality might be quite shortsighted. What is to the antelope, murder, is, to the lion, lunch. Our attitude toward death on the veldt depends on which species we feel greater empathy with. (It puzzles me that religious groups convinced of an afterlife are so preoccupied with preserving the life of the fetus, and so convinced that execution is the ultimate punishment. The prospect of a life in prison scares me more than an early death.)
This is the kind of unanswerable issue that the Taoists warn us is a waste of time and energy. I guess I'm using it as creative avoidance to avoid doing my laundry.
Re: Look beyond your indoctrination
If God is the all-powerful, supreme being that the Christians believe him to be, then why is Satan a part of any discussion. Is the above quote not the very definition of Satan, why not just do away with him.
If God is the symbols of love, peace and happiness, then why have so many wars been fought in his name. One word Ireland. Almost every religion believes the other religions are going to hell because of the different beliefs of one religion to the next. If each believes that there's is the one true religion, wouldn't that mean that the others are praying to a false God?
So maybe after all is said and done the Atheist are the only one who will know before they die where they are headed. We also know that no matter what "Satanic acts or Saintly deeds" we do we will end up the same at death.
*Dead
*Worm food
*Hopefully missed
If God is the all-powerful, supreme being that the Christians believe him to be, then why is Satan a part of any discussion. Is the above quote not the very definition of Satan, why not just do away with him.
If God is the symbols of love, peace and happiness, then why have so many wars been fought in his name. One word Ireland. Almost every religion believes the other religions are going to hell because of the different beliefs of one religion to the next. If each believes that there's is the one true religion, wouldn't that mean that the others are praying to a false God?
So maybe after all is said and done the Atheist are the only one who will know before they die where they are headed. We also know that no matter what "Satanic acts or Saintly deeds" we do we will end up the same at death.
*Dead
*Worm food
*Hopefully missed
hehehehehehe
cris,chocked huh?my bad ,but i wanted you to experience what a faith can feel when you call his god a devil,ihave to admit that my post was insolent but not as insolent as your last post regard to your purposes ,but i'll grant no importance to that,i'm here like you, to discuss of a subject .
pease note that my post was not a personal conception but it's
"how a faith"will react to your attack when you say that god is an evil.also note that (regard to your purposes:indoctrination ....and else) my belief has nothing to do with the subject i always discuss the problem of god without implying mt religious belief.
now if we have a concept of a Perfect Being ie like a perfect being must necessarily exist.
Why? If he did not exist, then he would not be perfect.
Assuredly that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, cannot exist in the understanding alone. For, suppose it exists in the understanding alone: so it can be conceived to exist in reality; which is greater. Therefore, if that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, exists in the understanding alone, the very being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, is one, than which a greater can be conceived. But obviously this is impossible. Hence there is no doubt that there exists a being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, and it exists both in the understanding and in reality.
"Greatest" (i.e., no "greater" being can be conceived of), it must have the quality of "existence." If this "Greatest" being were simply an idea in people's minds, then it would not have its own existence and, hence, wouldn't really qualify as "Greatest" anymore.
i don't know if you'll understand,you can find it non sense.
now let us have the idea of a perfect, infinite Being. But since we ourselves are neither perfect nor infinite, then this idea could not have come from within us. so, it must have come from outside of us from a real perfect, infinite being.
I myself am a substance, I should not, however, have the idea of an infinite substance, because I am a finite being, unless it were given me by some substance in reality infinite.
thanx just thoughs.
cris,chocked huh?my bad ,but i wanted you to experience what a faith can feel when you call his god a devil,ihave to admit that my post was insolent but not as insolent as your last post regard to your purposes ,but i'll grant no importance to that,i'm here like you, to discuss of a subject .
pease note that my post was not a personal conception but it's
"how a faith"will react to your attack when you say that god is an evil.also note that (regard to your purposes:indoctrination ....and else) my belief has nothing to do with the subject i always discuss the problem of god without implying mt religious belief.
now if we have a concept of a Perfect Being ie like a perfect being must necessarily exist.
Why? If he did not exist, then he would not be perfect.
Assuredly that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, cannot exist in the understanding alone. For, suppose it exists in the understanding alone: so it can be conceived to exist in reality; which is greater. Therefore, if that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, exists in the understanding alone, the very being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, is one, than which a greater can be conceived. But obviously this is impossible. Hence there is no doubt that there exists a being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, and it exists both in the understanding and in reality.
"Greatest" (i.e., no "greater" being can be conceived of), it must have the quality of "existence." If this "Greatest" being were simply an idea in people's minds, then it would not have its own existence and, hence, wouldn't really qualify as "Greatest" anymore.
i don't know if you'll understand,you can find it non sense.
now let us have the idea of a perfect, infinite Being. But since we ourselves are neither perfect nor infinite, then this idea could not have come from within us. so, it must have come from outside of us from a real perfect, infinite being.
I myself am a substance, I should not, however, have the idea of an infinite substance, because I am a finite being, unless it were given me by some substance in reality infinite.
thanx just thoughs.
Last edited:
Re: hehehehehehe
Circular logic is your fort´e, apparently. Incidentally (and this has as much relevance as your last post, sensei), did you know that seiten in Japanese means scripture? <b>Seiten</b> is pronounced identical to <b>Satan</b>.
Seeing as how I'm just jumping in here, I'll leave that first bit for Cris.
Ever hear of the watch theory? For the moment, I've forgotten the author (St. Thomas Aquinas, perhaps?). At any rate, in it, the author presents the example that the watch has order. It was created by someone. It has a purpose to fulfill, therefore the purpose of the watch is to tell time for the observer. If the watch manages to do this, then the watch is fulfilling its original purpose initiated by its creator.
Now, admittedly that's an argument in favor of a supreme being made by theists. Aquinas (AFAIK) says that this is the same with humanity. Take all the organs--skin, liver, bones, et cetera--of humans and throw them into a bag. Jiggle the bag around as much as you want--you'll never produce a human being, therefore it's ridiculous to say that humans were not created.
Great reasoning. Atheists never say that humans were created completely in the form they are in now. Theists balk at such talk of primordial soup combining to form complex multi-cellular life because they claim no such events are happening now. But conditions were different in the primordial days. Besides, those conditions can be duplicated (unlike proof for your god) along pressurized volcanic / oceanic lines where new creatures thrive and adapt to survive. In the unlikeliest places, new life forms evolve and change to better use the environment.
Aquinas, motivated by a sense of personal motivation to justify the existence of God, initiated this theory on the watch and the creator of the watch. Perhaps Aquinas failed to see that the purpose of the watch was not to tell time, but to be duplicated. Only those that believe in God (therefore he exists) think of the watch theory as broadly indicative of the existence of God. Atheists see the watch theory as an example of the adaptability of man--by trying to figure out how to duplicate the watch. Since the existence of God is unproveable at this point (and along every point in history), then it stands to reason that it is better to either disbelieve claims to the contrary or to take them with a grain of salt. When God makes his triumphant appearance to mankind, then atheists will be convinced. Unfortunately for you, sensei (just taking a guess--after all, you don't let slip your religious persuasions whatsoever), you will be among the dwindling crowd that becomes increasingly disappointed (and hopefully disaffected) with a belief in God.
To say that because we have a word for the greatest, must imply that the greatest must be God is totally laughable (hehehehehehe, indeed). You take the word 'greatest' and apply the meaning of God to it. If there was a god, then he would have to be the greatest, else why would he be a god? Therefore, since the concept of the 'greatest' exists within our language, God must exist, else why would the 'greatest' even be part of our language?
We, as a human species, are more than capable of being exceptionally good without the use of lowering ourselves to believing in a God. Likewise, we are more than capable of debasing our inner desires to pillage, rape, and demean other fellow human beings. All without the rage or love of some supreme being. Humans are proveable, but a belief in God is not. Just because you believe does not make it so for everyone else. Just for you. But perhaps, sensei, you hold to the reasoning that not only you, but others believe as well. Well, if that's your line of thinking, then your god is in the minority, quanitatively. There are more Buddhists than Christians, therefore God is Buddha (or the collective) and not Elohim.
sensei, your logic is lacking to say the least. And, incidentally, your nickname is not conducive to instructing others on topics such as this. If it were indeed possible for you to separate your personal belief system and offer something on the other side of the argument, perhaps there would be more weight to your unstudied conclusions.
<b>sen</b>- which is another way of pronouncing a word that means to teach.
<b>sei</b>- which is part of seirei; implying holiness.
So, yeah, sensei. At no time at all do you let us know how you think on the subject of the (non-)existence of God.
thanks!
prag
Circular logic is your fort´e, apparently. Incidentally (and this has as much relevance as your last post, sensei), did you know that seiten in Japanese means scripture? <b>Seiten</b> is pronounced identical to <b>Satan</b>.
Seeing as how I'm just jumping in here, I'll leave that first bit for Cris.
Hey, sensei. I don't get that feeling at <i>all</i> from your post. You sound completely like a non-believer to me. Any moron could see that you're being entirely objective with respect to your belief system. But, hey, you're the teacher, therefore you are absolved of all the responsibility of that which you write.
Just how is it an attack when someone says that God is evil? Apparently you disagree with this conclusion. Tell me, sensei, what someone should think about your god? All good (greatest), with no hint of evil? Prepare to justify your reasoning. Oh, that's right, when confronted with purely reasonable ways in which it is fully demonstrated that your God cannot be anything but evil, you renounce your <b>sensei</b>-ship and resort to circular reasoning. I, and others like me, are fully prepared to bring up the horrible qualities of your god--are you prepared to address them. Or, would you rather, as Sir. Loone, address them by <i>not addressing</i> them?
Your belief has nothing to do with the subject? How ludicrously uninformed you are! Your belief system has <b>everything</b> to do with the subject. Just as mine does.
Ever hear of the watch theory? For the moment, I've forgotten the author (St. Thomas Aquinas, perhaps?). At any rate, in it, the author presents the example that the watch has order. It was created by someone. It has a purpose to fulfill, therefore the purpose of the watch is to tell time for the observer. If the watch manages to do this, then the watch is fulfilling its original purpose initiated by its creator.
Now, admittedly that's an argument in favor of a supreme being made by theists. Aquinas (AFAIK) says that this is the same with humanity. Take all the organs--skin, liver, bones, et cetera--of humans and throw them into a bag. Jiggle the bag around as much as you want--you'll never produce a human being, therefore it's ridiculous to say that humans were not created.
Great reasoning. Atheists never say that humans were created completely in the form they are in now. Theists balk at such talk of primordial soup combining to form complex multi-cellular life because they claim no such events are happening now. But conditions were different in the primordial days. Besides, those conditions can be duplicated (unlike proof for your god) along pressurized volcanic / oceanic lines where new creatures thrive and adapt to survive. In the unlikeliest places, new life forms evolve and change to better use the environment.
Aquinas, motivated by a sense of personal motivation to justify the existence of God, initiated this theory on the watch and the creator of the watch. Perhaps Aquinas failed to see that the purpose of the watch was not to tell time, but to be duplicated. Only those that believe in God (therefore he exists) think of the watch theory as broadly indicative of the existence of God. Atheists see the watch theory as an example of the adaptability of man--by trying to figure out how to duplicate the watch. Since the existence of God is unproveable at this point (and along every point in history), then it stands to reason that it is better to either disbelieve claims to the contrary or to take them with a grain of salt. When God makes his triumphant appearance to mankind, then atheists will be convinced. Unfortunately for you, sensei (just taking a guess--after all, you don't let slip your religious persuasions whatsoever), you will be among the dwindling crowd that becomes increasingly disappointed (and hopefully disaffected) with a belief in God.
Believing something exists does not make it so. Unless you happen to suffer from symptoms associated with schizophrenia, because you think and believe that God and Jesus Christ visited you when you were fourteen does not make it so. That's great for you, but for the rest of us, it remains unproveable, therefore untenable at best.
To say that because we have a word for the greatest, must imply that the greatest must be God is totally laughable (hehehehehehe, indeed). You take the word 'greatest' and apply the meaning of God to it. If there was a god, then he would have to be the greatest, else why would he be a god? Therefore, since the concept of the 'greatest' exists within our language, God must exist, else why would the 'greatest' even be part of our language?
We, as a human species, are more than capable of being exceptionally good without the use of lowering ourselves to believing in a God. Likewise, we are more than capable of debasing our inner desires to pillage, rape, and demean other fellow human beings. All without the rage or love of some supreme being. Humans are proveable, but a belief in God is not. Just because you believe does not make it so for everyone else. Just for you. But perhaps, sensei, you hold to the reasoning that not only you, but others believe as well. Well, if that's your line of thinking, then your god is in the minority, quanitatively. There are more Buddhists than Christians, therefore God is Buddha (or the collective) and not Elohim.
sensei, your logic is lacking to say the least. And, incidentally, your nickname is not conducive to instructing others on topics such as this. If it were indeed possible for you to separate your personal belief system and offer something on the other side of the argument, perhaps there would be more weight to your unstudied conclusions.
<b>sen</b>- which is another way of pronouncing a word that means to teach.
<b>sei</b>- which is part of seirei; implying holiness.
So, yeah, sensei. At no time at all do you let us know how you think on the subject of the (non-)existence of God.
thanks!
prag
Radical this ones for you...
In an earlier reply to the "Proof that the Christian god cannot exist" you said that if we built a computer that could track every particle from the big bang on we'd find out that there wouldn't be free will. WRONG! Every particle's position after this moment in time would be theoretical, in real life every particle can't be located, too many and moving to quick. We could say that there isn't free will because we can predict the weather, but they didn't say it was gonna rain on Independence Day, three days ago, but they were wrong. I'm not getting into weather god exists or not, but I think you can guess where this was gonna go if I continued this thread.
In an earlier reply to the "Proof that the Christian god cannot exist" you said that if we built a computer that could track every particle from the big bang on we'd find out that there wouldn't be free will. WRONG! Every particle's position after this moment in time would be theoretical, in real life every particle can't be located, too many and moving to quick. We could say that there isn't free will because we can predict the weather, but they didn't say it was gonna rain on Independence Day, three days ago, but they were wrong. I'm not getting into weather god exists or not, but I think you can guess where this was gonna go if I continued this thread.
?????
Believing something exists does not make it so. Unless you happen to suffer from symptoms associated with schizophrenia, because you think and believe that God and Jesus Christ visited you when you were fourteen does not make it so. That's great for you, but for the rest of us, it remains unproveable, therefore untenable at best.
exactly ,believing something exist does not make it so. the religions says god exist he is omnipotent ,he is omnicient... and else;but that's not enough to believe right?therefor i've pushed my reflexions more further and i had found enough evidence that god exist(i know not enough evidence for you) and also that what i have found catch what the religion says,therefor i believe in god.
that is why i separate my belief when i'm debating about god .
i think that the first recognition of god must come from our self.
We, as a human species, are more than capable of being exceptionally good
good!!!??what a foolish assertion,and i'll be glad to dicuss this with you of course if you can assert your opinion.
sensei, your logic is lacking to say the least. And, incidentally, your nickname is not conducive to instructing others on topics such as this. If it were indeed possible for you to separate your personal belief system and offer something on the other side of the argument, perhaps there would be more weight to your unstudied conclusions.
my logic please,you didn't even read what you call my logic,because if you did,why talking about the definition of sensei? AND not about my thoughts concerning the existance of god,NOT ABOUT WHY I BELIEVE IN GOD!,thoughts that you can discuss with me.
thanx for reminding me the meaning of sensei,but am i teaching you something?,NO,am i telling you to accept SOMETHING,HELL NO!!! i don't think so,I'M JUST EXPOSING NOT IMPOSING THOUGHTS,thoughts that i'll be glad to discuss with evrybody.
thanx much.
Believing something exists does not make it so. Unless you happen to suffer from symptoms associated with schizophrenia, because you think and believe that God and Jesus Christ visited you when you were fourteen does not make it so. That's great for you, but for the rest of us, it remains unproveable, therefore untenable at best.
exactly ,believing something exist does not make it so. the religions says god exist he is omnipotent ,he is omnicient... and else;but that's not enough to believe right?therefor i've pushed my reflexions more further and i had found enough evidence that god exist(i know not enough evidence for you) and also that what i have found catch what the religion says,therefor i believe in god.
that is why i separate my belief when i'm debating about god .
i think that the first recognition of god must come from our self.
We, as a human species, are more than capable of being exceptionally good
good!!!??what a foolish assertion,and i'll be glad to dicuss this with you of course if you can assert your opinion.
sensei, your logic is lacking to say the least. And, incidentally, your nickname is not conducive to instructing others on topics such as this. If it were indeed possible for you to separate your personal belief system and offer something on the other side of the argument, perhaps there would be more weight to your unstudied conclusions.
my logic please,you didn't even read what you call my logic,because if you did,why talking about the definition of sensei? AND not about my thoughts concerning the existance of god,NOT ABOUT WHY I BELIEVE IN GOD!,thoughts that you can discuss with me.
thanx for reminding me the meaning of sensei,but am i teaching you something?,NO,am i telling you to accept SOMETHING,HELL NO!!! i don't think so,I'M JUST EXPOSING NOT IMPOSING THOUGHTS,thoughts that i'll be glad to discuss with evrybody.
thanx much.
MMMMMM...Well I believe that there is a higher being, but should we call him god? I mean there are contradictions in the bible and it was written by man. Maybe someone came all those centuries back with unknown powers or tech and us as primitives would call
him GOD. Case in point is when back early part of when man jump on those old sailing ships and started exploring this planet we called earth. They came across tribes of humans that was still in the stone age. And these stoneage tribes thought these beings in their weird dress and weapons where gods. And think about this too. Recently in the last few years scientist went around the world collecting DNA samples from all the people. And found something very strange, and that was that the DNA samples collected from Africa was older in the way the chromosomes are made up than the rest of the DNA collected outside of Africa. Now why is that if we came from Adam an eve why is there a difference. Now I am not a person to knock down some ones belief or religion but just a simple theory of mine, I think maybe we need to quit looking in our beliefs and maybe start looking out to the stars we may find out who or what we call GOD is
him GOD. Case in point is when back early part of when man jump on those old sailing ships and started exploring this planet we called earth. They came across tribes of humans that was still in the stone age. And these stoneage tribes thought these beings in their weird dress and weapons where gods. And think about this too. Recently in the last few years scientist went around the world collecting DNA samples from all the people. And found something very strange, and that was that the DNA samples collected from Africa was older in the way the chromosomes are made up than the rest of the DNA collected outside of Africa. Now why is that if we came from Adam an eve why is there a difference. Now I am not a person to knock down some ones belief or religion but just a simple theory of mine, I think maybe we need to quit looking in our beliefs and maybe start looking out to the stars we may find out who or what we call GOD is
food for thought
Recently @ work I was talking to someone about my atheism. They told me a story that they thought would change my belief. Needless to say it didn't, but it does go to show you, that believers will use just about anything to try to convert you. It goes as follows:
A young man went to his father and told him he no longer believed in God. He said, "I can't see him, touch him, taste him, smell him or hear him, So he can't exist. There is no proof."
The father looked at the son and replied, "I agree, but you can feel him if you try. Just that makes Him real. You live with your decision, one day I'll show you your proof."
Several months later the son was in a car crash. Both legs were broken in several places. The father went to visit him in the hospital. He told his son, "I know you are in pain, so I ask, can you see it, touch it, taste it, smell it, or hear it?"
The son replied, "No, why do you ask?"
The father said, "Then it must not exist. There is no proof."
The son said, "Dad, I can feel it. It is real."
The father said, "The same is true with God and this is your proof."
Now I ask, does just feeling something make it real? There are numerous stories of people feeling aliens watching them, so then they must be real also. (I believe in aliens, in case you were wondering). Many people say they feel they are in love then discover that it was only LUST. Show me good, hard, put-it-under-a-microscope-proof, I'll be the first one in the convert line, but until then don't try to convert us. Live with your "BELIEF", and we'll live with ours.
Recently @ work I was talking to someone about my atheism. They told me a story that they thought would change my belief. Needless to say it didn't, but it does go to show you, that believers will use just about anything to try to convert you. It goes as follows:
A young man went to his father and told him he no longer believed in God. He said, "I can't see him, touch him, taste him, smell him or hear him, So he can't exist. There is no proof."
The father looked at the son and replied, "I agree, but you can feel him if you try. Just that makes Him real. You live with your decision, one day I'll show you your proof."
Several months later the son was in a car crash. Both legs were broken in several places. The father went to visit him in the hospital. He told his son, "I know you are in pain, so I ask, can you see it, touch it, taste it, smell it, or hear it?"
The son replied, "No, why do you ask?"
The father said, "Then it must not exist. There is no proof."
The son said, "Dad, I can feel it. It is real."
The father said, "The same is true with God and this is your proof."
Now I ask, does just feeling something make it real? There are numerous stories of people feeling aliens watching them, so then they must be real also. (I believe in aliens, in case you were wondering). Many people say they feel they are in love then discover that it was only LUST. Show me good, hard, put-it-under-a-microscope-proof, I'll be the first one in the convert line, but until then don't try to convert us. Live with your "BELIEF", and we'll live with ours.
reply to thecurly1
<h1> thecurly1 this is for you </h1>
moderators do tell if i'm out of order with h1
lets say the entire universe was a smal tomato.
if we managed to put into a computer the entire information about lets say the tomato we would be able to predict what will be the state of the tomato in lets say a zilion years from now.
(regarding that wealready know all the laws and such taing apart)
theefore if we had a super computer that was able to take into considiration the entire universe we wuld be ableto predict wha i was gonna write in my mesg 2moro.
ofcourse nowday such athing is not possible due to two things:
1) we do not have a system that will hold s much information
and we do not know all the laws
2) the computer will have to consider its own presence into the equation.(but again they also said man will never be able to fly)
as u can see alredy computer models can predict and estimate stuff consider what sort of computers we will have in lets say1000 years from now.
besides if we do invent time travel there won't bea computation time a all since we willsimply send a computer to te future and make it come back with an answer even if it took it zilion years.
<h1> thecurly1 this is for you </h1>
moderators do tell if i'm out of order with h1
lets say the entire universe was a smal tomato.
if we managed to put into a computer the entire information about lets say the tomato we would be able to predict what will be the state of the tomato in lets say a zilion years from now.
(regarding that wealready know all the laws and such taing apart)
theefore if we had a super computer that was able to take into considiration the entire universe we wuld be ableto predict wha i was gonna write in my mesg 2moro.
ofcourse nowday such athing is not possible due to two things:
1) we do not have a system that will hold s much information
and we do not know all the laws
2) the computer will have to consider its own presence into the equation.(but again they also said man will never be able to fly)
as u can see alredy computer models can predict and estimate stuff consider what sort of computers we will have in lets say1000 years from now.
besides if we do invent time travel there won't bea computation time a all since we willsimply send a computer to te future and make it come back with an answer even if it took it zilion years.
Free will? (origianally posted on "My .02 (or $20, whatever)"
Hi Cris,
I'm a "Christian" (i hate to lump myself in with such a dispicable group of people) that takes what I read in the bible as the truth. I could give you a whole bunch of reasons why, good ones I think, but I won't for now. I agree with what I've read here that if God knows the future as a certainty then we are pretty much like a computer program.
I don't have an axe to grind and I'm not bitter because of some terrible experience with the religious establishment, catholic or otherwise. i do believe that "christian television" is a stench in the nostriles of every person who can think for themselves. I agree that religious people have and continue to pervert the word of God for their own selfish wants.
The bible taken at face value is a source of incredible insight. When I read it I see just how... Oh, ok I won't get into how great the Bible is. Back to the beginning of this thread.
I don't believe my future is fixed because I really do have a free will. I also believe God is omniscient. How do I reconcile these two beliefs and still be able to claim my IQ is pretty much the same as the general public? Actually I have no idea what my IQ is. Well, anyway...
It all comes down to how you define God's omniscience. To understand God's omniscience I believe you have to view it with his other attributes. God is also omnipresent and omnipotent.
Here's how the dictionary on MSN defines these words...
om·nis·cient [om níssee nt ] adjective
all-knowing: knowing or seeming to know everything
om·ni·pres·ent [òmnee prézz'nt ] adjective
1. always present everywhere: continuously and simultaneously present throughout the whole of creation
2. found everywhere: present or seemingly present all the time or everywhere
om·nip·o·tent [om nípptnt ] adjective
all-powerful: possessing complete, unlimited, or universal power and authority
God's attributes taken together help shed light on each. Where in theses definitions can you deduce that God knows all the future as a certainty? God's omniscience is only possible because of his omnipresence. The only thing i can say about God when considering these attributes is that because God is everywhere He knows everything that is going on. Nothing is hid from Him.
How does this do away with free will?
Classical Greek philosophy is where the idea of Omniscience as: Perfect knowledge of past and future events, originated.
The Greeks where obsessed with the idea of perfection. The state of perfection by definition meant that it was unchangable, in other words... static. This philosophy enter Christian theology early on and has tainted accurate intrepretation of scripture and therefore most everyones few of God.
Because God is all powerful he is able to determine certain aspects of the future. That does not mean that everything in the future is set.
How does the following scripture support the idea that God's omniscience means He knows everything in the future as set?
Genesis 6
5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.
6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.
7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth--men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air--for I am grieved that I have made them."
8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.
It seems to me that there is something here and many other places in the bible that doesn't line up with Calvinistic (Classical) theology. How can this be?
Let's think for ourselves. God gave me a brain and told me to use it "come let us reason together". I happen to believe the bible. For me it is the standard I test everything with. A good question to ask yourself... What standard do I stand on? Why?
If I saw someone take a mathematics class and he flunked out because he didn't read the textbook, didn't pay attention to the instructor and generally disrupted the class by being totally abnoxious. Would you agree with me that the reason that this guy flunked was because the text book was screwy. Probably not... I'm doing a terrible job of trying to get my point across.
The point is, judge the bible by its own merits not by what you see some so called believers doing or saying.
For more about reconciling God's omniscience and our free will check out:
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/index.asp?PageID=257
Its an excellent resource for understanding the idea that the future is partly open, even to God.
I guess I'm assuming that you are interested in the truth and that it can be determined.
Here's a quote from you welcoming sensie:
"Everyone is free of course to hold their own points of view, but the issue here is whether your view represents truth or not. Your statements really just represent an unsupported assertion; you have not addressed the problem of the paradox. "
I hope that i have addressed the issue of the paradox, let me know.
i'm glad you are a seeker of truth. So am I.
Maybe we can disuss the problem of evil in the world. If God is good and loving why so much suffering?
Hi Cris,
I'm a "Christian" (i hate to lump myself in with such a dispicable group of people) that takes what I read in the bible as the truth. I could give you a whole bunch of reasons why, good ones I think, but I won't for now. I agree with what I've read here that if God knows the future as a certainty then we are pretty much like a computer program.
I don't have an axe to grind and I'm not bitter because of some terrible experience with the religious establishment, catholic or otherwise. i do believe that "christian television" is a stench in the nostriles of every person who can think for themselves. I agree that religious people have and continue to pervert the word of God for their own selfish wants.
The bible taken at face value is a source of incredible insight. When I read it I see just how... Oh, ok I won't get into how great the Bible is. Back to the beginning of this thread.
I don't believe my future is fixed because I really do have a free will. I also believe God is omniscient. How do I reconcile these two beliefs and still be able to claim my IQ is pretty much the same as the general public? Actually I have no idea what my IQ is. Well, anyway...
It all comes down to how you define God's omniscience. To understand God's omniscience I believe you have to view it with his other attributes. God is also omnipresent and omnipotent.
Here's how the dictionary on MSN defines these words...
om·nis·cient [om níssee nt ] adjective
all-knowing: knowing or seeming to know everything
om·ni·pres·ent [òmnee prézz'nt ] adjective
1. always present everywhere: continuously and simultaneously present throughout the whole of creation
2. found everywhere: present or seemingly present all the time or everywhere
om·nip·o·tent [om nípptnt ] adjective
all-powerful: possessing complete, unlimited, or universal power and authority
God's attributes taken together help shed light on each. Where in theses definitions can you deduce that God knows all the future as a certainty? God's omniscience is only possible because of his omnipresence. The only thing i can say about God when considering these attributes is that because God is everywhere He knows everything that is going on. Nothing is hid from Him.
How does this do away with free will?
Classical Greek philosophy is where the idea of Omniscience as: Perfect knowledge of past and future events, originated.
The Greeks where obsessed with the idea of perfection. The state of perfection by definition meant that it was unchangable, in other words... static. This philosophy enter Christian theology early on and has tainted accurate intrepretation of scripture and therefore most everyones few of God.
Because God is all powerful he is able to determine certain aspects of the future. That does not mean that everything in the future is set.
How does the following scripture support the idea that God's omniscience means He knows everything in the future as set?
Genesis 6
5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.
6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.
7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth--men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air--for I am grieved that I have made them."
8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.
It seems to me that there is something here and many other places in the bible that doesn't line up with Calvinistic (Classical) theology. How can this be?
Let's think for ourselves. God gave me a brain and told me to use it "come let us reason together". I happen to believe the bible. For me it is the standard I test everything with. A good question to ask yourself... What standard do I stand on? Why?
If I saw someone take a mathematics class and he flunked out because he didn't read the textbook, didn't pay attention to the instructor and generally disrupted the class by being totally abnoxious. Would you agree with me that the reason that this guy flunked was because the text book was screwy. Probably not... I'm doing a terrible job of trying to get my point across.
The point is, judge the bible by its own merits not by what you see some so called believers doing or saying.
For more about reconciling God's omniscience and our free will check out:
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/index.asp?PageID=257
Its an excellent resource for understanding the idea that the future is partly open, even to God.
I guess I'm assuming that you are interested in the truth and that it can be determined.
Here's a quote from you welcoming sensie:
"Everyone is free of course to hold their own points of view, but the issue here is whether your view represents truth or not. Your statements really just represent an unsupported assertion; you have not addressed the problem of the paradox. "
I hope that i have addressed the issue of the paradox, let me know.
i'm glad you are a seeker of truth. So am I.
Maybe we can disuss the problem of evil in the world. If God is good and loving why so much suffering?
The real question is how much does God know? Does he just know the future? That would leave free-will wide open. If, however, He knew every possible outcome of everything <i>He</i> did, then we would be in a different situation. And rastus77 has pretty much disproved that the Bible makes that claim in the above post.
So then, this is what I think is a good analogy of what God knows: Imagine that God sees a timeline in a single line in front of Him that has some form of definition, like a changing color or changing direction. Now, if God were to grab a part of the timeline and twist it (if the definition is by direction) in some way early on, He could see immediately afterwards how the rest of the timeline changed its shape, <i>but not before</i>. If He did know before, then we would not have free will.
In this way, He can know everything in the future without any problem of free will. He just cannot know for sure how we will react as beings with free-will when He interferes.
So then, this is what I think is a good analogy of what God knows: Imagine that God sees a timeline in a single line in front of Him that has some form of definition, like a changing color or changing direction. Now, if God were to grab a part of the timeline and twist it (if the definition is by direction) in some way early on, He could see immediately afterwards how the rest of the timeline changed its shape, <i>but not before</i>. If He did know before, then we would not have free will.
In this way, He can know everything in the future without any problem of free will. He just cannot know for sure how we will react as beings with free-will when He interferes.
Correct.
It is easy to think up things that are impossible for God, because God cannot do things that are logical contradictions. It is easy however for the human mind to come up with contradictions and not think of them as contradictions.
For instance, it is impossible to make the same area of a surface lit and unlit at the same time. It is a logical contradiction--essentially meaningless. I could come up with the idea of a square-circle but that would not give something meaning, and God could not create such a thing.
Glad we could agree
It is easy to think up things that are impossible for God, because God cannot do things that are logical contradictions. It is easy however for the human mind to come up with contradictions and not think of them as contradictions.
For instance, it is impossible to make the same area of a surface lit and unlit at the same time. It is a logical contradiction--essentially meaningless. I could come up with the idea of a square-circle but that would not give something meaning, and God could not create such a thing.
Glad we could agree
Pain is colorless and tasteless from the surface. However, we do know how pain is formed inside the nerve system, how pain is transmitted, and how pain can be blocked. For god, well....
I have to agree. Sometimes, people who do not understand Christianity make assertations about 'why doesn't God do such-and-such' or 'why can't he just do thusly.' What must be understood, is that God is who is is (like He said, I AM that I AM). God cannot create logical contadictions -- for instance, a universe in which pi = 5.9385. The Bible even <i>explicitly</i> tells us of one of His limitations:
"Heb 6:18 That by two immutable things, in which <i>it was impossible for God to lie</i>, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us"
Gasp! Egads! Impossible for God to lie?!!?!?
There goes the omnipotence, right? I think when people refer to His omnipotence, they are refering more to His control over physical matter and events (for instance, His ability to give the word and halt rain for three years), and not so much as to His control over who is He is (He is who he is).
"Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever."
<hr>
I remember seeing this topic the first time around, and I don't think I got involved in it. Anyway, you're (Chris's) paradox is not valid. Consider the case where you watch a movie 500 times in a row. By the time you watch it again, you'll pretty much have a sort of "omniscience" about what is going on. You will every single thing that happens in the movie. Now, does that mean that the script-writer, producer, director, composer, special effects team, cameramen, and actors/actresses did not have free-will when they made the movie? Of course not! Now consider you have a time machine, and you travel back to the time before the movie was even made and you watch it. You will know exactly what happens before it even happens!!! Yet all the people involved in the movie's production still have/had free will to decide how the movie will be made!!! Paradox broken.
Since God is outside of time, you could almost consider that He is looking back on history. He doesn't have to follow casuality if He is outside of time!
~Caleb