What are the conflicts between atheism and science?

[Jan Ardena]

Of course.

Logic can only obtain where there is unknown.

God's knowledge being perfect (purportedly) would necessitate the impossibility of unknowns...

ergo...

Can a person, capable of logical thinking, express something to another person who is in the position of not knowing via the logical process?
IOW, bring him up to speed?

If yes, then is it possible that an omniscient being can use logic to give explanation to a person of limited knowledge?

If yes, would you agree that God is capable of logical thinking, and uses it as He sees fit?

jan.

 

[phlogistician]

He creates gravity, which science knows exists, but cannot explain the actual cause.

So when the LHC discovers the Higg's Boson, your God disappears in a puff of logic?

But see what you've done? You've fallen into the 'God of gaps' fallacy argument. That's tired old bullshit, it really is.

And every single day, perhaps 300,000 times a day, all across the world, He wishes to enter into each one of us in an intimate communion with Him,

Where do you get that figure from? It's less than the population of the Earth, and more than the number of people that get to go to Heaven.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I think the crucial concept to discuss here is "believe in".
Whether we mean "holding to be true" or "being favorably disposed toward".

Atheists are normally the ones who are characteristically unfavorably disposed toward God; so much so that they do not hold His existence to be true.

Have you noticed that they won't discuss beyond a certain point?

jan.

 

[phlogistician]

Your stupidity know no bounds (regarding theism)

jan.

jan.

Jan, instead of hurling insults, why don't you just describe your God to us? Your personal description, please.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

A = the person himself.
B = God.

If someone believes A to be B then it is a truism that whatever they think of A they also think of B.

If a person thinks he is God, then he thinks he is God, that is the conclusion of this formula.

Sanity or otherwise is irrelevant, despite your protestations to the contrary.
An insane theist is still a theist.

So you must have some idea of what it takes to be a theist.
Can you explain that please?

Further, you fall into the trap of assuming that this person believes God to have the qualities that you believe God to have.

That doesn't make sense. Can you show that the definition of God (classic theistic) is born out of my own belief, as opposed to quoting from the mentioned definitioned.?

And can you give different definitions of God?

They are still theist according to the definition of theism that is widely accepted and understood.

A theist believes in God.
Can you show that someone who thinks they are God, believes in God.

I do mind. At no point prior to this was it agreed that we would use the term as you wish.

Fair enough.

ing the case, you're wrong. :shrug:
"Want" implies a lack implies imperfection. You can have one or the other... :shrug:

Are you guys frustrated long jumpers, because you sure take wild leaps to reach conclusions.

God doesn't live all by Himself.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jan, instead of hurling insults, why don't you just describe your God to us? Your personal description, please.

It's not an insult, it applies to the reasoning and forcefulness, of his understanding, of something which he cannot understand or know anything about, not only by his own admission, but by dint of his position regarding the subject matter, but makes assertions anyway.


Use the links Dydubya put forward, there you will find my definition.

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Yes, you do. You cannot use a word in a sentence (other than in a question) without operating out of some definition of what that word means.

Wrong. I didn't say that I'm not operating from some sort of definition, I said I (e.g. me personally) don't have a definition. I accept (for the discussion) whatever the generally claimed one is.

I can't see God, therefore God doesn't exist.

Fail.

The first cause argument supports the initial claim.

So what was the cause of god? Fail again.

You'd just be proving my point.

Okay. You're an atheist. Why are you arguing that he exists?

Stop wasting time.

Correction, you're the one wasting time since you reply to posts that you haven't read.

Didn't you read my post?
Or did you just fail to understand it?

I was simply checking.

It is hard to make sense to the block-headed.

I've noticed.

Oh! So now you assert that belief in God = I am God.

I see you can't even parse a sentence correctly.

Have you noticed that they won't discuss beyond a certain point?

I agree. That point would be when you fail to acknowledge the logic, start backtracking, refuse to answer questions and deny whatever doesn't suit your preconceptions. At least, on this occasion, you haven't resorted to lying.
We're done.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Spidergoat,

Your first error was saying that Jesus told the jews that they were God (uppercase).
What? Do you think that if somehow you capitalise God, thereby distinuishing Him a Supreme Being, it will somehow mean you believe in Him?

Anyway, you brought up john 10.34..

Jesus answered the Jews by asking them a question;

34 Jesus answered, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’?

Now is he really telling them that he wrote in their ancient law, that they are gods? Or is he telling them that he said the their law contains information that they are gods?

If we look at genesis 3;5 we know that the serpent tempted eve that if she eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, they will be as good as gods.

Notice Jesus didn't say THE law, or, God's law, but, in YOUR law.

jan.

 

[phlogistician]

Use the links Dydubya put forward, there you will find my definition.

jan.

I asked you for your personal description, Jan. Not for links offered by somebody else. Again, you dodge the actual question.

Please answer personally, in your own words. No links, references to scripture, but your own thoughts and words please.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I asked you for your personal description, Jan. Not for links offered by somebody else. Again, you dodge the actual question.

Please answer personally, in your own words. No links, references to scripture, but your own thoughts and words please.

I believe God is the supreme being.

I've told you this at least 4 trillion times, i'm sure.
Why do you keep asking me?

jan.

 

[phlogistician]

I believe God is the supreme being.

I've told you this at least 4 trillion times, i'm sure.
Why do you keep asking me?

jan.

Is that it? I asked for a description, and that's all I get?

 

[wynn]

Just to compare, think about those who frequenty and habitually use the word "fuck". They must have quite an obsession with sex in order to talk about procreation so much. Right?

Obviously, they mean something by that word, otherwise they would not use it.

Few would deny that Dawkins, for example, has an obsession with God.
What he means by that word is to an extent the same as many theists mean by it, namely "The Supreme Being". Except that for Dawkins, unlike for the theists, "The Supreme Being" is something to dislike.


I wonder what would happen if we made a concerted effort to popularize a definition of God that would contain the proposition "someone whom all living beings actually deeply love and who loves all living beings".

 

[Jan Ardena]

Is that it? I asked for a description, and that's all I get?

Please explain to me what you require?

Start the ball rolling.

jan.

 

[wynn]

Yes, you do. You cannot use a word in a sentence (other than in a question) without operating out of some definition of what that word means.

Wrong.

Then try it:

"Give me that merec!"

Makes sense to you?

I didn't say that I'm not operating from some sort of definition, I said I (e.g. me personally) don't have a definition. I accept (for the discussion) whatever the generally claimed one is.

No, you're not accepting that. If you accepted the definition "God = Supreme Being, Creator, Maintainer and Controller of the Universe" you could not talk the way you do.
See example below:

The first cause argument supports the initial claim.

So what was the cause of god? Fail again.

If you accept (sic!) the definition that "God is the First Cause", then you cannot ask "So what was the cause of god?"

I agree. That point would be when you fail to acknowledge the logic, start backtracking, refuse to answer questions and deny whatever doesn't suit your preconceptions. At least, on this occasion, you haven't resorted to lying.
We're done.

You have not met him halfway, nor in much goodwill.

 

[spidergoat]

Spidergoat,

Your first error was saying that Jesus told the jews that they were God (uppercase).
What? Do you think that if somehow you capitalise God, thereby distinuishing Him a Supreme Being, it will somehow mean you believe in Him?

I'm not sure what you're talking about here, perhaps you are responding to someone else?

Anyway, you brought up john 10.34..

Jesus answered the Jews by asking them a question;

34 Jesus answered, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’?

Now is he really telling them that he wrote in their ancient law, that they are gods? Or is he telling them that he said the their law contains information that they are gods?

The latter.

If we look at genesis 3;5 we know that the serpent tempted eve that if she eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, they will be as good as gods.

Notice Jesus didn't say THE law, or, God's law, but, in YOUR law.

jan

The law of the Jews is God's law, since Jesus said he did not come to undermine it but to fulfill it, which confirms that he both studied it and agreed it was a good platform on which to elaborate. The bible says the nature of God and the nature of people are not separate. We are as branches of a tree, or a son from a father. This was the good news of Jesus, not salvation for sin through a single act of self-sacrifice, which makes Jesus into an idol.

 

[phlogistician]

Please explain to me what you require?

Start the ball rolling.

jan.

A full description of the God you believe in.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Then try it:
"Give me that merec!"
Makes sense to you?

As much as "god" does once there's a working definition on Wiki or somewhere.

No, you're not accepting that. If you accepted the definition "God = Supreme Being, Creator, Maintainer and Controller of the Universe" you could not talk the way you do.

Note that I said I accept the definition for discussion purposes. I accept it as a definition, which is not the same as accepting that the definition, as used, relates to a genuine "thing".

If you accept (sic!) the definition that "God is the First Cause", then you cannot ask "So what was the cause of god?"

By that time I had wearied of his incessant avoidance and deliberate obfuscation. Plus, as you will have noted, there are several definitions of god. Which Jan has ALSO skirted around - despite my asking which he actually used.
See his reply to Phlogistician, where he points Phlo at MY links (as HIS personal description) after having told me they were actually "different concepts".

You have not met him halfway.

On the contrary, he has consistently back tracked, avoided, obfuscated and stalled. As I said, at least this time he didn't resort to outright lies, otherwise his tactics have been typical Jan tactics. State a position and then refuse to substantiate it while dumping more and more conditions and requirements on anyone trying to ascertain his "reasoning".

 

[Mind Over Matter]

The first cause argument supports the initial claim.

So what was the cause of god? Fail again.

If you accept (sic!) the definition that "God is the First Cause", then you cannot ask "So what was the cause of god?"

Let me answer this. God is the un-created source of all creation. God doesn't have a creator. This is why He is God.

 

[wynn]

By that time I had wearied of his incessant avoidance and deliberate obfuscation. Plus, as you will have noted, there are several definitions of god. Which Jan has ALSO skirted around - despite my asking which he actually used.

How do you know it was deliberate?

See his reply to Phlogistician, where he points Phlo at MY links (as HIS personal description) after having told me they were actually "different concepts".

Check this out as a reference: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=84494
and get back to us.

 

[wynn]

Have you noticed that they won't discuss beyond a certain point?

Sure. A comfort zone has limits, hence it is a zone.