Evidence

Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Evidence

What qualifies as sufficient evidence to justify a belief in God? And who (or what) makes this determination?

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
v4ultingbassist wrote:David

v4ultingbassist wrote:

David Henson wrote:

 

You are trying too hard to understand it. You are making myth out of it like myth was stupid you can't grasp.

 

God created man. He said you are just a pup, so you need to listen to me. Satan said - Ehh, maybe? Man listened. Man was wrong. Read your own cartoon again.

 

You keep dodging the question.  Why is the tree there, and why is satan even in contact with man?  God would've known what was to happen if he were omniscient, which makes him not so just and loving.

Sounds like someone trying to explain chaos.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:jcgadfly

David Henson wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

But more truthful than blaming it on his human creation who didn't know good and evil and thus could make no sense of his edict.

No. His human creation were told what was good and what was bad by the creator himself. Perhaps you think that it is myth which clouds your judgment.  

No I think they were told what was good and what was bad without knowing what "good" and "bad" were.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
v4ultingbasist wrote:You

v4ultingbasist wrote:
You keep dodging the question.  Why is the tree there, and why is Satan even in contact with man?  God would've known what was to happen if he were omniscient, which makes him not so just and loving.

The tree was there as a reminder to man, as he matured, that man needed the guidance and protection of his creator. Satan was in contact with man to protect him originally. God didn't know what was to happen. The concept of God being strictly omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent is religious nonsense. When you you read the Bible it says God can't lie. To be omnipotent means God can do anything, if God can't lie he isn't omnipotent. It says God has a fixed position and so he can't be omnipresent. When Adam sinned God asked what they had done. God later sends angels to see if Sodom and Gomorrah was as bad as people were saying so he isn't omniscient.

jcgadfly wrote:

No I think they were told what was good and what was bad without knowing what "good" and "bad" were.

Well, they having been told would imply that they knew. They knew it was good to live forever and acknowledge God's sovereignty, they knew it would be bad to disobey their creator. They decided that they would get to "know" or choose for themselves what was good and what was bad which was a really stupid move.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
David Henson

David Henson wrote:

v4ultingbasist wrote:
You keep dodging the question.  Why is the tree there, and why is Satan even in contact with man?  God would've known what was to happen if he were omniscient, which makes him not so just and loving.

The tree was there as a reminder to man, as he matured, that man needed the guidance and protection of his creator. Satan was in contact with man to protect him originally. God didn't know what was to happen. The concept of God being strictly omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent is religious nonsense. When you you read the Bible it says God can't lie. To be omnipotent means God can do anything, if God can't lie he isn't omnipotent. It says God has a fixed position and so he can't be omnipresent. When Adam sinned God asked what they had done. God later sends angels to see if Sodom and Gomorrah was as bad as people were saying so he isn't omniscient.

jcgadfly wrote:

No I think they were told what was good and what was bad without knowing what "good" and "bad" were.

Well, they having been told would imply that they knew. They knew it was good to live forever and acknowledge God's sovereignty, they knew it would be bad to disobey their creator. They decided that they would get to "know" or choose for themselves what was good and what was bad which was a really stupid move.

Except that in order to understand what they were told, they would've had to have eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil beforehand.

See the catch-22 yet?

Oh, and if your God is as clueless as the rest of us, why worship him? Or are you simply a "might makes right" believer?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
David Henson

David Henson wrote:

v4ultingbasist wrote:
You keep dodging the question.  Why is the tree there, and why is Satan even in contact with man?  God would've known what was to happen if he were omniscient, which makes him not so just and loving.

The tree was there as a reminder to man, as he matured, that man needed the guidance and protection of his creator. Satan was in contact with man to protect him originally. God didn't know what was to happen. The concept of God being strictly omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent is religious nonsense. When you you read the Bible it says God can't lie. To be omnipotent means God can do anything, if God can't lie he isn't omnipotent. It says God has a fixed position and so he can't be omnipresent. When Adam sinned God asked what they had done. God later sends angels to see if Sodom and Gomorrah was as bad as people were saying so he isn't omniscient.

jcgadfly wrote:

No I think they were told what was good and what was bad without knowing what "good" and "bad" were.

Well, they having been told would imply that they knew. They knew it was good to live forever and acknowledge God's sovereignty, they knew it would be bad to disobey their creator. They decided that they would get to "know" or choose for themselves what was good and what was bad which was a really stupid move.

Why, exactly, do you believe this?

The problem I have is it sounds like, to me, you are just making up motivations that fit into a story when we don't actually have any facts about that story.  The entire thing is literary navel  gazing, but you talk about it like you have some sort of intellectual authority to speculate that makes the things you pull out of your butt a fact.

I don't see why you would think anything you have been saying is convincing, even to another believer.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Except that

jcgadfly wrote:

Except that in order to understand what they were told, they would've had to have eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil beforehand.

See the catch-22 yet?

You can't get that myth out of your head can you? Lets change direction for a bit . . . what does the word sin mean? How else is it applied in the Hebrew and Greek scriptures? Sin means to miss the mark, for example archers or throwers of stone in the Bible, when they miss their mark or target, the same Hebrew and Greek words are used as are translated sin.

Adam and Eve were told, by their creator, what was good and what was bad. He set the mark. In deciding that they wanted to set their own mark Adam, a man who was given the Earth as a steward and who would have lived forever had he not sinned, rejected God's protection and guidance.

jcgadfly wrote:
Oh, and if your God is as clueless as the rest of us, why worship him? Or are you simply a "might makes right" believer?

I didn't say God was as clueless as the rest of us.


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
david wrote:The tree was

david wrote:

The tree was there as a reminder to man, as he matured, that man needed the guidance and protection of his creator. Satan was in contact with man to protect him originally. God didn't know what was to happen. The concept of God being strictly omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent is religious nonsense. When you you read the Bible it says God can't lie. To be omnipotent means God can do anything, if God can't lie he isn't omnipotent. It says God has a fixed position and so he can't be omnipresent. When Adam sinned God asked what they had done. God later sends angels to see if Sodom and Gomorrah was as bad as people were saying so he isn't omniscient.

 

I don't recall reading that the tree was there for guidance.  All I recall reading was that it's fruit contained the ability to distinguish good from evil.  The bible doesn't say anything about why the tree was there, you are simply making the metaphor work.  I have no reason to accept your interpretation based on what is written in the very book you are twisting.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:jcgadfly

David Henson wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Except that in order to understand what they were told, they would've had to have eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil beforehand.

See the catch-22 yet?

You can't get that myth out of your head can you? Lets change direction for a bit . . . what does the word sin mean? How else is it applied in the Hebrew and Greek scriptures? Sin means to miss the mark, for example archers or throwers of stone in the Bible, when they miss their mark or target, the same Hebrew and Greek words are used as are translated sin.

Adam and Eve were told, by their creator, what was good and what was bad. He set the mark. In deciding that they wanted to set their own mark Adam, a man who was given the Earth as a steward and who would have lived forever had he not sinned, rejected God's protection and guidance.

jcgadfly wrote:
Oh, and if your God is as clueless as the rest of us, why worship him? Or are you simply a "might makes right" believer?

I didn't say God was as clueless as the rest of us.

Hey, it is your Bible - just because you do not like it...

So, you want sin as "hammartia" - that means that no one can hit the mark god sets and we all sin daily no matter what. Is your God so vain he needs continually butt kissing? Or is this just "If I am simply unable to stop sinning, I can do whatever I want"?

No, you just said that there was nothing special about him that makes him any better than the rest of us - he has no qualities that we do not have.

Why worship Him again?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
The tree, the apple, the

The tree, the apple, the snake, it's all just a silly fable. Aesop wrote much better fables that actually had some meaning.

Genesis is too obviously written by a childish mind to really debate. Unless one wants to "interperet" it the way they want too, but then again you can interpret ANY writing in the way you want. I would asume if it were real you could view the bible through a thin tube and it would make some sense.

Maybe it's a failing on my part as to why I cannot imagine someone actually falling for this in this day and age that has studied it, and really considered what is written.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
v4ultingbassist wrote: david

v4ultingbassist wrote:

david wrote:

The tree was there as a reminder to man, as he matured, that man needed the guidance and protection of his creator. Satan was in contact with man to protect him originally. God didn't know what was to happen. The concept of God being strictly omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent is religious nonsense. When you you read the Bible it says God can't lie. To be omnipotent means God can do anything, if God can't lie he isn't omnipotent. It says God has a fixed position and so he can't be omnipresent. When Adam sinned God asked what they had done. God later sends angels to see if Sodom and Gomorrah was as bad as people were saying so he isn't omniscient.

 

I don't recall reading that the tree was there for guidance.  All I recall reading was that it's fruit contained the ability to distinguish good from evil.  The bible doesn't say anything about why the tree was there, you are simply making the metaphor work.  I have no reason to accept your interpretation based on what is written in the very book you are twisting.

The fruit had no special properties. Genesis 3:2-3 says that they were not even to touch the tree. The Jerusalem Bible's footnote at Genesis 2:17 reads:

“This knowledge is a privilege which God reserves to himself and which man, by sinning, is to lay hands on, 3:5, 22. Hence it does not mean omniscience, which fallen man does not possess; nor is it moral discrimination, for unfallen man already had it and God could not refuse it to a rational being. It is the power of deciding for himself what is good and what is evil and of acting accordingly, a claim to complete moral independence by which man refuses to recognise his status as a created being. The first sin was an attack on God’s sovereignty, a sin of pride.”


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:No, you just

jcgadfly wrote:

No, you just said that there was nothing special about him that makes him any better than the rest of us - he has no qualities that we do not have.

Show me where I said that.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:jcgadfly

David Henson wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

No, you just said that there was nothing special about him that makes him any better than the rest of us - he has no qualities that we do not have.

Show me where I said that.

Statements such as "The concept of God being strictly omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent is religious nonsense.", denying the attributes typically applied to God, to distinguish him fundamentally from ourselves.

 

Now what exactly distinguishes God from us?

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Statements

BobSpence1 wrote:

Statements such as "The concept of God being strictly omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent is religious nonsense.", denying the attributes typically applied to God, to distinguish him fundamentally from ourselves.

God, whos image we were created in, can't be omnipresent if his position is fixed in heaven. That doesn't mean he can't be wherever he wants to be, it just means that he isn't everywhere all at once.

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
Now what exactly distinguishes God from us?

Well first of all he is a spirit, we are flesh and blood. He is immortal, without creation, we are his creation.


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:The fruit

David Henson wrote:
The fruit had no special properties.

 

Really?  Because when I read 'you shouldn't eat from the tree of knowledge of good an evil' I feel like even a first grader can identify that it isn't normal fruit.

 

Quote:

Genesis 3:2-3 says that they were not even to touch the tree. The Jerusalem Bible's footnote at Genesis 2:17 reads: “This knowledge is a privilege which God reserves to himself and which man, by sinning, is to lay hands on, 3:5, 22. Hence it does not mean omniscience, which fallen man does not possess; nor is it moral discrimination, for unfallen man already had it and God could not refuse it to a rational being. It is the power of deciding for himself what is good and what is evil and of acting accordingly, a claim to complete moral independence by which man refuses to recognise his status as a created being. The first sin was an attack on God’s sovereignty, a sin of pride.”

 

Which STILL fails to acknowledge WHY THE TREE WAS THERE.  Why are you dodging so much?

 

And you even bring up the point that it is all about our ability to choose.  God made us so we could choose.  He put a tree there that he didn't want us to choose to eat from.  We chose to eat from it, and now are punished.  What kind of engineer would put a landmine in an intersection so it triggers if someone runs a red light?  A fucking retarded one, that's who.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
v4ultingbassist wrote:David

v4ultingbassist wrote:

David Henson wrote:
The fruit had no special properties.

 

Really?  Because when I read 'you shouldn't eat from the tree of knowledge of good an evil' I feel like even a first grader can identify that it isn't normal fruit.

 

Quote:

Genesis 3:2-3 says that they were not even to touch the tree. The Jerusalem Bible's footnote at Genesis 2:17 reads: “This knowledge is a privilege which God reserves to himself and which man, by sinning, is to lay hands on, 3:5, 22. Hence it does not mean omniscience, which fallen man does not possess; nor is it moral discrimination, for unfallen man already had it and God could not refuse it to a rational being. It is the power of deciding for himself what is good and what is evil and of acting accordingly, a claim to complete moral independence by which man refuses to recognise his status as a created being. The first sin was an attack on God’s sovereignty, a sin of pride.”

 

Which STILL fails to acknowledge WHY THE TREE WAS THERE.  Why are you dodging so much?

 

And you even bring up the point that it is all about our ability to choose.  God made us so we could choose.  He put a tree there that he didn't want us to choose to eat from.  We chose to eat from it, and now are punished.  What kind of engineer would put a landmine in an intersection so it triggers if someone runs a red light?  A fucking retarded one, that's who.

Or one that wanted to fail in the first place =)

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:Or one that

robj101 wrote:

Or one that wanted to fail in the first place =)

 

So then Moses, or someone else much further down the line, created a myth based upon this obvious set up? Surely as atheists you are not saying that a vilified God that doesn't exist actually did set them up.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:robj101

David Henson wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Or one that wanted to fail in the first place =)

 

So then Moses, or someone else much further down the line, created a myth based upon this obvious set up? Surely as atheists you are not saying that a vilified God that doesn't exist actually did set them up.

How about the early writers building a vengeful deity myth like other cultures and later writers adding a resurrected deity myth (like other cultures) to soften the blow and sell their product?

After all, if religion does not sell hope, it does not have anything to sell.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:David Henson

jcgadfly wrote:

David Henson wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Or one that wanted to fail in the first place =)

 

So then Moses, or someone else much further down the line, created a myth based upon this obvious set up? Surely as atheists you are not saying that a vilified God that doesn't exist actually did set them up.

How about the early writers building a vengeful deity myth like other cultures and later writers adding a resurrected deity myth (like other cultures) to soften the blow and sell their product?

After all, if religion does not sell hope, it does not have anything to sell.

That really is the simplest explenation.  The OT god was a prick because that is how dieties acted in those days.  Jesus was not so much of a prick because society was moving beyond that slightly.

 

It makes a hell of a lot more sense than trying to torture the whole thing into making sense.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:robj101

David Henson wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Or one that wanted to fail in the first place =)

 

So then Moses, or someone else much further down the line, created a myth based upon this obvious set up? Surely as atheists you are not saying that a vilified God that doesn't exist actually did set them up.

He is all knowing, I have heard christians say that and mean it literally as in, he already knows what you are going to do. Then I have heard christians who claim he is all knowing yet does not know the eventual outcome of you, therfore this "test" which also means he is NOT all knowing. My butt hurts let me scratch my left earlobe...ahhh yes that's better..hey wait..yarrrrrr

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin