To Deny God is to deny life

Rational Faith
Theist
Posts: 2
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
To Deny God is to deny life

Life requires an all-powerful being, God, to even exist. Life is too complex to simply be something that fell into place. The replication of DNA to formation and cooperation of cells. The very beginning of matter requires God.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
I never claimed that you do

I never claimed that you do accept the First Cause argument; I only claim that it is logically necessary to posit God (in other words, you logically should accept it Smiling ). But, regardless, I CAN know that God exists by using by reason, without faith.

 Also, the "earth revolving around the sun," is naturally known. Natural knowledge/reason is not "what seems to be," but rather, "knowledge that comes from what we can know by our own powers, without Revelation." Thus, it is in my own power to verify that the earth does, in fact, revolve around the sun because I can go into space or produce calculations that demonstrate this.

It is rather YOUR position that must reject the moon landing, because you reject the validity of accepting an argument based on authority as a rational action. Religious faith is merely a species of such trust.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10137
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
StMichael

StMichael wrote:

Quote:

The sky isn't blue because I believe it. It's blue because of light refraction.

You use belief to substantiate that the sky is blue because of light refraction. Unless you have actually performed direct scientific tests upon the fact, you have no direct knowledge that the sky is in fact blue because of light refraction. You accept this on faith from those who have. This is rational and reasonable faith which affords a form of certainity, but it is still the same faith that religious persons use (albeit with a different object and source of authority).

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

Wrong. I do not use belief to substantiate that the sky is blue and why, I use science. Science that I personally have conducted. Science that I have personally conducted to prove your god, and came up with a falsity. Try again.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I really don't know why we

I really don't know why we are bothering. this is like talking to someone from another planet. Religious faith is really worthless as a source of information, especially with the absurd claims made by it - and the fact that there is no good reason to pick one over another.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
StMichael

StMichael wrote:

Quote:

Faith isn't knowledge. It's belief. *Shakes head*

If faith is not knowledge, define "knowledge." As you have not offered any definition, I think we can agree to define knowledge as "the intellectual possession of an idea." More properly, true or accurate knowledge is the intellectual possession of a truth.

No.  1000x no.  There are many things of which I can conceive.  I can take all kinds of conscious states, refer them to other conscious states, and come up with all sorts of chimeras.  "The intellectual possession of an idea" simply means that some conjunction of attributes, generalities, and other qualities of ideas have been assembles in the imagination.  The only thing that could be said to be knowledge about these idea is that we have them.  We have no necessary connection between the idea and it's actual referent.

Epistemology is a complex subject and their is no commonly agreed upon definition of knowledge.  As was said above, knowledge is related to the probablility of something being true.  A standard used in science is predictive power as well as conformity to coherence with other data of which we find to correlate with known facts.  But ultimately knowldge is a structure that uses a very complex correlational criteria; all facts are based on other facts.  The better that the information we have conforms with the other information we have, the more they are both said to be "true."

I won't say more about that right now, in the interest of post-length. 

Quote:
Faith is acceptance of a truth because of an authority. I believe it when somebody trustworthy tells me it is raining outside. This is knowledge of a certain type. I possess a truth about the world in my mind, based on the authority of another.

Faith in religion is a species of this. I believe that God is Three and One because Christ told me so, and Christ demonstrated that He was God. Thus, I accept the truth and possess it intellectually. Thus, faith is a species of knowledge because it enables me to possess intellectually an idea or truth, based on the authority of Almighty God.

Here's the rub.  You don't know that it was told to you by God.  The only possible reason to believe that it is God is that the book says it's god, but that's circular reasoning and begging the question.

You have an idea in your head.  The idea has import because the story of Christianity is based upon deep structures of unconscious processes and because it has emotional association with other things you find to be important--like philosophy, truth, etc.  But the connection between God and these ideas is superfluous and cannot be called knowledge but rather an idea adhered to you.  You commit to accepting it despite rational justification.  You have faith.  There is no justificaion outside of the circular rationalization of accepting that God said what's in the book, and we know that God said it because the book says so.

It's no different than the following Kissing Hanks Ass

Shaun 

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10137
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote: I really

MattShizzle wrote:
I really don't know why we are bothering. this is like talking to someone from another planet. Religious faith is really worthless as a source of information, especially with the absurd claims made by it - and the fact that there is no good reason to pick one over another.

Normally I'd agree, but he's revealed a chink in his armour by allowing his irrationality(or at least part of it) to be defined. While this doesn't necessarily mean he can be shown the path to reason, it significantly increases the possibility of it.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote:

StMichael wrote:

I never claimed that you do accept the First Cause argument; I only claim that it is logically necessary to posit God (in other words, you logically should accept it Smiling ). But, regardless, I CAN know that God exists by using by reason, without faith.

Did you ever read that article I linked you to?

Why i don't consider the first cause argument reasonable

Quote:
Also, the "earth revolving around the sun," is naturally known. Natural knowledge/reason is not "what seems to be," but rather, "knowledge that comes from what we can know by our own powers, without Revelation." Thus, it is in my own power to verify that the earth does, in fact, revolve around the sun because I can go into space or produce calculations that demonstrate this.

It is rather YOUR position that must reject the moon landing, because you reject the validity of accepting an argument based on authority as a rational action. Religious faith is merely a species of such trust.

There is a difference between accepting something on authority (like NASA) and accepting something on the authority whose existence is in question. You accept God on the word of God. I accept the moon landing on the word (as well as additional evidence) of NASA. At least I can demonstrate empirically that NASA exists.

Shaun

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Wrong. I do not use

Quote:
Wrong. I do not use belief to substantiate that the sky is blue and why, I use science. Science that I personally have conducted. Science that I have personally conducted to prove your god, and came up with a falsity. Try again.

What science that you personally conducted? Do you have a particle accelerator to prove the composition of the atom? Do you even have an electron microscope though which you have seen viruses? How do you know that a virus exists? You cannot, but must accept this on a trust that those who do investigate these things are telling the truth.

Quote:

Religious faith is really worthless as a source of information, especially with the absurd claims made by it - and the fact that there is no good reason to pick one over another.

Religious faith makes no absurd claim (the most I can speak about is mine) and there do exist good reasons to choose one religion from another. God's existence is demonstrated from nature, and from His existence we can learn that He must be, for example, One. This rules out all polytheistic religions. Second, God must be omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving, ect. which rules out some more. We can keep going with naturally known truths which contradict other religions (for example, reincarnation is philosophically impossible). In the end, you are left to choose a religion that is monotheistic, with a purely omnipotent and personal God governing all things by His Providence. Very few choices left. Add in the credibility of the Christian faith due to miracles substantiating its claim to be a Revelation on God's authority, and there is little room for objection.

 

Quote:

No.  1000x no.  There are many things of which I can conceive.  I can take all kinds of conscious states, refer them to other conscious states, and come up with all sorts of chimeras.  "The intellectual possession of an idea" simply means that some conjunction of attributes, generalities, and other qualities of ideas have been assembles in the imagination.  The only thing that could be said to be knowledge about these idea is that we have them.  We have no necessary connection between the idea and it's actual referent.

Then no ideas are true. Have fun calculating how much weight a bridge can bear, as it has no connection to reality.

Quote:

As was said above, knowledge is related to the probablility of something being true.  A standard used in science is predictive power as well as conformity to coherence with other data of which we find to correlate with known facts.  But ultimately knowldge is a structure that uses a very complex correlational criteria; all facts are based on other facts.  The better that the information we have conforms with the other information we have, the more they are both said to be "true."

If ideas are only true in relation to ideas, no such thing as a true statement can exist. That also begs the question of how ideas can arise, if they have no reference outside of the mind. Again, have fun trying to operate in real life if no truth exists. And, lastly, your own statement that truth doesn't exist outside of your mind makes sure that I don't have to find your statement true (because it is only true in relation to your ideas).

Quote:

Here's the rub.  You don't know that it was told to you by God.  The only possible reason to believe that it is God is that the book says it's god, but that's circular reasoning and begging the question.

I do not believe it is true just because the Scriptures say so, for precisely the fact that it is circular reasoning. Rather, I believe God revealed these truths X because certain persons, for example, Christ, who claimed to God, proceeded to substantiate His claims with miracles performed only by God (I recall specifically the paralytic; Which is easier, to say your sins are forgiven or rise and walk?). Thus, I can reasonably believe Christ is God. Further, all that is revealed can be believed with certainty on that fact: Christ is God and God cannot decieve nor be decieved. 

  

Quote:

There is a difference between accepting something on authority (like NASA) and accepting something on the authority whose existence is in question. You accept God on the word of God. I accept the moon landing on the word (as well as additional evidence) of NASA. At least I can demonstrate empirically that NASA exists.

Except that I can know God exists before I believe He has revealed something. First Cause, Prime Mover, Necessary Being, Grades of Perfection, and Ordered Ends (Quinque Via) prove God exists from natural reason. That He can reveal a truth and in fact has revealed one is not far off.

PS - I read the paper and just found it lacking, having many errors. I answered it earlier, but I suppose that means I posted in vain.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Hee-haw, Hee-haw, hee-haw!

Hee-haw, Hee-haw, hee-haw! :roll:


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10137
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote:Quote:

StMichael wrote:

Quote:
Wrong. I do not use belief to substantiate that the sky is blue and why, I use science. Science that I personally have conducted. Science that I have personally conducted to prove your god, and came up with a falsity. Try again.

What science that you personally conducted?

Quite a lot really. If you want a full listing, I'm going to have to refer you to the education systems of the provinces of British Columbia and Alberta in Canada. I didn't take notes on every single science experiment I did. Oh, you also might want to check into a number of kids clubs that do scientific things in Edmonton and area. I remember doing paleontological, physical, cosmological, and biological studies as well as various other sciences at the Edmonton Space and Science Centre during the summer time for kids over the years. Most of this, if not all of it, involved applied science.

StMichael wrote:
Do you have a particle accelerator to prove the composition of the atom?

What does that have to do with a blue sky? *Shakes head*

Fine, you want to switch subjects, lets do it. No, I don't. But I have indeed seen one, and seen the evidence it collected.

StMichael wrote:
 Do you even have an electron microscope though which you have seen viruses?

Nope, but I utilised them back in school.

StMichael wrote:
 How do you know that a virus exists?

I've both seen them, and seen their effects.

StMichael wrote:
 You cannot, but must accept this on a trust that those who do investigate these things are telling the truth.

I just demonstrated you are wrong. If you keep this up you almost certainly will find something I haven't done, but that doesn't mean I can't do it. All of science is provable and testable. The fact that someone else did it means I can do it if I really put enough effort into the task.  

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
You have never been to the

You have never been to the moon to verify that the moon is actually existent. You have never been inside the sun to verify that its center is quite hot. You have never seen dark matter. You have not seen the earth from space. You have not personally demonstrated every truth about everything. It has nothing to do with the fact that you could, but the fact that you have not. It is thus a form of trust in an authority. Religious faith is a form of this reasonable trust in the truth revealed because the one revealing is trustworthy. In the case of religion, infinitely trustworthy, and hence the truths are infinitely credible.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1149
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Why must he be One, why must

Why must he be One, why must he be all-powerful, why must he be omniscient, why must he be all-loving?

Do you have a metaphysical accelerator for observing the soul? Do you have a deity microsope for examining god?

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


kmisho
kmisho's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-08-18
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: You have

StMichael wrote:

You have never been to the moon to verify that the moon is actually existent. You have never been inside the sun to verify that its center is quite hot. You have never seen dark matter. You have not seen the earth from space. You have not personally demonstrated every truth about everything. It has nothing to do with the fact that you could, but the fact that you have not. It is thus a form of trust in an authority. Religious faith is a form of this reasonable trust in the truth revealed because the one revealing is trustworthy. In the case of religion, infinitely trustworthy, and hence the truths are infinitely credible.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

Here, your nihilistic tendencies come to the fore. Suppose I can't prove the moon is there or that the sun is hot. This is no way provides an argument for you to claim that anything is real, including god.

All your comment does is explain to us why even you should doubt there is a god...for precisely the same reason that we should doubt the sun is hot since it cannot be ultimately verified (assuming that it can not be verified for the sake of argument).

Quote:
First Cause, Prime Mover, Necessary Being, Grades of Perfection, and Ordered Ends
None of these things necessarily lead to "God." Unfortunately, your feeling that they do reveals that your approach to these questions is, in fact, irrational.

Quote:
Christ demonstrated that He was God.
No, he did not. He demonstrated that he was a robot built by a race of aliens with far superior technology. And when he was done with the task the aliens programmed him with, he ascended back to the mothership.

If you think Jesus was anything more than this, then you are engaging in a "leap of faith" that is irrational and is the very kind of faithful phenomenon we have been telling you that faith is and why it is anything but a kind of knowledge.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
  Quote: All your comment

 

Quote:

All your comment does is explain to us why even you should doubt there is a god...for precisely the same reason that we should doubt the sun is hot since it cannot be ultimately verified (assuming that it can not be verified for the sake of argument).

It was not a proof that God exists or even that we ought to believe in a God. It was merely an illustration that faith itself is not irrational. There exists both rational/reasonable faith and irrational/irreasonable faith. I consider it a good idea to believe the moon is not made of green cheese, even though I have not been there. In the same way, if the belief is substantiated by concurrent evidence, it is able to be believed rationally. I believe religious faith falls into this category.

 

Quote:

None of these things necessarily lead to "God." Unfortunately, your feeling that they do reveals that your approach to these questions is, in fact, irrational.

There is no justification for the first statement.

Second, I could just as easily say to you that "your feeling that they do not reveals that your approach to these questions is, in fact, irrational." It is a non-unique argument, an assertion.

Quote:

...

If you think Jesus was anything more than this, then you are engaging in a "leap of faith" that is irrational and is the very kind of faithful phenomenon we have been telling you that faith is and why it is anything but a kind of knowledge.

You present no evidence for that theory; hence, there is no reason why it ought to be believed. If we want to accept something as credible of belief, evidence must exist. There has never been observed any such thing as an alien, nor does it seem that any will ever be discovered.

In the case of my beliefs, God Himself can be shown to exist logically. Christ performed miracles to substantiate His claims to be God. It would seem perfectly rational to move from A to B, so to speak, in this case.

 

Quote:

Why must he be One, why must he be all-powerful, why must he be omniscient, why must he be all-loving?

Do you have a metaphysical accelerator for observing the soul? Do you have a deity microsope for examining god?

I intended to clarify these statements later, as we have not even moved past the proof that God exists. If He does exist, it requires certain attributes that follow from His nature as First Cause. For instance, God must be One because the First Cause/Mover, ect. cannot have any potency/division/privation of being in Him. If He had parts, or there were more than One, it would not be God. God is utterly simple; even what He is and how He is are not different. There is no form of composition whatsoever because otherwise He would not be purely in act, and hence not the First Cause. In other words, being One follows as logically necessary from the fact that He is the First Cause.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1149
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
StMichael

StMichael wrote:

Quote:

If you think Jesus was anything more than this, then you are engaging in a "leap of faith" that is irrational and is the very kind of faithful phenomenon we have been telling you that faith is and why it is anything but a kind of knowledge.

You present no evidence for that theory; hence, there is no reason why it ought to be believed. If we want to accept something as credible of belief, evidence must exist. There has never been observed any such thing as an alien, nor does it seem that any will ever be discovered.

    Aliens can be proven to exist by the use of reason along with faith and alien revelation.  

StMichael wrote:


Quote:

Why must he be One, why must he be all-powerful, why must he be omniscient, why must he be all-loving?

...God must be One because the First Cause/Mover, ect. cannot have any potency/division/privation of being in Him. If He had parts, or there were more than One, it would not be God...

So God must be one, and cannot have parts, but he is also 3 in one, with 3 parts.  And god logically exists, because logical existence is the nature of being god.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Aliens can be

Quote:

Aliens can be proven to exist by the use of reason along with faith and alien revelation.  

Aliens are not logically necessary, nor do they exist on the basis of a reasonable faith.

 

Quote:

So God must be one, and cannot have parts, but he is also 3 in one, with 3 parts.  And god logically exists, because logical existence is the nature of being god.

God is one and does not have three parts. The Trinity is three Persons in One God. But they are nevertheless One. The procession of the Persons in the Trinity is such that it is like intellectual emanation (like a word proceeding from a man, whereby he retains the word and becomes united to it). This mode of emanation unites the Word and Mind thinking the Word more closely the more perfect the emanation is. In God, this is most perfect and the Word, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are all supremely One. It might be difficult to understand, and we will never fully comprehend what sort of life there is in God, but it is not a contradiction.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10137
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: You have

StMichael wrote:

You have never been to the moon to verify that the moon is actually existent.

And yet one day I'll be able to. In the mean time seeing it is more than enough. Another thing that doesn't apply to your god.

StMichael wrote:
 You have never been inside the sun to verify that its center is quite hot.

So I don't know, and it's unlikely I will know. I can accept that. But you have a problem with not knowing everything, whether your knowledge is accurate or fiction.  

StMichael wrote:
 You have never seen dark matter.

Neither of us knows enough about it to even really discuss it, so the point is moot.

StMichael wrote:
 You have not seen the earth from space.

Actually I have. Just not in person......yet.

 

StMichael wrote:
You have not personally demonstrated every truth about everything.

I don't need to. The fact is I can demonstrate every scientific truth we know. You cannot demonstrate a single religious theory.

StMichael wrote:
 It has nothing to do with the fact that you could, but the fact that you have not.

On the contrary, it has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that I can.

StMichael wrote:
 It is thus a form of trust in an authority.

Invalid conclusion.

StMichael wrote:
 Religious faith is a form of this reasonable trust in the truth revealed because the one revealing is trustworthy.

Trustworthy eh? How do you account for the high number of criminals in the church then? Yeah, real trustworthy. Moving beyond that, trust is not proof. I think you are fortunate to be able to trust so implicitly that the ones telling you god is real are actually telling the truth. I don't have that option. I've seen the lies of religion far too clearly.

StMichael wrote:
 In the case of religion, infinitely trustworthy, and hence the truths are infinitely credible.

Another invalid conclusion.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Belief in what God reveals

Belief in what God reveals is different from knowledge that God exists. The former is faith while the latter can be based on reason.

Religious faith is a reasonable trust in some article of faith because God has revealed it.

Quote:

Trustworthy eh? How do you account for the high number of criminals in the church then? Yeah, real trustworthy.

That bears no import on the argument at hand, even if it were true. We trust God, not criminals.

Quote:
 

Moving beyond that, trust is not proof. I think you are fortunate to be able to trust so implicitly that the ones telling you god is real are actually telling the truth. I don't have that option. I've seen the lies of religion far too clearly.

OK, you got burnt by some religion. But that does not give you any reason to reject the truth of religion in general.

Again, God's existence is not a matter of faith.

Lastly, trust is a form of proof, just not a demonstration that has certainty. However, in God's case, the evidence that God reveals it gives the article of faith an infinite credibility (because God is infinitely trustworthy).

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10137
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: Belief in

StMichael wrote:

Belief in what God reveals is different from knowledge that God exists. The former is faith while the latter can be based on reason.

Religious faith is a reasonable trust in some article of faith because God has revealed it.

But it is uninformed reason. Reason that depends on you believing a book over something you can personally test. Therefore it's not really reasoning.

StMichael wrote:
Quote:

Trustworthy eh? How do you account for the high number of criminals in the church then? Yeah, real trustworthy.

That bears no import on the argument at hand, even if it were true. We trust God, not criminals.

In a general sense you're right, it doesn't matter. But you brought up the fact that you believe in god because you were told about it by people you trust. People you probably have valid reason to trust, who learned it from people that they trust. But somewhere along the way was someone who was not trustworthy, but was trusted anyway. In order to put trust in your faith, I'd have to have trust in the human species in general. The problem with that is that the bible says man is inherrantly evil. Born into sin. Lying is a sin. Therefore man is not trustworthy. Therefore god must only be accepted on physical or mystical(yet still provable) evidence. Of which there is nothing. Just a book written by a bunch of evil guys who thought they were right.

StMichael wrote:
Quote:
 

Moving beyond that, trust is not proof. I think you are fortunate to be able to trust so implicitly that the ones telling you god is real are actually telling the truth. I don't have that option. I've seen the lies of religion far too clearly.

OK, you got burnt by some religion. But that does not give you any reason to reject the truth of religion in general.

Actually I've never been burned by a religion. I've never been close enough to one to get burned. Closest your comment comes to accuracy is my general annoyance that everywhere I turn there seems to be another mystic demanding my soul. Or maybe my friends not being around to play hockey for a couple hours on sundays when I was a kid. I don't think that really qualifies however.

StMichael wrote:
Again, God's existence is not a matter of faith.

Assuming for a moment that for you your statement is accurate, it does not apply to me. While you have the knowledge that god exists, I have the knowledge that god does not exist. We seem doomed to circle this point.

StMichael wrote:
Lastly, trust is a form of proof, just not a demonstration that has certainty. However, in God's case, the evidence that God reveals it gives the article of faith an infinite credibility (because God is infinitely trustworthy).

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

And the moment I get clear evidence that something came from a god I'll have to agree with you. But I've never seen anything demonstrating a god. I've never seen anything that needed a god. I've seen even less to suggest that if there is one, you've got the right one.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1149
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote:

StMichael wrote:

Aliens are not logically necessary, nor do they exist on the basis of a reasonable faith.

Aliens are logically necessary, because aliens exist - so by necessity, it is logical to believe in them (I think).

 

It is logical to believe that jesus was an alien. jesus did not perform miracles; miracles represent a contravention of the laws of nature, and if god is logical she would not contravene the laws of nature. A few sound logical proofs of jesus' alien nature follow:

1. The immaculate Conception - since god is not a material being, it could not have provided the sperm to impregnate mary and conceive jesus. However, aliens commandeered the technique of spontaneously generating organic material 3 billion years ago; it is logical to conclude that aliens provided the y-chromosone which jesus inherited.

2. jesus walking on water: The human body is more dense than water, and is not capable of supporting itself on the water's surface. Therefore jesus was not human - for a human to walk on water, the laws of nature would need to be contravened - see above. Aliens, however, are less dense than H20, and are fully capable of traveling on the surface of water.

3. the ascension - a human (especially a resurrected human) would not have survived the journey through the earth's atmosphere; a human would either have suffered from the change in pressure, or the poisonous ozone layer. An alien does not rely on oxygen for respiration, so can ascend through the atmosphere without problems.

4. transubstantiation - jesus as an earthly being was of finite dimensions; as an earthly being he cannot provide enough body and blood for all the world's catholics. An alien is capable of drawing on the universe's dark matter and converting it into organic flesh and blood. When all the universe's dark matter is consumed by catholics, jesus will return trailing clouds of glory (which are actually fumes from the mother ship).

jesus is an alien, and it is illogical to think otherwise.

StMichael wrote:

Quote:

So God must be one, and cannot have parts, but he is also 3 in one, with 3 parts. And god logically exists, because logical existence is the nature of being god.

God is one and does not have three parts. The Trinity is three Persons in One God. But they are nevertheless One. The procession of the Persons in the Trinity is such that it is like intellectual emanation (like a word proceeding from a man, whereby he retains the word and becomes united to it). This mode of emanation unites the Word and Mind thinking the Word more closely the more perfect the emanation is. In God, this is most perfect and the Word, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are all supremely One. It might be difficult to understand, and we will never fully comprehend what sort of life there is in God, but it is not a contradiction.

So when jesus came to earth, one part of god came down while the rest of god stayed up there, but it was still one. And when jesus asked the Father that "this cup be taken away" but that the Father's "will be done", he was asking the Father, but they are one, so he asked himself, but it was that his own will be done. And when he said "father, into your hands i commend my spirit", he commended his own spirit into himself, because they are one. And then he ascended back up there to be with the father, but he was already with the father because they are one, then the holy spirit came down, but they were still one.

It's a little difficult to comprehend, but god is simple and logical, and I think I get it.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10137
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra

zarathustra wrote:
StMichael wrote:

Aliens are not logically necessary, nor do they exist on the basis of a reasonable faith.

Aliens are logically necessary, because aliens exist - so by necessity, it is logical to believe in them (I think).

 

It is logical to believe that jesus was an alien. jesus did not perform miracles; miracles represent a contravention of the laws of nature, and if god is logical she would not contravene the laws of nature. A few sound logical proofs of jesus' alien nature follow:

1. The immaculate Conception - since god is not a material being, it could not have provided the sperm to impregnate mary and conceive jesus. However, aliens commandeered the technique of spontaneously generating organic material 3 billion years ago; it is logical to conclude that aliens provided the y-chromosone which jesus inherited.

2. jesus walking on water: The human body is more dense than water, and is not capable of supporting itself on the water's surface. Therefore jesus was not human - for a human to walk on water, the laws of nature would need to be contravened - see above. Aliens, however, are less dense than H20, and are fully capable of traveling on the surface of water.

3. the ascension - a human (especially a resurrected human) would not have survived the journey through the earth's atmosphere; a human would either have suffered from the change in pressure, or the poisonous ozone layer. An alien does not rely on oxygen for respiration, so can ascend through the atmosphere without problems.

4. transubstantiation - jesus as an earthly being was of finite dimensions; as an earthly being he cannot provide enough body and blood for all the world's catholics. An alien is capable of drawing on the universe's dark matter and converting it into organic flesh and blood. When all the universe's dark matter is consumed by catholics, jesus will return trailing clouds of glory (which are actually fumes from the mother ship).

jesus is an alien, and it is illogical to think otherwise.

StMichael wrote:

Quote:

So God must be one, and cannot have parts, but he is also 3 in one, with 3 parts. And god logically exists, because logical existence is the nature of being god.

God is one and does not have three parts. The Trinity is three Persons in One God. But they are nevertheless One. The procession of the Persons in the Trinity is such that it is like intellectual emanation (like a word proceeding from a man, whereby he retains the word and becomes united to it). This mode of emanation unites the Word and Mind thinking the Word more closely the more perfect the emanation is. In God, this is most perfect and the Word, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are all supremely One. It might be difficult to understand, and we will never fully comprehend what sort of life there is in God, but it is not a contradiction.

So when jesus came to earth, one part of god came down while the rest of god stayed up there, but it was still one. And when jesus asked the Father that "this cup be taken away" but that the Father's "will be done", he was asking the Father, but they are one, so he asked himself, but it was that his own will be done. And when he said "father, into your hands i commend my spirit", he commended his own spirit into himself, because they are one. And then he ascended back up there to be with the father, but he was already with the father because they are one, then the holy spirit came down, but they were still one.

It's a little difficult to comprehend, but god is simple and logical, and I think I get it.

Lol. I don't suppose you have any alien holy books kicking around?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: But it is

Quote:

But it is uninformed reason. Reason that depends on you believing a book over something you can personally test. Therefore it's not really reasoning.

How not so? I believe the Scriptures and the other things the Church teaches as revealed because Christ, His Apostles, and His saints substantiated their claim to be from God (in Christ's case, God) by means of their miracles. It is reasonable to assume, thus, that they are credible.

Quote:

But somewhere along the way was someone who was not trustworthy, but was trusted anyway. In order to put trust in your faith, I'd have to have trust in the human species in general.

No you do not. We have plenty of evidence both from people of the time period and from today substantiating miracles. Further, it is reasonable to assume that Christianity must have had miracles to support its claims from the mere fact that it spread so far and so fast. If it did not have miracles, as it claimed to do, would it be reasonable to assume that this would be a logical outcome? [This last part is not a proof, mind you]

Quote:

The problem with that is that the bible says man is inherrantly evil. Born into sin. Lying is a sin. Therefore man is not trustworthy.

It does not. Man might be "born into sin" but you're putting a spin on it that is not there. Man might have inherited original sin, but that is not the same as saying he is intrinsically evil.  

Quote:

Therefore god must only be accepted on physical or mystical(yet still provable) evidence. Of which there is nothing. Just a book written by a bunch of evil guys who thought they were right.

Two wrong parts. God Himself is knowable as existing by natural reason apart from the Bible or what the Church says, ect. Revelation doesn't factor into it. Also, there is no proof that it was "written by a bunch of evil guys who thought they were right." That is plain assertion.

Quote:

 Assuming for a moment that for you your statement is accurate, it does not apply to me. While you have the knowledge that god exists, I have the knowledge that god does not exist. We seem doomed to circle this point.

But we cannot both have contradictory "knowledge." You are using a sense of the word knowledge that doesn't apply. I have knowledge because my reason proves/demonstrates that God exists. I can see, for example, motion in the world and can logically deduce that a Prime Mover is necessary. This Prime Mover is God. Thus, I have knowledge in a true sense because it is justified; in this case it is demonstrated with logical necessity that a mover must exist for there to be motion.

Quote:

Aliens are logically necessary, because aliens exist - so by necessity, it is logical to believe in them (I think).

That is a circular argument. First, I never argue that by necessity it is logical to believe in anything. Logic demonstrates truths with necessity. We believe in propositions which, though without a logical certainty, are reasonably probable for me to accept. Second, my evidence of God is founded on nature as in motion. If nature is in motion, it requires a mover because of the logical necessity that otherwise no motion would exist. Hence, God must exist as a logical necessity.

Quote:

It is logical to believe that jesus was an alien. jesus did not perform miracles; miracles represent a contravention of the laws of nature, and if god is logical she would not contravene the laws of nature.

The last statement is false. God creates nature and determines its laws. Miracles are not contraventions of natural laws in an absolute sense, but only in the sense that God intervenes in an extraordinary manner. The natural laws do not exist apart from God.

Quote:
 

 A few sound logical proofs of jesus' alien nature follow:

They are not proofs. They would be merely probable statements.

Quote:

1. The immaculate Conception - since god is not a material being, it could not have provided the sperm to impregnate mary and conceive jesus. However, aliens commandeered the technique of spontaneously generating organic material 3 billion years ago; it is logical to conclude that aliens provided the y-chromosone which jesus inherited.

First, the Immaculate Conception refers to Mary, not Christ. Second, God is immaterial, but creates matter all the time (by His constant sustaining of the universe and its initial creation ex nihilo). It is no contradiction to assume that He could likewise create genetic material inside of our Blessed Mother. Third, if aliens can spontaneously produce genetic material, why can't God? Fourth, it is pure speculation without any evidence that this could be the case, either from historical witness or from evidence that aliens themselves exist.

Quote:

2. jesus walking on water: The human body is more dense than water, and is not capable of supporting itself on the water's surface. Therefore jesus was not human - for a human to walk on water, the laws of nature would need to be contravened - see above. Aliens, however, are less dense than H20, and are fully capable of traveling on the surface of water.

Well, that already contradicts the claim you made earlier when you said that Christ was a robot and just now when you said that He was a genetically human creation inside of Our Lady. Second, there is no reason God could not allow Himself to walk on water. As the Lord of nature, as I explained earlier, He has control over all of its function. 

 

Quote:

3. the ascension - a human (especially a resurrected human)

Especially a resurrected human. Resurrection involves the creation of new matter which is different from the current matter and it is likewise an immortal body. Further, who said Christ went into the outer atmosphere? Christ ascended, but not necessarily into outer space or the upper atmosphere.  

would not have survived the journey through the earth's atmosphere; a human would either have suffered from the change in pressure, or the poisonous ozone layer. An alien does not rely on oxygen for respiration, so can ascend through the atmosphere without problems.

Again, this contradicts your earlier claims. And there is again no shred of evidence to suppose that this is the case. Also, no reason why an alien would survive the pressure changes.

Quote:

4. transubstantiation - jesus as an earthly being was of finite dimensions; as an earthly being he cannot provide enough body and blood for all the world's catholics. An alien is capable of drawing on the universe's dark matter and converting it into organic flesh and blood. When all the universe's dark matter is consumed by catholics, jesus will return trailing clouds of glory (which are actually fumes from the mother ship).

You're just being downright ignorant of Catholic doctrine now. Christ's Body and Blood (in fact, under both species His entire substance Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity are present) are present in the sacramental species not by way of location or dimensive qualities (as if we were ripping off Christ's ear), but by way of substance. The substance of Christ, whole and entire, is found under each Host in the world. But Christ does not move; Christ remains at rest in heaven. The Blessed Sacrament is thus Christ's substance as so many mirrors reflecting the same sun. Further, Christ is not an earthly being - He is God.

The reason we do not acknowledge the belief in aliens is because we see no evidence for them to exist. Likewise, there is no proof that aliens had anything to do with Christ's life at all.

I would also point out the Christ's miracles of conversion of one substance to another or curing mortal illnesses instantly or His Resurrection and the like are all miracles that cannot be done at all by any agent other than God Himself.

Quote:

So when jesus came to earth, one part of god came down while the rest of god stayed up there, but it was still one.

One "part" did not come down. No parts exist in God. One Person of the Blessed Trinity united Himself to the soul of a man. The Trinity nevertheless is still one.

Quote:
 

And when jesus asked the Father that "this cup be taken away" but that the Father's "will be done", he was asking the Father, but they are one, so he asked himself, but it was that his own will be done.

 

And when he said "father, into your hands i commend my spirit", he commended his own spirit into himself, because they are one. And then he ascended back up there to be with the father, but he was already with the father because they are one, then the holy spirit came down, but they were still one.

In a manner of speaking. Christ spoke to God in prayer through His human nature. He likewise united His human will through prayer to His Father. His ascension was not a reuniting of the "god" that came down with the "god" in heaven. His body and soul were assumed into heaven, but His Godhead was always united to His Father in heaven. It suffered no change.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


QuadrivialMind (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Saying Jesus was God

Saying Jesus was God because, being God, he performed miracles is begging the question. Believing the scriptures are from God because they say they are from God is not reasoning. That's like saying 'God exists because God says so'. Besides, how do you know if those supposed 'miracles' were miracles? Can you prove the existence of a miracle? The fact that you can't explain something rationally or logically doesn't mean there is a supernatural cause for it, as science has shown us from time to time, and continues to show us to this day. There could be a million other explanations for these deeds, which might have never even happened- How did you even know those events said in the bible took place? Where is the veracity of the bible proven? Can you show me it's nothing more than a fairy tale?

Prove God logically? Lol. You are saying that you observe nature and conclude that, since things are in motion, there must have been a 'prime mover' or whatever you might call it. That assumption is not necessarily true. How do you prove that there was a prime mover? You're playing the fill-in-the-gap-God game here. You don't know what started it all, you don't even know if there was a start. Maybe there was no prime mover. Do you discard that possibility backing up that decision properly?

For the sake of argument, suppose you were in fact right. Suppose there is a prime mover. Call it 'God' if you will. Why is it the Christian God? Certainly there is a -HUGE- gap between a 'first cause' and the (paradoxical to say the least, in my opinion) Christian God.


kmisho
kmisho's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-08-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Quote: All your

Quote:
Quote:

All your comment does is explain to us why even you should doubt there is a god...for precisely the same reason that we should doubt the sun is hot since it cannot be ultimately verified (assuming that it can not be verified for the sake of argument).

It was not a proof that God exists or even that we ought to believe in a God. It was merely an illustration that faith itself is not irrational. There exists both rational/reasonable faith and irrational/irreasonable faith. I consider it a good idea to believe the moon is not made of green cheese, even though I have not been there. In the same way, if the belief is substantiated by concurrent evidence, it is able to be believed rationally. I believe religious faith falls into this category.

There is no reason whatsoever to divide faith into rational and irrational kinds. One is called science, the other is called faith. The first is building up a belief based on one's best analysis of the best available evidence. The other is belief for no reason at all. I have run into many people who are addicted to the term "faith"the same way you are so I will say this again: There is no rational and irrational faith, there is only science and faith. Your wordgames give me reason to distrust you.

Quote:
Quote:

...

If you think Jesus was anything more than this, then you are engaging in a "leap of faith" that is irrational and is the very kind of faithful phenomenon we have been telling you that faith is and why it is anything but a kind of knowledge.

You present no evidence for that theory; hence, there is no reason why it ought to be believed. If we want to accept something as credible of belief, evidence must exist. There has never been observed any such thing as an alien, nor does it seem that any will ever be discovered.

In the case of my beliefs, God Himself can be shown to exist logically. Christ performed miracles to substantiate His claims to be God. It would seem perfectly rational to move from A to B, so to speak, in this case.

God (defined as the usual omni-guy) is logically impossible so cannot possibly be defended as logically existent. The usual god is the equivalent of a square circle or a hermaphrodite transvestite. Omniscience and omnipotence are, for example, mutually exclusive. I assume you've heard the argument... Not only does one limit the other, one renders the other impossible. There can be no such god.

Also, there is no evidence whatsoever that Jesus (or anyone else) has ever performed a miracle.

The reason my claim and yours are equal, then, is that there is no evidence for either one and no logical reason to think either one is true.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1149
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
StMichael

StMichael wrote:

Quote:

Aliens are logically necessary, because aliens exist - so by necessity, it is logical to believe in them (I think).

That is a circular argument. First, I never argue that by necessity it is logical to believe in anything.

Yes you did. In the post from Sun, 2007-01-14 16:28 you said "it is logically necessary to posit God". Mine is a circular argument only because space-time is curved (as was revealed to us by the aliens), so any linear argument will eventually arrive back at itself.

StMichael wrote:

Logic demonstrates truths with necessity. We believe in propositions which, though without a logical certainty, are reasonably probable for me to accept. Second, my evidence of God is founded on nature as in motion. If nature is in motion, it requires a mover because of the logical necessity that otherwise no motion would exist. Hence, God must exist as a logical necessity.

If motion is circular (like your argument), an outwardly expanding universe (nature, as you call it) will eventually arrive at its point of origin and repeat the process, requiring no external mover.

Aliens 1, God 0

StMichael wrote:

Quote:

It is logical to believe that jesus was an alien. jesus did not perform miracles; miracles represent a contravention of the laws of nature, and if god is logical she would not contravene the laws of nature.

The last statement is false. God creates nature and determines its laws. Miracles are not contraventions of natural laws in an absolute sense, but only in the sense that God intervenes in an extraordinary manner. The natural laws do not exist apart from God.

But if god intervenes on occasion, suspending the natural laws to give results different from what they predict (such as a human body sinking through the surface of the water, a handful of bread and fish multiplying into 12 baskets worth), the natural laws are insufficient means for determining god's existence - therefore god cannot be understood by natural reason.

Aliens 2 God 0

StMichael wrote:

...the Immaculate Conception refers to Mary, not Christ. Second, God is immaterial, but creates matter all the time (by His constant sustaining of the universe and its initial creation ex nihilo). It is no contradiction to assume that He could likewise create genetic material inside of our Blessed Mother. Third, if aliens can spontaneously produce genetic material, why can't God? Fourth, it is pure speculation without any evidence that this could be the case, either from historical witness or from evidence that aliens themselves exist.

Since god is immaterial, it would not only be sufficient for him to provide the initial sperm which fertilized the Holy Egg, but would have to commandeer each step of cell replication during the Sacred Embryonic Development. This task is much easier if you are material , such as aliens are. If you can't understand this through natural reason, try using faith. There are multiple accounts of alien abductions and forced impregnations, which are at least as credible as claims of finding the Blessed Virgin in a blueberry muffin.

Let's go to the judges on this one before scoring the point.

StMichael wrote:

Quote:

2. jesus walking on water: The human body is more dense than water, and is not capable of supporting itself on the water's surface. Therefore jesus was not human - for a human to walk on water, the laws of nature would need to be contravened - see above. Aliens, however, are less dense than H20, and are fully capable of traveling on the surface of water.

Well, that already contradicts the claim you made earlier when you said that Christ was a robot and just now when you said that He was a genetically human creation inside of Our Lady. Second, there is no reason God could not allow Himself to walk on water. As the Lord of nature, as I explained earlier, He has control over all of its function.

"Robot" is just a mistranslation of the scriptures, just like mistranslating "young woman" as "virgin". Once again, if God pressed the pause button on nature's laws so that jesus could skim the waves, nature's laws cannot be used to prove the existence god.

Aliens 3, God 0

StMichael wrote:

Quote:

3. the ascension - a human (especially a resurrected human) would not have survived the journey through the earth's atmosphere; a human would either have suffered from the change in pressure, or the poisonous ozone layer. An alien does not rely on oxygen for respiration, so can ascend through the atmosphere without problems.

Especially a resurrected human. Resurrection involves the creation of new matter which is different from the current matter and it is likewise an immortal body. Further, who said Christ went into the outer atmosphere? Christ ascended, but not necessarily into outer space or the upper atmosphere...Also, no reason why an alien would survive the pressure changes.

If resurrection involves the creation of new matter, then jesus was an absolute fraud when he summoned lazarus from the grave. Everyone was amazed because they thought they were looking at the original Lazarus 1.0, when in fact it was in fact the new release. Whatever happened to Lazarus anyway? Did he die again (in which case, what was the point of bringing him back), or just keep on living (in which case, he must still be hanging around, and could be used as an eyewitness)?

If jesus did not ascend all the way through the atmosphere, he must still be here, flying around, an observable phenomenon. An alien would survive the change in pressure, because aliens are not closed systems - as is the human body, which jesus is said to have inhabited.

Aliens 4, God -1

 

I'll give you a pass on transubstantiation (for now). You are bringing up Aristotle's substance and accidence. All well and good, except that didn't show up until the Renaissance. The church must have had other reasons for holding onto that tenet for the 1,000 years that they couldn't read Greek.

StMichael wrote:

Quote:

So when jesus came to earth, one part of god came down while the rest of god stayed up there, but it was still one.

One "part" did not come down. No parts exist in God. One Person of the Blessed Trinity united Himself to the soul of a man. The Trinity nevertheless is still one.

So there are Persons, but not parts. Semantics. Amen.


 

Yours in Galaxian...

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Saying Jesus was

Quote:
Saying Jesus was God because, being God, he performed miracles is begging the question. Believing the scriptures are from God because they say they are from God is not reasoning. That's like saying 'God exists because God says so'.

God exists according to reason, not faith. What we know by faith is that Jesus Christ is God incarnate, not that God exists. And the first two statements are not analagous. Only God can perform a miracle, as natural reason shows, and Jesus substantiated His claim to be God with acts that only God can do. Hence, Jesus is God.

 

 

Quote:

 Besides, how do you know if those supposed 'miracles' were miracles? Can you prove the existence of a miracle?

One cannot logically demonstrate a miracle. But that doesn't mean that it is not reasonable to believe that it happened.

Quote:

The fact that you can't explain something rationally or logically doesn't mean there is a supernatural cause for it, as science has shown us from time to time, and continues to show us to this day. There could be a million other explanations for these deeds, which might have never even happened-

But none of these explanations seems to satisfy.

Quote:
 

How did you even know those events said in the bible took place? Where is the veracity of the bible proven? Can you show me it's nothing more than a fairy tale?

That the events described in the Gospels, for instance, is a matter of history. We find early accounts that corroborate the accounts in Scripture. But whether it is possible to prove that a miracle described in the New Testament occurred, this can only be done on the testimony of the writers of the Gospels and the Apostles.

Quote:

 That assumption is not necessarily true. How do you prove that there was a prime mover? You're playing the fill-in-the-gap-God game here. You don't know what started it all, you don't even know if there was a start. Maybe there was no prime mover. Do you discard that possibility backing up that decision properly?

That is precisely my point. We must conclude that, if motion exists now, there was a Prime Mover. It has nothing to do with time; it has to do with logical necessity in causation. If things are in motion now, it requires an ultimate Prime Mover for the motion to exist now.

Quote:

For the sake of argument, suppose you were in fact right. Suppose there is a prime mover. Call it 'God' if you will. Why is it the Christian God? Certainly there is a -HUGE- gap between a 'first cause' and the (paradoxical to say the least, in my opinion) Christian God.

The first thing is that Christians identify their God with the First Cause/Prime Mover. The second is that His characteristics that can be deduced through His nature as Prime Mover rule out most other "gods" and give Him special status as an omnipotent, omniscient, Creator.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10137
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
StMichael

StMichael wrote:

Quote:

But it is uninformed reason. Reason that depends on you believing a book over something you can personally test. Therefore it's not really reasoning.

How not so? I believe the Scriptures and the other things the Church teaches as revealed because Christ, His Apostles, and His saints substantiated their claim to be from God (in Christ's case, God) by means of their miracles. It is reasonable to assume, thus, that they are credible.

Do you not see the logic loop you've become trapped in here? You believe in them because they are credible. They are credible because you believe in them.  

StMichael wrote:
Quote:

But somewhere along the way was someone who was not trustworthy, but was trusted anyway. In order to put trust in your faith, I'd have to have trust in the human species in general.

No you do not. We have plenty of evidence both from people of the time period and from today substantiating miracles.

I haven't seen anything. All the miracles people usually refer to are anything but miracles. The same things have occurred without god being creditted, and are usually cooincidental. All the extra special miracles are assumed to have happened because someone wrote them down. But I never saw that happen, so I have to take the word of others that it did in order to believe it. I cannot do this.

StMichael wrote:
  Further, it is reasonable to assume that Christianity must have had miracles to support its claims from the mere fact that it spread so far and so fast.

No, you can thank the missionary work for that. No other religion has put so much effort into spreading around the world. And yet they still haven't covered the whole thing.

StMichael wrote:
  If it did not have miracles, as it claimed to do, would it be reasonable to assume that this would be a logical outcome? [This last part is not a proof, mind you]

The thing about miracles is that they are almost always accepted at face value without any questions at all. It's very similar to witch doctor-type guys in poor areas of the world that use technology and slight of hand to fool their victims into believing their techniques work. Even though there's really nothing happening at all.

StMichael wrote:
Quote:

The problem with that is that the bible says man is inherrantly evil. Born into sin. Lying is a sin. Therefore man is not trustworthy.

It does not. Man might be "born into sin" but you're putting a spin on it that is not there. Man might have inherited original sin, but that is not the same as saying he is intrinsically evil.

If I'm supposed to believe that I'm suffering for a crime committed by some guy 6000 years ago, it's not going to happen. All that does is put further questioning on the supposed goodness of god. There isn't a single valid reason to blame a species for the acts of a single representative of it. Whether or not that person even existed, which I know is impossible. I wouldn't try a child for the crimes of his grandfather. If god does, than god is inferior to me. If he is inferior, than he is not worthy of my worship. He should be worshipping me.  

StMichael wrote:
Quote:

Therefore god must only be accepted on physical or mystical(yet still provable) evidence. Of which there is nothing. Just a book written by a bunch of evil guys who thought they were right.

Two wrong parts. God Himself is knowable as existing by natural reason apart from the Bible or what the Church says, ect. Revelation doesn't factor into it. Also, there is no proof that it was "written by a bunch of evil guys who thought they were right." That is plain assertion.

An assertion based on the biblical testimony of our species inherrant sin. But the question can be quickly turned around as well. There is no proof that the people who wrote the bible were not evil. None that I've encountered at any rate.

StMichael wrote:
Quote:

 Assuming for a moment that for you your statement is accurate, it does not apply to me. While you have the knowledge that god exists, I have the knowledge that god does not exist. We seem doomed to circle this point.

But we cannot both have contradictory "knowledge." You are using a sense of the word knowledge that doesn't apply.

So says you. I say that you are the one using a sense of knowledge that doesn't apply. So we continue to go in circles.

StMichael wrote:
  I have knowledge because my reason proves/demonstrates that God exists.

Same for me, though in reverse.

StMichael wrote:
  I can see, for example, motion in the world and can logically deduce that a Prime Mover is necessary.

I can logically deduce that one is not necessary. And that if one were, then everything would need a reason. Including god. The only way out of that is if god has no intellect and is merely an object without reasoning. You can't logically say that god doesn't need a reason yet claim the universe does.

StMichael wrote:
  This Prime Mover is God.

To redefine your term for my use, the prime mover is existance itself.

StMichael wrote:
  Thus, I have knowledge in a true sense because it is justified; in this case it is demonstrated with logical necessity that a mover must exist for there to be motion.

You have done so for yourself, but not for me.

I'll let the alien stuff be defended by the presenter. Sticking out tongue

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


QuadrivialMind (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote:

StMichael wrote:

God exists according to reason, not faith. What we know by faith is that Jesus Christ is God incarnate, not that God exists. And the first two statements are not analagous. Only God can perform a miracle, as natural reason shows, and Jesus substantiated His claim to be God with acts that only God can do. Hence, Jesus is God.

[...]

One cannot logically demonstrate a miracle. But that doesn't mean that it is not reasonable to believe that it happened.

I have yet to see a valid logical demonstration of the Christian God's existence (not the first cause, but I have yet to see that also)

What is your understanding of miracles? Why can only God perform miracles? Maybe aliens can perform supernatural deeds too. I don't know. I don't know because I don't claim to understand the nature of the entire Universe.

Besides, your logic is flawed. Can you demonstrate logically that Her Majesty the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists? Can you? I am assuming you can't. Do you think it's reasonable to believe it exists based on what someone wrote? Do you think it's reasonable to believe it exists at all? I assume not. Same works with miracles. There are no reasons to believe they happened, whether we can potentially explain them or not! The fact that they were written by ignorant men two thousand years ago supports that fact. First of all, the fact that it's in that book doesn't mean they happened AT ALL. I don't believe thunder is caused by Zeus because it was written by the Greeks a long, long time ago. Second, these people had very little understanding of the natural world. For all I care, maybe Jesus was an alien. Maybe an alien multiplied fish. I don't know, nor do I care. The historical [sic] writings of the bible are irrelevant because they are completely unsupported by science. To believe them is just as irrational as believing in the FSM.

Quote:

Quote:
The fact that you can't explain something rationally or logically doesn't mean there is a supernatural cause for it, as science has shown us from time to time, and continues to show us to this day. There could be a million other explanations for these deeds, which might have never even happened-

But none of these explanations seems to satisfy.

What? I offered no explanations. I just pointed out that you're assuming that there is a supernatural cause for something unexplained (which might not have happened) And you shouldn't.

Quote:
That the events described in the Gospels, for instance, is a matter of history. We find early accounts that corroborate the accounts in Scripture. But whether it is possible to prove that a miracle described in the New Testament occurred, this can only be done on the testimony of the writers of the Gospels and the Apostles.

I'm sorry, can you show me the accounts that corroborate the entire Bible? I'm assuming you can not, taking Noa's Ark delusional story as an example. Science can NOT back up the world was covered in water. Science can NOT explain many things about that tale because it's nothing more than stuff made up.

Since you can not scientifically/historically demonstrate the Bible is correct, I only ask you for corroboration of the 'miraculous' things that are described. What is the veracity of the testimony of the writers in the Gospels and the Apostles?

Quote:

That is precisely my point. We must conclude that, if motion exists now, there was a Prime Mover. It has nothing to do with time; it has to do with logical necessity in causation. If things are in motion now, it requires an ultimate Prime Mover for the motion to exist now.

How do you reach that conclusion? Why do you discard the possibility that motion had no start? Maybe everything was always in motion. There is no reason to assume that motion now required a prime mover. The truth is that we don't know. If you want to fill in the gaps with God, fine. But you might be making a very big mistake, even moreso when you assume the Christian God was the Prime Mover- when maybe there was no prime mover.

Quote:

The first thing is that Christians identify their God with the First Cause/Prime Mover. The second is that His characteristics that can be deduced through His nature as Prime Mover rule out most other "gods" and give Him special status as an omnipotent, omniscient, Creator.

As explained above, we have no reason to believe there was a Prime Mover. But still, assuming you were right, I have yet to be convinced the nature of the Prime Mover rules out other gods. Assuming there was a Prime Mover is just arrogant, but to assume you know the nature of that Prime Mover is just ludicrous.

Even if you did know all this (and you don't), there is absolutely no reason to believe the God you would reach through this argument 'fits' with the rest of Christianity. Maybe that idea of God which you (incorrectly) reach is some other religion's God. Maybe there are 2 religions or more, that claim that God is 'theirs'. Is Christianity the right choice? It doesn't matter, since all of this is based on irrational assertions.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote:   Do you not see

Quote:
 

Do you not see the logic loop you've become trapped in here? You believe in them because they are credible. They are credible because you believe in them.  

How are you getting this? I believe in them because they are credible. Not the other way around.

Quote:

I haven't seen anything. All the miracles people usually refer to are anything but miracles. The same things have occurred without god being creditted, and are usually cooincidental. All the extra special miracles are assumed to have happened because someone wrote them down. But I never saw that happen, so I have to take the word of others that it did in order to believe it. I cannot do this.

There are miracles and there are miracles. It could be called a miracle if by ordinary Providence some person survived a disease. It is a true miracle if a sinner converts. But these are, of course, not verifiable in an ordinary sense, and not technically extraordinary. Then there are miracles, properly speaking. These are truly extraordinary events which contradict all known ordinary course of events and which point to God alone as their author. Christ's miracles in the Gospels are one type of this (and I think their historical credibility makes these miracles credible). I would likewise point to miracles that exist today in Lanciano (a host and wine literally became flesh and blood in 1400 AD, oir so, and still remains today without corruption), as well as numerous other miracles that are in continual display in Catholic Churches (such as the incorruptible Saint Vincent de Paul or Saint Bernadette), apart from any miracle a particular saint may perform for his/her canonization or during their lives. These phenomena are unexplainable naturally speaking.

No, you can thank the missionary work for that. No other religion has put so much effort into spreading around the world. And yet they still haven't covered the whole thing.

I daresay that missionary effort alone cannot move everyone to convert in this way. Along with the speed with which it spread. Especially considering that it would claim to perform miracles and yet not produce any. If it spread so wide without any iota of evidence, it would be truly a miracle.

Quote:

 

The thing about miracles is that they are almost always accepted at face value without any questions at all. It's very similar to witch doctor-type guys in poor areas of the world that use technology and slight of hand to fool their victims into believing their techniques work. Even though there's really nothing happening at all.

That is ridiculous. Look at canonization proceedings. The depth of research into a particular cure is mind-boggling. They are most certainly not accepted at face value. I also point to those miracles I mentioned earlier, as scientific studies continue to proceed on these phenomena without being able to explain them.

Quote:

If I'm supposed to believe that I'm suffering for a crime committed by some guy 6000 years ago, it's not going to happen. All that does is put further questioning on the supposed goodness of god. There isn't a single valid reason to blame a species for the acts of a single representative of it. Whether or not that person even existed, which I know is impossible.

Original sin is not something we are "punished for" in the sense you put it. We were created in grace and lost it by our original parents' sin. This caused a propensity to sin in their children. This propensity to sin and weakness of nature is the effect of original sin. It is a sin of nature, not a personal sin.

 

Quote:

An assertion based on the biblical testimony of our species inherrant sin. But the question can be quickly turned around as well. There is no proof that the people who wrote the bible were not evil. None that I've encountered at any rate.

I would point out that the Scriptures say no such thing. Man is not inherently evil by any stretch. All things God created are good.

Also, there is evidence that the people who wrote the Scriptures were not evil. Look at the lives of the Apostles and the writers of the Gospels, dying cruel deaths to support their belief.

Quote:

So says you. I say that you are the one using a sense of knowledge that doesn't apply. So we continue to go in circles.

Define, then, knowledge.

Quote:

I can logically deduce that one is not necessary. And that if one were, then everything would need a reason. Including god. The only way out of that is if god has no intellect and is merely an object without reasoning. You can't logically say that god doesn't need a reason yet claim the universe does.

That makes absolutely no sense. You are misapplying the term to have a "reason" for something to mean that God has "reason" in terms of an intellect. That is a silly and superficial misuse of the word.

Further, I am not positing that everything needs a reason, only that things are in motion, and things in motion need a mover. If they have no mover without a mover moving it, then no motion can exist.

God doesn't need a cause and indeed must not need a cause if He is the Uncaused Cause and Prime Mover. All that is necessary to say is that there exists at least one Uncaused Cause or Prime Mover.

Quote:

To redefine your term for my use, the prime mover is existance itself.

Which is God. Because God's existence and essence are one and the same. It would be better to say that God is the act of existing.

 

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Pikachu
Pikachu's picture
Posts: 181
Joined: 2006-08-19
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote:That makes

Since you dont like my long posts, then i will make my posts short for you.

StMichael wrote:
That makes absolutely no sense. You are misapplying the term to have a "reason" for something to mean that God has "reason" in terms of an intellect. That is a silly and superficial misuse of the word.

Further, I am not positing that everything needs a reason, only that things are in motion, and things in motion need a mover. If they have no mover without a mover moving it, then no motion can exist.

God doesn't need a cause and indeed must not need a cause if He is the Uncaused Cause and Prime Mover. All that is necessary to say is that there exists at least one Uncaused Cause or Prime Mover.

Mr.Michael can you please respond to my conscious first cause paradox.
  1. Time is required for Change.
  2. A Decision is a Change.
  3. Decisions require Time.
  4. Consciousness can't let one make a decision without Time.
  5. Consciousness requires Time.
  6. God is Conscious.
  7. God requires Time.
  8. God can't be the cause of Time if God requires Time.
  9. God isn't the cause of Time.
  10. God isn't The First Cause.
  11. If God isn't The Conscious First Cause then God doesn't exist.
  12. God doesn't exist.
So what's the big deal if TFC/Prime Mover exists.
It still has less consciousness than a rock.

God had no time to create time.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1149
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
StMichael

StMichael wrote:

Quote:

... You believe in them because they are credible. They are credible because you believe in them.

How are you getting this? I believe in them because they are credible. Not the other way around.

I believe in jesus aliens because they are credible. Both ways around. And back again.

StMichael wrote:

There are miracles and there are miracles.

There are gods and there are gods. And neither exist.

StMichael wrote:
Christ's miracles in the Gospels are one type of this (and I think their historical credibility makes these miracles credible).

The story of George Washington and the cherry tree is more credible than the gospels, and even that is generally accepted as apocryphal. I personally prefer a president who chops down cherry trees to an alien who withers fig trees.

An even greater miracle is how the mother ship beamed carbon traces down onto the Shroud of Turin to make it appear as a medieval forgery, when it was in fact the actual shroud used on jesus' body.

StMichael wrote:

I daresay that missionary effort alone cannot move everyone to convert in this way.

Yep. A sword or a gun helps. Cortez and Pizarro knew that (are they saints yet?)

The speed with which Islam, the Protestant Reformation, Mormonism and Scientology spread are not admissible as miracles, I suppose.


StMichael wrote:

Original sin ... is a sin of nature, not a personal sin...Man is not inherently evil by any stretch. All things God created are good.

Also, there is evidence that the people who wrote the Scriptures were not evil.  Look at the lives of the Apostles and the writers of the Gospels, dying cruel deaths to support their belief.

So original sin is a sin of nature, but man is not inherently evil. Not by any stretch. All things God created are good. Except Satan. And us.

I guess there is no ready evidence on whether the residents of Toledo, Spain were evil during the Inquisition.  But look at them dying cruel deaths for not supporting the Church's beliefs.

 

Aliens 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884

God    0 

 

Yours in Galaxian 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Time is required

Quote:

  1. Time is required for Change.
  2. A Decision is a Change.
  3. Decisions require Time.
  4. Consciousness can't let one make a decision without Time.
  5. Consciousness requires Time.
  6. God is Conscious.
  7. God requires Time.
  8. God can't be the cause of Time if God requires Time.
  9. God isn't the cause of Time.
  10. God isn't The First Cause.
  11. If God isn't The Conscious First Cause then God doesn't exist.
  12. God doesn't exist.

God does not make decisions, nor does thought require deliberation. He always has known and willed so from eternity.

 

Quote:

I believe in jesus aliens because they are credible. Both ways around. And back again.

Why are they credible? I can point to why belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God is credible. Why are the aliens credible?

Quote:

There are gods and there are gods. And neither exist.

That is your contention, but that is not an answer.

Quote:

 

The story of George Washington and the cherry tree is more credible than the gospels, and even that is generally accepted as apocryphal. I personally prefer a president who chops down cherry trees to an alien who withers fig trees.

Yours assertion. Why are the Gospels not credible?

Quote:

Yep. A sword or a gun helps. Cortez and Pizarro knew that (are they saints yet?)

The speed with which Islam, the Protestant Reformation, Mormonism and Scientology spread are not admissible as miracles, I suppose.

Christianity did not spread with the help of swords or guns. It spread under intense persecution.

Quote:

 

So original sin is a sin of nature, but man is not inherently evil. Not by any stretch. All things God created are good. Except Satan. And us.

Satan was created good. As were we.

Quote:

I guess there is no ready evidence on whether the residents of Toledo, Spain were evil during the Inquisition.  But look at them dying cruel deaths for not supporting the Church's beliefs.

And? You were asserting that it was merely made-up nonsense. If it was nonsense, why die a horrific death in support of nonsense? I think the heretics were wrong, but they were sincere and did not consider their beliefs to be manufactured (as per their deaths).

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


QuadrivialMind (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: Satan was

StMichael wrote:

Satan was created good. As were we.

Contradiction. If Satan was created good, then he wouldn't have been rebellious against God. Or did God make a mistake? If God had genuinely created him good, then he would have remained good and unrebelious.

Again, God created him KNOWING what Satan would do. He knew everything he would do, and still he created it. Why? He knew Satan would never be saved, but he still went ahead and created him. Is there a reason for that? If he knew he would be damned to hell, why did he create him in the first place?


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
It is not a contradiction.

It is not a contradiction. Satan and all the spirits were created good. There was no evil naturally in them. But He created them naturally free, with the ability to turn against the good. Thus, they turned against God and fell from grace. They are also, in a manner of speaking, still good in so far as they exist and retain the good natural qualities (such as a mind, which is good in itself) that God gave them. Creation as a good creature does not necessitate that one would not disobey God. God created Adam and Eve most explicitly thus and said, "This is very good." Yet they sinned. It is no contradiction at all.

I suppose that the reason God creates a creature who will sin against Him is because God loves the creature. He sees in the creature the potential to share in His life and happiness and thus values this infinite good against the pain which they could suffer if they reject Him (even if some reject Him). The greater good outweighs the possible evil. It does not likewise make the creature not free in choosing to reject God - they could just have equally accepted His grace. But they did not. God's love is greater than sin, so much that He would have gone to the Cross to save merely one person from eternal suffering in hell. It is likewise something of a moot point because reality stands as it does, not as I would will it to be. We must acknowledge the state we are in and accept God's grace in order to attain perfect happiness.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10137
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
StMichael

StMichael wrote:

Quote:
 

Do you not see the logic loop you've become trapped in here? You believe in them because they are credible. They are credible because you believe in them.  

How are you getting this? I believe in them because they are credible. Not the other way around.

Maybe I mistook you somewhere. If so, then you haven't proven why they are credible in the first place.

StMichael wrote:
Quote:

I haven't seen anything. All the miracles people usually refer to are anything but miracles. The same things have occurred without god being creditted, and are usually cooincidental. All the extra special miracles are assumed to have happened because someone wrote them down. But I never saw that happen, so I have to take the word of others that it did in order to believe it. I cannot do this.

There are miracles and there are miracles. It could be called a miracle if by ordinary Providence some person survived a disease. It is a true miracle if a sinner converts. But these are, of course, not verifiable in an ordinary sense, and not technically extraordinary. Then there are miracles, properly speaking. These are truly extraordinary events which contradict all known ordinary course of events and which point to God alone as their author. Christ's miracles in the Gospels are one type of this (and I think their historical credibility makes these miracles credible).

I don't.

StMichael wrote:
  I would likewise point to miracles that exist today in Lanciano (a host and wine literally became flesh and blood in 1400 AD, oir so, and still remains today without corruption), as well as numerous other miracles that are in continual display in Catholic Churches (such as the incorruptible Saint Vincent de Paul or Saint Bernadette), apart from any miracle a particular saint may perform for his/her canonization or during their lives. These phenomena are unexplainable naturally speaking.

1400 AC is a bit before my time, and you'll have to explain that a bit more. It didn't make sense. And saints are outside my expertise. I'd have to believe they were godly before I would care anything about them. Got anything recent? And that has testimony other than from the church?

StMichael wrote:
Quote:
No, you can thank the missionary work for that. No other religion has put so much effort into spreading around the world. And yet they still haven't covered the whole thing.

I daresay that missionary effort alone cannot move everyone to convert in this way. Along with the speed with which it spread. Especially considering that it would claim to perform miracles and yet not produce any. If it spread so wide without any iota of evidence, it would be truly a miracle.

Well obviously people aren't going to go around the world spreading word of a god if they don't think it exists and wants them to. But just because christianity effectively monopolized viral tactics doesn't mean they got everything right. And quite frankly, even 100 years back in time changes everything when viewing the church's definition of a miracle. Go back 2000 years and you could very easily claim that lightning was a miracle. Noone could prove otherwise. I take this whole miracle thing with a grain of salt. A percieved face in a grilled cheese sandwich isn't what I call a miracle, though many christians seem to think it is. Acceptance of many of the miracles I've heard of depend entirely on your pre-disposition and perception of the events.

StMichael wrote:
Quote:

The thing about miracles is that they are almost always accepted at face value without any questions at all. It's very similar to witch doctor-type guys in poor areas of the world that use technology and slight of hand to fool their victims into believing their techniques work. Even though there's really nothing happening at all.

That is ridiculous. Look at canonization proceedings. The depth of research into a particular cure is mind-boggling. They are most certainly not accepted at face value. I also point to those miracles I mentioned earlier, as scientific studies continue to proceed on these phenomena without being able to explain them.

It is not ridiculous. It is fact. People call it a miracle when they can see jesus in a cloud. Good for you if you're above that. Not everyone is. Now if you want to go into just biblical/sainthood miracles, I'm going to have to back away since I don't know enough on the subject to debate it.

StMichael wrote:
Quote:

If I'm supposed to believe that I'm suffering for a crime committed by some guy 6000 years ago, it's not going to happen. All that does is put further questioning on the supposed goodness of god. There isn't a single valid reason to blame a species for the acts of a single representative of it. Whether or not that person even existed, which I know is impossible.

Original sin is not something we are "punished for" in the sense you put it. We were created in grace and lost it by our original parents' sin. This caused a propensity to sin in their children. This propensity to sin and weakness of nature is the effect of original sin. It is a sin of nature, not a personal sin.

You are using terms and/or phrases that are subjective, and I need you to define them in context before proceeding. "Created in grace" "lost it" "sin of nature" "personal sin".

StMichael wrote:
Quote:

An assertion based on the biblical testimony of our species inherrant sin. But the question can be quickly turned around as well. There is no proof that the people who wrote the bible were not evil. None that I've encountered at any rate.

I would point out that the Scriptures say no such thing. Man is not inherently evil by any stretch. All things God created are good.

Of course the scriptures say that. If they said anything else you wouldn't be here arguing for them. Which is exactly my point. To trust the scriptures implicitly would be to trust those who wrote them. Since I can't even speak to those people, trusting them is out of the question. 

StMichael wrote:
Also, there is evidence that the people who wrote the Scriptures were not evil. Look at the lives of the Apostles and the writers of the Gospels, dying cruel deaths to support their belief.

Or so it is written. I think god screwed up royally if he's out there. He never accounted for people like me. Ah well. I'll get over it. 

StMichael wrote:
Quote:

So says you. I say that you are the one using a sense of knowledge that doesn't apply. So we continue to go in circles.

Define, then, knowledge.

Without a dictionary handy, I define knowledge as the result of accumulation of facts and experience during a lifetime.  

StMichael wrote:
Quote:

I can logically deduce that one is not necessary. And that if one were, then everything would need a reason. Including god. The only way out of that is if god has no intellect and is merely an object without reasoning. You can't logically say that god doesn't need a reason yet claim the universe does.

That makes absolutely no sense. You are misapplying the term to have a "reason" for something to mean that God has "reason" in terms of an intellect. That is a silly and superficial misuse of the word.

If I understood this correctly, I don't believe it is. I think it is illogical to believe that one complexity needs a cause when a higher complexity does not. If a complexity needs a designer, then every equal or greater complexity also needs a designer. Now perhaps this can be reconciled dimensionally. Perhaps your god is the god of our 4 dimensional spacetime. And maybe there's a more complex god that watches over 5 dimensional spacetime. Etc. But thats just assumption.

StMichael wrote:
Further, I am not positing that everything needs a reason, only that things are in motion, and things in motion need a mover. If they have no mover without a mover moving it, then no motion can exist.

Motion is only relevant if you prove there was no motion. You are probably considering that an object at rest tends to stay at rest. But an object in motion tends to stay in motion as well. All of which doesn't really matter. This motion stuff doesn't pertain even if you are right about a god. The mere existance of matter and energy forces movement. The simple act of creation would not cause motion, and yet motion would be a symptom of the cause.

StMichael wrote:

God doesn't need a cause and indeed must not need a cause if He is the Uncaused Cause and Prime Mover. All that is necessary to say is that there exists at least one Uncaused Cause or Prime Mover.

Well I'm pretty sure I took out your prime mover. As for your uncaused cause, it must be proven that there was cause to prove there was uncaused cause. I hope I said that right. I probably didn't.

StMichael wrote:
Quote:

To redefine your term for my use, the prime mover is existance itself.

Which is God. Because God's existence and essence are one and the same. It would be better to say that God is the act of existing.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

Ah, but if existance itself is god, and god is existance, then we are god. God is us. Therefore the terms of heaven and hell are null and void, as death would simply return us to us.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


QuadrivialMind (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: It is not

StMichael wrote:

It is not a contradiction. Satan and all the spirits were created good. There was no evil naturally in them. But He created them naturally free, with the ability to turn against the good. Thus, they turned against God and fell from grace. They are also, in a manner of speaking, still good in so far as they exist and retain the good natural qualities (such as a mind, which is good in itself) that God gave them. Creation as a good creature does not necessitate that one would not disobey God. God created Adam and Eve most explicitly thus and said, "This is very good." Yet they sinned. It is no contradiction at all.

Well, to me, the fact that they sinned and 'fell from grace' contradicts the fact that they were 'good'. Let's just leave it as a matter of opinion.

Quote:

I suppose that the reason God creates a creature who will sin against Him is because God loves the creature.

Um. Do you realise what you are saying? God creates an atheist and sends him to hell forever because he loves him? Irrational to say the least.

Quote:

He sees in the creature the potential to share in His life and happiness and thus values this infinite good against the pain which they could suffer if they reject Him (even if some reject Him). The greater good outweighs the possible evil. It does not likewise make the creature not free in choosing to reject God - they could just have equally accepted His grace. But they did not. God's love is greater than sin, so much that He would have gone to the Cross to save merely one person from eternal suffering in hell. It is likewise something of a moot point because reality stands as it does, not as I would will it to be. We must acknowledge the state we are in and accept God's grace in order to attain perfect happiness.

You fail to address the matter. Stop thinking like a preacher for a second (I would appreciate if you didn't tell me the tale of Christ over and over again as I have heard it enough).

To the question: 'Why did God create Satan knowing Satan's future?', is your answer really 'Because he loved him'? Because he loved him (love something that hasn't been created, contradiction), he created him knowing he would suffer eternally? Where's the outweigh if an atheist suffers forever?

Also, was Satan perfect? Did God create him perfect? Assuming God is perfect, there are two possibilites:

1- Satan was created perfect. If he was perfect, why did he need to sin? Why did he walk away from God? Does not make sense if he was perfect.

2- Satan was not created perfect. How does a perfect being like God create something flawed?


Pikachu
Pikachu's picture
Posts: 181
Joined: 2006-08-19
User is offlineOffline
wrote:God does not make

Pikachu wrote:
  1. Time is required for Change.
  2. A Decision is a Change.
  3. Decisions require Time.
  4. Consciousness can't let one make a decision without Time.
  5. Consciousness requires Time.
  6. God is Conscious.
  7. God requires Time.
  8. God can't be the cause of Time if God requires Time.
  9. God isn't the cause of Time.
  10. God isn't The First Cause.
  11. If God isn't The Conscious First Cause then God doesn't exist.
  12. God doesn't exist.
StMichael wrote:
God does not make decisions, nor does thought require deliberation. He always has known and willed so from eternity.
In other words, God is what we developers call a "script". A set of variables that are executed at a given time. The only difference is that God has been on "run" for eternity. With no chance to stop, go back, change course, undo, etc. Just a mindless script running......
  1. If god doesn't make decisions then the universe just sort of happened.
  2. If the universe just sort of happened then God isn't it's creator.
  3. God doesn't exist because God didn't do anything.

God had no time to create time.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1149
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote:

StMichael wrote:
Quote:
I believe in jesus aliens because they are credible. Both ways around. And back again.

Why are they credible? I can point to why belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God is credible. Why are the aliens credible?

Because aliens are material, and therefore part of a self-contained universe which continuously expands and contracts upon itself, not requiring an external mover or cause. This is more credible than an immaterial god who purports to be a first cause which is not necessary, and wouldn't exist even if she was necessary.

StMichael wrote:

Quote:

There are gods and there are gods. And neither exist.

That is your contention, but that is not an answer.

Quite so. But it was you who mentioned miracles to support your argument, and only after receving a rebuttal, sprung the surprise that "there are miracles and there are miracles". If in fact "there are miracles and there are miracles", you should have mentioned that the first time around. Once you provide a solid rebuttal to my alien jesus theory (which I haven't yet seen), I'll be sure to point out that "there are aliens and there are aliens".

StMichael wrote:

Quote:
The story of George Washington and the cherry tree is more credible than the gospels...

Yours assertion. Why are the Gospels not credible?

Hmmm. The 4 gospels differ in crucial details, they skip 2 decades of jesus' life (which you ought to consider a travesty, since by your claims he is the most important figure in history), they speak of miracles (see above: do you think a 2,000 year old story of withering a fig tree is more credible than a 250 year-old story of chopping down a cherry tree?  Staying on the George Washington motif, I might add that crossing the Delaware accomplished more than walking on the Sea of Galilee), and ... they deny the alien nature of jesus, which can be known through reason.

 

StMichael wrote:
Satan was created good. As were we.

But you say that god also " created them naturally free, with the ability to turn against the good." And since god himself does no evil, he must not be naturally free, and not have the ability to turn against the good, which means he has less power than those she created. Talk about omnipotence.

StMichael wrote:

Quote:

I guess there is no ready evidence on whether the residents of Toledo, Spain were evil during the Inquisition. But look at them dying cruel deaths for not supporting the Church's beliefs.

And? You were asserting that it was merely made-up nonsense. If it was nonsense, why die a horrific death in support of nonsense? I think the heretics were wrong, but they were sincere and did not consider their beliefs to be manufactured (as per their deaths).

 

So look. You point out the apostles' supposed suffering for the sake of their beliefs as evidence of their credibility. Yet when heretics suffered for their beliefs, that's o.k., because you think they were wrong, despite their sincerity. If you are not impressed by the heretics suffering (at the hands of God's Church) for their beliefs, you ought not to have mentioned the apostles' suffering in the first place when arguing the truthfulness of their beliefs.

Consider this: Galileo denied the earth revolves around the sun to put off his execution (at the hands of the church), although the earth truly does revolve around the sun. Likewise, I would immediately recant the Alien Jesus under threat of torture or execution (at the hands of the church). Therefore, the Alien Jesus must be true.

As we break for commercials, the Aliens are up by 5.

Yours in plaid bell bottoms....

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


DrFear
Posts: 248
Joined: 2006-07-09
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: Further,

StMichael wrote:

Further, I am not positing that everything needs a reason, only that things are in motion, and things in motion need a mover. If they have no mover without a mover moving it, then no motion can exist.

good. we are in agreement. (although i have heard statements to the contrary from the quantum physics camp, but i am not versed in that, so i will not invoke it).

so how do we go from this rational, real statement to a wild, imaginary world where an interdimensional, ethereal being causes motion? 

Quote:
God doesn't need a cause and indeed must not need a cause if He is the Uncaused Cause and Prime Mover. All that is necessary to say is that there exists at least one Uncaused Cause or Prime Mover.

and now you've contradicted yourself.  what leads you to believe that a Prime Mover must exist? 

 

 

 


 

Fear is the mindkiller.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Maybe I mistook you

Quote:

Maybe I mistook you somewhere. If so, then you haven't proven why they are credible in the first place.

They are credible because they fit what can be known naturally and because they are supported by miracles.

Quote:

1400 AC is a bit before my time, and you'll have to explain that a bit more. It didn't make sense. And saints are outside my expertise. I'd have to believe they were godly before I would care anything about them. Got anything recent? And that has testimony other than from the church?

These things exist today. You can go to Lanciano, Italy and see the miracle. And these are not testified to by the Church alone (whatever that means), but by scientific professionals as well. There is no reason one would have to accept a saint's "godliness" before one noticed that their body had not decayed for the past 300 years.

 

Quote:

 Well obviously people aren't going to go around the world spreading word of a god if they don't think it exists and wants them to. But just because christianity effectively monopolized viral tactics doesn't mean they got everything right.

I did not say that it definitely proves that Christianity is true. It would just be miraculous if they spread so fast and so wide without a single miracle, which they claimed to have.

Quote:
 

And quite frankly, even 100 years back in time changes everything when viewing the church's definition of a miracle. Go back 2000 years and you could very easily claim that lightning was a miracle. Noone could prove otherwise.

That is nonsense. A miracle is a miracle. There was no difference in the definition. There is no natural way for a human being to regrow a limb spontaneously or for bread to actually become flesh (as in Lanciano) or for the dead to rise.

Quote:
 

I take this whole miracle thing with a grain of salt. A percieved face in a grilled cheese sandwich isn't what I call a miracle, though many christians seem to think it is.

Did I ever claim it was? It has nothing to do with what other people might consider a miracle. I am talking about what a really and truly extraordinary miracle would be, and how the Church sees it.

Quote:

It is not ridiculous. It is fact. People call it a miracle when they can see jesus in a cloud. Good for you if you're above that. Not everyone is. Now if you want to go into just biblical/sainthood miracles, I'm going to have to back away since I don't know enough on the subject to debate it.

The documentation exists for modern canonizations. You could look up the cases and the medical files, or other testimony. The Scriptural miracles are attested to by the lives and witness of the persons having seen them; we can know this through historical evidence.

Again, there are miracles, colloqially speaking, and there are miracles as truly extraordinary events. I never claimed seeing Jesus' face in a cloud was a miracle.

Quote:

You are using terms and/or phrases that are subjective, and I need you to define them in context before proceeding. "Created in grace" "lost it" "sin of nature" "personal sin".

"Created in grace" - the first human beings were created by God in a state of grace, possessing knowledge naturally, possessing the ability to rule their passions through reason, and freedom from suffering and death.

"Lost it" - the first human beings sinned against God and lost these original gifts of grace

"Sin of nature" - a sin which affected the nature of a thing. In the case of original sin, it disordered human nature itself and lost the original gifts that God had given man

"Personal sin" - the sin that I have personally committed and for which I can be rightly punished as proceeding from my volition

 

Quote:

Of course the scriptures say that. If they said anything else you wouldn't be here arguing for them. Which is exactly my point. To trust the scriptures implicitly would be to trust those who wrote them. Since I can't even speak to those people, trusting them is out of the question. 

YOU were the one who was using Scripture, not me.

Quote:

Or so it is written.

No, you can go look at their tombs. You can read ancient testimony about that that is a-Scriptural.

Quote:

Without a dictionary handy, I define knowledge as the result of accumulation of facts and experience during a lifetime.  

But that is not a good definition of knowledge. Knowledge is not merely what I experience, or I would not know that a vase is blue, but I would merely experience the vase as blue. There could be no argument over whether a proposition was true or not, and further, I would not be able to share my knowledge with you (teaching or learning) because it would be merely my experience. But this is clearly not what we mean when we say "knowledge."

Quote:

If I understood this correctly, I don't believe it is. I think it is illogical to believe that one complexity needs a cause when a higher complexity does not. If a complexity needs a designer, then every equal or greater complexity also needs a designer...."

What does this have to do with anything at all? I never claimed an argument from design or complexity. I claimed that things were in motion and hence required a mover.

I could have argued from the way that natural things follow ends intelligently, but this wouldn't answer it anyway. Things in the universe which are irrational, such as rocks and heat, pursue ends naturally in such a way that the best situation is achieved (such as gravity or maximization of entropy production). But it is the character of intelligence to be ordered toward ends. These things are not intelligent, so they require an orderer. Hence, the ordering of ends in the universe is a result of the ordering of a supreme intelligence. This is God.   

 

Quote:

Motion is only relevant if you prove there was no motion. You are probably considering that an object at rest tends to stay at rest. But an object in motion tends to stay in motion as well.

No, it does not need that at all. To be in motion, a thing requires a mover in the first place. Even if a thing tends to stay in motion when in motion, its motion must derive from a mover.

Quote:
The mere existance of matter and energy forces movement.

How? Further, energy itself is a form of motion. It would require God as its mover.

Quote:
 

The simple act of creation would not cause motion, and yet motion would be a symptom of the cause.

I have no idea what this ought to mean. If motion follows from creation (whatever that means), then wouldn't creation lead to motion and so God would be the Prime Mover?

Quote:

As for your uncaused cause, it must be proven that there was cause to prove there was uncaused cause.

All that needs to be proven is that things here are caused and at least one cause which is uncaused is logically necessary. We have proven both of these things. There is no premise that would require my uncaused cause to be caused. 

Quote:

Ah, but if existance itself is god, and god is existance, then we are god. God is us. Therefore the terms of heaven and hell are null and void, as death would simply return us to us.

No, God is not your existence, God is Being itself. God is the act of existing. God is.

Quote:

Well, to me, the fact that they sinned and 'fell from grace' contradicts the fact that they were 'good'. Let's just leave it as a matter of opinion.

It does not contradict at all. Their being good does not contradict that they fell. A person in a state of grace can turn away from God. Just because a thing was perfected in some way does not necessitate its perpetual perfection. For example, my monitor works now and is good, but that does not necessitate that it could never be broken. In original sin, of course, we are speaking about human intelligent actors, but no necessity arises from the fact that they were created good.

Quote:

Um. Do you realise what you are saying? God creates an atheist and sends him to hell forever because he loves him? Irrational to say the least.

God loves the person and wishes the person to be happy. God does not "send" the person to hell at all. The person chooses to go to hell with full freedom.

I think this furthermore overlooks the fact that God did not create mankind in general (which is the real issue) to be damned, nor were the entire race foreknown to be damned (even if they freely chose it). Humankind, by original sin, chose death and suffering. God continued to seek humanity's return to grace, which was preordained in His sending His Son for our redemption. It was in view of this that God allowed original sin to happen. It was an evil tolerated for the greater good.

God did not create sin, nor does He rejoice in the fact that people are damned. He allows it to happen so that He might allow others to freely love Him. And, further, those who are damned are not unfreely damned; they chose damnation in spite of the gifts of sufficent grace which God gives to all men.

Quote:

Also, was Satan perfect? Did God create him perfect? Assuming God is perfect, there are two possibilites:

1- Satan was created perfect. If he was perfect, why did he need to sin? Why did he walk away from God? Does not make sense if he was perfect.

2- Satan was not created perfect. How does a perfect being like God create something flawed?

God does not create every being with every perfection, otherwise no thing would be created and only God would exist. But God freely created beings that were good, but they were not perfect in the sense of totally perfect. He gave them a will to choose the good and avoid the evil. Some chose to not do so, and this is what led to sin.

 

Quote:

Because aliens are material, and therefore part of a self-contained universe which continuously expands and contracts upon itself, not requiring an external mover or cause.

The universe requires a mover regardless because what is in motion requires a mover. If the universe is in motion, which you claim, it requires a mover.

Quote:

Quote:

they speak of miracles (see above: do you think a 2,000 year old story of withering a fig tree is more credible than a 250 year-old story of chopping down a cherry tree?

And what does the fact that the latter is more "credible" as a fact have to do with anything? The question is not whether a particular even is more "credible" in so far as it is more of an ordinary event, but "credible" in so far as it can be believed that such things happened according to historical testimony. We have no evidence, as you said, that GW chopped down a cherry tree and it is nonsense to maintain it. On the other hand, we have testimony both from the lives of the Apostles (who suffered in support of their beliefs) and from the early Christians and seculars of the time period attesting to Christianity.  

Quote:

But you say that god also "created them naturally free, with the ability to turn against the good." And since god himself does no evil, he must not be naturally free, and not have the ability to turn against the good, which means he has less power than those she created. Talk about omnipotence.

They were free to choose the good. The will is not able to choose evil, as it only wills something as an apparent good. Our wills will good alone. The choice of evil is a difficency in our choice of good - we choose an imperfect good. Man's will was to unite itself perfectly to the perfect Good, but rather chose a finite, imperfect good instead. God wills His own Goodness necessarily as the highest Good, but wills other goods more or less according to His free choice. It has nothing to do with omnipotence.

Quote:

So look. You point out the apostles' supposed suffering for the sake of their beliefs as evidence of their credibility. Yet when heretics suffered for their beliefs, that's o.k., because you think they were wrong, despite their sincerity.

It has nothing to do with the fact that heretics were wrong. The Apostles would have not suffered to support their faith in Christ if they were liars to the fact that Christ existed or rose from the dead. Their suffering was a direct witness to this fact.

Heretics died out of a sincere conviction that they were correct in their beliefs in general, not to a specific historical fact. It is a bad analogy.  

Quote:

although the earth truly does revolve around the sun

Actually, it was that the earth is the center of the universe, which is not accurate.

Quote:

In other words, God is what we developers call a "script". A set of variables that are executed at a given time.

No, there is no time involved at all. God acts from eternity, with no movement forward in deliberation. His act of willing is eternal and the same as His substance.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1149
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
StMichael

StMichael wrote:

Quote:

Because aliens are material, and therefore part of a self-contained universe which continuously expands and contracts upon itself, not requiring an external mover or cause.

The universe requires a mover regardless because what is in motion requires a mover. If the universe is in motion, which you claim, it requires a mover.

Nopes. If the universe is self-contained, it can expand and contract continuously without need of an external agent. I can say it doesn't require an external agent just like you can say god doesn't require a cause.

StMichael wrote:

Quote:

they speak of miracles (see above: do you think a 2,000 year old story of withering a fig tree is more credible than a 250 year-old story of chopping down a cherry tree?

And what does the fact that the latter is more "credible" as a fact have to do with anything...we have testimony both from the lives of the Apostles (who suffered in support of their beliefs) and from the early Christians and seculars of the time period attesting to Christianity.

But the fact remains that if a story less than 300 years old about an indisputably historical figure and a highly credible event (chopping down a tree) can be doubtful, a 2,000 year old story involving fantastical claims about a figure whose historicity is not as obvious, warrants all the more doubt. It's more believable because the apostles supposedly suffered for their beliefs? Perhaps that's because they thought the big guy was returning in their own lifetimes. They were wrong. Are your accounts of the apostle's suffering for their beliefs coming from any source other than the gospels? They are dated to around 70 A.D., about 40 years after the Alien Savio(u)r's death. Do you imagine any word of mouth story given 40 years to mutate can still be regarded as historically reliable? Then you point out early christians and seculars "attesting to christianity", which is different than attesting to jesus. Sort of like early Patriots and Royalists attesting to democracy, instead of George Washington. Many secular accounts included claims of christians engaging in blood rituals. I have to imagine you filtered those attestations.

StMichael wrote:

They were free to choose the good. The will is not able to choose evil, as it only wills something as an apparent good. Our wills will good alone. The choice of evil is a difficency in our choice of good - we choose an imperfect good. Man's will was to unite itself perfectly to the perfect Good, but rather chose a finite, imperfect good instead. God wills His own Goodness necessarily as the highest Good, but wills other goods more or less according to His free choice. It has nothing to do with omnipotence.

Let's do this very slowly. No, still too fast. Much, much slower:

God cannot do evil +

I can do evil +

I can do something God cannot do

God is not omnipotent.

StMichael wrote:

Quote:

although the earth truly does revolve around the sun

Actually, it was that the earth is the center of the universe, which is not accurate.

Nice way to skirt the issue, that being Galileo's recanting of an actual truth to save his life (as opposed to the Apostle's reputed dying for a myth). But let's follow through: If the earth were the center of the universe, what do you imagine the sun would be revolving around? So by endorsing heliocentricity, Galileo was denying (whether implicitly or explicitly) that the earth was the center of universe.  And the Church told him to shut it.  

All shall become clear when the Mother Ship returns.

 

Yours in a tub of jello... 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Logically, if there is at

Argument from causality:

Logically, if there is at least one entity that doen't need a cause, then the assumption that 'everything require a cause' is false. Therefore there is no logical argument for God here. There is simply no LOGICAL way around this. Period.

So you are reduced to simply making assumptions, and seeing how well they explain what we perceive, IOW, Science. And so fa, the trend has been that we keep finding naturalistic explanations for things which were once attrbuted to the Supernatural.

All the various God concepts are either self-contradictory, or neither provable nor dis-provable, since It is assumed by the believers to have whatever wondrous and incomprehensible (to us mere mortals) properties that may be required to make It consistent with what we feel and perceive. So then we need some more solid reason to assume It exists than just a current 'gap' in our understanding, 'cause those gaps tend to keep closing up.

Just don't pretend what you are postulating is 'logically' necessary.

Motion:

Oh, just for the record, there is no ABSOLUTE motion - all we can say is that one 'thing' moves with respect to another. This has been thoroughly experimentally demonstrated. Objects stay in whatever state of apparent motion they are in unless acted on by an external force. External agents are only required to CHANGE the state of motion of something.

The 'First Cause' not Necessarily the Christian God:

Then even if 'something' was 'required' to initiate 'everything', there is still a massive amount of argument required, and so far conspicuous by its absence, to show that this assumed entity actually corresponds to any particular God in any particular religious tradition.

Complexity from Disorder:

Another point that is known from countless real examples, is that whatever conditions are necessary for some structure to come into existence do not need to be more complex or organised, let alone 'intelligent' than what they 'cause'.

The existence of a warmer patch of ocean in the Gulf of Mexico due to the 'random' interactions of ocean currents and winds is all that was required to cause Hurricane Katrina.

Beatifully regular crystals form as solutions of simple molecules evaporate.

IOW order can arise from disorder. It's a fact. We can't necessarily prove in any ultimate sense that the complexity of life did arise from simple components, but it definitely is not intrinsically impossible, by purely naturalistic processes.

So Rational Faith and StMichael, and others of similar inclination, you need more than your (or anyone else's) inability to grasp that some particular level of complexity cannot arise without 'supenatural' help, to 'prove' that it can't. I can accept the possibility, based on following scientific arguments for a long time, after initial training in science, maths and engineering - what do you base your position on?

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


QuadrivialMind (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: It does

StMichael wrote:

It does not contradict at all. Their being good does not contradict that they fell. A person in a state of grace can turn away from God. Just because a thing was perfected in some way does not necessitate its perpetual perfection. For example, my monitor works now and is good, but that does not necessitate that it could never be broken. In original sin, of course, we are speaking about human intelligent actors, but no necessity arises from the fact that they were created good.

Your analogy does not apply. First of all, if the monitor was 'perfected', it wouldn't be able to malfunction. If it's able to manfunction, then it's not perfected in the first place. Also, for your analogy to apply, you must be the creator of all things, omnipotent and omniscient. When you created the monitor, you knew exactly what was gonna happen, and you could change it. The fact that you didn't change it, means it's your will that things result in the way they resulted. The exact same thing with Adam and Eve; if God had a problem with their fate, he could have changed it at the moment of creation. The fact that he didn't means one of the two: 1) He is not omnipotent. 2) He did not want to change things- otherwise he would have, as he is omnipotent.

 

StMichael wrote:

 

God loves the person and wishes the person to be happy. God does not "send" the person to hell at all. The person chooses to go to hell with full freedom.

 

Untrue. If you could talk to anyone in hell (if it existed) I'm sure they would say they didn't choose it. You are mistaking 'choice' with 'fate' or 'consequence'. The person chooses a certain way of living. The fact that because of that, they ended up in Hell, means that there is SOMEONE who lay down the rule 'Do this, go to hell.'. Who is the judge with the hammer here? God is the one that decides 'You got to hell, you go to heaven', or can you deny that? Can I die and say 'I go to heaven!'? No. God is the one that says so. Therefore he decides your fate. Even if it's a question of your own choice. He makes the final judgement. This is OBVIOUSLY paradoxical with the fact that 'God wants people to be happy'. If he thinks people are going to be happy in hell, he's an idiot. Furthermore, if he truly wanted people to be happy, he wouldn't have created a way for people to suffer eternally.

StMichael wrote:

I think this furthermore overlooks the fact that God did not create mankind in general (which is the real issue) to be damned, nor were the entire race foreknown to be damned (even if they freely chose it). Humankind, by original sin, chose death and suffering. God continued to seek humanity's return to grace, which was preordained in His sending His Son for our redemption. It was in view of this that God allowed original sin to happen. It was an evil tolerated for the greater good.

I'm sorry, how do you know 'In his view God tolerated sin blablabla'? Don't claim to know what God viewed when you have used the cop-out 'I can't claim to know what he thinks'.

I don't see the greater good here. Do the math: the majority of the world is very probably going to hell- according to the bible. It even says that there will not be many in heaven. Oh, and can you tell me what happens to the people before Jesus, or the people who have no knowledge of Christianity? Oh, and do you think, that because of our honest opinions that would 'turn us away from God', we are influenced/manipulated/possessed/whatever by Satan?

God did not create mankind to be damned? Not exactly. But he is ok with damnation and eternal suffering for some, because, as I have demonstrated time and time and time and time again; the fact that he has not changed things when he could've (at the moment of creation) and the fact that he foresaw everything that was going to happen, means he's ok with it. Otherwise, you can reach one of the two conclusions specified above.

*"Nor were the entire race foreknown to be damned". What? God knows everything.

StMichael wrote:

God did not create sin, nor does He rejoice in the fact that people are damned. He allows it to happen so that He might allow others to freely love Him. And, further, those who are damned are not unfreely damned; they chose damnation in spite of the gifts of sufficent grace which God gives to all men.

Again, people don't choose to go to hell. They choose their lives, God says 'You got to hell' because people don't say 'Ok let's go to hell'. That would be seriously retarded. Do you honestly believe someone will choose eternal damnation?

So "God allows people to be damned.". That's idiotic and evil. And that's so others can love him? So he needs people burning for others to be kissing his ass? That sounds very, very wrong. Being God, couldn't he have made it otherwise? He could've done it a million ways, but the fact that he created things the way they are, means once again, he is perfectly ok with people burning for all eternity. You can not deny that fact. Please stop saying that I overlook things, this is the main idea.

God does not give gifts to mankind. There is no evidence for this other than what the Bible says, which obviously has no veracity as a book. Even if God did give gifts, they would be quite shitty, otherwise we wouldn't be screwed up the way we are. You can not honestly believe humanity has a 'gift of sufficient grace'.

StMichael wrote:

God does not create every being with every perfection, otherwise no thing would be created and only God would exist.

Irrelevant. I'm not asking for 'every perfection'. The fact is that a perfect being created all flawed beings, which doesn't make sense, unless he gets kicks out of it.

Also, even if 'no thing would be created and only God would exist' leads to a problem. What's wrong with God existing by himself? If he needed to created us, then he's not perfect. Wanting to create us implies either a necessity or lack of something. Does a perfect being need things, does he lack things? No. Then why did he create us? He was perfect. Supposedly still is. 

StMichael wrote:

But God freely created beings that were good, but they were not perfect in the sense of totally perfect. He gave them a will to choose the good and avoid the evil. Some chose to not do so, and this is what led to sin.

Again. All in God's will.

You still haven't answered these:

1- Why did God create Satan knowing his future?

2- Why does God create a future atheist / unbeliever knowing his future?

3- Can you deny he is ok with it, taking into account he is omnipotent and omniscient?

 

On a more personal note, please preview your messages before posting, you are making a mess with quotes. Thanks.


Pikachu
Pikachu's picture
Posts: 181
Joined: 2006-08-19
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote:There is

Psychology 101

Pikachu wrote:
  1. Time is required for Change.
  2. A Decision is a Change.
  3. Decisions require Time.
  4. Consciousness can't let one make a decision without Time.
  5. Consciousness requires Time.
  6. God is Conscious.
  7. God requires Time.
  8. God can't be the cause of Time if God requires Time.
  9. God isn't the cause of Time.
  10. God isn't The First Cause.
  11. If God isn't The Conscious First Cause then God doesn't exist.
  12. God doesn't exist.
StMichael wrote:
There is no time involved at all. God acts from eternity, with no movement forward in deliberation. His act of willing is eternal and the same as His substance.
An ACT is an action cairred out by an entity.  The act and the entity are separate.  For example ...

"James combs his hair."

"Combs hair" is the ACT, whilst James is the being carrying out the action.

"Susan walks to the shop."

"Walking to the shops" is the ACT, whilst Susan is the being carrying out the action.

See what I mean?

"In the beginning, God created the heaven's and the earth."

"Creating the heavens and the earth" is the ACT.  What is it that is carrrying out the action?  "God" isn't sufficient because saying that doesn't actually tell us what God is.

For example ..

"Bob picked up the stick and ran with it."

Picking up the stick and running and the actions being carried out by Bob.  But what is Bob?  Is he a human?  Is he a dog?  Is it male?  Is it female?  If were to ask you "Who picked up the stick and ran with it?", answering "Bob" wouldn't actually tell us what Bob is.

No time = no change. How did God get from existing for all eternity without a universe, to the point of actually creating it if no change in his thoughts or actions was possible?

Hope that is clear Smiling

God had no time to create time.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Logically, an omniscient

Logically, an omniscient omnipotent being can create a flawed creature, but only if he actually intended the creature to be flawed.

Every choice we make can only be based on our basic urges, our current emotional state, our reaction to what we perceive, in the context of our past experience, our memory, current understandings, our current desires, and our assessment of how best to achieve those current goals. These all seem to be things which we don't actually choose in themselves, although many will be at least partly the result of previous choices.

If we 'chose' some course of action that we have been told by Someone not to pursue, that can only because we perceive that it will make us happier in some way, or else it's just that our basic urges have overcome our conscious judgment. In the first case, if we have have made an incorrect assessment, then our judgment is flawed, in the second case our basic make-up is flawed in that our basic urges are too strong and ultimately harmful. Either way, our poor choice is due to our flawed 'design'. The mere fact that our perceptions and capacities to analyse the ultimate consequences of our actions are finite, limited, means that it is virtually inevitable that we will make mistakes.

If Hell is something that no creature would consciously chose, then any choice that lead to that would be an error of judgment, reflecting those finite and limited faculties. If we have some overwhelming primal emotional drive which leads to such errors of judgment, that is hardly something we chose, it is a flaw in our basic make-up.

No matter how you cut it, such 'bad' actions can only be due to built-in flaws. So 'God' has to take ultimate responsibility.

Such things in an enlightened compassionate society are recognised as psychological problems, and we would attempt to offer such people therapy, advice, guidance, or if necessary restrain them, rather than letting them live out their lives damaging themselves and others.

Once the damage has been done, it would be purely a pointless act of vengeance to subject them to some massive 'punishment' after it's all over, when it is far too late, especially for people who may have been their victims.

 

So the traditional picture of God painted here is the supreme example of INJUSTICE. Note that there is no reason why a Creator of the universe need be a paragon of Justice or Goodness in any way, apart from the argument of 'Might makes Right'. We have no logical argument whatsoever that such a Creator would have to have our ultimate 'best' interests at heart. Why couln't such an entity just enjoy fucking us around? The history of natural disasters and disease would certainly be entirely consistent with such a view.

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


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Nopes. If the

Quote:

Nopes. If the universe is self-contained, it can expand and contract continuously without need of an external agent. I can say it doesn't require an external agent just like you can say god doesn't require a cause.

The universe is in motion and hence requires a source for its motion. God moves other things but is not in motion. Thus, God is still necessary for the motion of the universe.

Quote:

But the fact remains that if a story less than 300 years old about an indisputably historical figure and a highly credible event (chopping down a tree) can be doubtful, a 2,000 year old story involving fantastical claims about a figure whose historicity is not as obvious, warrants all the more doubt. It's more believable because the apostles supposedly suffered for their beliefs? Perhaps that's because they thought the big guy was returning in their own lifetimes. They were wrong.

The event is about a person who we do indeed have good historical knowledge that He existed and His acts, while supernatural, are rational in view of what we know about God (outside of Revelation) as well as from the testimony of His eyewitnesses who were tortured to deny their claims (especially that He was God who rose from the dead).

Quote:

Are your accounts of the apostle's suffering for their beliefs coming from any source other than the gospels?

Yes. This is found in historical record from Ignatius of Antioch, Iraeneus, Justin Martyr, as well as the tombs of the Apostles themselves and the historical evidence found in the archeology of the churches and monuments from the time period.

Quote:

They are dated to around 70 A.D., about 40 years after the Alien Savio(u)r's death. Do you imagine any word of mouth story given 40 years to mutate can still be regarded as historically reliable?

Yes, I do. Especially as it was not mutating in the way you put it. Eyewitnesses were the primary authors of the accounts in the first place. Further, the letters of Paul are from earlier than 70 AD (which are likewise influenced by the eyewitnesses to Christ).  

Quote:

Then you point out early christians and seculars "attesting to christianity", which is different than attesting to jesus. Sort of like early Patriots and Royalists attesting to democracy, instead of George Washington. Many secular accounts included claims of christians engaging in blood rituals. I have to imagine you filtered those attestations. 

First, Josephus as well as some others directly refer to Jesus Himself. Second, Saint Paul is evidence enough as per his early writings.

Quote:

God cannot do evil +

I can do evil +

I can do something God cannot do

God is not omnipotent.

You can not do evil. Evil is a nothingness. Evil is a defect of the good. God can only do good as you can only will the good. You, however, will the good imperfectly or will evil objects under the aspect of good. Your ability to do evil indirectly is a lack, not a positive attribute. God cannot do something that is pure nothingness in itself.

Quote:

So by endorsing heliocentricity, Galileo was denying (whether implicitly or explicitly) that the earth was the center of universe.  And the Church told him to shut it. 

That has no bearing. Also, today we know that the earth is just as good a center of the universe as the sun according to general relativity.  

 

Quote:

Your analogy does not apply. First of all, if the monitor was 'perfected', it wouldn't be able to malfunction. If it's able to manfunction, then it's not perfected in the first place.

A perfection in general is not equal to perfect perfection. It functions and thus possesses a certain perfection. God only wills the perfection. But He does not will everything with the same degree of perfection. Thus, rocks have less perfection than dogs and angels have more than human beings.  

Quote:

The exact same thing with Adam and Eve; if God had a problem with their fate, he could have changed it at the moment of creation.

Except that Adam and Eve as well as the rebel angels were not monitors. God gave both freedom of will. God never determined their fate.

Quote:

If you could talk to anyone in hell (if it existed) I'm sure they would say they didn't choose it.

Hell is merely the fulfillment of their choice. For example, a glutton chooses food as his final end. Hell is the possession of the food without possession of the good that accompanies this (as God is the source of this good). It also entails knowing that one can never possess happiness. Further, if they were truly ignorant in a way that they were not morally culpable, they do not go to hell.

Quote:
 

You are mistaking 'choice' with 'fate' or 'consequence'. The person chooses a certain way of living.

Their way of living determines/shows what they will as their end. If they choose a hedonistic way of life, they obviously choose physical pleasure as their ultimate good. If they choose a life of philosophy, they choose knowledge/wisdom as their ultimate good.

Quote:

The fact that because of that, they ended up in Hell, means that there is SOMEONE who lay down the rule 'Do this, go to hell.'.

Their choice of a good that is not God is their choice of hell. God's decrees are merely something that follows upon this reality.  

 

Quote:

 Even if it's a question of your own choice. He makes the final judgement.

God does not make a final judgement in contrariety to your will. Which is why someone can go to hell - because they choose it.  

 

Quote:

This is OBVIOUSLY paradoxical with the fact that 'God wants people to be happy'. If he thinks people are going to be happy in hell, he's an idiot.

God has an antecedent and a consequent will. God wills that all men be happy, but He wills that they freely are happy. He gave you and me free will, and we can freely choose Him as our ultimate good or some created thing. He does not want to send us to hell, but respects our freedom of choice.

Quote:
 

Furthermore, if he truly wanted people to be happy, he wouldn't have created a way for people to suffer eternally.

He never created such a thing. It arose from angelic and human sin. God gave men and "angels" (spirits is their proper name) the ability to choose only good. "Angels" first misused this in willing a good too much - their own good in the case of Satan. Man used this will of good in a similar way, willing their own good in contrariety to God. In both ways, sin entered the world and, with sin, death physically and spiritually.

Quote:

I'm sorry, how do you know 'In his view God tolerated sin blablabla'? Don't claim to know what God viewed when you have used the cop-out 'I can't claim to know what he thinks'.

I said, we can know His general will, but not His specific will (in regard to you and me in a specific case). God created the entire human race to enjoy eternal happiness. This is further even naturally evidenced by our natural desire for perfect happiness (and nature does not do something in vain). I cannot know why some person X goes to hell or heaven because I do not know God's specific thoughtin regard to that person.

Quote:

I don't see the greater good here. Do the math: the majority of the world is very probably going to hell- according to the bible. It even says that there will not be many in heaven.

Not necessarily true. Further, even if  most went to hell, it does not go against what God wills in general. God still wills to have man saved and provides all men sufficent grace for their salvation. It is only their own fault when they turn away from God.  

Quote:
 

Oh, and can you tell me what happens to the people before Jesus, or the people who have no knowledge of Christianity?

Then they are most likely what is called "invincibly ignorant." They are ignorant of Christ in such a way as to have no fault of their own in the matter. They could attain salvation through their pursuit of moral goodness from what they naturally know by natural law and response to God's sufficent grace (and thus would have been saved either when Christ liberated them from hell in His descent, or by His grace at some other time). Or, they could have persisted in mortal sin and thus been damned to hell. Or, arguably in the case of infants and other pagans without knowledge of the Gospel who did not have the opportunity to respond to Christ, they could have been placed in a place of perfect natural happiness, but not supernatural happiness - Limbo.

Quote:

Oh, and do you think, that because of our honest opinions that would 'turn us away from God', we are influenced/manipulated/possessed/whatever by Satan?

Nope. Not necessarily. You could be, but I doubt it. I suppose in a general sense any person who sins was influenced by the Fall, which was brought about by Satan's influence. So no, unless we count very very indirectly.

Quote:

God did not create mankind to be damned? Not exactly. But he is ok with damnation and eternal suffering for some, because, as I have demonstrated time and time and time and time again; the fact that he has not changed things when he could've (at the moment of creation) and the fact that he foresaw everything that was going to happen, means he's ok with it. Otherwise, you can reach one of the two conclusions specified above.

God could not change the conditions for happiness. It is "axiomatic"-ally corresponded with a free will and a mind.

Quote:

*"Nor were the entire race foreknown to be damned". What? God knows everything.

God would not have created humans or angels if all of them had been damned. He wished them to go to heaven and so at least some did.

 

Quote:

So he needs people burning for others to be kissing his ass? That sounds very, very wrong.

First, nobody is kissing God's ass (not to mention that He doesn't have one). Second, hell is a necessary possibility if some are going to be happy. God's omnipotence is not an issue because free will is necessary for happiness to exist. God cannot change those parameters because they are axiomatic.

Quote:

God does not give gifts to mankind. There is no evidence for this other than what the Bible says, which obviously has no veracity as a book.

First, no reason why the Scriptures are not trustworthy. Second, YOU were the one who brought up Scripture in the first place. Third, it is logical that man was originally created in this state because his natural end is supernatural (and hence logically presumes grace in order to be fulfilled).
 

Quote:

Even if God did give gifts, they would be quite shitty, otherwise we wouldn't be screwed up the way we are. You can not honestly believe humanity has a 'gift of sufficient grace'.

First, you misunderstand what sufficent grace is. Sufficent grace is offered to every person in order that they may be saved. In other words, no matter what your condition, there is a way you can get to heaven. Second, the original gifts of grace were LOST. We don't have them now.

 

Quote:

Irrelevant. I'm not asking for 'every perfection'. The fact is that a perfect being created all flawed beings, which doesn't make sense, unless he gets kicks out of it.

It has nothing to do with God getting a "kick out of it." If God merely created a perfect being, He would merely "create" Himself. There would be nothing outside of God. But God freely created being with different grades of perfection. None is perfectly perfect, but each possess perfection at least in so far as they exist (which is a perfection). Every being that is not God necessarily has a very large gap between their perfection and the perfection of God. This is not a flaw, but a natural condition of creation. Sin as a defect came in later as a result of free will.

 

Quote:
 If he needed to created us, then he's not perfect. Wanting to create us implies either a necessity or lack of something. Does a perfect being need things, does he lack things? No. Then why did he create us? He was perfect. Supposedly still is. 

Yes, God never needed to create us or had any reason why He needed to create us. His only reason in creating things was pure love.

Quote:

 

1- Why did God create Satan knowing his future?

The greater good of the happiness of other creatures was a sufficent reason to allow Satan to exist. Also, because God loved Satan (otherwise, Satan would never exist).

Quote:
2- Why does God create a future atheist / unbeliever knowing his future?

God does not create a future atheist. God creates a man. The man might freely choose his future. God creates such a person out of love for that person, regardless of whether that person goes finally to heaven or hell, but purely because they are able to go to heaven and be happy. Also, assume the arguments for Satan.

Quote:

3- Can you deny he is ok with it, taking into account he is omnipotent and omniscient? 

God tolerates it, but does not rejoice in it. God tolerates evil and hell for the greater good of the happiness of the rest of creation.

Quote:

An ACT is an action cairred out by an entity.  The act and the entity are separate.

The act itself is an entity. God is existence existing. God is.

Quote:

No time = no change. How did God get from existing for all eternity without a universe, to the point of actually creating it if no change in his thoughts or actions was possible?

 That only presumes that there is a "before" time. There was none. Everything is present to God as one eternal "now." He created the universe from all eternity.

Quote:

Logically, an omniscient omnipotent being can create a flawed creature, but only if he actually intended the creature to be flawed.

God intends that the creature is not perfect as He Himself is perfect, but He does not intend sin or evil in the thing at all.

Quote:

Every choice we make can only be based on our basic urges, our current emotional state, our reaction to what we perceive, in the context of our past experience, our memory, current understandings, our current desires, and our assessment of how best to achieve those current goals. These all seem to be things which we don't actually choose in themselves, although many will be at least partly the result of previous choices.

Whatever the circumstances may be, we can make our own choices. Further, God does not judge in absence of what the circumstances were - He knows them better than we do.

Quote:

If we 'chose' some course of action that we have been told by Someone not to pursue, that can only because we perceive that it will make us happier in some way, or else it's just that our basic urges have overcome our conscious judgment.

Actually, this is basically Catholic teaching on the movement of the will. The will can only will something under the appearance of a good. It can only will an actual evil (like adultery) under the appearance of a good. It also wills in a bad manner when our concupiscience (our natural urges) takes over. But there are a couple points overlooked. If there are two equivalent goods presented to the will, such as an apple and an orange, the will can freely choose between one or the other. Even in passion, the will can be rationally controlled against the movements of my sensual appetites (I can refuse a brownie). But the will does not tend of necessity to something that it is presented to it as a good. I can always choose not to will or not to act. The evil or good in my actions is determined by the object of my action, whether or not it is a morally good object, my circumstances, and my intention. The properly formed conscience of man is what helps him to properly navigate moral action. It is always key to follow conscience, but it must be kept in mind that conscience is of two sorts: properly and improperly formed. And the second is further divided into that which was of no fault and that which was ignorant by negligence. A proper conscience perfectly wills the good. An improperly formed conscience will not of course will the good consistently. If it is by negligence, this is sinful. If by total and invincible ignorance, this is excusable. But it is also good to point out that a man is bound by his conscience and natural law to know and inquire into the Divine Law which is the source of his own moral judgements (at least in the sense he ought to determine from the natural law, for example, whether murder or the like is wrong). 

Quote:
 

Either way, our poor choice is due to our flawed 'design'. The mere fact that our perceptions and capacities to analyse the ultimate consequences of our actions are finite, limited, means that it is virtually inevitable that we will make mistakes.

It has nothing to do with our design. It happened as a result of original sin, which disordered nature and introduced error into our reason. However, even here, moral culpability is not taken away by original sin, because we still know better in the end whether or not we have a hard time acting rightly.

Quote:
 

If Hell is something that no creature would consciously chose, then any choice that lead to that would be an error of judgment, reflecting those finite and limited faculties.

Hell itself is not directly willed. Some other good is willed which leads the person to hell.

Quote:
 

If we have some overwhelming primal emotional drive which leads to such errors of judgment, that is hardly something we chose, it is a flaw in our basic make-up.

We aren't merely guided by emotion. The only real way someone could be ruled by emotion is to not properly control it, in which case it would be morally culpable.

Quote:

No matter how you cut it, such 'bad' actions can only be due to built-in flaws. So 'God' has to take ultimate responsibility.

These are all faults of original sin, not God's initial design. These are corrected both by the grace of Revelation as well as the doctrine of Revelation (which lets us know with certainty where we might have fell into error naturally).

Quote:

Such things in an enlightened compassionate society are recognised as psychological problems, and we would attempt to offer such people therapy, advice, guidance, or if necessary restrain them, rather than letting them live out their lives damaging themselves and others.

Once the damage has been done, it would be purely a pointless act of vengeance to subject them to some massive 'punishment' after it's all over, when it is far too late, especially for people who may have been their victims.

If someone is not truly responsible for acting the way they did, God does not hold them responsible. But man has free will and can choose freely. All men are not invincibly ignorant. Most men are held accountable for their actions and can freely know and pursue the good because God Himself has designed humankind with a sort-of "built-in" ability to determine the good. This is the task of  reason and natural law.

Quote:
Why couln't such an entity just enjoy fucking us around? The history of natural disasters and disease would certainly be entirely consistent with such a view.

God would not take delight in it because it would be contrary to His nature as demonstrated philosophically.

Further, disease and suffering are a result not of God, but of original sin.

Quote:

Logically, if there is at least one entity that doen't need a cause, then the assumption that 'everything require a cause' is false. Therefore there is no logical argument for God here. There is simply no LOGICAL way around this. Period.

We never assume that everything needs a cause, as this would obviously contradict itself. Only that which is "in motion" or dependent on another for its causation needs a cause. Something that is a mix of potency and act is obviously in dependence upon another for its action (its "motion). Hence, eventually we must conclude that there exists one being which is pure act - an unmoved mover. This being is God.

Quote:

So you are reduced to simply making assumptions, and seeing how well they explain what we perceive, IOW, Science. And so fa, the trend has been that we keep finding naturalistic explanations for things which were once attrbuted to the Supernatural.

Even if we assume that is totally correct, science cannot explain everything. A philosophical or metaphysical explanation is required for a complete account of things (for example, even the phrase, "Science is the answer!" is a metaphysical statement about the nature of the universe).

Quote:

All the various God concepts are either self-contradictory, or neither provable nor dis-provable

I don't believe so. I think the one I present is quite cogent.

Quote:

Oh, just for the record, there is no ABSOLUTE motion - all we can say is that one 'thing' moves with respect to another. This has been thoroughly experimentally demonstrated. Objects stay in whatever state of apparent motion they are in unless acted on by an external force. External agents are only required to CHANGE the state of motion of something.

Exactly. Motion is a form of change. Even if we assume that things were in a state of interia "in motion" that does not mean that they interacted or changed according to relativity. Change and motion, even relative motion, requires a mover of some sort. Otherwise, no change would be possible at all.

Quote:

Then even if 'something' was 'required' to initiate 'everything', there is still a massive amount of argument required, and so far conspicuous by its absence, to show that this assumed entity actually corresponds to any particular God in any particular religious tradition.

And that can be provided. It will suffice to say, however, right now that Christianity explicitly identifies God with the First Cause or Prime Mover, by definition. I don't know any other divinities outside of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam that meet this criterion. We can do this after we accept the Prime Mover argument.

Quote:

Another point that is known from countless real examples, is that whatever conditions are necessary for some structure to come into existence do not need to be more complex or organised, let alone 'intelligent' than what they 'cause'.

There is a sense in which they must be prior to it. In the case of the Gulf of Mexico, the waters in the Gulf were prior to the Hurricane itself (and hence a cause). They were more eminent in time. But this is different in other areas. A cause must be in some way superior to the thing effected and an effect always follows an cause in being like to the cause. In order for intelligence or order to exist, it requires some sort of cause that is preeminent to it. In an absolute cause of order in this world, it is necessary thus to posit that an absolutely preeminent cause of order, being, and goodness exists which is the cause of all those things in this genus.

In terms of natural order, the fact that things follow ends in a natural and unintelligent way, such as a rock always falling downward through gravity or a chemical reaction always proceeding to stability, indicates an intelligent agent (because intelligences order things toward ends).

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10137
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
StMichael

StMichael wrote:

Quote:

Maybe I mistook you somewhere. If so, then you haven't proven why they are credible in the first place.

They are credible because they fit what can be known naturally and because they are supported by miracles.

I don't accept that miracles as acts of god happen until I have seen evidence supporting the concept. And scripture does not fit with what I know naturally.

StMichael wrote:

Quote:

1400 AC is a bit before my time, and you'll have to explain that a bit more. It didn't make sense. And saints are outside my expertise. I'd have to believe they were godly before I would care anything about them. Got anything recent? And that has testimony other than from the church?

These things exist today. You can go to Lanciano, Italy and see the miracle.

A nice thought. Care to pay for the trip? I can't afford to take that much time off work, let alone fly to Italy. Not sure why god needs me to pay the Italians to see evidence of him.

StMichael wrote:

And these are not testified to by the Church alone (whatever that means), but by scientific professionals as well.

I'd have to see said testimonies.

StMichael wrote:
There is no reason one would have to accept a saint's "godliness" before one noticed that their body had not decayed for the past 300 years.

Actually, we have perfectly perserved bodies from 3000 years ago. So 300 isn't a big step at all. Kill the bacteria, protect the corpse from predation and hydration, and you have a corpse that will last forever. I do however find it telling that the oldest body is only 300. There were many practices developed within that time frame for preservation of a body. If it was gods work, there should be much older bodies in the same shape.

StMichael wrote:

 

Quote:

 Well obviously people aren't going to go around the world spreading word of a god if they don't think it exists and wants them to. But just because christianity effectively monopolized viral tactics doesn't mean they got everything right.

I did not say that it definitely proves that Christianity is true. It would just be miraculous if they spread so fast and so wide without a single miracle, which they claimed to have.

Much like scientology, which I'm sure you would agree is a ludicrous theology. It hasn't been around for even 70 years, yet it already has 50,000+ members. I'd say that the spread of christianity had more to do with christians moving around than anything else.

StMichael wrote:

Quote:
 

And quite frankly, even 100 years back in time changes everything when viewing the church's definition of a miracle. Go back 2000 years and you could very easily claim that lightning was a miracle. Noone could prove otherwise.

That is nonsense. A miracle is a miracle. There was no difference in the definition. There is no natural way for a human being to regrow a limb spontaneously or for bread to actually become flesh (as in Lanciano) or for the dead to rise.

The definition itself hasn't changed, but it's application most certainly has. It's very definition proves that beyond argument.
"an event in the external world brought about by the immediate agency or the simple volition of God, operating without the use of means capable of being discerned by the senses, and designed to authenticate the divine commission of a religious teacher and the truth of his message (John 2:18; Matt. 12:38)"

While our sight and hearing in and of themselves hasn't changed at all, the technologies we use to enhance them provide more than a thousand times more depth than was available even 100 years ago. A billion times more depth if looking at the time of the bible. The vast majority of miracles are simply natural phenomena that cannot be explained by the people of the day. By definition.

I've never seen bread become flesh, and never seen the dead rise(except in movies). I also would point out that neither of those claims is nearly as powerful as a force that lights the sky and screams over hundreds of kilometres. A force that even a brief contact with turns to ash and flame and death. Nor does it compare with a sky full of colours, swirling around with sheets of energy plainly visible. In some cases you can even hear it. Both lightning and aurora borealis can seem rather mundane once you understand the physics behind them. But before you know that, they are the voices and images of gods.

StMichael wrote:

Quote:
 

I take this whole miracle thing with a grain of salt. A percieved face in a grilled cheese sandwich isn't what I call a miracle, though many christians seem to think it is.

Did I ever claim it was? It has nothing to do with what other people might consider a miracle. I am talking about what a really and truly extraordinary miracle would be, and how the Church sees it.

I never claimed you claimed it was. But other christians did. Which is all I need for conclusive evidence that people pick stupid things as their proofs of god.

StMichael wrote:

Quote:

It is not ridiculous. It is fact. People call it a miracle when they can see jesus in a cloud. Good for you if you're above that. Not everyone is. Now if you want to go into just biblical/sainthood miracles, I'm going to have to back away since I don't know enough on the subject to debate it.

The documentation exists for modern canonizations. You could look up the cases and the medical files, or other testimony. The Scriptural miracles are attested to by the lives and witness of the persons having seen them; we can know this through historical evidence.

Again, there are miracles, colloqially speaking, and there are miracles as truly extraordinary events. I never claimed seeing Jesus' face in a cloud was a miracle.

I could. You could also pick up a book on paleontology and biology and learn about evolution. But you probably won't, because you don't believe in it.
Again, I didn't say you said seeing jesus' face in a cloud was a miracle. But it's all many christians need,which is adequate to explain how people could come to believe it when told by an outsider.

StMichael wrote:

"Created in grace" - the first human beings were created by God in a state of grace, possessing knowledge naturally, possessing the ability to rule their passions through reason, and freedom from suffering and death.~~~~~~~~~~~~~"Personal sin" - the sin that I have personally committed and for which I can be rightly punished as proceeding from my volition

Right then. So why am I suffering because someone else broke a rule? Has nothing to do with me. If we're going to be held accountable for the actions of another, then we should have inborn knowledge of this. We do not. So I refuse to accept the claim that I deserve to suffer because of someone else. The concept is immoral.

StMichael wrote:
 

Quote:

Of course the scriptures say that. If they said anything else you wouldn't be here arguing for them. Which is exactly my point. To trust the scriptures implicitly would be to trust those who wrote them. Since I can't even speak to those people, trusting them is out of the question. 

YOU were the one who was using Scripture, not me.

I'm the one questioning the scriptures credibility. This doesn't help it's case.

StMichael wrote:

Quote:

Or so it is written.

No, you can go look at their tombs. You can read ancient testimony about that that is a-Scriptural.

Alas, I cannot. As mentioned previously, I can't afford to take a trip to Italy. And having to do so in the first place cements my knowledge of it all as a lie. An all powerful being doesn't need me to work beyond my means to prove itself. It can do so right here right now.

StMichael wrote:

Quote:

Without a dictionary handy, I define knowledge as the result of accumulation of facts and experience during a lifetime.  

But that is not a good definition of knowledge. Knowledge is not merely what I experience, or I would not know that a vase is blue, but I would merely experience the vase as blue.~~~~~~etc.

I said facts AND experience. Not just experience. I would also point out that any alternate definition you come up with is subject to an equal claim by myself. Google "Define:knowledge" and you'll come up with a huge range of possibilities. At which point the whole section of conversation turns into linguistic games. The english languages flexibility turns on us. Heh.

StMichael wrote:

Quote:

If I understood this correctly, I don't believe it is. I think it is illogical to believe that one complexity needs a cause when a higher complexity does not. If a complexity needs a designer, then every equal or greater complexity also needs a designer...."

What does this have to do with anything at all? I never claimed an argument from design or complexity. I claimed that things were in motion and hence required a mover.

And then you know the mover is a god. When I know the mover is energy. And we reach an impass.

StMichael wrote:

I could have argued from the way that natural things follow ends intelligently, but this wouldn't answer it anyway. Things in the universe which are irrational, such as rocks and heat, pursue ends naturally in such a way that the best situation is achieved (such as gravity or maximization of entropy production).

Entropy does not apply to the universe itself, merely to that which is within it. The only way entropy could apply to the universe itself is if the universe was an open system. Which would mean that it's just part of something bigger. It doesn't prove a gods existance or lack thereof. Theoretically you could design a system that was entropy free. You would merely need to find a way to isolate it from the universe.

StMichael wrote:

But it is the character of intelligence to be ordered toward ends. These things are not intelligent, so they require an orderer.

I see equal elements of chaos and order when looking at the universe. I do not see universal order.

Quote:

Motion is only relevant if you prove there was no motion. You are probably considering that an object at rest tends to stay at rest. But an object in motion tends to stay in motion as well.

No, it does not need that at all. To be in motion, a thing requires a mover in the first place. Even if a thing tends to stay in motion when in motion, its motion must derive from a mover.

Only if it wasn't moving once. Your unmoved mover is only a logical conclusion to the discovery that all matter was once inert. Accomplish this and succeed. Fail and your mover is merely an idea. Not reality. And it's all a laymans argument anyway, based on a lack of knowledge of the structures of matter. Matter can't exist without energy. Matter cannot move without energy. Energy is the mover.

StMichael wrote:

Quote:
The mere existance of matter and energy forces movement.

How?

That would require some instruction on the basic makeup of matter and energy. I am not the greatest source for that instruction. And to be honest, it's not going to be an easy road. But it will be an enlightening one. Who knows, maybe you'll be able to use that knowledge to find more solid explanations of god?

StMichael wrote:

Further, energy itself is a form of motion. It would require God as its mover.

Not quite. Energy is motion. It is also heat. And light. Perhaps other things we have yet to explain fully as well.

StMichael wrote:

Quote:
 

The simple act of creation would not cause motion, and yet motion would be a symptom of the cause.

I have no idea what this ought to mean. If motion follows from creation (whatever that means), then wouldn't creation lead to motion and so God would be the Prime Mover?

Well, if you toss a ball that happens to land on a stick, which bounces in the air and kills a mosquito, can you claim credit for killing the mosquito? I suppose you could, but it would be debatable. This is hardly the greatest analogy, but it should suffice. I wish I could explain the properties of matter and energy to you better, but I'm not a walking science text. And I don't really have time to become one. Sticking out tongue

StMichael wrote:

Quote:

As for your uncaused cause, it must be proven that there was cause to prove there was uncaused cause.

All that needs to be proven is that all things are caused,

Bingo, with my modification.

StMichael wrote:
and at least one cause which is uncaused is logically necessary.

If you say the universe, you are mistaken. There are explanations other than a first beginning. We don't know, so debating it is merely intellectual exercise. It is not evidence.

StMichael wrote:

No, God is not your existence, God is Being itself. God is the act of existing. God is.

That is contradictory. That is saying god is, but god isn't. Which is it?

I'm going to leave the rest to those quoted. Since this alone took quite awhile. Sticking out tongue

Yours in humanity and science,
Vastet.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Pikachu
Pikachu's picture
Posts: 181
Joined: 2006-08-19
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote:The act

StMichael wrote:
The act itself is an entity.
Then this is a fallacy known as a "category error". Acts are "activities" in which entities participate .. acts are not entities. You are trying to turn a verb into a noun! Good luck with that. Smiling
StMichael wrote:
God is existence existing. God is.
And what does that mean exactly??? Existence existing is another fallacy ... it is a tautology. An example of simply saying the same thing twice. "God is" begs the question. God is what?
StMichael wrote:
That only presumes that there is a "before" time.
There must have been a point when there was God and no universe. This entails a "before the universe". This entails that time stretches back to before the universe (otherwise there couldn't be a before and the universe is eternal). btw, I'm a presentist. You might want to look that up Smiling
StMichael wrote:
There was none. Everything is present to God as one eternal "now."
If God's perceptions are accurate (which they would need to be if he is a perfect being) then this must be how things actually are. Everything exists "now". But that is not how we see things. This means that he has created us to see things other than how they really are. This would make him a deceiver and the argument that he validates the accuracy of our perceptions fails. It also means that you exist in all your historical states "now" and simultaneously to God and this must be how it really is. So everything actually exists in a logically contradictory state even though we observe it to exist in a logically consistent state and conformity to logic is a conceptual delusion foisted upon us by God?
StMichael wrote:
He created the universe from all eternity.
Begging the question.

God had no time to create time.


QuadrivialMind (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: A

StMichael wrote:


A perfection in general is not equal to perfect perfection. It functions and thus possesses a certain perfection. God only wills the perfection. But He does not will everything with the same degree of perfection. Thus, rocks have less perfection than dogs and angels have more than human beings.

That makes no sense at all. This is the irrationality religion has.

Perfect perfection? That's so nonsensical it's funny. There is either perfection, or imperfection. "Is that being perfect?" The answers are yes or no. Not "sorta". You can argue "Well, in a sense he is perfect because he is good in x way". That's not perfection, it's excellence, or goodness in general. Perfect: it's either yes or no.

To function means it has functionality, only that, not perfection. Imperfect things function. And they are imperfect.

Does perfection mean completeness? You can't have something "perfectly perfect" if it means "complete".

Does perfection mean "as good as it could be"? You can't have something "perfectly perfect" if it means "as good as possible".

Two beings can be perfect, one being a rock and one being an angel. What's the problem with that? Just like a simple rock can be black and a gigantic skycraper can be black too. Oh wait, I take that back, before you start saying "Except color is not perfection".

Quote:
Except that Adam and Eve as well as the rebel angels were not monitors. God gave both freedom of will. God never determined their fate.

"They were not monitors". Really? That's so enlightening. If you really feel that way, then refrain from using the comparison in the first place.

The preachers have really gotten into you, brother. Still saying "free will free will free will free will" like a robot. That's nice.

Except God did determine their fate. I'm not going to repeat my argument again. I've done it many times, and you still haven't proven it wrong. To me, God remains an evil bitch.

Quote:

Hell is merely the fulfillment of their choice. For example, a glutton chooses food as his final end. Hell is the possession of the food without possession of the good that accompanies this (as God is the source of this good). It also entails knowing that one can never possess happiness. Further, if they were truly ignorant in a way that they were not morally culpable, they do not go to hell.

The argument has ended at this point. When you refuse to accept that Hell is not a choice, but a consequence of a choice, it doesn't get any stupider than this. You are what people call "stubborn." I could show you 2+2=4, but if you are not willing to accept it, then there's nothing I can do for you. You simply don't want to be mistaken. Unfortunately for you, the fact that you want that so badly doesn't mean you are right.

Quote:

Their choice of a good that is not God is their choice of hell. God's decrees are merely something that follows upon this reality.

Again, Hell is not a choice, it's a consequence. But there's no point really, you're probably just going to yell "Free will" again.

Quote:
Quote:

Even if it's a question of your own choice. He makes the final judgement.

God does not make a final judgement in contrariety to your will. Which is why someone can go to hell - because they choose it.

God does not make a final judgement in contrariety to your will? Yes, he does.

Let's do this slowly:

Suppose you have a very grave case of a sinner, who rejected God all his life. He dies, and therefore is judged. He says "But I don't want to go to Hell!". That means, that if it was according to him, he wouldn't go to Hell. Correct? He clearly says he does NOT want to. It clearly is his will that he does NOT go to Hell. You surely can't deny that.

When God judges and says "You are going to hell", then he is making a final judgement against the sinner's will.

Argument debunked.

Quote:

God has an antecedent and a consequent will. God wills that all men be happy, but He wills that they freely are happy. He gave you and me free will, and we can freely choose Him as our ultimate good or some created thing. He does not want to send us to hell, but respects our freedom of choice.

Let's see:

P1) God wills that all men be happy

P2) Not all men are happy

P3) Not all men will be happy (since for sure someone is going to hell)

C1) God wills something that is not.

If not all men are happy, and that's God's will, then clearly there is a problem. Or are you going to say that men in hell are happy? Smiling

Either God is not omnimax, or he doesn't exist. Yay.

Contradiction: if God didn't want to send us to hell, then why does he? Please don't say people chose hell. Nobody chooses hell. It's a consequence, not a choice.

Quote:

He never created such a thing. It arose from angelic and human sin. God gave men and "angels" (spirits is their proper name) the ability to choose only good. "Angels" first misused this in willing a good too much - their own good in the case of Satan. Man used this will of good in a similar way, willing their own good in contrariety to God. In both ways, sin entered the world and, with sin, death physically and spiritually.

If God didn't create Hell, then he is not the creator of all things. (and he is the creator of EVERYTHING)

Looks like you've got a problem there.

Quote:

I said, we can know His general will, but not His specific will (in regard to you and me in a specific case). God created the entire human race to enjoy eternal happiness. This is further even naturally evidenced by our natural desire for perfect happiness (and nature does not do something in vain). I cannot know why some person X goes to hell or heaven because I do not know God's specific thoughtin regard to that person.

Let's see:

P1) God created the entire human race to enjoy eternal happiness.

P2) The entire human race does not and will not enjoy eternal happiness.

C1) God has failed.

Again. Either it's not who you think he is, or he doesn't exist.

Quote:

Not necessarily true. Further, even if most went to hell, it does not go against what God wills in general. God still wills to have man saved and provides all men sufficent grace for their salvation. It is only their own fault when they turn away from God.

So if the majority of people go to hell, it's not against his will? That is incoherent with your previous statements. You said God does not want people to go to hell (Which is of course untrue). Inconsistent.

Another logical conclusion:

P1) God wants to have man saved

P2) Not all men are saved

C1) God wants something that's not happening/going to happen.

I don't need to spell it out again, right?

Quote:
Quote:

God did not create mankind to be damned? Not exactly. But he is ok with damnation and eternal suffering for some, because, as I have demonstrated time and time and time and time again; the fact that he has not changed things when he could've (at the moment of creation) and the fact that he foresaw everything that was going to happen, means he's ok with it. Otherwise, you can reach one of the two conclusions specified above.

God could not change the conditions for happiness. It is "axiomatic"-ally corresponded with a free will and a mind.

And where do those axioms come from? From God. Therefore, if he defines those axioms, my argument still stands.

I don't need to point out God also created "free will and a mind".

Quote:

God would not have created humans or angels if all of them had been damned. He wished them to go to heaven and so at least some did.

He wishes only some of them to go to Heaven. If he wanted more people to go to Heaven, "his will would be done". Therefore, God wants only some people to go to Heaven. Not all loving, or not all-powerful Smiling

Quote:

First, nobody is kissing God's ass (not to mention that He doesn't have one). Second, hell is a necessary possibility if some are going to be happy. God's omnipotence is not an issue because free will is necessary for happiness to exist. God cannot change those parameters because they are axiomatic.

First, many many people are kissing God's ass, metaphorically speaking. Do you honestly believe all people "choose" (beliefs are not choices anyway) Chrstianity because of the idea of God?

There are many, many people that "choose" Chrstianity not because of God, but because of Satan and Hell. They are so scared (and this is why religion works) that in a way, worship your God in a failed attempt to apply Pascal's Wager.

Hell is a necessary possibility because God wanted it to. Everything is, because God wanted it to. If he had wanted otherwise, he is all powerful and could've changed what he didn't like. That's why an omnimax being like Sky Daddy is always perfectly happy and perfectly responsible for everything that happens.

Again, axioms are defined by God. He created free will, hell, he created EVERYTHING.

Quote:

First, no reason why the Scriptures are not trustworthy. Second, YOU were the one who brought up Scripture in the first place. Third, it is logical that man was originally created in this state because his natural end is supernatural (and hence logically presumes grace in order to be fulfilled).

Oh really? The Scriptures are not trustworthy?

The Bible is ANYTHING but trustworthy. An science proves so: there are no speaking snakes, the flood never happened, people are not created from fairy dusts and ribs, etc. The Scriptures claim to know things that have been proven wrong, therefore they are not trustowrthy. To choose to obey only some parts of it is cherry-picking.


Quote:

Yes, God never needed to create us or had any reason why He needed to create us. His only reason in creating things was pure love.

"God never had any reason why he needed to create us."

"His only reason in creathing things..."

Contradiction. Pick one. And if it's a need, then God is not perfect for what I have pointed out in my previous post.

Quote:

The greater good of the happiness of other creatures was a sufficent reason to allow Satan to exist. Also, because God loved Satan (otherwise, Satan would never exist).

Let me get this straight. People go to hell forever because God needs people burning forever in order for other people to be happy? That's not ever loving, nor just.

And, very logical of course: God loved Satan, so he created him knowing he would be damned forever. It's truly love, really. I'm impressed.

Quote:

God does not create a future atheist.

Then he is not the creator of all things. He created people who grew to be atheists. That means he created a future atheist.

Quote:

God tolerates it, but does not rejoice in it. God tolerates evil and hell for the greater good of the happiness of the rest of creation.

Meaning, you can't deny it. Again. Refer to the points above. Plus, God could've made things differently. We both know he could. And I hope you're not brainswashed enough to think that there is no way, as I would hope that you still preserve your imagination- I think you can think of a better way, with no eternal punishment involved.

So God tolerates that he creates people who in the end suffer forever... I can't believe people love Sky Daddy.


Quote:

Quote:

Either way, our poor choice is due to our flawed 'design'. The mere fact that our perceptions and capacities to analyse the ultimate consequences of our actions are finite, limited, means that it is virtually inevitable that we will make mistakes.

It has nothing to do with our design. It happened as a result of original sin, which disordered nature and introduced error into our reason.

Except it has everything to do with our design, since the original sin had to do with Adam and Eve's design. Refer to the argument posted one thousand million times on the boards (in the post you quoted as well, it applies to a man as it applies to Adam and Eve).

Quote:
Quote:

If Hell is something that no creature would consciously chose, then any choice that lead to that would be an error of judgment, reflecting those finite and limited faculties.

 

Hell itself is not directly willed. Some other good is willed which leads the person to hell.

Now you acknowledge the fact that hell is not directly willed? Inconsistence, once again. But I would expect no less.

Quote:
Quote:

No matter how you cut it, such 'bad' actions can only be due to built-in flaws. So 'God' has to take ultimate responsibility.

These are all faults of original sin, not God's initial design.

The original sin, as well as everything that is, is all due to God. Who created the original sin? If you want to argue that crap that "it's not existant unto itself", fine. But why did the sin "come up"? Every reason was created by God, or is a consequence of God's creation (as he did everything) Therefore, God is responsible.


Quote:

Even if we assume that is totally correct, science cannot explain everything. A philosophical or metaphysical explanation is required for a complete account of things.

You are filling in the gaps here. You don't know ANYTHING about the beginning of the Universe. You don't know if there was one. You are just assuming arrogantly. You can't claim to know about the nature of the matter, at all! Your assumptions might not apply in the beginning of the Universe, that is if there ever was one. Maybe there was no beginning. You don't know. To assume you do is to play the guessing game.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1149
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
To: Vastet, Pikachu & Quad

Very good responses. You're even beginning to shake my faith in the Aliens...nah!

But when the mother ship arrives (and it will), I'll be sure to request we stop over in Lanciano to see the magic show before leaving.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I only have time to answer

I only have time to answer one point at the moment:

Motion is a form of change. Even if we assume that things were in a state of interia "in motion" that does not mean that they interacted or changed according to relativity. Change and motion, even relative motion, requires a mover of some sort. Otherwise, no change would be possible at all.

No you are explicitly wrong here. Only change in state of inertial motion (including zero velocity relative to an observer in an inertial (non-accelerating) frame of reference) requires an external cause, NOT motion itself. The idea that some outside 'influence' was required to keep an object moving was disproved centuries ago. The idea that such a force was required was a natural conclusion from the observation that ordinary objects required effort to keep them going to overcome the effects of friction and other things such as uneven ground.

Inertial motion, ie uniform motion in a straight line requires no interaction with outside forces or other objects. The next most 'passive' motion is two objects in stable orbit arond their mutual center of gravity. There is little 'action' occurring here in any meaningful way - in a pure vacuum, with perfectly rigid objects, such motion can in principle continue indefinitely. But such idealised states can only be observed to any usefully close approximation in space.

There is 'change' in the Universe, of course, but simply no logical requirement that, whatever drives that change, it need be anything other than a blind, simple, physical interaction between matter and energy. The idea that some form of 'will' is required is utterly unjustified and terribly primitive, just like the primitive ritual of blood sacrifice to appease an angry god, that is the ultimate origin of the crucifixion story, whatever gloss later writers have attempted to lay over its crude origins, borrowed from even older myths.

Clinging to these ancient concepts has held back the progress of human thought, the 'enlightenment', for millenia. 

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