Questions 1-89: As challenged in the top Thread. My answers. Mr.Rage and Krehlic cannot apply: Reason for this continues inside

RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Questions 1-89: As challenged in the top Thread. My answers. Mr.Rage and Krehlic cannot apply: Reason for this continues inside

Because Mr.Rage and Krehlic.. as well as Vessel.. are already started in a debate over in the 1-43 thread. This is just.. a complete list.

List of questions about God, religion and the supernatural have been compiled by IG over the years as well as some interesting ones by readers.
I will try to reference the Bible as little as possible and just give possible answers.. since that is all that is required-- I'm not trying to prove my religion just disprove the claim that these questions have no answers. And if I understand the challenge correctly, would only require answers to all these questions be rational-- in the sense that they are not contradictory within the assumptions they make. Yes.. that is a definition of rational, excersize of reason, logic, basis or cause for an action or belief.. etc etc etc. My head hurts.. I need to stop editing this thing.

There is a break between 1-43 and 44-89 designating a break in when I answered them. However.. I must admit that I am not perfect, nor is my writing or my brain. So.. heh, be patient. It was presented as a challenge.. and so I attempted it.

1. If Jesus fulfilled all the OT prophecies so well, why didn't the Jews recognize him as the messiah? - Francois Tremblay
Some did and some did not. I don't believe the OT prophecies required that all Jews accept the messiah a the particular time of Christ.

2. If Gen 3:24 is true, why hasn't anyone found the Cherubims and the " flaming sword which turned every way"?
Why hasn't the missing link been found? We are, of course, assuming that the flaming sword is in fact still there.. I don't believe there is any reference in the Bible the eternality of a physical sword.

3. It's been proven that modern humans originated from Africa. Yet, the Adam and Eve story claims the first Humans lived in a garden in Eden, near 4 rivers. ( Most of which no one can find). One of these rivers mentioned is the Euphrates, which runs through Iraq, Syria and a portion of Turkey. What's the truth? Did man come out of Africa or near the Euphrates River? - The Infidel Guy
Proven is used pretty lightly here. If by proven you mean that the earliest, scientifically dated fossils of a human species was discovered in Africa, okay-- then perhaps. But.. 100 years ago it was not 'proven' that humans originated in Africa.. nor 400 years ago that the earth was round-- so please, lets wait another 10,000 years before we claim scientific 'proof'. Oh.. and as for the lack of an exact replica of the geographically described area in the Bible. My response: Pangea doesn't exist either, are we discounted the possibility of a geographically changing earth?

4. When the believer gets to Heaven, how can Heaven be utter bliss when people they love and care about are burning in Hell ? - The Infidel Guy - [Note: Some say God erases your memories of them, but if God erases your memory, you as Mr. Joe /Jane Smoe ceases to exist.]
You're assuming the belief in a Hell is essential to the Christian belief. Not so.. Most Christian denominations essential dogmas is that Jesus saves rather than God punishes. Ask most Christians which one of those beliefs is of upmost importance to them.. or essential to them. I would guess that it is more likely the former. Currently many denominations do not believe in idea of everlasting hellfire burning sinners forever. Want more explanation on this idea?

5. How can a God have emotions, i.e. jealousy, anger, sadness, love, etc., if he is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent? Emotional states are reactionary for the most part. How can God react to us if he is all-knowing and has a divine plan? - IG [Note: Indeed, many religious texts display their gods this way . Listen to the An Emotional Godshow.]
Love is reactionary? But I digress... I'm assuming you refer to the many instances in the Bible in which human writers describe God. Projection perhaps? An in the cases where it is a quote accredited to God himself, well.. I would only use this conditional statement. If God is real, and all those things you mention, would he be better trying to describe himself using the ideas and terminology of his level or that of a lower life form? I suppose the same thing can be exampled by a Professor of Quantum Physics talking with a 9 year old kid. Reasonable answer?

6. Why would God create a place such as hell to torture sinners forever when he foreknew who would disappoint him? - IG [Note: Some say you have a choice, but this misses the point. If God hates sin so much, why create Adam and Eve when he knew they'd sin? The only conclusion I can come up with, if Yaweh exists, is that he wanted sin to enter the world.]
Look to the answer 4 for a half response to the rest I would say only this: I disagree with use of the word hate, but I'll continue answer. People shouldn't have kids. How can it be love to birth a human being into such a world? Where they are most guarenteed to disappoint you at some point? You might contend that God is all knowing, perfect 'forsight,' however, I would present this possibility.. at somepoint let us say that a perfect form of genetic prediction comes into being in which you can predict the intelligence, physical condition, and even 'social utility'.. abort all babies that don't meet up to the highest standards, more or less loving? In other words.. does one have kids, 'create' as it were, so that those kids will succeed in the way they want, or is it to give life?

7. "God is all merciful," we hear quite often. Wouldn't it be more merciful of God to simply snap sinners out of existence rather than send them to hell? Or better yet, since he's all-knowing, not allow them to be born at all? - IG
ON GOD'S LOVE & HELL
1.) God's love is superlative.
2.) God's love of man exceeds man's love of self.
3.) Man's love of self prohibits torture.
4.) Considering God's greater love for us, Hell (eternal torture) is illogical.
5.) See answers 4 and 6.

8. Muslims are supposed to pray 5 times a day towards Mecca. Each prayer includes a variety of ritualism and posturing. If a muslim astronaut were to land on Mars. Prayer to Mecca would be ritualistically impossible due to the rotation of Earth and Mars. Are Muslims stuck here in Earth? IG [Note: Since this was first posted, a Muslim astronaut was faced with this very dilemma. The authoritative clergy informed him to pray as he normally would. I see this no where in the Koran. You see? Religions must change, or die out. It's interesting to note that, in the Koran, the moon is believed to be in the lowest Heaven, the level for those that barely made it to Heaven. Surah 71:15-16. One problem, no man can supposedly get to Heaven until they die. Yet, we've been to the moon. Our satellites beyond that.]
Let's wait until we get to Mars. As for defending the Muslim fair-- I cannot, for, I am not Muslim-- but perhaps they have some answer.

9. Why haven't we seen God reattach severed heads, restore someone who was burned alive or regrow amputated limbs? Surely these would be miracles difficult to deny. - Adam Majors and IG [Note: The typical answer is that man doesn't dictate God's actions. The conundrum here however is that, if God wants us to "know" him, then surely feats such as those mentioned above would be happening all over the world. Until they do, I'll remain an atheist.]
You're assuming, for one, that miracles will equate to conversion, or perfect belief in God-- yet, even in the Bible there is testament to the idea that this may not be the case. Forgive me for using the Bible in this case.. but I must, seeing as it's one of the few places that miracles exist, and the only place that is relevant to me answering these questions. Judas betrayed Jesus even though he had witness miracles.. as well as Isrealites continually rebelled against God even though they were witness to miracles. That's fine that you believe that miracles equate to conversion of the relevant kind, but I just mean to say, this is not necessarily the case.. since, well, there haven't been miracles in my time-- neither, do I believe, should they be the basis for faith.

10. Why does God entrust the spreading of 'His' word to sinners? Why doesn't he do it himself? - IG [Note: Surely God would have known that not everyone would be convinced by the reality[sic] of his Bible. If God loves us so much, we are all going to Heaven. If God knew that I would be an atheist, and he doesn't like atheists, he shouldn't have allowed me to come into existence. But he did. Therefore, I must be serving the will of God, for I exist. Smiling]
See answers 4 and 6.

Furthermore, if indeed this world, is as some theologians believe, a universal example of the effects of sin-- an experiment in sin as it were-- started by a challenge of the Devil to God, a challenge which was in essence life would be better this way than that, then so be it. In this experiment people choose to be people of truth, love, and right, or not. At the end of time, if the belief of some Christians be right, then God will have the choice to bring people into Heaven-- I personally believe that his decision will be more yours then his. Yes, he loves all, and so it's only a matter of whether at the end of time whether you wish to spend the rest of existence with God or be wiped from existence.

A type of absolute Euthanasia as it were.

As for the spreading of his word.. why not do it himself. Even a scientist keeps his experiment affecting actions to a designated minimum until it reaches it's proper time to bring it to an end-- otherwise he risks destroying the purpose of the experiment in the first place.

Furthermore x2, these 'what if God X' are questions that assume that God exists. In the case of these questions.. I would seriously ask. 'If God exists in the sense that he is omniscient and all those other things, what do you know that he doesn't about what would be best or most likely to bring about the salvation of our eternal souls?"

Of course this presumes that he is interested in these sort of things.

Now it would be a legitimate to ask a question, "If God is X, then why would he do Y." Such as the question of hell of eternal punishment and coinciding that with the idea of a loving God (Biblical concept)-- that's a tough thing to do. I could use the same answer I gave for this one.. however, the concept of eternal punishment for temporal sins is so contradictory to me when related to a loving God.. that I probably wouldn't.


11. In II Kings 2-23/24 we read about God sending 2 she-bears to attack children for calling the prophet Elisa bald, which he was, the bears killed 42 of the children. Was this a good thing to do? -- Brandon and IG[Note: I have heard some argue that the boys were a gang. So?! I didn't read anywhere in that passage where they laid a finger on the guy . Also, what kind of bears are these that can kill 42 kids? Super Bears? Surely the kids had to be running away.]
This would require me to do some explaining into semantics, cross referencing, linguistics, and not to mention a bit of other argumentative strategies. IF it is that important to you. Write. "See 11"

12. I have often heard from many believers that even Satan has a presence in the church, which is why even in church people can still have impure thoughts. If Satan can find his way in the church, how do Christians know that Satan didn't find his way into the Bible and twist the whole book? After all, men did vote on which books would make the Holy Bible. - The Infidel Guy
Church is made up of people. Book is made up of paper. At some particular moment in time you may find a church that's laymen have no impure thoughts at that moment, however, probably wouldn't last for very long... it's temporary. As for the Bible, it would only require a certain, large, yes, amount of individual moments to get the pages written down-- then, the book is removed from time. The fact that those people who wrote it were sinners, filled with impure and imperfect thoughts, does not change the fact that they could have had independent moments of divine inspirations at a particular moment in time. Same for those men who voted for those books to institute into what is now known as the Holy Bible.

13. Why did God allow Lot and his daughters to escape from Sodom and Gomorra when he destroyed it only to later have Lot and his daughters engage in incestuous fornication. (Genesis 19:30-36) - Disillusioned [Note: To have intercourse with daddy dearest of course.]
God leads.. he doesn't control. I'm not sure the representation of a imperfect man being imperfect does anything. I'm not sure I see condoning of the action within the verses.. only that it happened.

14. Genesis 1:28-29 shows that man and all the animals were first created herbivorous. Most young-earth Christians (ones that believes the earth is less than 10,000 years old) say that the fall of man resulted in carnivorous animals ( hence death of animals). So, why did God punish the animal kingdom, making animals kill and devour each other because of man's mistake? Or, if you're an old-earth Christian (one that accepts that animals existed on earth for billions of years before man came on the scene) then how come fossils show carnivorous animals existed before man? - http://www.caseagainstfaith.com/contact.htm.
Hm. Not sure what I believe in this case. Would I be fine with the idea that death occurred before the fall of man? Hm. Probably. Adam was immortal for a time because of his connection with God, not because of any sort of intrinsic characteristic. If animals had this same relationship also, then yes, their would seem to be some sort of oddity with the idea that animals were immediately punished for Man's sin. However, even as now the animal kingdom is affected by the actions of man (a member of the kingdom), so I would see no reason why it wouldn't be the same back then. I have no problems with the idea that animals adapted within their own species to a new world of limited resources.. therefore developing into carnivorous animals over time through means of natural selection.

As for the idea that carnivorous animals existed before man.. once again, I admit that you may be right and I maybe wrong (actually I think this might be the first time I said it).. but consider for a moment my answer to number 3.

I'm not saying that all geological science is wrong, just that it isn't as absolute as some state it to be. It is a theory created to coincide with facts, not a fact unto itself. Such as.. a coin on the table here. There is a coin on the table: Fact. I put it there: Theory. My roommate put it there: Theory.


15. Many Christians believe that God is a thinking being, that he solves problems and makes a way for them when troubles come. Does God Think? If God is thinking, did he know his thoughts before he thought them? If so, again, where is his freewill and how is God thinking at all if everything seems to be one uncontrollable action/thoughts. - The Infidel Guy [Note: I'd say a God cannot think at all. To do so, would strip him of omniscience. Thinking is a temporal process.] ON GOD'S ATEMPORALITY
1.) God, an atemporal being, created the Universe.
2.) Creation is a temporal processes because X cannot cause Y to come into being unless X existed temporally prior to Y.
3.) If God existed prior to the creation of the Universe he is a temporal being.
4.) Since God is atemporal, God cannot be the creator the Universe.
[Note: I guess I should also note here that a timeless being would be without the proposition of past, and future. But to be omniscient, God must know the past and future. Hence a God that is atemporal and omniscient cannot logically exist. Smiling]
I believe that this question might be ignoring the possibility that the concept of atemporal means something other then what he is presuming it means. I don't know the scientific concept of atemporal, or even if it can be scientific, but.. I can use semantics. Atemporal is likened to amoral, without time, without morals. Without morals does not mean that the individual being described by the word amoral does not exist within a moral world, rather that he is not self-restricted by morals. Likewise, atemporal does not mean that the individual is not existent within a temporal world, rather that he self-restricted by time. Time is a measurement between two points. We say an hour because it's six minutes, we say minutes because it's the number of degrees the earth rotates in a given amount of "time."

If God is eternal, with no beginning, and predictably without end, then he is arguably atemporal, without time. For his existence cannot be measured.. but not that he does not have an effect on the given state of the world in our time. (Once again, my understanding of time.)

16. I have often heard that faith is all that is neccessary to believe in God and accept the Bible as true. If this is true aren't all supernatural beliefs true since they also require "faith"? - IG ON FAITH
1.) A prerequisite to believe in a Faith is faith.
2.) Having faith is all that is required to accept a Faith (belief) as true.
3.) All Faiths are true.
[Note: Of course all Faiths aren`t true, but this is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from a person that states that, "Faith" is how one knows God.]
No. How did this question even make the list?!
1.) A prerequisite to believe in a Faith is faith.
2.) Having faith is all that is required to accept a Faith as true.
3.) Nothing.

Your two premises do not lead to a deduction of any kind. 1 and 2 in this case do.
1.) All tennis players are women.
2.) Alice is a woman.
3.) Alice is a tennis player.

My head just hurts with this one... to accept as true and to be true are two exclusive things. I have no problems with saying that a Muslim has faith in his Faith, and that *can be sufficient means for him to accept his Faith as true. Does that make it true? No. Neither does my faith make mine true.

So don't make invalid deductions just because..
1.) Pills are good for you.
2.) Pills are made by doctors.
3.) The horse jumped over the moon.

Beh.. this one makes me a bit irked.


17. Why didn't God just kill Adam and Eve after the Fall and start from scratch? Actually, if God is all-knowing wouldn't he know that man would need to be killed eventually anyway, (the biblical flood)? Why create Adam and Eve at all? - ALSCARLATA@aol.com and infidelguy@infidelguy.com ON THE GARDEN OF EDEN
1.) God is omniscient (all-knowing).
2.) God knew that before he created man that they would eat of the tree of knowledge.
3.) God placed the tree of knowledge in the Garden anyway.
4.) God wanted sin to enter the world.
[Note: If God didn`t want sin to enter the world, why create Adam and Eve at all? He knew what would happen. Why place the forbidden trees in the Garden in the first place?]
This one seems to be a rehash of an earlier one. If I'm incorrect.. get back to me. See answers 7 and 10.

18. If a spirit is non-physical but the human body is physical, how does a spirit stay in our bodies? - IG ON SPIRITS
1.) Spirits are not physical entities.
2.) Brains are physical entities.
3.) Past experiences are stored in our physical brains, we call that, Memory..
4.) Injury can damage portions of the physical brain that store memory and can alter or erase memories completely.
5.) If human spirits exist... after death, spirits can have no memory.
[Note: Some will say the spirit stores physical memories as well, but if true, the spirit would have to be physical at least to a degree. How could a non-physical spirit store, physical memories?]
How are we talking about the rules of a non-physical entity? What.. can you tell me in one case that a non-physical entity could not be restricted into a physical entity? or one that did? Non-physical is the much the same as saying supernatural.. meaning, indescribable with natural or physical terminology.

Futhermore, the concept of a Spirit is universal among Christian denominations. Some believe it to be a conscious thing living inside of you, some others believe it to be a non-conscious poetic idea of Life given by God, that returns to him upon death. Both of these interpretations have basis in biblical theology.

19. Does God know his own future decisions? If God is all-knowing he actually shouldn't have any decisions to make at all. Nor can he choose anything over something else. For that would mean that he is neither omniscient nor omnipotent. In fact, he can't even think if this is the case. Since he can't DO anything, he might as well not exist. - IG ON GOD'S IMMUTABILITY - Unchangingness
1. If God exists, then he is immutable.
2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
3. An immutable being cannot at one time have an intention and then at a later time not have that intention.
4. For any being to create anything, prior to the creation he must have had the intention to create it, but at a later time, after the creation, no longer have the intention to create it.
5. Thus, it is impossible for an immutable being to have created anything (from 3 and 4).
6. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5) - Theodore M. Drange
I would contend that God's unchangingness resides in his loving nature. That is where my faith resides-- one in his character. In much the same way that I have *faith in my doctor to do what is good even though I do not fully comprehend the mechanisms which he uses. Such as... sticking a knife into me and taking out a part of my body (e.g. appendix).

As for this attempt at deductive logic.
1.) Agreed.
2.) Agreed.
3.) Not agreed. The important concepts of this are under what contexts we understand immutable. To say that at one point I have an intention and at the next I no longer have that intention, is in fact a change of intention, then so be it. But I would have to disagree. For instance. If my intention at a particular moment is to create.. and therefore I create a soapbox, does this mean that my intention was never to create? or never to create a soapbox? No. Tis true that I might not choose to create another soapbox.. but so be it, it is not a change of character.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/immutable

Immutable
adjective
1.) not subject or susceptible to change or variation in form or quality or nature.

To say that God's intention to create the universe is his nature, or form, or quality is not reasoned in your logical progression.

Think of it this way.
1.) If a doctor is a good doctor, he looks for the best interests of his patients.
2.) If a patient is sick and a doctor can help, he will.
3.) If a doctor helps a patient then at a later time he will not help that patient.
4.) Doesn't matter.
5.) Doesn't matter.
6.) There for the doctor is not a doctor.

Albeit I'm attempting to use logic in all these cases to contest other logical propositions.. I do not mean to imply that logic is a cure all in and of itself. My reason for this is that there are many cases in which logic just fails to explain things.. these are known as paradoxes. For instance: The Arrow Paradox.

20. If God is all-knowing, how could he be disappointed in His creation? -- Pm453ca@aol.com [Note: Indeed, wouldn't God know that before the creation of our Universe what creatures would disappoint him? That being the case why create those creatures at all? Also, in knowing absolutely the behavior of humans before creation, God cannot be disappointed either... for this world is exactly as he has planned it to be. If it's not, why create us at all?]
See Answer 5.

Futhermore:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disappointed

Disappointed
adjective
1.) depressed or discouraged by the failure of one's hopes or expectations.

I hope and expect that my father will act honorably-- even though I know that he will not always live up to my expectations and hopes. I will be disappointed if ever he acts contrary.


21. God struck down the Tower of Babel angry at the intent of the people that built them, if this is the case, many of the great pyramids ( which are bigger than any ziggurat) around the world should be rubble also, yet many still stand today. Were not the Egyptians and many other ancient pyramid builders reaching toward God /The Heavens? - IG [Note: In actuality, many of the Pharaoh's believed that, via their pyramids, they would become God's themselves.]
The conditions necessary for life beginning from abiological substances (a theory of science) require different conditions then are now existent. Thus the same principal can be applied to explain why at one time an action was deemed necessary and another time not. The only thing that would need to be established in this scenario is the disparity of time and conditions between the building of the tower of babel and pyramids.

Also.. what do ziggurats have to do with the Tower of Babel? If the biblical story is true, then the culture existent at the time would, could, be considerably different then any culture that created the ziggurats or pyramids. Much taller perhaps? But thats a side note.

22. In the watchmaker analogy, a watch is used to show us intelligent design and compares that to the Universe as evidence of design. We know watches are designed because we have past experience with watches, as well as with other man made objects. My question is: What Universe is the Intelligent Design proponent using to compare this Universe with to draw such an analogy? What God did he see create a Universe? - IG
I don't agree with this analogy in the first place. In infinite time infinite space.. the watch could have been made as we see it now. You through a bunch of stuff into a tornado.. infinite time. All things become zero... mathematically speaking-- which, in the case of a Godless world, everything would be brought down to.


23. Why did God flood the earth to remove evil? It didn't work! Evil came right back, God should have known that would happen! So why did He bother? - PhineasBg [Note: A good example of how quickly sin returned, was Noah getting drunk just after they discovered land.]
See Answers 10 and 12. Put them together.

24. If the garden of Eden was a perfect paradise as xians claim, then why did Eve even want to eat the fruit? Wouldn't a perfect place provide everything a person would want or desire and thus she would want nothing? - keyser soze [Note: Why were the trees there in the first place? Of course they love to throw the serpent into the equation. But ummm..who let the serpent into the Garden?... and why would God create such a creature knowing he would cause man's fall? Hmm.. God must have wanted the fall to happen.]
See Answer 10. If not here, then somewhere. (I'm not one to believe in only one instance of creation, here Earth. It would seem somewhat illogical that God would create all this space and only one earth like planet. I do however believe that we were the only ones to fall. It needed to happen somewhere in my belief, and if it didn't happen here, then this exact conversation would be happening somewhere else. Eye-wink

I think its sort of ingrained into human nature to be curious. A child touches fire even though his parent tells him not to.. so on. In this case.. what was unknown was the knowledge of good and evil. So be it. Now we know to some extent.. although.. I'm sure we haven't carried it out to it's full conclusion.


25. Why would an all-powerful god become flesh in order to sacrifice himself to himself so that his creation might escape the wrath of himself. Couldn't god, in his infinite wisdom, come up with something a little more efficient? - Omphaloskeptic2@aol.com ON THE BODY OF CHRIST
1.) God?s flesh was known as Jesus.
2.) Flesh cannot enter into Heaven (according to Paul)
3.) God is no longer Jesus.
4.) Jesus doesn?t exist.
(Note: Many at this point will state that the spirit lives on so therefore Jesus lives. This really depends on what you believe about Jesus. Is Jesus the son of God or God in flesh? If Jesus is merely the son there is no problem.However, if Jesus ?is? God himself, we do. You see, Jesus is called Jesus because of the attribute of Flesh. If Jesus = God (who is spirit) then the entity known as Jesus ceases to exist. The flesh/body of Jesus, no longer exists and the spirit of God is still the unchanging spirit of God. No Jesus at that point. The Flesh, called Jesus, is dead.)
1.) Agreed.
2.) Hm.. need a verse but, I'll tentatively agree.
3.) Where did this come from?
4.) And this?
I don't understand the structure of this.

See question 10 as well as 5 (applications of emotions and 'wrath&#39Eye-wink

Coupled with this: I can only speak of my own theology which some denominations hold. And I will now be speaking with a religious tone. The plan of salvation was not so much to send Christ here to earth to die, but rather to send him here to live. Through his life people understood God in a new way as well the extent to which God loved, and the lengths to which he would go to be with his people, his creation. At a particular moment in time, mainly the Roman Empire, the advent of Christ was able to spread quickly. The death of Christ may have been for seen from the beginning, thus reason to be placed into older testament prophecy, however, this was not the purpose of Christ.

If it was.. then the question could become more potent by asking-- if the purpose of Christ was to die for our sins, why didn't he do it at the age of 5? or 10? or.. whatever?

26. After 9/11 a lot of people have been tossing around " god bless america". Why do they keep saying this? From the looks of it god hasn't blessed anything. If god had blessed america, the 9/11 event would've never happened. Theists seem to give the answer of "everything is part of gods big plan". If everything is part of gods big plan, why are we after Bin Laden? Wasn't he and other terrorists just carrying out gods desired plan? So it seems that Bin Laden/ terrorism isnt our enemy, but god . - rsri13@hotmail.com [Note: Unfortunately many religious nuts believe they are fulfilling their God's plan by going to war.]
Lots of people say "part of God's plan" without considering the implications they are making. Perhaps they do mean it in the way you are inferring, perhaps they don't. Me personally, I don't. When I say this I do not mean that every particular instance is part of God's plan, but rather the situation we are in is. For instance, consider question 10 again. If we are indeed an 'experiment,' then this is part of a plan, even as an experiment is a plan of a scientist. It does not mean that every instance within the experiment was hoped for, or drawn out beforehand by the scientist, only that the experiment has it's limitations it's restrictions, but everything else is led to chance.

Even so this.

As for the "God Bless America".. I'm not sure I understand your contention. To say "God Bless something" is not to say that God has blessed something.. or that he will.. or that he ever has.

(My personal opinion is that he has-- in so much that all good things come from him, in as much as all warmth (feeling) comes from heat (scientific description of energy).)


27. Christians say that God is NOT the author of confusion. Can you say, Tower of Babel? - The Screaming Monkeys
Christians say? This does not necessarily equate to biblical truth (if such a thing exists). If there is some biblical basis for this belief that he is not the author of confusion.. then so be it, I will address now: Evil things happen in the space that exists between God and the absence of God. If confusion did in fact happen at this point at time, it does not mean that God directly created it by a snap of his finger.. but *could merely mean that he pulled away his presence at the behest of a nation who was unwilling to trust him (that unwillingness expressed through the production of the tower).


But in any case, it has to be reasoned through the Bible how God is not, or cannot be, the creator of confusion. Or how somehow confusion is contradictory to some fundamental aspect of God's immutable character.


28. If Noah's flood supposedly covered the earth for a year, regardless of whether or not all the animals could fit on the ark, what the heck happened to all the plants? Can you imagine a cactus surviving under 4 miles of water for a year? I can't either! - Kyle Giblet [Note: With God all things are possible. Oh wait, except in Judges 1:19.]
*Worldwide flood is not a necessary premise for the belief in God.

However I will try and address it anyways. Wait.. no, I can't.. unless somehow the building blocks of plant species were included in the ark, seeds mainly. Earlier time, smaller species diversification.

Good question though.

29. The highest rainfall ever recorded in a 24 hour period was 47inches in the Reunion Islands in 1947 (during a severe tropical storm). To cover the whole earth to a depth of 5.6 miles, and cover the mountain tops (i.e. Mount Everest), it would need to rain at a rate of 372 (three hundred and seventy two) inches per hour, over the entire surface of the earth. Can rain fall at such an astronomical rate? Where did all the water come from?? Where did it all go to??? And would not the dynamics of the earth be so out of balance (tides etc.) that the earth would become so unstable that it would wobble off into outer space???? -
See Answer 28. Wow.. thats a huge amount of rain in 24 hours. That would've been sweet to be there. Um.. secondly, see Answer 21. Time changes all. Tis true. The world pre world-wide flood might have been hugely different geographically then now. A huge amount of water dumped on the earth would indeed create valleys as well as the corresponding mountains as water slowly soaks into unsaturated terrain. Think.. erosion, except on a grand scale. Water from below, water from above. Arguments based on the believe that pre-flood and post-flood worlds were exactly the same, or even similar is difficult to make.

So let me say this. If the world now, oceans and all, is exactly how it was before the flood.. then yes-- I wouldn't not be able to rationalize a worldwide flood (assuming that your assumptions about wandering off into space are correct-- and that water, cannot, in fact fall at 372 inches, or that 372 inches is necessary scientifically, to cover this world, in this time.)

30. What do Muslim women get in Paradise? - IG [Note: Some Muslims I have interviewed about this say that Muslim women will get the same thing men get or equal value. Smiling Oh really? So Muslim women will get 72 virgin men? lol. If Muslim men get 72 virgins, where are all these virgin women coming from? What of their freewill? Is Allah creating these women to be slaves to the men in Paradise?]
Not a Muslim. Can't answer.

31. In the "Last Days" Jesus is supposed to appear in the clouds. How are the Christians on the opposite end of the world going to see him? Are there going to be millions of Jesus'? What about people that work underground? What about people in deep space? -
Um.. I ask you-- if Jesus comes in the last days, in the clouds, are you really going to care about how it happens? The mere fact that a supernatural being is floating down from the sky is happening would seem to imply that the very rules of nature are not applicable anymore.

Furthermore, I don't presume to claim as absolute my understanding of the second coming based of biblical interpretations in fact true-- only that he will come, and every eye shall see.


32. The Bible says that God is a jealous God . How is this an example of a moral absolute of which man is supposed to follow? - IG ON GOD`S JEALOUSY
1.) "God is love." 1 John 4:8.
2.) "Love is not jealous." 1 Cor 13:4
3.) "I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous God." Exodus 20:5.
4.) The Christian god cannot logically exist.
(NOte: Basically love is NOT jealous, yet god is jealous, then God can`t be love. But if god IS love he cannot be jealous. Be he is.)
However, I find it difficult to address an argument that presumes that the language of both the older testament and the newer testament should coincide perfectly. I would apply my answer to 5 to this question with regards to Exodus 20:5. As for the evidence stated in 1 and 2 I say, yes.

33. A true Muslim man is not supposed to do anything that the prophet Muhammad didn't do. If one remembers there was a big debate over whether or not Muslims should eat Mangos. If this is true, why in the Hell were these Islamic Fundamentalists flying airplanes? - IG
Not a Muslim. Wow.. these questions are higher weighed against Christians. Muslims are lucky.

34. If the earth was covered by a complete global flood, every living creature killed except those surviving on the ark, why are there many completely unique animal species in Australia that are found no where else indigenously on the earth? - mitch@mchsi.com
See Answer 28.

But once again I will address for those who would wish to believe in a worldwide flood.

Evolution. Natural Selection. Diversification. Extinction.

I have no problems believing in these things.. even as the bible does not. Evolution within species as been tested time and time again.. and seems to be an accurate description of how things are. However, cross species diversification has not been (to my knowledge).

35. If god is omniscient and " god is love," why would he allow a child to be conceived, knowing that that child would one day reject him and spend eternity burning in a lake of fire?- TiredTurkeyProd
Why is this answer being asked over and over again? I mean.. I guess I understand why. But I will address again. See Answer 4, 6, and 10.

36. Revelations is supposed to take place on Earth. What if we colonize the moon or Mars or inhabit a self-sustaining space station? Do we escape "judgement"? -- Ray Sommers [Note: No we don't Ray... and of course we all know that if there is any intelligent life out there besides us, they are all going to Hell too. Eye-wink]
Let's wait until we colonize the moon and then I will get back to this one.

37. Isaiah 40:28 says, "...the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is he weary?" If this is true, why did God rest on the seventh day?- IG
To sanctify (theological term meaning to make holy, holy meaning-- to set aside) a day in which ones should rest. Lead by example I always say. Smiling

38. Everytime I go to a funeral the preacher and guests always say that " God " has called that person to Heaven or they say, " God said it was time to come home", or some such variation. If God is calling these people "home", why are we putting the murderers of these victims in prison? How can we punish a man or woman for doing God's will? - IG
Hm. Interesting question. Of course. This seems to be a legal one as well. If you do God's will this does not mean that the state cannot still punish you, or that its duty is to punish you depending on their respective laws.

However... once again I state. Just because a Christian, even a pastor, states something as if he knew God's mind, doesn't not mean that he is fact speaking God's mind.

I don't agree with this concept of death.

See Answer 26 for more.


39. Does God have a gender? In most churches, God is predominately referred to as a "he"? - IG [Note: The Bible says God is male, but what does this mean? Does God have a penis? Does he have hormones that dictate his gender? Smiling]
See Answer 5.

If he were something other than a man or a woman.. how exactly would he go about explaining that to a human being? Any thoughts? Perhaps when you figure out how to tell a fish he's wet-- then you can get back to me. Smiling


40. Why can't we wait until we get to Heaven to worship God? Why would it be too late? - IG
Another great question. Hm.. let me ponder.

I can't claim to be right on my rationale.. but of course-- all these questions need is a rational response.

So here is mine.

Perhaps because those who do not to choose to worship God, or whatever measures one must do to attributes of morality they must have in order to be in heaven, will not wish for those things even in Heaven.

I would liken it to this.. for me, personally, I have no interest in serving Hilter, no interesting in learning his ways, no interest whatsoever in coming into closer communion with him-- if it turns out that Hitler is God... I would have a tough time say.. 'Yah, okay Hitler, take me to heaven.. let me see you point of view.'

I'd probably say.. 'Thanks, but no thanks. Here I come non-existence!'

41. What is the purpose of prayer? What can a finite being on Earth possibly tell an omnipotent, omniscient deity that he doesn't know already? - IG ON PRAYER
1.) Humans can?t change God?s mind for he has a divine plan and is unchangeable.
2.) Prayer can't change God's mind.
3.) Prayer doesn't change anything.
(Prayer may make you feel better emotionally, but it doesn`t change God`s mind.)
Prayer doesn't change God, it changes me. paraphrased from C.S. Lewis writings. If it is only for emotional comfort.. then so be it. Even Jesus (once again I go to the Bible) prayed to God for a change in the plan, but even he submitted to how things needed to be. Some people pray for deliverence from challenges.. others just for strength. Think self-hypnotism. Eye-wink

42. Some say Jesus was the all-knowing God. Jesus would have known then that when he died he'd be in heaven in less than 3 days to rule. If Jesus is alive and ruling today, what did he sacrifice? -- Cyndy Hammond
Hm. Go ask Bill Gate to give all that he has and to go live in the poorest nation of Africa.. and that if he does that for 33 years-- he'll get back all that he had in the first place. "Now.. times that by infinite and take it to the depths forever and you'll barely have a glimpse." Second part quoted from Meet Joe Black.. a film.


43. God knows that men are sinners, untrustworthy and evil, why does God leave it up to fallible man (clergy..etc) to teach others about his word? Why would he put our eternal souls at risk if he loves us so much? - The Infidel Guy and Danno778
See Answer 10.



Part II.

And so I continue... I'll try to answer things anew.. and not refer to 1-43.


44. Did Adam have nipples? If so, how did he acquire them? In fact, why would God give "later man" nipples at all? They serve no purpose other than lactation. Some say pleasure. Where is that in Genesis exactly? All mammals have nipples as well, are theirs pleasureful for them too? Many men don't find their nipples pleasurable at all. - IG
Adam had nipples. Adam did not have nipples. God meant them for pleasure. God mean for mammals to have pleasure as well. God put them for aesthetic purpose. God put them to be an eyesore. I guess the issue I have with this is that if I assume that God is real (as the question requires me to) as well as that God has reason for everything. If I didn't assume either one of these things I would not have to answer the question. My answer would be.
1.) God doesn't exist.
2.) He didn't have a reason.

So.. lets say I take those two assumption. I could create any reason I wanted to... the fact that they do not serve the same function now as I state they did then, does not prove my 'reason' irrational or illogical-- unless of course within the same breath I state that all things now are as they were then (which I do not).


45. How did Adam and Eve know it was wrong to disobey God if they hadn't eaten of the tree of knowledge (of good and evil) yet? You can't blame them if they didn't know. - IG
Um. My dad once told me don't play with hammers and nails. I did. I didn't know it was wrong unless I understood that what anything contrary to what my father asked was morally wrong. But nevertheless, once I nailed that nail into the wall rather haphazardly.. there was no making the wall as it was. Consequence is sometimes independent from the knowledge of right and wrong. Legal systems are set up this way.


46. If God has such a tremendous problem with uncircumcised penises, why did he make man with foreskin in the first place? - IG [Note: Some say, "So God can recognize his chosen people." Recognize? Is God so stupid that he has to physically look at men's penises? If not God, do other men need to? lol.]
See Answer 44.

To say that because he had a problem at one time after-a-fact (this being the fall of man and a few thousand years).. does not mean that he had a problem before-a-fact.

47. Did Noah have fish onboard? Salt or Fresh? Since fresh water fish would die in salt, and salt water fish would die in fresh, only one type of fish would survive. Yet....?" - Frank Monaco
Yes. You are correct. If I accept that fish cannot evolve from salt to fresh.. or from fresh to salt-- then I would seem trapped in the apparent paradox with regards to the existence of fresh or salt water fish.

However.. I never stated this to be the case-- nor do I believe it to be a necessary interpretation of Biblical text. Denominations of Christianity even now intepret the Bible in such a way as to allow for evolution within the constraints of a particular species.


48. Why does the omnipotent, omnipresent God need help from man or angels to spread his word or do acts? - IG [Note: Some say God doesn't need help. But apparently he does.] - IG
I will copy an answer from an earlier question.

If indeed this world, is as some theologians believe, a universal example of the effects of sin-- an experiment in sin as it were-- started by a challenge of the Devil to God, a challenge which was in essence life would be better this way than that, then so be it. In this experiment people choose to be people of truth, love, and right, or not. At the end of time, if the belief of some Christians be right, then God will have the choice to bring people into Heaven-- I personally believe that his decision will be more yours then his. Yes, he loves all, and so it's only a matter of whether at the end of time whether you wish to spend the rest of existence with God or be wiped from existence.

A type of absolute Euthanasia as it were.

As for the spreading of his word.. why not do it himself. Even a scientist keeps his experiment affecting actions to a designated minimum until it reaches it's proper time to bring it to an end-- otherwise he risks destroying the purpose of the experiment in the first place.

Furthermore x2, these 'why would God X' are questions that require me to assume that God exists. In the case of these questions.. I would seriously ask. 'If God exists in the sense that he is omniscient and all those other things, what do you know that he doesn't about what would be best or most efficient in spreading his words?'

Granted.. all within the confines of this constrained experiment.

Of course this presumes that he is interested in these sort of things.

Now it would be a legitimate to ask a question, "If God is X, then why would he do Y." Such as the question of hell of eternal punishment and coinciding that with the idea of a loving God (Biblical concept)-- that's a tough thing to do. I could use the same answer I gave for this one.. however, the concept of eternal punishment for temporal sins is so contradictory to me when related to a loving God.. that I probably wouldn't.


49. How did Jesus ascend to Heaven in the Flesh when Paul says that flesh cannot inherit the kingdom of Heaven? (1 Cor.15:50) - IG [Note: Some say, well Paul said that and not Jesus. Yet they quote Paul when it suits there purposes.]
This would require me to go in depth into the concept of translation, biblical semantics, cross referencing with other biblical passages.. and so on. If this is what you want me to do, at the end of reading everything, say "See 49."


50. If God wants us to live right and choose "the good," why did he create evil? (Isaiah 45:6,7) Not to mention he already knows which people are not going to choose "the good" so why create those people in the first place? It seems that many people are born to go to Hell. - IG ON HELL
1.) God is all-knowing.
2.) Before I was born God knew I wouldn?t believe in him.
3.) I was born to go to Hell.
(Sure you may say I have a choice, but I think I`ve proven already that I really don`t. I`m simply fulfilling the will of God by being an atheist aren`t I? If I`m not, I shouldn`t exist: For God would have known that before I was created that I wouldn`t believe in him.)
As for an answer to the first part of this question. I refer you to 49. Do you really want me to get into all of that? I can if you wish.

As for the next few parts.

I do not believe in Hell in the sense that people are going to burn forever in utter agony for the rest of eternity. How poetic.. but inconsistent with my picture of God. And since my ideas, as well as theres, depending on your interpretation, of the Bible can be argued... I will just state that Hell is the complete seperation between you and God, and is a choice you make not that he forces (explicitly and/or intrisically through life.).

Now without arguing the idea of omniscience.. or explaining it in some long way-- let me perhaps suggest this from an earlier answer.

I can argue that, from what I infer from your statements, people shouldn't have kids. How can it be love to birth a human being into such a world? Where they are most guarenteed to disappoint you at some point? You might contend that God is all knowing, perfect 'forsight,' however, I would present this possibility.. at somepoint let us say that a perfect form of genetic prediction comes into being in which you can predict the intelligence, physical condition, and even 'social utility'.. abort all babies that don't meet up to the highest standards, more or less loving? In other words.. does one have kids, 'create' as it were, so that those kids will succeed in the way they want, or is it to give life?


51. I hear Christians all the time speaking of a spiritual war between Heaven and Hell, if this is true does God have limitations of power? Man only conducts wars because of our limitations of power and foresight. God has both all-power and all-knowledge, no reason for war of any kind. - IG
This is a question that requires me to assume God does exist to give an answer. Otherwise, once again, my answer would be.. "God doesn't exist." Which is an answer.. but-- doesn't really lead anywhere. So let me assume God exists for a moment-- and that he limitless in power, as well as limitless in knowledge.

In essence.. supernatural.. since the idea of limitless power is not natural according the way we now understand natural to be.

So. I would refer to an earlier Answer in the 1-43 section.. but since I said I wouldn't do that, I'll answer anew.
So.. here are the assumptions I must accept to attempt to answer this question.

1.) God is real.
2.) God is limitless in power.
3.) God has all-knowledge.

Q: Why do Christians speak of a spiritual war between Heaven and Hell?

Well.. a possible answer that is consistent with the three premises is this.
4.) Because with God's all knowledge he perceived it the best means to describe the situation as a spiritual war as opposed to some other way.

More knowledgeable people do this all the time with less knowledgeable people. For instance, I gave an earlier example, of a quantum physics professor speaking to a 9 year old about quantum physics. Would he explain it in the same way that he would to another quantum physics professor? or even a college student?

52. The Bible is full of phrases beginning with, "and the lord saw". Didn't he know before hand? - IG
Hm..

I know that my roommate will go to rest in his bed tonight. After the fact I can say "and the Rhad saw." I don't understand the problem.

53. How can a psychologist condone belief in something not proven to exist, when people are put into mental institutions on a daily basis for the same thing? i.e. aliens, fairies, imaginary people (Multiple Personality Disorders..)? - Dan Denton [Note: I'm sure that some of the pious believe that they are improperly placed there as well Dan. Smiling]
People are put into institutions when they become a danger to themselves or others-- and these judgments are made on a case by case bases. Not all people who believe in aliens, imaginary people, fairies, are in institutions. And what does a psychologists condoning have to do with the issue of anything other than the fact that a psychologist does not condone something?

Psychologists/Psychiatrists at one time condoned E.S.T. for autistic patients.


54. If Christians say they know God exists and that he will work miracles, what do they need faith for? Faith is not knowing. - IG
I guess this would only apply to those people that know God exists and that he *will work miracles. I do not proclaim to know God exists.. only to say that I believe he does, and that my belief is not irrational. Furthermore on the issues of miracles, miracles does not correlate absolutely to a belief in God of any, or one, particular god... one could just as easily proclaim that the miracle came about by magic.

I don't not mean to say that miracles do or do not exist.. only that if they do, faith would still be required to believe that they come from God.

55. Brain, or shall I say, body transplants, will eventually be possible, where would the soul be then? Where is the soul? - IG
Can we wait until this actually happens? When it does.. I'll come back here and answer it.

56. If God really wants us to know him, why doesn't he place the knowledge of him in our minds at birth? The same way many theists believe that God implants our sense of right and wrong in us a right birth. - IG
I don't quite understand the use of the word knowledge in this case. Do you mean like.. knowledge in the sense that a baby has the knowledge to breathe (instinct)?

I don't believe babies have much of any knowledge, anymore than instinctual things such as to breath and to be curious-- and yes, arguable some sense of morality as well.


57. If God was Jesus' father (not Joseph), then why is Jesus' family tree traced through Joseph? -- Cyndy Hammond
Need verse to understand context. Anyone?

58. What image of God was man made from? Couldn't have been a moral one or physical one. - IG [Note: One would suspect that an image of God would be perfect and cannot sin. Oops.]
Perhaps one of mere existence and elevated level of consciousness. (when compared to animals I mean).

Adequate response?


59. Why can't God appear before everyone at the same time? Everyone in the world would then "know" he exists and not have solely "believe". And please, don't say he already tried that. Surely a God knows exactly what to do to convince a measly human of his existence. - IG
Copy and paste (somewhat) from an earlier answer (1-43). If indeed this world, is as some theologians believe, a universal example of the effects of sin-- an experiment in sin as it were-- started by a challenge of the Devil to God, a challenge which was in essence life would be better this way than that, then so be it. In this experiment people choose to be people of truth, love, and right, or not.

Even a scientist keeps his experiment affecting actions to a designated minimum until it reaches it's proper time to bring it to an end-- otherwise he risks destroying the purpose of the experiment in the first place.

So I believe you question is a one that forms a long the lines of: "Why does not God reveal himself to everyone so that they will know and not believe."
A couple of assumptions the questioner makes.
1.) That if God reveals himself (and in no one effecting a central tenant of Christianity, freewill) then they will know him to be him, and not something else.
2.) That to know him in the sense that he wishes you to know him is best enacted by revealing himself in a way in which you wish it.
3.) That showing himself at any particular moment in time will not disrupt any reason for our situation (the situation of existence in a sinful state) in the first place.

Mainly.. that all things are equal.

But.. these are assumptions you make and are not necessarily applicable. As such I could say.

1.) If God reveals himself then people will not know him to be him or God will in someway effect free will.
2.) That to know him the sense that he wishes you to know him is not best served by revealing himself in the way in which you wish to see him.
3.) That showing himself at any particular moment in time will have different effects, possibly disruptive effects, on the reason for our situation in the first place.

There... I've made three other assumptions. Rationally equivalent to yours.

60. According to the New Testament Matthew 5:17 says "Do not suppose that I have come to abolish the Law and the prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to complete. I tell you this: so long as heaven and earth endure, not a letter, not a stroke, will disappear from the Law until all that must happen has Happened." So since Jesus has not returned the "Law" is still in effect, so why aren't we still burning witches, stoning adulterers and disobedient children, killing homosexuals, ostracizing people that work on the Sabbath (nurses, doctors etc.), flinging blood onto the horns of the alter, pulling off the heads of small birds, and don't forget human sacrifice to God (Leviticus 27 P.28 )? -- Sheila L. Chambers
I've never burned a witch. Stoned an adulterer, or a disobedient child, killed a homosexual.. etc etc etc. So.. what now?
Furthermore.. you assume that "all that must happen" has not happened. Do I need to read those things surrounding the text? Tell me if I'm wrong. But could "must happen" not equally apply to his death and ressurection.. rather then his second advent?



61. If there is freewill in Heaven yet everyone has chosen good and is happy, isn't that proof that God could have made us with freewill, choosing good ( God ) and still being happy on Earth? - Dennis Hendrix [Note: In other words, evil didn't have to exist after all. Hey wait, even in Heaven apparently, evil can exist. At least for a short while. Satan became evil and was in heaven. Apparently he even had enough time to form an Army against God. Wow. Maybe Heaven won't be as peaceful as many believe.]
Hm.

I'm raising a child. I tell him.. don't jump on the glass table. He jumps on the glass table.. because.. well, he's curious and has free will. He cuts his leg up, goes to the hospital, gets glass pulled out, get stiches put in, comes back home. He will not jump on the glass table again (granted, the experience would have to be sufficient to bring about a change in this specific case of curiousity-- which for me it was.. I never jumped on a glass table again Eye-wink

62. Why does God have a plan? Man is limited in power so we make plans because we are not all-knowing nor all-powerful. If God has a plan, isn't he reduced to a mere finite being? - IG
No. Next please.

Heh.. sorry-- I thought I could cheat once. Eye-wink In comparison to a cricket.. I am largely superior in power. I can choose not to make a plan and think nothing of that cricket. But if I care for that cricket (as strange as it may be).. I will plan for its actions which I know it will take, mainly, jumping, wandering, etc etc etc. This isn't a perfect example.. but-- was just meaning to express that jsut because god is all-powerful, all-knowing (we won't define these for the time being).. is not contradictory to the idea of a making a plan when dealing with finite beings of freewill.


63. How could the all-merciful/loving God watch billions of his children burn over and over again for eternity? - IG [Note: Of course this is geared to those that believe in a fiery hell. I am well aware that not all Christians believe in a fiery Hell.]
Don't believe in hell. Not relevant to me.. Glad to know that you know that-- surprisingly some people do not.


64. Before reading and writing were invented (5000BC), on what basis did God use to judge the people who died before the Hebrew and Greek text (BIBLE) were written? -- agent2g@aol.com [Note: They are all roasting in Hell. Smiling]
Spoken, oral tradition? counter-arguement?


65. Many Christians tell me that I will "burn in hell". If I have a soul, how can a soul burn? Aren't souls non-physical entities? - IG [Note: Some Christians groups believe that you will be given new bodies after judgement. However, if true, what's the significance of a spirit in the first place?]
Hmm.. first off. Seeing as I've never tested the limits nor the abilities and extent of sensations that a non-physical entity can have-- I cannot address such a thing.

I do not believe in hell... so not relevant to me.

And.. as for the significance of the spirit in the first place. Depends on how you are defining "Spirit." My personal belief system, similar to the belief of my denomination as a whole through biblical interpretation, believes the spirit to be life-- an unconscious thing breathed into you at your beginning. It significance does not reside its independence or eternality.


66. How can one hold to the barbaric belief that something has to DIE in order to appease a god for a bad deed? -- Nickolaus Wing [Note: Because an old book says so Nick.]
Copy and paste (somewhat) from an answer in the (1-43). I can only speak of my own theology which some denominations hold. And I will now be speaking with a religious tone. The plan of salvation was not so much to send Christ here to earth to die, but rather to send him here to live. Through his life people understood God in a new way as well the extent to which God loved, and the lengths to which he would go to be with his people, his creation. At a particular moment in time, mainly the Roman Empire, the news of Christ, his teachings, his advent was able to spread quickly. The death of Christ may have been forseen from the beginning, thus reason to be placed into older testament prophecy, however, this was not the purpose of Christ.

If it was.. then the question could become more potent by asking-- if the purpose of Christ was to die for our sins, why didn't he do it at the age of 5? or 10? or.. whatever?


67. Why does SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) occur? Why would God allow a baby to live for such a short period of time? Why not just let them not be born in the first place? -- Terry Clark [Note: This actually happened to a friend of mine. Not even God himself could console her.]
I'm sorry to hear that.

Why do bad things happen to seemingly the most innocent of individuals? My brother and his wife struggled with this when his wife had a miscarriage.

I can only say this. That the belief in a God, even a Christian God, does not necessarily include a premise that God actively participates in every event. It does however, require that he can, under the idea of omnipotence. But, under the idea of omniscient, if God is such a thing, then it faith in God's omniscience allows for the belief that God allows sin to continue to run its course, to an extent, for a purpose within his omniscient mind.

This might sound like cheating.. or at least not answering the question. But once again, it is a question that is constructed in a way that allows me to presume anything about God, as long as it is not contradictory or illogical within its own construct.. or previous ones that I have stated.


68. If Jesus was nailed and died on Friday evening, and walked out of the tomb on Sunday morning, where's the 3rd NIGHT he predicted? Per Matthew 12:40: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. -
This is an awesome question. I admit. I will have to look into it. Forgive me for putting this one on hold.


69. Many Christians claim that hell is merely existence outside of God ?s presence (C.S. Lewis among others). If this is the case, then Jesus could not have descended into hell (being God Himself). As a result, are you sure your sins are forgiven? - Byron Bultsma
Hm.. do not believe in Hell. Therefore.. do not believe it necessary for him to have traveled to hell for our sins to be forgiven.

70. Ten to twenty percent of all women who discover they are pregnant suffer a miscarriage. Also, it is estimated that anywhere from 14 to 50 percent of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. Seeing this is all part of God 's plan, does this make God the world's number one abortion provider? - Jim
See answer to 67.

71. What if, when you get to Heaven, you saw God causing pain and suffering out of anger or for the purpose of entertaining himself. What if he required people in heaven to praise and worship him non-stop even to the point of causing his worshipers discomfort, pain and boredom. What if, when he was bored, angry, or jealous, he would create natural disasters to make himself feel better. Would you still follow him? - Fernando [Note: Of course they would Fernando, many people followed Hitler out of fear as well.]
No. And per the note: Fine. I will say that I 'hope I would not.'

72. In Leviticus, the bible condemns homosexuality as an "abomination", giving some Christians a reason to hate, harass, torture and kill gays and even picket their funderals with " God hates fags" signs. In the same book of the bible the eating of shellfish is equally an "abomination". Are these Christians planning to go after the patrons of Red Lobster next? - buckcash@buckcash.com [Note: hee-hee, that's all I can say. Jewish Law states that eating Fish without scales is an abomination and thus the Shark is one among the list. However, sharks do have scales, Placoid scales, one of the many reasons why a shark is called a Fish .]
The applicability of abomination to homosexuality does not equate, necessary based off biblical writing OT/NT conjunction, to hate, harass, torture, and kill gays or any other person that this word can apply to.

Furthermore.... well nevermind, I won't go furthermore.

73. Christians will tell you that if a baby dies it goes to heaven. Why then are they so against abortion? All the child is being deprived of is the opportunity to go to hell. Either that or god expects unborn fetuses to accept Jesus. -
Good point if a child's existence affected only him/herself. (I do not believe that souls go straight to heaven.. but let me continue anyways). For instance.. if Winston Churchill had been killed as a baby he may or may not have gone to heaven, but even or, would WWII have ended the same? Apply this to anyone you consider to have done something "worthwhile" in life.


74. If one could prove to you incontrovertibly that Jesus and God were all human fabrications would still believe? And why? - LOGICnREASON [Note: If you say yes. Then you are not concerned with the truth, you simply WANT to believe; and if you WANT to believe, indeed, there is nothing anyone can tell you..]
Incontrovertibly?!?!?!!?!?! Well. If I accept the hypothetical.. then at that point in time I could either choose to be irrational or choose no to believe in God-- we are of course speaking of "incontrovertibly." I would probably say no. But.. let's wait until it happens-- Eye-wink


75. It is often said that God allows evil because one could not meaningfully appreciate good without experiencing its opposite. Why is it necessary to experience the opposite of something in order to appreciate it? Must I experience death in order to meaningfully appreciate life? -excidius
Well.. you might meaningfully appreciate life if you experienced death, or might not. Don't know.. perhaps after death we can discuss it. Oh wait.. we're dead.


Furthermore.. I don't believe this premise. Irrevelant to me.

76. Bible literalists want you to believe that God's Word in the Bible is meant to be taken literally. If this is the case, why was Jesus fond of explaining things in parable and metaphor? Was Jesus literally discussing the biology of mustard seeds, or was the mustard seed parable meant to be interpreted figuratively as faith? -excidius
Hmm.. perhaps you should ask my brother, he is more the literalist then I am. But let me try for a moment. If I am a literalist I believe that though bible should be taken literally.. therefore, where it says itself to be relating a parable.. take it to mean it speaking of a parable.. when it says it is speaking of a prophecy.. take it to mean a prophecy.

Mustard seed parable was meant to be taken as a parable.. as Jesus mentioned to his disciples.


77. Liberal Christians say some parts of the Bible are literally true, but much else is to be interpreted figuratively as allegory. How do you know which is which? What distinguishing criteria are used? How can you be certain "God" is a literal and not a figurative concept? -excidius
Look up. To 76.. not literally up. >.>

78. Consciousness is the result of a physical brain, how could God being metaphysical be said to be conscious or sentient without having a brain? - Mindless
The physical explanation of Consciousness only goes so far as to explain it appears to be a function of controlled electrical charges.

This does not restrict it to a physical brain. And even so.. when we move to the idea of the metaphysical.. I cannot prove to you that something I have never seen can some quality.

79. Considering how Leviticus is considered old law, and that Christians do not obey it anymore, why do they always use it to defend homosexuality being an "abomination"? -Bohorquez
Um.. want me to speak on homosexuality? I can.. but.. its a very long discussion. Say.. "See 79" and I will get back to it.

80. If God is omnipotent and he has a plan ... then why did he not create the universe as it will be one second after the plan has succeeded? Who or what prevented him from doing that? - Timothy Campbell (http://www.tc123.com)
The concept of freewill and it's connection to God's (granted, I only speak of my understanding of a Christian God) nature of loving creator.

In accordance with his nature he needed to create.. and needed to instill free will. (This is a Christian God I speak of once again, my understanding of the Christian God).

Tis true that perhaps he could have created us all with the memories of sin instilled with us and therefore a lack of sufficient curiousity on the matter to go searching for it once again. But this would not have been consistent with his need to instill free will.. for he would be creating a whole life which was unlived, put it into the mind of a person.


81. The large majority of people who have ever existed could not have learned of the Bible or Jesus Christ. And many people afterwards have found other religions or no religion at all to be more convincing, sometimes while being very virtuous. Do all these people really deserve eternal torment because of that? -- lpetrich
Don't believe in eternal torment.. irrelevant for me. Someone else can feel free to address.


82. The above arguments also apply among different sects of Christianity, many of which state that most others are not True Christianity. -- lpetrich
Not mine. No need to address it.


83. Is it reasonable for the Creator and Ruler of such a vast Universe to be preoccupied with the sexuality of a species living on a tiny little planet? -- lpetrich
Only if the sexuality of that species coincided with his purpose in creating the world in the first place.


84. If the Christian god was all loving and all knowing why did he let religious figures such as Mohammed or Gautama Budda be born, knowing that they would mislead people from the 'true' faith and trick the majority of the world's population into burning forever in hell (in fact, if Islam didn't start, most of the middle east would probably be Christian). It would simple to use the Holy Spirit to guide them to Jesus and spread the 'true' faith. If the Holy Spirit exits, it certainly isn't doing it's job!
Mohammed and Buddha were human.. imperfect, I believe, just as I am. If god decided to destroy them for the mere reason that they are imperfect.. then he would likewise have to destroy me.

Of course.. I don't believe that God destroys people for being imperfect.

85. If one is obliged to follow all the teachings of the bible then why is engaging in homosexuality or adultery any worse than "suffering a witch to live", "muzzling the ox that treadeth the corn", "reaping the corners of thy field", "marring the corners of they beard", "plowing with an oxen and an ass", "hating thy brother in thy heart" or "eating frogs, shellfish and eels" ?
This requires even more explanation of semantics, cross referencing, linguistics, and so on.. if you wish me to address this one-- ad it is the only one you have a problem with. Say "See 85"

86. Exactly how did the alleged worldwide flood kill off all the world's sea creatures? How does one go about drowning a fish? -- Steever
I do not believe the bible necessitates the idea that fished drowned. Feel free to address this if you feel like looking intro scripture.


87. Why did this alleged god create humans as an animal form of life that gets sick and dies and experiences pain and has a limited mind when 'it' could have created humans as a form of pure energy or of some indestructible material or whatever, and was totally ?sinless? and had ?pure? thought? If a god was omnipotent 'it' could have easily have done this. --AI
Sin is a function of curiousity. Curiousity if a function of freewill. God I suppose could have created something without freewill, or curiousity.. but then-- I would have to change my understanding of God in that he is Loving and Creative in nature.




88. If a god is omnipotent how did 'it' fail to foresee that Satan would turn against 'it'? --AI
Who said he did fail to foresee it? And if this is meant to lead to the question: Then why did he create him? Look up to 87 and many questions before. Since this one tends to pop up in some form or another over and over again.


89. What is a god supposedly made of? --AI
Got me. Of course.. I don't really know what a white dwarf (the celestial kind) is made up of either. I suppose in time I will learn.

This list was compiled by the Infidel Guy with submissions from many members of the atheist community.


Wow.. I'm tired now.


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
OK then, I guess I'll be up

OK then, I guess I'll be up for the challenge. I don't have the necessary time to answer all questions, though.

1. Indeed, you are right, the OT didn't require ALL jews to recognize Christ. However, one would say that such a miracle-worker, who fulfilled the prophecies, would be at least recognized by the majority, and that its cult would be kept by the "chosen people". Unfortunately, this is not the case.

2. Actually, I believe my peers wish to ask something else. The Bible states that there actually is a physical connection to the Heavens, only that it is guarded by the guy with the flaming sword. Why hasn't it been found yet, now, when we can say that we can map almost all areas of the earth with extreme accuracy?

3. OK, we shall wait... but 10000 years is quite a long time. Could we please reduce it by a square root ?

4. Let me rephrase the question: "For person X, the utter bliss would be to have sex with Claudia Schiffer. For her, however, that would be, needless to say, "less than that". Presuming both these persons go to heaven, how will the problem be solved?"

5. I doubt any superior being would need to express feeling when dealing with inferiors. My Latin teacher was a live example of it in the 6th grade.

6. You are making a false analogy here. For one: I don't punish children by going to hell. God does, even if it is for a brief period (a few thousand years). I don't know for sure that they will disappoint me, there might be a chance they won't, and also, I admit that people are imperfect, so I consider it a good parenthood if the disappointments are lesser than the victories; God however KNOWS precisely when and how his "children" will disappoint him. Furthermore, I can "create" in the sense that I decide about half of my child's genetical characteristics, "decide" as in I give him my genes through a randomization function to decide which half; God however decides EVERYTHING about his whole creation.

 

More in a few hours when I get back.

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
OK, continuing from where

OK, continuing from where I'd left off.

7. I could say the same

8. Frankly, the point of muslim prayer and its directions is useless to me, so I will not argue you on this one.

9. Hmm... funny you should answer that. Could you give me one more example? I am asking because I think there's one difference between betraying a miracle-maker all by itself and betraying a miracle-maker after he tells you that you're supposed to betray him (as was the case of Judas) for the work of God to have its way.

10. Your point is the mootest one I've ever seen, so I'll debate it in more than one paragraph:

- for Satan challenging God... it seemed to me, by reading the Bible, that this Satan character isn't exactly a stupid one. I mean for deceipt of the kind that has supposedly been done to Adam and Eve, a certain ammount of intelligence is needed. Surely that intelligence, coupled with the fact that Satan is the creation of God, would lead the former into noticing the pointlessness of challenging an omnipotent, omniscient being. I mean I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but even I see that it is useless to challenge something if you know for sure that you have absolutely no way of going against his will

- your analogy with a scientist is at least ridiculous... from who does God keep his creation, his "invention" ? Why would he have uncertainty, since he has omniscience? How can a god not know ALL the characteristics and processes of his creation, when he is omniscient?

- your God institutes Hell as eternal torture. as to why he would do that, well, that's what we atheists are also wondering.

11. "See 11." This IS 11. and there's nothing to see here. Come on, man, face it: the writings are clear. What semantics? you want to say that "killed" isn't used as "killed" here? and that "mauling" is actually used as "gently stroking" ? Get over yourself !

12. Well, their "holy inspiration" is at least challenging to comprehend. Check out www.skeptiksannotatedbible.com and www.evilbible.com to find out why exactly.

13. "God leads, and he doesn't control". We have another one who does not understand the contradiction between omniscience and free will. By seeing so many, "Ignorance is bliss", I must admit...

14. I don't think that you yourself understood what you wrote there, but let's say it goes. I'm waiting for a clear-up on this one before I can answer.

15. Well, if you have no idea what atemporal means, then what are you doing debating it? Semantics are OK as long as the word has actually developed to mean what its components mean.

16. Infidel Guy didn't phrase it too well here. Let me: 1) Having faith is all what takes for the object of a faith to be true; 2) All faiths are supported by at least one person that has faith in the object of that faith; Therefore: 3) all faiths have supporters who "have faith"; Since all you need for a faith to be true is for that faith to have adepts that... "have faith", that results in all faiths currently in existence are true. Which is, of course, not the case.

What IG wanted to ask, actually, is the century-old question that can be summarized with "Which is the true god? Yahweh? Allah? Zeus? Buddha?".

17. ...and I have already debated those answers, 7 and 10. Let me put it this way: Why would God "hope" for sin not to enter the world, when he knows WITHOUT DOUBT that it will? Surely you can observe the pointlessness of such a hope.

18. I presume you wanted to say that "spirit" is NOT universal (or at least that's what your argument points out). In that case, would someone please clarify which is the theologically correct term? Because without it, there's a risk that we were mislead and drew false conclusions. If there isn't, indeed, a unitary, correct definition of it, then why bother even talking about it ?

19. Without realizing, you have actually proven the author of the question right Smiling

20. OK, your answer 5 hasn't much to do with the point. Disappointment means indeed what you stated, but perhaps you should have also defined "expectation". Can we really talk about God's expectations? If I know that Johnny will succeed, because I have seen the future, will I have "expectations" towards him? No, because I know for sure that whatever standards I set to Johnny, he will meet up with one specific standard, regardxless of my wishful thinking. Therefore, for an omniscient being, it is pointless to have expectations, since he KNOWS FOR SURE what will happen. Therefore, can we talk about disappointment in God?

You mean to say, I presume, that this "disappointment" is how God wants to make himself understood by humans at that time. Point moot, however, because God surely knows that this would cause disputes in the future, and may have chosen a better path. Also, at question 5, I have stated that a superior being isn't forced by anything to show feelings or to relate through feelings with inferiors.

21. Your point is (again) invalid. You mean to say that at a certain point in history, building a tall tower was bad, and at another, the same action wasn't bad? This proves (if true, but not even someone bound on bashing religion out of principle would believe that to be true) that God is not an atemporal being, and neither are the conditions of Heaven and, possibly, Hell. Besides, if Heaven isn't "in the skies", as the ancients believed, then why bothering to destroy something that would have had absolutely no way of reaching its intended purpose of deconspiring God?

22. Seems to me that you have no grasp of the watchmaker analogy. Read more.

23. ...and I have proven 10 and 12 to be the most invalid possible arguments.

24. ...again, point 10. I must add something here: If Eve didn't know what's good and bad, then she surely didn't know that betraying god is something bad (not knowing what "bad" is). Therefore, why was she punished?

25. ...again, 10 as invalid. I do not agree myself with the 4 arguments, but I do agree with the original question. The question is why there's so much accent on the "sacrifice"? Christ didn't sacrifice anything. If I am asked to stand 3 days of torment, just to gain eternal bliss, then I would certainly go for it. But is that a sacrifice? No, it isn't.

That's the point of this question.

26. Stop pointing at question 10, please ! it's not in your best interest, trust me ! Besides, your answer is simply restating that you don't know why people say "God bless America" either, in which case we're glad you're on the team.

27. One point: I thought that God was supposed to be omnipresent. What is, in that case, the "absence of God" ? Furthermore, your last paragraph makes absolutely no sense to the question. Could you explain what you wanted to say?

28. Thank you for agreeing with us...

29. Idem

30. Ibidem

31. I fail to see the point in your answer

32. OK, so we would all be jealous. I REALLY fail to see the point in your answer

33. Not a muslim, check

34. Don't know, check... going forth

35. I thought I told you not to refer to 10 anymore ! Trust me, it's really not in your best interest!

36. OK then...

37. ...and how would humans know that God actually rested, since it is stated in the Bible that no man will ever see the face of God and live? So much for lead by example, what can I say...

38. We don't agree with this concept of death either. Join the club.

39. Umm, sure, he would just tell them "I am an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being that has no resemblance with you. For you to speak with me, let us just say that I will take this form when dealing directly with you."

40. Wow, your grasp of atheism has left me speechless. Where was the guy with the signature "When you'll understand why you dismiss all other gods, then you'll understand why I dismiss yours as well."?

41. So practically praying is only self-comfort? A placebo? Well that surely explains much...

42. I doubt Bill Gates would do that, as he stands to gain nothing more than what he had before. But to gain an eternity of bliss is something ! Besides, this question raises another one. Where did Jesus come from? If he is (you know, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit) part of God, then he is also timeless in essence. So where did He come from? I don't remember God ever introducing Adam and Eve to his son...

43. ...question 10 again...

44. When creating the maze, Daedalus was nothing compared to you. What in the World are you trying to say here ?

45. Umm, actually legal systems AREN'T built this way. In most (if not all), one can escape penalty if it is proven that he doesn't have a grasp of what consequences his actions have. That's why no underage person is responsible in a penal court up to the age of ... (fill in with the age, according to local laws; where I live it's 16, or 14 if psychological investigation proves understanding of implications). Your analogy is based on the wrong assumption. and I believe I am in the right to speak about it since I study law at university.

46. Your answer is completely uncomprehensible. Could you clarify, please ?

47. OK, point taken. Question remains, though: what "denomination" is correct? We cannot play with "I think it's like this" if the stakes are possibly eternal bliss or eternal torture. what's the correct version, and how do you know?

48. ...again question 10...

49. well, go in depth... we have read quite a lot, and we might not agree with you. Anyway, to me your answer is irrelevant, since I do not agree with the question.

50. Invalid point, invalid analogy. The fact that you yourself don't believe in the problem doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist. You might be a fortunate Christian, more intellectually developed than others, but the question from my answer 47 still remains.

 

OK, that's 50. I can't answer anymore for the moment. I'll get back on you later.

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Wow.  Alright.  Sounds

Wow.  Alright.  Sounds good. Let me attempt.


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Rigor_OMortis wrote:

Rigor_OMortis wrote:
OK then, I guess I'll be up for the challenge. I don't have the necessary time to answer all questions, though.

1. Indeed, you are right, the OT didn't require ALL jews to recognize Christ. However, one would say that such a miracle-worker, who fulfilled the prophecies, would be at least recognized by the majority, and that its cult would be kept by the "chosen people". Unfortunately, this is not the case.


The majority of people should at least recognize that the Indiana Colts are the best team at the moment, but they don't. Some people say the Saints, some other the Chargers, some even the Cardinals. Why?

Because brand/idea/loyalty has a lot stronger hold on people then I suppose many of us would like to think. We like to think that we are open-minded individuals that can easily move between understandings, worldviews, with nary a breath in between. But is this the case?

I suppose that is what this debate is about in the first place. Not that either of us has given a better or worse proof, or rational to believe what we believe-- we're just answering questions.. when I'm sure there is an infinite amount more.

So. That is just something I wanted to say. But.. actually.. I'm going for the Bears. As for the fulfillment of prophecy.. one of the beliefs that early Jews had about the Messiah, if I understand the religion correctly, was that the Messiah's purpose was to free them from the Romans and set up an new kingdom.. in the literal sense-- while Jesus proclaim his kingdom not to be understood in this sense. Some people accepted his new use of scripture.. others did not.

RM wrote:
2. Actually, I believe my peers wish to ask something else. The Bible states that there actually is a physical connection to the Heavens, only that it is guarded by the guy with the flaming sword. Why hasn't it been found yet, now, when we can say that we can map almost all areas of the earth with extreme accuracy?


I don't understand your second sentence. You use "only that" after a comma, which would imply that there was some negative statement before the comma. "The bible states that there is not a physical connection to the Heavens, only that it is guarded... etc." But that wouldn't make sense-- I don't think. Um.

But I'll expand on the answer. My answer was just stating the possibility that the sword and angel are no longer there. And there is necessary reason to believe that they still would need to be, from a Biblical standpoint.

RM wrote:
3. OK, we shall wait... but 10000 years is quite a long time. Could we please reduce it by a square root ?

Heh. 100 then. But we'll be dead. 10 would kind of be good. But I suppose in 10 I would ask for another 10.. and be justified in doing so. Science is self-contained, expanding and contracting at it's own will (well, more the will of the members inside). What I mean by this is that scientist only go so far as to "prove" something at this point in time, within there self-constructed, changing, limitations.

For instance. String Theory, Quantum Physics, Microbiology, Evolution even.. are all fairly recent developments in science that have expanded definitions and contracted others-- developing new branches of science and taking others away.

So when I say wait 10000 years.. it only means to imply that in 10000 years new evidence may have been gathers, or new means and definitions with which to define older evidence.. and therefore, we would not say that 10000 years prior it "proved" there opinion at there time. Even as I would suggest you would not agree that the "scientist" of old "proved" the the world was round through empirical evidence (experiential in this case.)

And no.. I do not mean to imply, by saying that science has difficulty "proving" things within its own self-structured methodology, that science is useless.

RM wrote:
4. Let me rephrase the question: "For person X, the utter bliss would be to have sex with Claudia Schiffer. For her, however, that would be, needless to say, "less than that". Presuming both these persons go to heaven, how will the problem be solved?"


"For person X, the utter bliss would be to kill everyone else. Everyone else is less fond of this idea."

Yes.. I do believe there to be some statistical error when going through those people that will, might, be in heaven (if it exists).

While you may find people here that believe they love to kill, and 'utter bliss' to have sex with Claudia Schiffer.. I don't believe it to be true that they will necessarily be heaven.

I could just as easily speculate that only one person will be in heaven, you.

"What if?"

Once again. I will have to say-- wait and see. If you and me are both in heaven (I've don't believe I have a perfect grasp of the idea of salvation) and there a bunch of people that want to have sex with Claudia Schiffer, who of course will be there, then we will discuss it. And if we're not both in heaven.. then it's possible we are both dead... so no point in asking the question.

RM wrote:
5. I doubt any superior being would need to express feeling when dealing with inferiors. My Latin teacher was a live example of it in the 6th grade.

My mom sure expressed feeling with me when I was in the 6th grade.

Furthermore.. I'm not saying that God does not have qualities that could be described with emotional terms.. only that these terms do not necessarily express the full complexity of the truth. For instance.. when I was 5.. I drew a picture of my Dad as a Mr. Potato Head.. I thought it was the best representation I could do at the time.. and.. if ever I saw that picture in the future.. I would know what it represented and I would understand it in a way particular to me as a 5 year old.

My dad was not necessarily a Mr. Potato Head.

RM wrote:
6. You are making a false analogy here. For one: I don't punish children [sending them to] hell. God does, even if it is for a brief period (a few thousand years). I don't know for sure that they will disappoint me, there might be a chance they won't, and also, I admit that people are imperfect, so I consider it a good parenthood if the disappointments are lesser than the victories; God however KNOWS precisely when and how his "children" will disappoint him. Furthermore, I can "create" in the sense that I decide about half of my child's genetical characteristics, "decide" as in I give him my genes through a randomization function to decide which half; God however decides EVERYTHING about his whole creation.


Response to first part first. As I responded to my first answer in 4.. I do not personally believe in hell, nor eternal agony. To say "God does," as you've used.. is to restricted this response to a certain group of Christians, perhaps even the majority, but.. does not necessarily make it true for all Christians.

Disappoint in the sense that they do not live up to your highest hopes: I'm sure that every child is guilty of this at one particular time... does that mean you don't birth them at all? (You as a couple)

If you remove Hell, in the sense of complete agony propagated by God, then it can be said that God created merely because he wished to give life. Despite 'knowing' that his creations would not live up to his highest hopes, he created them, and with free will and curiousity which would be the factors that allowed for the disappointment in the first place.

But if he had choose otherwise, to create without free will and curiousity.. what else would we be? A computer? an animal? True I suppose. If we were created as an animal then we would not have sinned.. of course-- we wouldn't necessarily be having this discussion either.

And I don't mean to change the debate to.. "God being omnipotent could've made freewill to not include the possibility to sin." Because that would be... a huge philosphical discussion-- one I'm not sure I'm prepared for, but I suppose I can try if someone wishes.

 

Neither do I wish to change the conversation to the extent of an animals freewill or curuosity.. although if these are necessary to debate then we can.

Hopefully these answers are sufficient to continue the conversation... I don't believe I'm smarter then anyone else.. we're all as smart as our own unique experiences grant us the ability to be geniuses of our own perspective. (That was a bit of nonsensical poetics Eye-wink


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Rigor_OMortis wrote: The

Rigor_OMortis wrote:
The majority of people should at least recognize that the Indiana Colts are the best team at the moment, but they don't. Some people say the Saints, some other the Chargers, some even the Cardinals. Why?

Because brand/idea/loyalty has a lot stronger hold on people then I suppose many of us would like to think. We like to think that we are open-minded individuals that can easily move between understandings, worldviews, with nary a breath in between. But is this the case?

I suppose that is what this debate is about in the first place. Not that either of us has given a better or worse proof, or rational to believe what we believe-- we're just answering questions.. when I'm sure there is an infinite amount more.

So. That is just something I wanted to say. But.. actually.. I'm going for the Bears. As for the fulfillment of prophecy.. one of the beliefs that early Jews had about the Messiah, if I understand the religion correctly, was that the Messiah's purpose was to free them from the Romans and set up an new kingdom.. in the literal sense-- while Jesus proclaim his kingdom not to be understood in this sense. Some people accepted his new use of scripture.. others did not.

Well then, the question thus remains: How do we know that Jesus is actually the real messiah ? How do we know that it is not the work of the Devil to stray us far from the OT, the true biblibal texts?

You seem to make the point that it is a subjective thing whether or not J.C. was the actual Jewish messiah (your example illustrates that). In that case, how do we know ehich variant is correct? OT or J.C. ? As I stated before, it isn't a matter of "OK, I'm wrong, so what?", but a matter of actual punishment.

Quote:
I don't understand your second sentence. You use "only that" after a comma, which would imply that there was some negative statement before the comma. "The bible states that there is not a physical connection to the Heavens, only that it is guarded... etc." But that wouldn't make sense-- I don't think. Um.

But I'll expand on the answer. My answer was just stating the possibility that the sword and angel are no longer there. And there is necessary reason to believe that they still would need to be, from a Biblical standpoint.

OK, rephrase, again: 1) Bible states physical connection to heavens, gives precise location, tells us it is guarded by angel with flaming sword; 2) angel with sword never found; 3) We can say we have mapped the whole earth pretty accurately; Therefore the question: Where's the physical connection to Heaven? Nobody found it.

Quote:
Heh. 100 then. But we'll be dead. 10 would kind of be good. But I suppose in 10 I would ask for another 10.. and be justified in doing so. Science is self-contained, expanding and contracting at it's own will (well, more the will of the members inside). What I mean by this is that scientist only go so far as to "prove" something at this point in time, within there self-constructed, changing, limitations.

For instance. String Theory, Quantum Physics, Microbiology, Evolution even.. are all fairly recent developments in science that have expanded definitions and contracted others-- developing new branches of science and taking others away.

So when I say wait 10000 years.. it only means to imply that in 10000 years new evidence may have been gathers, or new means and definitions with which to define older evidence.. and therefore, we would not say that 10000 years prior it "proved" there opinion at there time. Even as I would suggest you would not agree that the "scientist" of old "proved" the the world was round through empirical evidence (experiential in this case.)

And no.. I do not mean to imply, by saying that science has difficulty "proving" things within its own self-structured methodology, that science is useless.

In this respect we will always be able to say "let's wait another 10000 years, we still don't have a proof that the newly-printed Bible of the Spaghetti Monster is true or false, or whether or not it contradicts the slimy toad vibrational theory."

From my point of view, waiting would be good. Until now, time seems to work against faith.

Quote:
"For person X, the utter bliss would be to kill everyone else. Everyone else is less fond of this idea."

Yes.. I do believe there to be some statistical error when going through those people that will, might, be in heaven (if it exists).

While you may find people here that believe they love to kill, and 'utter bliss' to have sex with Claudia Schiffer.. I don't believe it to be true that they will necessarily be heaven.

I could just as easily speculate that only one person will be in heaven, you.

"What if?"

Once again. I will have to say-- wait and see. If you and me are both in heaven (I've don't believe I have a perfect grasp of the idea of salvation) and there a bunch of people that want to have sex with Claudia Schiffer, who of course will be there, then we will discuss it. And if we're not both in heaven.. then it's possible we are both dead... so no point in asking the question.

Same as above for the last paragraph.

What you did here is a straw man. I didn't say person X wants to kill everybody. I only said that he wants to have sex (ok, if you insist, "be married and have children, unto the name of Lord&quotEye-wink with C.Sch. I am therefore constructing a plausible situation in which both persons in question can get into heaven.

You have indeed defeated a situation, but it is not the one I gave you. Thus a straw man.

Please resort to answering to MY situation, NOT another one.

Quote:
My mom sure expressed feeling with me when I was in the 6th grade.

Furthermore.. I'm not saying that God does not have qualities that could be described with emotional terms.. only that these terms do not necessarily express the full complexity of the truth. For instance.. when I was 5.. I drew a picture of my Dad as a Mr. Potato Head.. I thought it was the best representation I could do at the time.. and.. if ever I saw that picture in the future.. I would know what it represented and I would understand it in a way particular to me as a 5 year old.

My dad was not necessarily a Mr. Potato Head.

Forgive me, I have no idea who your Mr. Potato Head is.

My argument was that God actually has feelings, but, due to a misunderstanding, we seem to not have seen that we agree.

OK, so God has feelings, you say.

And thus we come and ask: Why would an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being resort to human limitations such as feelings?

Quote:
Response to first part first. As I responded to my first answer in 4.. I do not personally believe in hell, nor eternal agony. To say "God does," as you've used.. is to restricted this response to a certain group of Christians, perhaps even the majority, but.. does not necessarily make it true for all Christians.

OK then, the question does not apply to you. No problem, we are talking in general about all beliefs here.

Quote:
Disappoint in the sense that they do not live up to your highest hopes: I'm sure that every child is guilty of this at one particular time... does that mean you don't birth them at all? (You as a couple)

You didn't get my point. I as a father DON'T KNOW FOR SURE that they will disappoint. There have been cases in which children didn't disappoint. God, however, knew that He would be disappointed. If so, then why does he punish us, even for a limited ammount of time?

Furthermore, I restate, God is omnipotent. In his situation, he has created us, he has created all the factors that have led to us disappointing him. He is responsible for his disappointment. Why does he punish us, then, eternally or un-eternally?

Besides, how could God be disappointed, if he knows everything in advance? It's useless to hope for/against it if you already know it.

Quote:
If you remove Hell, in the sense of complete agony propagated by God, then it can be said that God created merely because he wished to give life. Despite 'knowing' that his creations would not live up to his highest hopes, he created them, and with free will and curiousity which would be the factors that allowed for the disappointment in the first place.

Apart from the omniscient vs. free will paradox, the image you depicted is a nice one, and perhaps it would have been more worthy to believe in. However, the Church doesn't teach such a shiny image. It's more like "Have fear of thy God" than "God loves you all"

Quote:
But if he had choose otherwise, to create without free will and curiousity.. what else would we be? A computer? an animal? True I suppose. If we were created as an animal then we would not have sinned.. of course-- we wouldn't necessarily be having this discussion either.

The only question is: how do you know, right now, that you have free will? How do you know that your thoughts/actions aren't dictated by someone else, and you are only GIVEN the impression that you think/act?

Quote:
And I don't mean to change the debate to.. "God being omnipotent could've made freewill to not include the possibility to sin." Because that would be... a huge philosphical discussion-- one I'm not sure I'm prepared for, but I suppose I can try if someone wishes.

Actually, that whole big discussion is reduced to one question: It would have been much better gfor both us and him, why didn't he do it like so?

Quote:
Neither do I wish to change the conversation to the extent of an animals freewill or curuosity.. although if these are necessary to debate then we can.

Not a necessity. Animals aren't believers in any god.

Quote:
Hopefully these answers are sufficient to continue the conversation... I don't believe I'm smarter then anyone else.. we're all as smart as our own unique experiences grant us the ability to be geniuses of our own perspective. (That was a bit of nonsensical poetics )

Hope to go on as well. Awaiting your reply. Please also check your private message box after you read this.

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Rigor_OMortis wrote: OK,

Rigor_OMortis wrote:

OK, continuing from where I'd left off.

7. I could say the same

True.. you could.  As do I.. now.. again.

RM wrote:
8. Frankly, the point of muslim prayer and its directions is useless to me, so I will not argue you on this one.

For me yes.. but I'm sure that a Muslim would disagree that it's pointless-- but neither you or I are muslim.. so... yah.

RM wrote:
9. Hmm... funny you should answer that. Could you give me one more example? I am asking because I think there's one difference between betraying a miracle-maker all by itself and betraying a miracle-maker after he tells you that you're supposed to betray him (as was the case of Judas) for the work of God to have its way.


If I remember the story correctly.. Judas had already taken the 30 pieces of silver before the last supper-- where Jesus told he must do what he must do.

I thought my Isrealites example was another example? Um.. Jesus cast out some demons from a demoniac, one whom which a city was very aware was a demoniac, having chained him up many a times, yet they still chased him out of the city.

See.. but I'm using Biblical examples.  And it only goes so far as to answer this questions that the Bible makes its own commentary on the usefulness of miracles.. so I would have no reason to believe they would any different now.

As neither would you. Just because I've seen David Blane rip out his own heart and smash a card through a glass window doesn't mean I believe him to have magical abilities-- even though no ones explained to me how he's done that.

I say again.  I do not believe that miracles can, or should be, the basis for faith.

RM wrote:
10. Your point is the mootest one I've ever seen, so I'll debate it in more than one paragraph:

Yah.. heh, you seemed to have a really big problem with this one.

Quote:
- for Satan challenging God... it seemed to me, by reading the Bible, that this Satan character isn't exactly a stupid one. I mean for deceipt of the kind that has supposedly been done to Adam and Eve, a certain ammount of intelligence is needed. Surely that intelligence, coupled with the fact that Satan is the creation of God, would lead the former into noticing the pointlessness of challenging an omnipotent, omniscient being. I mean I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but even I see that it is useless to challenge something if you know for sure that you have absolutely no way of going against his will


I would contend that even if Satan was the sharpest knife in the drawer, he would still be nowhere close to understanding an infinite being.  Isn't this always the relationship between infinite and finite? Mathematically I mean.. anything divided by infinity is 0, unless it is infinity itself-- which, I'm not going to state that Satan himself was infinite.

So.. once again.. I give the analogy of the child his parent, and the knowledge of fire.  A child doesn't necessarily comprehend the experience and knowledge of his parents, nor the wisdom that they speak.. so when they say.. things are better left not to touch the fire.. does that mean that the child will not touch the fire?

Even Satan.. in his vast amounts of knowledge.. would not have understood the concept of something that needed experience to fully comprehend-- "seperation from God", Sin.

RM wrote:
- your analogy with a scientist is at least ridiculous... from who does God keep his creation, his "invention" ? Why would he have uncertainty, since he has omniscience? How can a god not know ALL the characteristics and processes of his creation, when he is omniscient?


i'm sorry. I should have cleared up.  I do not believe God, Angels, and Us to be the only things in the Universe.. this would be contradictory to my believe in the nature of God.. mainly that he is loving and creative in nature.  I do believe in the possibility of other entities created, living in the universe.. observing us even as the angels do.  But even if it was just those three groups of things-- then still.. Angels are not as "all knowing" as he is.

If it was just God and Us.. then yes.. perhaps your questions would be relevant because God would be proving to himself.

RM wrote:
- your God institutes Hell as eternal torture. as to why he would do that, well, that's what we atheists are also wondering.

Don't believe in Hell in the sense that I believe you are assuming-- eternal agony, fire melting off your skin at the same time God keeps you alive to experience more of it. I've stated this over and over again.

I'll do it again: Hell has many definitions within the Christian Church-- denominations can believe it to be one of many different things.  I personally believe it to be the total separation between Man and God-- which is in essence, non existence.

Each way of view Hell has it's arguments using Biblical scripture.. as well as mine.  But mine, as well as my denominations, I believe was directed at this very question.. they found it contradictory to believe in an All loving God who would keep people alive to eternally torture them for what would be a finite amount of wrongness.

Or that even Hell, total seperation from God, is punishment at all.. rather than the conscious choice of the individual.  I believe that the way you live you life, the way you think, the things you believe, are as much an answer to the question: Do I want to spend eternity with God? as much as a straight Yes or No answer in the face of God himself.

RM wrote:
11. "See 11." This IS 11. and there's nothing to see here. Come on, man, face it: the writings are clear. What semantics? you want to say that "killed" isn't used as "killed" here? and that "mauling" is actually used as "gently stroking" ? Get over yourself !


Sorry.  I don't really mean to come across as condescending.. it was not my purpose.  I'm not the most educated person in the world.. by a long shot-- I'm only 23.  I was just stating that this would take a lot of work to make a valid argument.. and since there are 80+ more questions, do you really want to focus on this one?

RM wrote:
12. Well, their "holy inspiration" is at least challenging to comprehend. Check out www.skeptiksannotatedbible.com and www.evilbible.com to find out why exactly.


The first link wasn't working for me.  I looked over the second.  Once again.. to address every single thing in the website would make the answer very long.  If you wish.. bring perhaps the one you believe to be the strongest one, and I will address that one.

RM wrote:
13. "God leads, and he doesn't control". We have another one who does not understand the contradiction between omniscience and free will. By seeing so many, "Ignorance is bliss", I must admit...


Being the man of science you are-- I'm assuming you are.  Could you please explain to me scientifically (meaning, with either evidentiary support, experiential or experimental) what an omniscience entity is and what it would contradict.

I do not mean to say that you can not define it.  Merely that it is a descriptive word... describing something that has no, in our current time, real world example.  Unlike.. lets say.. a coin-- which is a word that describes a concrete entity.

So.. while I could say that a coin has four legs.  I would be okay in saying.. however.. people would know me not to be using the world under what is commonly accepted as characteristics of a concrete entity-- and therefore it would be rational to ask, "fine then what would you call this real world entity?" I would say a "dog" the we can choose to move on from there in the conversation.

As opposed to say omniscience.. where you can say that it is contradictory with free will and I say it is not.  We would both define the word.. we would disagree.. then I would ask for any entity that can be tested under the current rules of science that makes your definition more correct than mine.

True this can be done with many words that do not have real world counterparts.... and at those times I will argue what those words mean, and whether we can agree or not on what that word means.

RM wrote:
14. I don't think that you yourself understood what you wrote there, but let's say it goes. I'm waiting for a clear-up on this one before I can answer.


Okay. I'm just trying to give logical response within the construct of biblically necessary conditions.

Animals are not equal to man.  They are, to a large extent, subject to man's world.  However, built within to them is the ability to adapt, as we have seen in experimentation, even as we are able to adapt.

If.. after the fall of man the world became a place of limitless resources to one of limited.  Natural selection therefore has a construct with which to work in.. and therefore animals adapted to the situation.. even as man did.

RM wrote:
15. Well, if you have no idea what atemporal means, then what are you doing debating it? Semantics are OK as long as the word has actually developed to mean what its components mean.


Alright.. I argue atemporal because I do not know what it means.  Correct.  Let me admit my ignorance on the subject, yet, let me in the same breath say this.. as I did early on something else:

Being the man of science you are-- I'm assuming you are.  Could you please explain to me scientifically (meaning, with either evidentiary support, experiential or experimental) what something that is atemporal can or cannot do.

See 13.

RM wrote:
16. Infidel Guy didn't phrase it too well here. Let me: 1) Having faith is all [it] takes for the object of a faith to be true; 2) All faiths are supported by at least one person that has faith in the object of that faith; Therefore: 3) all faiths have supporters who "have faith"; Since all you need for a faith to be true is for that faith to have adepts that... "have faith", that results in all faiths currently in existence are true. Which is, of course, not the case.

What IG wanted to ask, actually, is the century-old question that can be summarized with "Which is the true god? Yahweh? Allah? Zeus? Buddha?".


In this case I would disagree with you first premise.  Having faith in something is not all it takes for something to be, in actuality, true.  I have faith that God is real.  Does not make God real.  There is a truth.. and there is un-truth.

I have faith in what is truth.

A rational, not contradictory, faith Eye-wink

RM wrote:
17. ...and I have already debated those answers, 7 and 10. Let me put it this way: Why would God "hope" for sin not to enter the world, when he knows WITHOUT DOUBT that it will? Surely you can observe the pointlessness of such a hope.


Well.. once again I'm going to have to accept you concept of omniscience for a moment even though I don't necessarily agree with all it implies.

But let say he "knows without a doubt" in the way you and I understand "knows without a doubt."

I hope nothing will die tomorrow, even though I know without a doubt that someone will-- tis the nature of this world.

Perhaps that isn't the best example since you might disagree with my use of the word know.

So.. let me take the other route.

Biblically.. got never hoped.. merely wished.. and was disappointed.. (refer to early answer for my idea of these words being applied to an infinite being in the first place).  

As for why did he create man if he knew he would need to kill man? As if man was some unseparable entity.

Man is not.  You are a man.  I am a man.  We are man.

Obviously God did not kill man.. for we are still here-- therefore his creation has not been completely wiped from existence and there still might be some purpose to our creation in the first place.

RM wrote:
18. I presume you wanted to say that "spirit" is NOT universal (or at least that's what your argument points out). In that case, would someone please clarify which is the theologically correct term? Because without it, there's a risk that we were mislead and drew false conclusions. If there isn't, indeed, a unitary, correct definition of it, then why bother even talking about it ?


There is no universally theologically correct term or definition for the idea of "spirit" even as there is not one for "god."

And your last assumption is incorrect.  There may not be a term or definition of a particular word in the universal sense.. but there is an accepted definition for you.. and there is one for you.

And we can choose to use particular words for particular definitions.

Not all debates address all people.. they only need to address a particular amount of people to have a purpose.

RM wrote:
19. Without realizing, you have actually proven the author of the question right Smiling


I don't see how I did.  The second part of that argument uses the same logic as the question and leads to a conclusion that is not experientially true.  A doctor is a doctor because of some unchanging nature apart from his interest in helping patients-- even as Gods definition of God resides outside of his nature to create man (Us, specifically).

RM wrote:
20. OK, your answer 5 hasn't much to do with the point. Disappointment means indeed what you stated, but perhaps you should have also defined "expectation". Can we really talk about God's expectations? If I know that Johnny will succeed, because I have seen the future, will I have "expectations" towards him? No, because I know for sure that whatever standards I set to Johnny, he will meet up with one specific standard, regardxless of my wishful thinking. Therefore, for an omniscient being, it is pointless to have expectations, since he KNOWS FOR SURE what will happen. Therefore, can we talk about disappointment in God?

You mean to say, I presume, that this "disappointment" is how God wants to make himself understood by humans at that time. Point moot, however, because God surely knows that this would cause disputes in the future, and may have chosen a better path. Also, at question 5, I have stated that a superior being isn't forced by anything to show feelings or to relate through feelings with inferiors.


I used 5 in application to the word "disappointed."

Expectations.. fine.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/expectations
2.    the act or state of looking forward or anticipating.

I'm going to apply the first part of this "or" statement.. "the act of looking forward."

God expectations (if in fact this word is used in the bible in an accurate way).. then I would just argue that he was looking forward.

Need a verse to specially address this if you want to.

As for the purpose of creating in the first place.. I state to reconsider my analogy of conception.


RM wrote:
21. Your point is (again) invalid. You mean to say that at a certain point in history, building a tall tower was bad, and at another, the same action wasn't bad? This proves (if true, but not even someone bound on bashing religion out of principle would believe that to be true) that God is not an atemporal being, and neither are the conditions of Heaven and, possibly, Hell. Besides, if Heaven isn't "in the skies", as the ancients believed, then why bothering to destroy something that would have had absolutely no way of reaching its intended purpose of deconspiring God?


I'm not saying 'bad'.. I'm saying 'not wanted' by God.

For instance.. if a doctor performs a C-section on 2-month pregnant woman.. the results would be very different then a on a 9-month pregnant woman.  The c-section is not, in and of itself, bad.. it is just an act that has different consequences depending on when it was done.

RM wrote:
22. Seems to me that you have no grasp of the watchmaker analogy. Read more.

I'm saying the watch analogy used in the first place.. I don't agree.

Meaning those Christians who say.. look at a watch.. look at the universe.. surely the universe is more complex than a watch.. therefore it must have been designed even as the watch was.  

I disagree with that analogy.    If you tell me I am wrong.. or I do not understand it.. then feel free to explain.

RM wrote:
23. ...and I have proven 10 and 12 to be the most invalid possible arguments.

Umm.... reread.. tell me if still.  It may be.

RM wrote:
24. ...again, point 10. I must add something here: If Eve didn't know what's good and bad, then she surely didn't know that betraying god is something bad (not knowing what "bad" is). Therefore, why was she punished?

Reread.. tell me if still.

As for the Eve thing.

Let me again.. let me again distinguish, as I tried to before, punishment and consequence.

Punishment is when a parent spanks his child for nailing something into the wall.

Consequence is when a child burns his finger on the fire.

I believe the separation of God and Man was a consequence of his decision.. not a punishment for sinning.

Quote:
25. ...again, 10 as invalid. I do not agree myself with the 4 arguments, but I do agree with the original question. The question is why there's so much accent on the "sacrifice"? Christ didn't sacrifice anything. If I am asked to stand 3 days of torment, just to gain eternal bliss, then I would certainly go for it. But is that a sacrifice? No, it isn't.

Again.. reread.  

Torment does not exist.. don't exist in hell.  As for gaining eternal bliss.. Christ did not 'gain' eternal bliss.. he gave it up.. and regained it.

The question is would you give up eternal bliss for nothing.. and your 'reward' is nothing but what you had in the first place.  I give a bill gates analogy somewhere in here.


RM wrote:
26. Stop pointing at question 10, please ! it's not in your best interest, trust me ! Besides, your answer is simply restating that you don't know why people say "God bless America" either, in which case we're glad you're on the team.
Um.. can I point to it again? Heh.  Sorry.  Heh.. no.. I'm saying that they could mean one of many things.  Not necessarily "God blessed America".. merely asking for God to bless America.

I personally don't say it.. accept when singing I suppose.

But yah.. I'm glad we're on the same team.  Heh.

RM wrote:
27. One point: I thought that God was supposed to be omnipresent. What is, in that case, the "absence of God" ? Furthermore, your last paragraph makes absolutely no sense to the question. Could you explain what you wanted to say?


First.. let me start off with the last part.  What I meant by the last paragraph is that I need someone to argue what in the Bible states God to be the author in Confusion (it should be fairly easy).. that Christians say something does not mean it is biblically based or biblical truth.

Second off: The abscence of God means to be not existent.  If something is not existent.. how can something exist there? More specific to this case, God? Of course.. this is Biblical theology...

And if you want to change it to scientific debate.. then I'll ask the same question I asked twice before.. show me a concrete example of something omnipresent and how it acts, what it can and cannot do.

RM wrote:
28. Thank you for agreeing with us...

No problem.
I did however give one possible solution.

RM wrote:
29. Idem

Idem

RM wrote:
30. Ibidem

Ibidem

RM wrote:
31. I fail to see the point in your answer

It's more a wait and see response.

The question requires me to hypothetically place myself in that future situation.. and if I do-- I can honestly say that it wouldn't really seem important to me at that time, how it happened.

RM wrote:
32. OK, so we would all be jealous. I REALLY fail to see the point in your answer.

Heh.. no.  My answer said that those things spoke of in the New Testament.. Mainly.. "God is love." and "Love is not jealous".. you could accept are not problems in and of themselves with regards to accepting as moral absolutes.

And as for the Exodus verse.. which said "I the Lord am a jealous God".. I said apply answer to 5 which addresses such things as emotions to an infinite being.  Love itself is hard thing to tie down.. even though in 1Cor the person tries.. even though they use a lot of other words that can be debated the meaning.

Furthermore.. I don't believe anywhere in the Bible does it say "Be like God in all ways" that would be a practice of futility.. it does say however that we should strive to be like Christ.

Like and exact replication of something are different tenants.

I strive to be like my Father.. I did not specify in which ways.  For that I would need to make other statements.  As well as the bible expands on its statement of "like" in other verses.

Even more so.. if the Old testament verse was.. "And the Lord says.. be jealous." Then I would say we have a problem.

RM wrote:
33. Not a muslim, check

Check

RM wrote:
34. Don't know, check... going forth

Check

RM wrote:
35. I thought I told you not to refer to 10 anymore ! Trust me, it's really not in your best interest!

Umm... repeat

RM wrote:
36. OK then..

Good stuff.

RM wrote:
37. ...and how would humans know that God actually rested, since it is stated in the Bible that no man will ever see the face of God and live? So much for lead by example, what can I say...

The was trying to be humorous.. I'll try not to anymore.

How do I know that poison will kill me? Because someone told me and I'm at an intellectual level that I can learn from other peoples experiences.  In this same way did one learn from the last.. until you got to God and Adam where God told Adam that he rested on the 7th day and that Adam should as well.

One possible explanation.

RM wrote:
38. We don't agree with this concept of death either. Join the club.

Good stuff.

RM wrote:
39. Umm, sure, he would just tell them "I am an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being that has no resemblance with you. For you to speak with me, let us just say that I will take this form when dealing directly with you."

So basically he will say.. look.. I am God? Call me God.

Fine.. possible.. granted that.. well.. God could directly deal with you in such a manner without affecting any sort of variables of this universal experiment.

But lets say he does.

The practice of personification is a literary tool.. and not necessarily inaccurate.

Mother Nature.  Father Time.  People call there homeland.. Mother Land.  I call call my computer my girlfriend. Sticking out tongue (Joke).

These things are not necessarily inaccurate.. just implying a certain relationship between it and us.  In the case of he and God.. I could argue that it is implying the relationship between the person who had something to do with our creation, our Father.

RM wrote:
40. Wow, your grasp of atheism has left me speechless. Where was the guy with the signature "When you'll understand why you dismiss all other gods, then you'll understand why I dismiss yours as well."?

Sweet.

RM wrote:
41. So practically praying is only self-comfort? A placebo? Well that surely explains much...

I'm saying this is one possible explanation.

RM wrote:
42. I doubt Bill Gates would do that, as he stands to gain nothing more than what he had before. But to gain an eternity of bliss is something ! Besides, this question raises another one. Where did Jesus come from? If he is (you know, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit) part of God, then he is also timeless in essence. So where did He come from? I don't remember God ever introducing Adam and Eve to his son...

Exactly.

Gain? Did Jesus not have eternity before he came here? If Jesus is God as Christian, many, seem to state.

A debate on the essence of the trinity.  Granted.  I am not prepared for this idea to carry it to its end.  I have been raised to say and thing.. "God is three and yet one." And then given the analogy of Water.. which.. within one molecule resides the possibilty to be three states as well as one.  And we have the choice to name it by it's molecular structure.. or it's state.

RM wrote:
43. ...question 10 again...

Yup

RM wrote:
44. When creating the maze, Daedalus was nothing compared to you. What in the World are you trying to say here ?

Heh. Welcome to Complexity, population 1.

The question requires me to to accept the premise that God exists.. and therefore answer the question.. or that he did not.. and therefore not address the question.

If I choose to accept that God exists for the purpose of the question.. I can give any reason I want as long as it doesn't contradict with early stated assumptions.

Such as.. God gave nipples to give pain to man-- that was his original intent.  This would seem to contradict earlier assumptions.

Otherwise.. it's all good.

RM wrote:
45. Umm, actually legal systems AREN'T built this way. In most (if not all), one can escape penalty if it is proven that he doesn't have a grasp of what consequences his actions have. That's why no underage person is responsible in a penal court up to the age of ... (fill in with the age, according to local laws; where I live it's 16, or 14 if psychological investigation proves understanding of implications). Your analogy is based on the wrong assumption. and I believe I am in the right to speak about it since I study law at university.


Sorry.. your right.. I was inaccurate in my generalization.  Yet. The difference between Consequence and Punishment still exists.

As for the legal system... If you break the speed limit.. it does not matter whether you knew it was legal or not.

As I always like to say to my cousin.  I don't need to know all about what is right and wrong.. all I need to know is what is right, that being, those things which I should do.

Adam and Eve knew they should have listened to God.  Whether they knew of the words Right and Wrong.. or the complexities of consequence-- I would venture to say is beside the point.

RM wrote:
46. Your answer is completely uncomprehensible. Could you clarify, please ?

It's basically restating my earlier point:

That if God created everything in a perfect state.. all his creations had a particular reason in that particular state.  Yet.. after the perfect state was broken and imperfection was introduced.. the reason may no longer have been applicable.. or perhaps the costs outweighed the benefits at that time.

Analogy: I draw a picture to represent my view of a pencil.  At a later time I throw away that picture because it no longer represents how I view that pencil.

Does the fact that I have done away with the picture at a later point in time mean that I did not have a reason to have created it at an earlier point in time?

RM wrote:
47. OK, point taken. Question remains, though: what "denomination" is correct? We cannot play with "I think it's like this" if the stakes are possibly eternal bliss or eternal torture. what's the correct version, and how do you know?

Heh.. I don't know which is correct or if any one is correct.  I only can play with "I think it's like this" very easily for I do not believe in this case, meaning that of Noah, the result of not or not believe in the flood is salvation.

Plus.. I don't believe in eternal torture.. again.

RM wrote:
48. ...again question 10...

Yup

RM wrote:
49. well, go in depth... we have read quite a lot, and we might not agree with you. Anyway, to me your answer is irrelevant, since I do not agree with the question.

If my answer will be irrelevant regardless? Why answer it? As stated before.. we have a lot of other questions.

RM wrote:
50. Invalid point, invalid analogy. The fact that you yourself don't believe in the problem doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist. You might be a fortunate Christian, more intellectually developed than others, but the question from my answer 47 still remains.

Definitely.. the problem does exist.  Just.. not one that I need to address.  Just like I do not need to address the problems that a Muslim might run into.
 

OK, that's 50. I can't answer anymore for the moment. I'll get back on you later.


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Rigor_OMortis

Rhad the Gizmo wrote:
The majority of people should at least recognize that the Indiana Colts are the best team at the moment, but they don't. Some people say the Saints, some other the Chargers, some even the Cardinals. Why?

Because brand/idea/loyalty has a lot stronger hold on people then I suppose many of us would like to think. We like to think that we are open-minded individuals that can easily move between understandings, worldviews, with nary a breath in between. But is this the case?

I suppose that is what this debate is about in the first place. Not that either of us has given a better or worse proof, or rational to believe what we believe-- we're just answering questions.. when I'm sure there is an infinite amount more.

So. That is just something I wanted to say. But.. actually.. I'm going for the Bears. As for the fulfillment of prophecy.. one of the beliefs that early Jews had about the Messiah, if I understand the religion correctly, was that the Messiah's purpose was to free them from the Romans and set up an new kingdom.. in the literal sense-- while Jesus proclaim his kingdom not to be understood in this sense. Some people accepted his new use of scripture.. others did not.


RM wrote:
Well then, the question thus remains: How do we know that Jesus is actually the real messiah ? How do we know that it is not the work of the Devil to stray us far from the OT, the true biblibal texts?

You seem to make the point that it is a subjective thing whether or not J.C. was the actual Jewish messiah (your example illustrates that). In that case, how do we know ehich variant is correct? OT or J.C. ? As I stated before, it isn't a matter of "OK, I'm wrong, so what?", but a matter of actual punishment.


Quote:
I don't understand your second sentence. You use "only that" after a comma, which would imply that there was some negative statement before the comma. "The bible states that there is not a physical connection to the Heavens, only that it is guarded... etc." But that wouldn't make sense-- I don't think. Um.

But I'll expand on the answer. My answer was just stating the possibility that the sword and angel are no longer there. And there is necessary reason to believe that they still would need to be, from a Biblical standpoint.


RM wrote:
OK, rephrase, again: 1) Bible states physical connection to heavens, gives precise location, tells us it is guarded by angel with flaming sword; 2) angel with sword never found; 3) We can say we have mapped the whole earth pretty accurately; Therefore the question: Where's the physical connection to Heaven? Nobody found it.

I don't get where the Bible states that there is a physical connect? Yes.. precise location.. in the sense that it mentions a place called that was called Eden at that time.  Of course.. Russia was known as the USSR at one point was it not? And thats only within the last 20 years.


But thats beside the point.. I don't get why the sword/angel need to be there permanently? because of it's connect with heaven? Then.. please expand on this connection.

Quote:
Heh. 100 then. But we'll be dead. 10 would kind of be good. But I suppose in 10 I would ask for another 10.. and be justified in doing so. Science is self-contained, expanding and contracting at it's own will (well, more the will of the members inside). What I mean by this is that scientist only go so far as to "prove" something at this point in time, within there self-constructed, changing, limitations.

For instance. String Theory, Quantum Physics, Microbiology, Evolution even.. are all fairly recent developments in science that have expanded definitions and contracted others-- developing new branches of science and taking others away.

So when I say wait 10000 years.. it only means to imply that in 10000 years new evidence may have been gathers, or new means and definitions with which to define older evidence.. and therefore, we would not say that 10000 years prior it "proved" there opinion at there time. Even as I would suggest you would not agree that the "scientist" of old "proved" the the world was round through empirical evidence (experiential in this case.)

And no.. I do not mean to imply, by saying that science has difficulty "proving" things within its own self-structured methodology, that science is useless.


RM wrote:
In this respect we will always be able to say "let's wait another 10000 years, we still don't have a proof that the newly-printed Bible of the Spaghetti Monster is true or false, or whether or not it contradicts the slimy toad vibrational theory."

From my point of view, waiting would be good. Until now, time seems to work against faith.

I've never read the NP Bible of SM.. or the ST Vibrational Theory.  Are they good?

Perhaps.  But.. it time hasn't had it's conclusion yet.  And since we are speaking of the possibility of eternity.. I'm not really sure the conclusion or statements of this time that admits its changing nature and uncertain theories are necessarily that important to me with regards to eternal things(on this issue).

Quote:
"For person X, the utter bliss would be to kill everyone else. Everyone else is less fond of this idea."

Yes.. I do believe there to be some statistical error when going through those people that will, might, be in heaven (if it exists).

While you may find people here that believe they love to kill, and 'utter bliss' to have sex with Claudia Schiffer.. I don't believe it to be true that they will necessarily be heaven.

I could just as easily speculate that only one person will be in heaven, you.

"What if?"

Once again. I will have to say-- wait and see. If you and me are both in heaven (I've don't believe I have a perfect grasp of the idea of salvation) and there a bunch of people that want to have sex with Claudia Schiffer, who of course will be there, then we will discuss it. And if we're not both in heaven.. then it's possible we are both dead... so no point in asking the question.


RM wrote:
Same as above for the last paragraph.

What you did here is a straw man. I didn't say person X wants to kill everybody. I only said that he wants to have sex (ok, if you insist, "be married and have children, unto the name of Lord&quotEye-wink with C.Sch. I am therefore constructing a plausible situation in which both persons in question can get into heaven.

You have indeed defeated a situation, but it is not the one I gave you. Thus a straw man.

Please resort to answering to MY situation, NOT another one.


Sorry.. my purpose was not to build a straw man argument.  My purpose was merely to suggest I do not know who will be in heaven.. or by what measure.

And so.. I say wait and see.  This is a biblical sort of a response when a Pharisee asked Jesus a hypothetical about heaven.  He said, basically.. "You ask this question because you do not understand the concept of heaven or marriage."

Quote:
My mom sure expressed feeling with me when I was in the 6th grade.

Furthermore.. I'm not saying that God does not have qualities that could be described with emotional terms.. only that these terms do not necessarily express the full complexity of the truth. For instance.. when I was 5.. I drew a picture of my Dad as a Mr. Potato Head.. I thought it was the best representation I could do at the time.. and.. if ever I saw that picture in the future.. I would know what it represented and I would understand it in a way particular to me as a 5 year old.

My dad was not necessarily a Mr. Potato Head.


RM wrote:
Forgive me, I have no idea who your Mr. Potato Head is.


He was an old toy.. a plastic potato with a mustache and a hat.

RM wrote:
My argument was that God actually has feelings, but, due to a misunderstanding, we seem to not have seen that we agree.

OK, so God has feelings, you say.

And thus we come and ask: Why would an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being resort to human limitations such as feelings?

My point from my analogy was that describing God with emotions is perhaps an incomplete picture of who God is.  Not necessarily inaccurate.. just written in terms that we would understand.. just as my picture was drawn in a manner that I understood.

Quote:
Response to first part first. As I responded to my first answer in 4.. I do not personally believe in hell, nor eternal agony. To say "God does," as you've used.. is to restricted this response to a certain group of Christians, perhaps even the majority, but.. does not necessarily make it true for all Christians.


RM wrote:
OK then, the question does not apply to you. No problem, we are talking in general about all beliefs here.

Possibly.. but if the question is attacking all beliefs in general.. I cannot defend all beliefs.. only mine.  (Possibly some others)

Quote:
Disappoint in the sense that they do not live up to your highest hopes: I'm sure that every child is guilty of this at one particular time... does that mean you don't birth them at all? (You as a couple)


RM wrote:
You didn't get my point. I as a father DON'T KNOW FOR SURE that they will disappoint. There have been cases in which children didn't disappoint. God, however, knew that He would be disappointed. If so, then why does he punish us, even for a limited ammount of time?

Furthermore, I restate, God is omnipotent. In his situation, he has created us, he has created all the factors that have led to us disappointing him. He is responsible for his disappointment. Why does he punish us, then, eternally or un-eternally?

Besides, how could God be disappointed, if he knows everything in advance? It's useless to hope for/against it if you already know it.

First.. lets make sure we understand the distinguishment between punishment and consequence.. do we?

I agree that we are in a state of consequence.. that must be let to play to it's popular conclusion otherwise risk the possilbity to reoccur.

But first.. lets see if we can agree on the distinguishment.

Quote:
If you remove Hell, in the sense of complete agony propagated by God, then it can be said that God created merely because he wished to give life. Despite 'knowing' that his creations would not live up to his highest hopes, he created them, and with free will and curiousity which would be the factors that allowed for the disappointment in the first place.


RM wrote:
Apart from the omniscient vs. free will paradox, the image you depicted is a nice one, and perhaps it would have been more worthy to believe in. However, the Church doesn't teach such a shiny image. It's more like "Have fear of thy God" than "God loves you all"

My church does.  "The Church" Hm... it is not one inseparable entity.

As for the omniscient vs free will paradox.  I'm sure you'll read my answer to a later question.. and if the contention still applies. I guess we can deal with it then.

Quote:
But if he had choose otherwise, to create without free will and curiousity.. what else would we be? A computer? an animal? True I suppose. If we were created as an animal then we would not have sinned.. of course-- we wouldn't necessarily be having this discussion either.


RM wrote:
The only question is: how do you know, right now, that you have free will? How do you know that your thoughts/actions aren't dictated by someone else, and you are only GIVEN the impression that you think/act?

This is a philosphical question.  I don't know that I have free will.  But this doesn't prove anything.. or does it?

Quote:
And I don't mean to change the debate to.. "God being omnipotent could've made freewill to not include the possibility to sin." Because that would be... a huge philosphical discussion-- one I'm not sure I'm prepared for, but I suppose I can try if someone wishes.


RM wrote:
Actually, that whole big discussion is reduced to one question: It would have been much better gfor both us and him, why didn't he do it like so?

Because he wishes for us to love him.  I believe the existence of love requires choice.

Of course.. if you do not except the premise that he wishes for us to love him.. or be with him.. or that love requires choice.. we might be a semi-stand still.

Quote:
Neither do I wish to change the conversation to the extent of an animals freewill or curuosity.. although if these are necessary to debate then we can.


RM wrote:
Not a necessity. Animals aren't believers in any god.

Good

Quote:
Hopefully these answers are sufficient to continue the conversation... I don't believe I'm smarter then anyone else.. we're all as smart as our own unique experiences grant us the ability to be geniuses of our own perspective. (That was a bit of nonsensical poetics )


Hope to go on as well. Awaiting your reply. Please also check your private message box after you read this.


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: True.. you could. 

Quote:
True.. you could.  As do I.. now.. again.

OK Smiling

Quote:
For me yes.. but I'm sure that a Muslim would disagree that it's pointless-- but neither you or I are muslim.. so... yah.

OK as well Smiling

Quote:
If I remember the story correctly.. Judas had already taken the 30 pieces of silver before the last supper-- where Jesus told he must do what he must do.

I thought my Isrealites example was another example? Um.. Jesus cast out some demons from a demoniac, one whom which a city was very aware was a demoniac, having chained him up many a times, yet they still chased him out of the city.

See.. but I'm using Biblical examples.  And it only goes so far as to answer this questions that the Bible makes its own commentary on the usefulness of miracles.. so I would have no reason to believe they would any different now.

As neither would you. Just because I've seen David Blane rip out his own heart and smash a card through a glass window doesn't mean I believe him to have magical abilities-- even though no ones explained to me how he's done that.

I say again.  I do not believe that miracles can, or should be, the basis for faith.

That "should be" in the last sentence made the point. We agree on this one.

Quote:
Yah.. heh, you seemed to have a really big problem with this one.

Indeed. As I stated, some of the actions told by the Bible seem so useless... as if not actually coming from an omnipotent, omniscient God.

Quote:
I would contend that even if Satan was the sharpest knife in the drawer, he would still be nowhere close to understanding an infinite being.  Isn't this always the relationship between infinite and finite? Mathematically I mean.. anything divided by infinity is 0, unless it is infinity itself-- which, I'm not going to state that Satan himself was infinite.

Good point.

Quote:
So.. once again.. I give the analogy of the child his parent, and the knowledge of fire.  A child doesn't necessarily comprehend the experience and knowledge of his parents, nor the wisdom that they speak.. so when they say.. things are better left not to touch the fire.. does that mean that the child will not touch the fire?

Even Satan.. in his vast amounts of knowledge.. would not have understood the concept of something that needed experience to fully comprehend-- "seperation from God", Sin.

Well, I won't argue your point here, but it is nothing but a straw man.

What I wanted to say is that surely, even for Satan, it would seem pointless to challenge an omnipotent being. I mean, what ace in the sleeve could you possibly have agains an omnipotent being? How would you evebn think of winning a challenge against an omnipotent being?

If you say that Satan wasn't about winning, but about proving a point (which seems more likely, in fact), than what is that point?

Quote:
i'm sorry. I should have cleared up.  I do not believe God, Angels, and Us to be the only things in the Universe.. this would be contradictory to my believe in the nature of God.. mainly that he is loving and creative in nature.  I do believe in the possibility of other entities created, living in the universe.. observing us even as the angels do.  But even if it was just those three groups of things-- then still.. Angels are not as "all knowing" as he is.

If it was just God and Us.. then yes.. perhaps your questions would be relevant because God would be proving to himself.

OK... I'm a bit speechless here... I don't think many Christians would agree with you here... Let's say that my point doesn't apply to you then.

Quote:
Don't believe in Hell in the sense that I believe you are assuming-- eternal agony, fire melting off your skin at the same time God keeps you alive to experience more of it. I've stated this over and over again.

I'll do it again: Hell has many definitions within the Christian Church-- denominations can believe it to be one of many different things.  I personally believe it to be the total separation between Man and God-- which is in essence, non existence.

Each way of view Hell has it's arguments using Biblical scripture.. as well as mine.  But mine, as well as my denominations, I believe was directed at this very question.. they found it contradictory to believe in an All loving God who would keep people alive to eternally torture them for what would be a finite amount of wrongness.

Or that even Hell, total seperation from God, is punishment at all.. rather than the conscious choice of the individual.  I believe that the way you live you life, the way you think, the things you believe, are as much an answer to the question: Do I want to spend eternity with God? as much as a straight Yes or No answer in the face of God himself.

Understood. I'll be getting back on this one later.

Quote:
Sorry.  I don't really mean to come across as condescending.. it was not my purpose.  I'm not the most educated person in the world.. by a long shot-- I'm only 23.  I was just stating that this would take a lot of work to make a valid argument.. and since there are 80+ more questions, do you really want to focus on this one?

Indeed, I don't.

Quote:
The first link wasn't working for me.  I looked over the second.  Once again.. to address every single thing in the website would make the answer very long.  If you wish.. bring perhaps the one you believe to be the strongest one, and I will address that one.

The first link was http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ - copy-pasted it from favorites, and working for me. Perhaps I mistyped it the last time.

The point of arguing that whole website will, indeed, take time... a lot of time. Perhaps in another occasion.

RM wrote:
Being the man of science you are-- I'm assuming you are.  Could you please explain to me scientifically (meaning, with either evidentiary support, experiential or experimental) what an omniscience entity is and what it would contradict.

I do not mean to say that you can not define it.  Merely that it is a descriptive word... describing something that has no, in our current time, real world example.  Unlike.. lets say.. a coin-- which is a word that describes a concrete entity.

So.. while I could say that a coin has four legs.  I would be okay in saying.. however.. people would know me not to be using the world under what is commonly accepted as characteristics of a concrete entity-- and therefore it would be rational to ask, "fine then what would you call this real world entity?" I would say a "dog" the we can choose to move on from there in the conversation.

As opposed to say omniscience.. where you can say that it is contradictory with free will and I say it is not.  We would both define the word.. we would disagree.. then I would ask for any entity that can be tested under the current rules of science that makes your definition more correct than mine.

True this can be done with many words that do not have real world counterparts.... and at those times I will argue what those words mean, and whether we can agree or not on what that word means.

OK, indeed, the terms must be defined. Please accept or reject my definitions first, and then we'll go on.

Free will - the ability to act as the product of own will according to past and present experiences, genetical make-up and configuration of circumstantial factors, without being hindered by any other explicit or implicit cause

Omniscience (referring to the Universe only, we aren't interested where else it is applied) - the capacity to know every entity, parameter or process that has taken place, is taking place and will be taking place, regardless of any limitations

Accept or bring own. We will then go on with the discussion.

Quote:
Okay. I'm just trying to give logical response within the construct of biblically necessary conditions.

Animals are not equal to man.  They are, to a large extent, subject to man's world.  However, built within to them is the ability to adapt, as we have seen in experimentation, even as we are able to adapt.

If.. after the fall of man the world became a place of limitless resources to one of limited.  Natural selection therefore has a construct with which to work in.. and therefore animals adapted to the situation.. even as man did.

Very well. This is a point that I believe nobody can debate. However, you still haven't answered the original question: Why didn't the animals remain into heaven and not fall into this limited world? Surely they have had no connection with man's fall.

Quote:
Alright.. I argue atemporal because I do not know what it means.  Correct.  Let me admit my ignorance on the subject, yet, let me in the same breath say this.. as I did early on something else:

Being the man of science you are-- I'm assuming you are.  Could you please explain to me scientifically (meaning, with either evidentiary support, experiential or experimental) what something that is atemporal can or cannot do.

Yes, of course, mea culpa, and apologies on the flaming start.

"atemporal" simply means to not be the subject of time and its limitations.

Please check the following: http://fas-philosophy.rutgers.edu/zimmerman/GodInsideTime.pdf

http://prosblogion.ektopos.com/archives/2004/06/is_god_in_time.html

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-13533.html

Hope to have included the good references. The last one is a looooooooooooooooooooooooong discussion

Quote:
In this case I would disagree with you first premise.  Having faith in something is not all it takes for something to be, in actuality, true.  I have faith that God is real.  Does not make God real.  There is a truth.. and there is un-truth.

I have faith in what is truth.

A rational, not contradictory, faith Eye-wink

Of course you do. I disagree myself. Yet, some people hold this belief.

Quote:
Well.. once again I'm going to have to accept you concept of omniscience for a moment even though I don't necessarily agree with all it implies.

But let say he "knows without a doubt" in the way you and I understand "knows without a doubt."

I hope nothing will die tomorrow, even though I know without a doubt that someone will-- tis the nature of this world.

Perhaps that isn't the best example since you might disagree with my use of the word know.

Indeed it isn't the best example. I'll try to explain my point in the follow-up.

Quote:
So.. let me take the other route.

Biblically.. got never hoped.. merely wished.. and was disappointed.. (refer to early answer for my idea of these words being applied to an infinite being in the first place).  

As for why did he create man if he knew he would need to kill man? As if man was some unseparable entity.

Man is not.  You are a man.  I am a man.  We are man.

Obviously God did not kill man.. for we are still here-- therefore his creation has not been completely wiped from existence and there still might be some purpose to our creation in the first place.

Follow-up as promised: God's wish is the essence of creation. If God wishes, He could not be disappointed. For what He wishes happens. Am I right? It is the basis of omnipotence. What gives, though?

As for the last paragraph, agreed.

Quote:
There is no universally theologically correct term or definition for the idea of "spirit" even as there is not one for "god."

And your last assumption is incorrect.  There may not be a term or definition of a particular word in the universal sense.. but there is an accepted definition for you.. and there is one for you.

And we can choose to use particular words for particular definitions.

Not all debates address all people.. they only need to address a particular amount of people to have a purpose.

You see, this is actually one of the most basic forms of fallacy: both people using the same word, but with different meanings, each one oblivious to the meaning for the other one.

Why I'm asking for a "correct" (translated at at least "universal&quotEye-wink definition is to take out all these uncertainties. Just as you did with atemporality, free will and omniscience.

Quote:
I don't see how I did.  The second part of that argument uses the same logic as the question and leads to a conclusion that is not experientially true.  A doctor is a doctor because of some unchanging nature apart from his interest in helping patients-- even as Gods definition of God resides outside of his nature to create man (Us, specifically).

Will get back on this one in a future post, it's a longer theory.

 

Same as from here on, as I don't have much time on my hands right now. I've enjoyed talking until now, apologies if some of my words have insulted you, that really wasn't the intention.

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Alright.. time to delete

Alright.. time to delete anything that we say "okay" on.. heh-- make it smaller.



Quote:
Yah.. heh, you seemed to have a really big problem with this one.


RM wrote:
Indeed. As I stated, some of the actions told by the Bible seem so useless... as if not actually coming from an omnipotent, omniscient God.

"Seem" is an important word here.  And even as science states that things "seem" to be one way.. does not mean that they are, in fact, that way.

Quote:
So.. once again.. I give the analogy of the child his parent, and the knowledge of fire. A child doesn't necessarily comprehend the experience and knowledge of his parents, nor the wisdom that they speak.. so when they say.. things are better left not to touch the fire.. does that mean that the child will not touch the fire?

Even Satan.. in his vast amounts of knowledge.. would not have understood the concept of something that needed experience to fully comprehend-- "seperation from God", Sin.


RM wrote:
Well, I won't argue your point here, but it is nothing but a straw man.

What I wanted to say is that surely, even for Satan, it would seem pointless to challenge an omnipotent being. I mean, what ace in the sleeve could you possibly have agains an omnipotent being? How would you evebn think of winning a challenge against an omnipotent being?

If you say that Satan wasn't about winning, but about proving a point (which seems more likely, in fact), than what is that point?

Nothing but a straw man? I thought it be well put analogy.

Heh.

Um..

God said: I know all.. I know what good and I know all that can be bad.  Devil said: I wish to know as well.  God said: No you don't. Devil's pride did not allow for this answer and so held contempt for God.  In his contempt he grew away (even as a son who holds contempt for his father grows away from his father).  In his contempt he convinced others of his same feelings.

And so they were separated, to an extent.  (Because.. one again, within Christian Theology, a thing cannot exist completely apart from God.)

The Devil saying, I do not wish to be so close with you, I wish to see what you have told me I should not see. (The same temptation that Eve and Adam succumbed to.)

And if you don't let me.. then where is the free will that you have said we have? We are slaves!

So.. they took there space.  Man took his.  And here we are.

Granted.. this is more of a dialogue.. if this progression is not clear.. or does not seem possible within the construct of Biblical teachings.. let me know.

Quote:
i'm sorry. I should have cleared up. I do not believe God, Angels, and Us to be the only things in the Universe.. this would be contradictory to my believe in the nature of God.. mainly that he is loving and creative in nature. I do believe in the possibility of other entities created, living in the universe.. observing us even as the angels do. But even if it was just those three groups of things-- then still.. Angels are not as "all knowing" as he is.

If it was just God and Us.. then yes.. perhaps your questions would be relevant because God would be proving to himself.


RM wrote:
OK... I'm a bit speechless here... I don't think many Christians would agree with you here... Let's say that my point doesn't apply to you then.

At least 10 million claim to by proclaiming that they belong to my church.

To mean.. it just seems more rational. If I believe us to be a function of God's nature to create.  Our free will to be a function of God's loving nature.  Then why would I believe that God has ceased to create individuals of free will?  Universe is an awfully big place.

Of course.. it's possible that he has not, like I said-- only us, him, and angels.

RhadtheGizmo wrote:
Paraphrase: Define your use of the phrase free will and the word omniscient.. so we can be on the same page.


RM wrote:
OK, indeed, the terms must be defined. Please accept or reject my definitions first, and then we'll go on.

Free will - the ability to act as the product of own will according to past and present experiences, genetical make-up and configuration of circumstantial factors, without being hindered by any other explicit or implicit cause

The debate of free will is a long one.  Add "and/or" to the sentence as oppose to "and".. remove "without being hindered".. because choices are "hindered" by external sources all the time.. yet it does not take away you ability to "act as a product of will."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hinder
1.    to cause delay, interruption, or difficulty in; hamper; impede: The storm hindered our progress.

RM wrote:
Omniscience (referring to the Universe only, we aren't interested where else it is applied) - the capacity to know every entity, parameter or process that has taken place, is taking place and will be taking place, regardless of any limitations

Accept or bring own. We will then go on with the discussion.

"capacity" is good word for this.  Being omnipotent (something I might agree with more easily then other things.. yet it's necessity my faith does not fall.  But that is a WHOLE 'nother discussion), the "capacity" to know every entity, parameter, or process, that has taken place, is taking place and will be taking place" is a capacity he must have.

Yet.. does he act this capacity? Is a different issue... true.  For an infinite being the different between the length of today and the length of a million years is unsubstantial.  So.. that is to say.. In the blink of his eye (personification) he could be forward a billion years.. then, mathematically speaking, back again.. for he never moved in the first place-- for the length of time traveled for an eternal being would be the mathematically equivalent to 0.

In anycase... I choose to believe that God resides in our present by choice.. and his omniscience allows for "perfect foresight".. meaning-- he can predict perfectly the conclusion and action of everything.

Something like how a scientist knows if he mixes A with B he will get C.

So.. we may have to come back to this one if you don't understand my idea of this word.. and complexity I think that needs to be explained.

Quote:
Okay. I'm just trying to give logical response within the construct of biblically necessary conditions.

Animals are not equal to man. They are, to a large extent, subject to man's world. However, built within to them is the ability to adapt, as we have seen in experimentation, even as we are able to adapt.

If.. after the fall of man the world became a place of limitless resources to one of limited. Natural selection therefore has a construct with which to work in.. and therefore animals adapted to the situation.. even as man did.


RM wrote:
Very well. This is a point that I believe nobody can debate. However, you still haven't answered the original question: Why didn't the animals remain into heaven and not fall into this limited world? Surely they have had no connection with man's fall.

Even as Man is subject to the actions of God so is animals subject to the actions of Man.

Or.. If we kill all krill in the world.. certain whale species will die.  The whale had no connection to my actions.. yet it will be affected all the same.

Quote:
Alright.. I argue atemporal because I do not know what it means. Correct. Let me admit my ignorance on the subject, yet, let me in the same breath say this.. as I did early on something else:

Being the man of science you are-- I'm assuming you are. Could you please explain to me scientifically (meaning, with either evidentiary support, experiential or experimental) what something that is atemporal can or cannot do.


RM wrote:
Yes, of course, mea culpa, and apologies on the flaming start.

"atemporal" simply means to not be the subject of time and its limitations.

Please check the following: http://fas-philosophy.rutgers.edu/zimmerman/GodInsideTime.pdf

http://prosblogion.ektopos.com/archives/2004/06/is_god_in_time.html

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-13533.html

Hope to have included the good references. The last one is a looooooooooooooooooooooooong discussion

Forgive me if I put this one on pause.

Quote:
In this case I would disagree with you first premise. Having faith in something is not all it takes for something to be, in actuality, true. I have faith that God is real. Does not make God real. There is a truth.. and there is un-truth.

I have faith [in what I believe to be] truth.

A rational, not contradictory, faith Eye-wink


RM wrote:
Of course you do. I disagree myself. Yet, some people hold this belief.

There.. my quote is a little more clear now.


Quote:
So.. let me take the other route.

Biblically.. got never hoped.. merely wished.. and was disappointed.. (refer to early answer for my idea of these words being applied to an infinite being in the first place).

As for why did he create man if he knew he would need to kill man? As if man was some unseparable entity.

Man is not. You are a man. I am a man. We are man.

Obviously God did not kill man.. for we are still here-- therefore his creation has not been completely wiped from existence and there still might be some purpose to our creation in the first place.


RM wrote:
Follow-up as promised: God's wish is the essence of creation. If God wishes, He could not be disappointed. For what He wishes happens. Am I right? It is the basis of omnipotence. What gives, though?

As for the last paragraph, agreed.

I would agree with the statement that God's wish are the essence of creation.  By that I am logically stating that creation could not come to be without God's wish.  It does not mean that all God's wishes are created or enacted.

Man was created because God wished for Man to be created. Man received free will because God wished for Man to have free will.  God wishes (present tense) that Man be near to him therefore......... nothing?

Necessary and Sufficient conditions.  Gods wish is a necessary condition for creation.. it is not necessarily sufficient for something.

Quote:
There is no universally theologically correct term or definition for the idea of "spirit" even as there is not one for "god."

And your last assumption is incorrect. There may not be a term or definition of a particular word in the universal sense.. but there is an accepted definition for you.. and there is one for you.

And we can choose to use particular words for particular definitions.

Not all debates address all people.. they only need to address a particular amount of people to have a purpose.


RM wrote:
You see, this is actually one of the most basic forms of fallacy: both people using the same word, but with different meanings, each one oblivious to the meaning for the other one.

Why I'm asking for a "correct" (translated at at least "universal&quotEye-wink definition is to take out all these uncertainties. Just as you did with atemporality, free will and omniscience.


So you wish me to state a definition that we can apply as a definition that everyone would accept? (universal).. or just one that we can use here.. for me and you?


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
By the way.. we can focus on

By the way.. we can focus on these questions above only-- or these as well as the rest of the questions that you didn't have time for before. Up to you. Good stuff.

I realize now.. after rereading a bit.. that I did not address one question-- if I remember it correctly it was along the lines of "If those Jews who considered them of the Jewish faith at that time, and Jesus professed a new understanding of their faith, mainly those relating to the Law and the Messiah, how do I know which one is true."

RM wrote:
Well then, the question thus remains: How do we know that Jesus is actually the real messiah ? How do we know that it is not the work of the Devil to stray us far from the OT, the true biblibal texts?

You seem to make the point that it is a subjective thing whether or not J.C. was the actual Jewish messiah (your example illustrates that). In that case, how do we know ehich variant is correct? OT or J.C. ? As I stated before, it isn't a matter of "OK, I'm wrong, so what?", but a matter of actual punishment.

 

To make the leap from what is rational to what I profess to believe (I use the word know rarely).. is a leap of faith. Indeed.

 This "leap of faith" however is not unique to the sphere of religion. More on that at a future time if you wish me to expand my thoughts on that one.

But.. is this not a conversation about the rationality of faith to begin with? One.. all encompassing faith that is in no one contradictory within the assumption it has made for itself.

I believe Jesus to be the Christ, the son of God, therefore I choose to believe that an extent of perversion did not creep into what I believe to be his story as to corrupt the image of him to the point that I do not get what is vital.

This is a rational statement in and of itself.. it has reason.. it has assumptions (hundreds, possibly thousands if one would go back far enough to the assumptions of assumptions).. yet none I believe to be contradictory with one another.


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Rats!

[MOD EDIT - duplicate post deleted]


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Rats!

[MOD EDIT - duplicate post deleted]


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Rats!It's too much

Rats!

It's too much thought, and my browser is already failing to deliver all content properly.

I'm making a round-up of all thoughts until now as a PDF. But it will take a few hours.

Be back with you right away when I finish.

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Sounds Good.

Sounds Good.


laguna117
laguna117's picture
Posts: 41
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Just so u know, and be very

Just so u know, and be very careful with that, man originating from africa doesn't come from one type of evidence (fossils). No facts discussed here are. It's also congurent with other (probably dozens) types of edidence such as dna similarity of african apes and use of molecular clock. There is no such thing as a widely accepted scientific fact based on such a petty evidence as "oh, that's where i found the oldest fossils" lol

For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof,
then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
True. Although.. I would

True. Although.. I would venture to say that "scientific fact" is only used when refering to something observered (such as the fossil or matter) or when used for rheotorical purposes.

It cannot be accurately applied to "scientific theory or law." Unless you're using fact as "commonly accepted scientific theory." But I don't believe a scientistic would be right using the word in this way. 


laguna117
laguna117's picture
Posts: 41
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
dna similarity is a fact,

dna similarity is a fact, and the rate of molecular change is observed too. I'm not sure you know what you're talking about.

For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof,
then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
"Widely accepted scientific

"Widely accepted scientific fact" was being used in this case to apply to the origin of man from Africa.

 I was disputing your use of this phrase when applied to this particular thing.

 I would agree that the similarity of DNA is a fact.. as well as molecular change.


laguna117
laguna117's picture
Posts: 41
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
and dna similarity and

and dna similarity and molecular change point to a man originating is africa (for instance, homo sapiens dna is closer to african apes that to other apes)

For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof,
then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
"Point to" is different

"Point to" is very different than "proven." "Proven" is what the original question contested."