Questions about God... theists answer these!

Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Questions about God... theists answer these!

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.

1. If Jesus fulfilled all the OT prophecies so well, why didn't the Jews recognize him as the messiah? - Francois Tremblay

2. If Gen 3:24 is true, why hasn't anyone found the Cherubims and the " flaming sword which turned every way"?

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

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.]

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.]
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.]

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.

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.]

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.]

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]

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.]

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

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.]

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.

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]

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.]

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? - and 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?]

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?]

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

20. If God is all-knowing, how could he be disappointed in His creation? -- [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?]

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.]

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

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.]

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.]

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? - 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.)

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 . - [Note: Unfortunately many religious nuts believe they are fulfilling their God's plan by going to war.]

27. Christians say that God is NOT the author of confusion. Can you say, Tower of Babel? - The Screaming Monkeys

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.]

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???? -

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?]

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? -

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.)

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

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? -

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

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]

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

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

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]

40. Why can't we wait until we get to Heaven to worship God ? Why would it be too late? - IG

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.)

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

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

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

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

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.]

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

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

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.]

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.)

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

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

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]

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

55. Brain, or shall I say, body transplants, will eventually be possible, where would the soul be then? Where is the soul? - IG

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

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

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.]

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

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

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.]

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

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.]

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? -- [Note: They are all roasting in Hell. Smiling]

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?]

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.]

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.]

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. -

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

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

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.]

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? - [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 .]

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. -

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..]

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

82. The above arguments also apply among different sects of Christianity, many of which state that most others are not True Christianity. -- lpetrich

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

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!

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" ?

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

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

88. If a god is omnipotent how did 'it' fail to foresee that Satan would turn against 'it'? --AI

89. What is a god supposedly made of? --AI

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

PICK THE QUESTION YOU WANT TO ANSWER, AND POST IT HERE...

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


fatty
Posts: 22
Joined: 2009-03-18
User is offlineOffline
Well I believe I may have to

Well I believe I may have to take a stab at answering some of these questions for you, sorry if I talk about stuff that have been answered before, I don't particularly care to read through all 450 replies .

 

#1 - not every Jew recognized Jesus as the messiah but many of them did, there will always be doubters not matter what you're talking about. 

#2 - ...perhaps because it's hard to find , this statement assumes that the creation story is completely literal (which, I hate to tell you creationists, probably isn't a literal story, up until a couple hundred years ago it was treated as religious poetry, an attempt by earlier humans to describe how God made everything, that's almost word for word from my Intro to Theology class) and that God couldn't hide the garden, the garden is on earth, etc.

#9 - I would say that God has done all of those things before, I have heard alot of stories about people miraculously being healed when the basically had no chance, there are people in my church who were given 6 months to live 3 years ago and are alive and well.  Of course, that really doesnt' mean much to a person who doesn't believe in God so let me elaborate a little bit, God heals through a few different ways both through straight up miracles and through the actions of people.  In other words, every time a doctor reataches an arm, perscribes medicine, or does an organ transplant (s)he's performing a miracle of God.  Again, atheists are just going to say that God had no part in that, Christians are going to say that God had every part in that, I wanted to get that whole idea of God performing miracles through people out there.

It seems to me that a bunch of questions/posts have to deal with why doesn't God perform one big miracle for everyone to know and prove his existence once and for all; that basically people are looking for a youtube type of God, they want to type in miracle and watch as someone gets an arm reatacched with a blinding flash of light and booming voice in the background saying "BY YOUR FAITH YOU HAVE BEEN SAVED!"  I believe that God has given us free will and by openly revealing himself like that it would give us no free will to choose whether or not he exists.  I mean think about it, suppose you're an all powerfull being and you could either create a bunch of robots that do exactly what you program them too and nothing but what you program them to do or you could make free thinking beings and watch as the grow and create things.

I realize the futility of arguing things over the internet but since this appears to be a site full of intelligent people who won't give me a "lawl stfu christian!!!11!" so I'll try to answer some of your questions and perhaps level up my forumn troll a little bit .

It's homework time, I hope you guys have a great day (or night), I'll try to answer some more later, good night, God bless.

-fatty

Yes I am a Christian. I'm sorry that there are jerks out there that have done bad things all in the name of, I ask that you don't judge all of us because of the acts of those few. I pray that you're having a great day today. Since that doesn't mean much to most people on this site lets just say that I really really hope you have an awesome day. God bless. -fatty


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3686
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
fatty wrote:Well I believe I

fatty wrote:

Well I believe I may have to take a stab at answering some of these questions for you, sorry if I talk about stuff that have been answered before, I don't particularly care to read through all 450 replies .

#1 - not every Jew recognized Jesus as the messiah but many of them did, there will always be doubters not matter what you're talking about.

I can't argue with that.

Quote:
#2 - ...perhaps because it's hard to find , this statement assumes that the creation story is completely literal (which, I hate to tell you creationists, probably isn't a literal story, up until a couple hundred years ago it was treated as religious poetry, an attempt by earlier humans to describe how God made everything, that's almost word for word from my Intro to Theology class) and that God couldn't hide the garden, the garden is on earth, etc.

Yep, it really only applies to people who have a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Quote:
Again, atheists are just going to say that God had no part in that, Christians are going to say that God had every part in that,

That's problematic. If I may argue the atheist's side, since God's "miracles" aren't needed to explain how the person was healed, then there's no way for us to know if God was involved at all. This is why, by definition, a miracle should be an event that breaks the laws of nature, and, clearly, a bunch of doctors performing a heart transplant didn't break any such laws. Also, I can wager that if the doctors don't perform the surgery, then the patient's heart isn't going to levitate out of his body, so, clearly this "miracle" was dependent on whether the doctors performed the surgery, not on God's plan, even if the doctors were carrying out God's will.

Quote:
It seems to me that a bunch of questions/posts have to deal with why doesn't God perform one big miracle for everyone to know and prove his existence once and for all; that basically people are looking for a youtube type of God, they want to type in miracle and watch as someone gets an arm reatacched with a blinding flash of light and booming voice in the background saying "BY YOUR FAITH YOU HAVE BEEN SAVED!"  I believe that God has given us free will and by openly revealing himself like that it would give us no free will to choose whether or not he exists.  I mean think about it, suppose you're an all powerfull being and you could either create a bunch of robots that do exactly what you program them too and nothing but what you program them to do or you could make free thinking beings and watch as the grow and create things.

- Are you sure that's what free will is? True, you wouldn't be able to choose whether God exists or not, but this is a matter of fact, not a matter of choice (I'm not sure how to explain this). For example, I know that my mom exists, but, clearly, this doesn't infringe upon my free will in general. Or, perhaps, we need to define what free will is.

- Do you believe in the mainstream Christian concept of hell?

Quote:
I realize the futility of arguing things over the internet but since this appears to be a site full of intelligent people who won't give me a "lawl stfu christian!!!11!" so I'll try to answer some of your questions and perhaps level up my forumn troll a little bit . It's homework time, I hope you guys have a great day (or night), I'll try to answer some more later, good night, God bless.

-fatty

Haha, I hope we can live up to your expectations.

Welcome to the forum!

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


fatty
Posts: 22
Joined: 2009-03-18
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Also, I

butterbattle wrote:

Also, I can wager that if the doctors don't perform the surgery, then the patient's heart isn't going to levitate out of his body, so, clearly this "miracle" was dependent on whether the doctors performed the surgery, not on God's plan, even if the doctors were carrying out God's will.

If you'll allow me to digress from our previous topic for a bit.  Exactly!  You have just stated the answer to several questions in that whole list of stuff (#10 for example).  God has a plan, both for ourselves and humans as a whole (or I believe that God has a plan if you prefer) and, while some things will happen no matter what, He gives us opportunities to act out His plan.  In other words, God wants us to be an active part in carrying out His plans in our lives. 

Let me give you an example, think of a father who has a child of about 10.  Suppose the father wants to build a bookcase and, being a good father, wants to spend some quality time with his child at the same time, so he gets the child to help him.  Of course the father could do it faster and better on his own and of course the child is going to make mistakes and not do as good a job as the father could on his own but that's not the point; the point is that the father is getting some good quality time in with his child and is helping his child grow at the same time.  In the same way God wants us to actively participate in his plan.

(I think I kinda got off track in that example, let me know if you want me to try to explain it again/better or whatever)

In the list there I think I saw a question or two about why God allows innocent people to suffer, I believe it was someone starving or something, I can't for the life of me find it now but I'm pretty sure it's there, if not feel free to add it to the list for me .  Lets say why does God let people starve and lets get specific and why does He let people in Africa starve (I realize this doesn't fully cover innocent people suffering, I'll have to talk about random things like natural disasters some other time).  I'm going to assume that you know that there are innocent people starving in Africa, so, what have you done about it?  As I've shown (or given my opinion on, you know what I mean) God wants us to be active in his plan and is giving use the opportunity to help Him achieve his plan.  Gone are the days where a young humanity needs God's frequent miracles to help us grow and do His will, we're in our angsty teens now and we as a people are fully capable of doing work on our own.  Why would God make us lazy by giving mana to the starving people in the world when we can hop on a plane and give it to them ourselves?

that was quite the rant and a tad off topic I'm afraid , sorry I didn't answer everything you asked but I think you guys have had enough of me for one night.  I also apologize that that came off as rather preachy, I want to try to answer your questions not push my beliefs on you, hold me accountable for that please.  And with that I'm off to bed, I pray you have an amazing day today, God bless.

-fatty

Yes I am a Christian. I'm sorry that there are jerks out there that have done bad things all in the name of, I ask that you don't judge all of us because of the acts of those few. I pray that you're having a great day today. Since that doesn't mean much to most people on this site lets just say that I really really hope you have an awesome day. God bless. -fatty


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3686
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
fatty wrote:In other words,

fatty wrote:
In other words, God wants us to be an active part in carrying out His plans in our lives.
 

But, my issue is, if the only "miracles" that God performs are by our own hands, then there's no way to tell if God is actually present at all. He would be a completely superfluous assertion to explaining events. Also, referring to my previous example, if God exists, then doctors followed God's plan by carrying out the heart transplant and saving the patient; if God doesn't exist, then doctors still carried out the heart transplant and saved the patient. Nothing changed. If God's job is simply apathetic oversight, then what good has he actually contributed? 

fatty wrote:
Why would God make us lazy by giving mana to the starving people in the world when we can hop on a plane and give it to them ourselves?

Hmmmm, why not? It's his Creation, isn't it? He wants to produce good, doesn't he? Why does he sit there, idle, while religious factions slaughter each other and children continue to be tortured and raped? It's not like we're doing an excellent job of purging the world of evil by ourselves. You claim that this is permitted because he's granting us the opportunity to produce good in his stead, but that doesn't sound very moral to me. God allows millions of people to suffer everyday so that we won't be lazy?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


doctorpeppor (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
15. Many Christians believe

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]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Response:

Existing outside time doesn't mean you cease to exist during time.

Also, creating a temporal process doesn't require temporal existence.  It only requires, at minimum, existence during the time the creation occurs.

If a college professor does his first-grader son's math homework, it doesn't mean he only has a first grade education.  It means he has at least a first grade education.  But his education is actually vastly superior to that of his son or his son's comprehension.  It also doesn't imply that he only has math education.


fatty
Posts: 22
Joined: 2009-03-18
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:But, my

butterbattle wrote:

But, my issue is, if the only "miracles" that God performs are by our own hands,

I didn't mean it to come across that way, I was trying impress upon you that God performs miracles both on his own and through humans.  This is hard for me to explain, I'm not very good at it I'm afraid .  I saw a bit of an "aha" moment in your post and I tried to seize it to illustrate another point.

Quote:
then there's no way to tell if God is actually present at all. He would be a completely superfluous assertion to explaining events. Also, referring to my previous example, if God exists, then doctors followed God's plan by carrying out the heart transplant and saving the patient; if God doesn't exist, then doctors still carried out the heart transplant and saved the patient. Nothing changed. If God's job is simply apathetic oversight, then what good has he actually contributed?

If God's job was simply apathetic oversight, then he probably would not be contributing anything, however, I don't believe He is, I believe he does take an active role our lives, we just tend to overlook him.  Again, I'm bad at explaining these things .

Quote:
Hmmmm, why not? It's his Creation, isn't it? He wants to produce good, doesn't he? Why does he sit there, idle, while religious factions slaughter each other and children continue to be tortured and raped?

That is a very good question, and the answer is: I have no idea.  People have been struggling with that idea for thousands of years, try reading the book of Job.  The general conclusion to the book of Job you basically said; it's His creation.  I'll readily admit that that is a pretty crappy answer, I have problems with that too sometimes.  I trust in God though, I think He's got something worked out.

Quote:

It's not like we're doing an excellent job of purging the world of evil by ourselves. You claim that this is permitted because he's granting us the opportunity to produce good in his stead, but that doesn't sound very moral to me. God allows millions of people to suffer everyday so that we won't be lazy?

Not necessarily lazy, that was the best example I could come up with, laziness would be part of it.  Perhaps a better way to explain it would be to ask, what would be the point of Him giving us free will if He's just going to do everything for us?  To go back to my father child building example, how will the child grow if the father takes whatever the child's doing and does it himself at the first sign of the child not doing something right?

Quote:
You claim that this is permitted because he's granting us the opportunity to produce good in his stead, but that doesn't sound very moral to me

Why isn't it moral?  I don't mean that to come across as an accusation, I can't quite understand how you find it to not be moral.  Let me try to explain it better.  You know the difference between good and evil correct?  Of course you do, and do you know that there is suffering in the world?  Lets assume you do (please don't take this to mean that I'm accusing you of being ignorant or anything )  So, you know what is good and you know that there is suffering in the world, and wouldn't you agree that the good thing to do would be to get rid of suffering?  I'm pretty sure that you, and everyone else in the world, would say yes.  So how is God letting us do something that we know we should do not moral?  I hope that helps explain things a little bit better, it not I'll try to find some other way to do it.

Let me try to answer a few more questions on that list.

Quote:
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

So, basically what you're saying here is that if God knows someone is going to fail He shouldn't even give them a chance?  So by that same logic we shouldn't send this mentally handicapped kid to school because he'll never surpass the mental capabilities of a third grader?  That brings up a topic to be discussed in an entirely different forum I think but I hope it answers that question, if I'm off on my logic, am completely misinterpreting my question, or need to try to explain it better please by all means tell me.

As for the like of fire and to answer butterbattle's question about what I believe about hell (you'd have to define the mainstream version of hell for me for me to answer if I believed in that ) is that hell is a place (whether it's a physical place you can find or some sort of spiritual place I don't know and to be honest, I don't really care, where it's located doesn't change what it is) but probably not somewhere where you repeatedly burn to death, I think it's somewhere where God withdraws his presence from, so it's kinda like you're eternally drowning. 

Quote:
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.]

He doesn't have a problem with them.  Circumcision was just a way for the Jewish people to show their loyalty to God.  In the same way all of the food laws were ways that the Jewish people used to publicly show their faith.  What happened was the Jewish people over time forgot about the whole meaning of being circumcised and became more concerned with going through the motions.  In the New Testament it talks about Paul (at least I think it was Paul , I can't for the life of me find this passage) having a vision of God bringing down a blanket full of all the "unclean" Jewish food and telling Paul that it was really ok to eat those, meaning to remember what not eating those foods was really about a sign of their faith, not a random ceremony God wanted the Israelites to do. 

You probably could argue that He means something else if you really want too.  And to be honest I'm really hesitant about saying flat out that this is what God means in this passage in the Bible, I'm going to have to ask that you just trust me on this; I've thought about it this alot and I've heard several sermons saying the same so I'm not just pulling this out of nowhere...bleh, this whole paragraph sounds awkward, I can try to explain it better if you want.

 

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

Yes He did, alot of those phrases are used when someone is telling a story and God happens to be involved.  The Bible was originally written in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek and then translated into English (well first I think it was German and then later English, don't quote me about that part though Sticking out tongue) and I'm going to assume that that's how people talked back then.  The Bible tends to use alot of archaic language, try reading the Message version if you want something with a more modern vocabulary.

...I think I explained rather badly again so I'm going to try to summarize , yes God did know beforehand, it's just how "and God liked it" is written in the Bible.

 

I hope that helps clear up a few things, I pray that you have a great day today.  And to all my fellow education enthusiasts out there, have a great spring break.  Peace.

-fatty

Yes I am a Christian. I'm sorry that there are jerks out there that have done bad things all in the name of, I ask that you don't judge all of us because of the acts of those few. I pray that you're having a great day today. Since that doesn't mean much to most people on this site lets just say that I really really hope you have an awesome day. God bless. -fatty


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3686
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
fatty wrote:If God's job was

fatty wrote:

If God's job was simply apathetic oversight, then he probably would not be contributing anything, however, I don't believe He is, I believe he does take an active role our lives, we just tend to overlook him.  Again, I'm bad at explaining these things .

Oh, okay. That answers my question nicely. I thought you were implying that God didn't contribute anything Himself.

Quote:
People have been struggling with that idea for thousands of years, try reading the book of Job.  The general conclusion to the book of Job you basically said; it's His creation.  I'll readily admit that that is a pretty crappy answer, I have problems with that too sometimes.  I trust in God though, I think He's got something worked out.

I have read the book of Job, multiple times, and, no offense, but I thought it was one of the worst books in the Bible.

God: "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil."

Satan: "Does Job fear God for nothing? Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has. You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks an herds are spread throughout the land. But stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face."

Okay, we are God's creations so he can do whatever he wants with us for any reason?, including take away all of our possessions, kill our entire families, and torture us with painful sores so that he can have a little fun gambling (if that's what he was doing)?

Even then, Job refused to curse God, but cannot fathom any reason why he may deserve such treatment. Of course, Yahweh still ends up being furious at Job and fills up about a page of text declaring how awesome he is, not to mention that modern science can provide an explanation to a large portion of the natural phenomena that God lists out for Job.

"What is the way to the place where the lightning is dispersed," We know this.

"or the place where the east winds are scattered over the earth?" We know this.

"Have you ever given orders to the morning,..." That's simply the rotation of the Earth.

"Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth?" We have.

He never even answered Job's question, why this happened to him. I don't know why God did it either. He moves in mysterious ways, huh?

Quote:
So how is God letting us do something that we know we should do not moral?

Christians believe that God is omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent. This means that God must always strive to create the most good and the best good. When he lets us do something that he knows we will fail at, he is allowing evil into the world, such as when he created the Garden of Eden.

But, since he already knows what we can accomplish, and we will not accomplish, why doesn't he just let us do what we can and do the rest himself. Surely, God can figure out how to reconcile free will with creating the maximum good?

Quote:
So, basically what you're saying here is that if God knows someone is going to fail He shouldn't even give them a chance?

Ah, yes, but the point is that they have no chance. God already knows who is going to heaven or hell before he even creates them, so why put them through the test at all? Why not just put them in heaven or hell?

Quote:
He doesn't have a problem with them.  Circumcision was just a way for the Jewish people to show their loyalty to God.  In the same way all of the food laws were ways that the Jewish people used to publicly show their faith.  What happened was the Jewish people over time forgot about the whole meaning of being circumcised and became more concerned with going through the motions.  In the New Testament it talks about Paul (at least I think it was Paul , I can't for the life of me find this passage) having a vision of God bringing down a blanket full of all the "unclean" Jewish food and telling Paul that it was really ok to eat those, meaning to remember what not eating those foods was really about a sign of their faith, not a random ceremony God wanted the Israelites to do. 

You probably could argue that He means something else if you really want too.  And to be honest I'm really hesitant about saying flat out that this is what God means in this passage in the Bible, I'm going to have to ask that you just trust me on this; I've thought about it this alot and I've heard several sermons saying the same so I'm not just pulling this out of nowhere...bleh, this whole paragraph sounds awkward, I can try to explain it better if you want.

Hmmm, okay.

Quote:
...I think I explained rather badly again so I'm going to try to summarize , yes God did know beforehand, it's just how "and God liked it" is written in the Bible.

Okay.

Quote:
And to all my fellow education enthusiasts out there, have a great spring break.  Peace.

-fatty

Haha, thanks. I hope you have a fantastic spring break as well!

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


fatty
Posts: 22
Joined: 2009-03-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Ah, yes, but the point

Quote:
Ah, yes, but the point is that they have no chance. God already knows who is going to heaven or hell before he even creates them, so why put them through the test at all? Why not just put them in heaven or hell?

If He did not give us a chance at life what would be the point of even making us in the first place?  And I would disagree with the no chance part of that first sentence, you have a chance whether or not to believe in God and it's your own decision whether or not you choose to do so.  Perhaps the best way to explain it would be that God wants to be fair and give everyone a chance at life.  I know that doesn't exactly answer your question very well but I'm afraid that the best reply I can think of is that what would be the point of making us in the first place if he didn't give us a chance?  I'll work on this one some more and see if I can try to get a better way to explain it.

I've come up with a better way to explain my circumcision comment about why some Christians have made a big deal about working on Sundays, not being circumcised, and I would even say about being babtised.  They have gotten more concerned with the letter of the law than the spirit behind it.  Think of a marriage and how people wear rings as a sign of their marriage.  Lets say this custom has just started and a few generations later if someone who was married is now seen in public without a ring it would mean that they weren't married and people would make a huge deal about that person just got divorced.  It's a rather silly example but I think it explains it better than my earlier comment.

Quote:
But, since he already knows what we can accomplish, and we will not accomplish, why doesn't he just let us do what we can and do the rest himself.

Because, if God would do whatever it is we don't do what would be the point of ever doing anything?  There wouldn't be any motivation for people to go out and do stuff.  As an example, someone could think "why should I go work at that soup kitchen when God can just feed them, I'd rather sleep in in my nice comfy bed."  And with that line of thinking it leads most obviously to laziness but also to a lack of empathy, lack of motivation, etc.

Actually, I believe God could actually be letting us do what we can and him taking care of the rest.  Let me give you an example, I have heard that it is in our capabilities to cure world hunger, I don't know if that's true or not but I would bet that if all the world leaders got together they could work something out, maybe we couldn't completely cure it but I'm sure we could make a pretty big dent in it.  So, we can cure hunger so there isn't any reason for God to get involved, the only thing keeping hunger around is ourselves.  (I realize that this argument completely relies on the assumption that we can cure hunger and that if we can't yet there isn't any reason for us to talk about curing it)

Quote:
When he lets us do something that he knows we will fail at, he is allowing evil into the world, such as when he created the Garden of Eden.

I want to talk about this one but I'm too tired to quite get my thoughts in line, I want to say we're arguing semantics here but I think I may want to say that more because it sounds cool rather than because it makes sense .  So I'll try to get back to you tomorrow on this one.  I hope you have a great day today, God bless.

-fatty

Yes I am a Christian. I'm sorry that there are jerks out there that have done bad things all in the name of, I ask that you don't judge all of us because of the acts of those few. I pray that you're having a great day today. Since that doesn't mean much to most people on this site lets just say that I really really hope you have an awesome day. God bless. -fatty


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3686
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
fatty wrote:If He did not

fatty wrote:

If He did not give us a chance at life what would be the point of even making us in the first place?  And I would disagree with the no chance part of that first sentence, you have a chance whether or not to believe in God and it's your own decision whether or not you choose to do so.  Perhaps the best way to explain it would be that God wants to be fair and give everyone a chance at life.  I know that doesn't exactly answer your question very well but I'm afraid that the best reply I can think of is that what would be the point of making us in the first place if he didn't give us a chance?  I'll work on this one some more and see if I can try to get a better way to explain it.

Exactly! If he didn't give us a chance, then there would be no reason for the entire process. That's part of what I was trying to say. If God is omniscient, does it not follow that he already knows whether we will go to heaven or hell before we are born? If this is so, how can my decisions truly be free? It may seem like a free choice to my limited perception, but, in the end, everything would be pre-ordained regardless so it's rather dubious to say that I actually had a choice.

Unfortunately, I think we're talking past each other a little. I suppose I am looking for an explanation of how to reconcile free will and God's omniscience.

Edit: Omniscience and omnipotence necessarily leads to predeterminism?

fatty wrote:
Because, if God would do whatever it is we don't do what would be the point of ever doing anything?  There wouldn't be any motivation for people to go out and do stuff.  As an example, someone could think "why should I go work at that soup kitchen when God can just feed them, I'd rather sleep in in my nice comfy bed."  And with that line of thinking it leads most obviously to laziness but also to a lack of empathy, lack of motivation, etc.

Can't God help us and keep us motivated at the same time?

fatty wrote:
So, we can cure hunger so there isn't any reason for God to get involved, the only thing keeping hunger around is ourselves.

But, while we're working on the problem, people all over the world are still suffering. Meh...

butterbattle wrote:
When he lets us do something that he knows we will fail at, he is allowing evil into the world, such as when he created the Garden of Eden.

I didn't make this very clear, so I just want to say that I'm grappling with God's omniscience again. In a nutshell, God knew that Adam and Even would eat the fruit before he even planted the tree or allowed the serpent into the garden, so he allowed evil to come into the world.

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


fatty
Posts: 22
Joined: 2009-03-18
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Exactly!

butterbattle wrote:

Exactly! If he didn't give us a chance, then there would be no reason for the entire process. That's part of what I was trying to say. If God is omniscient, does it not follow that he already knows whether we will go to heaven or hell before we are born? If this is so, how can my decisions truly be free? It may seem like a free choice to my limited perception, but, in the end, everything would be pre-ordained regardless so it's rather dubious to say that I actually had a choice.

Unfortunately, I think we're talking past each other a little. I suppose I am looking for an explanation of how to reconcile free will and God's omniscience.

Edit: Omniscience and omnipotence necessarily leads to predeterminism?

I have actually argued with one of my roommates on this subject and he agreed with you about our actions truly being free, let me give you his opinion real quick while I think over my response.  He believed that God would technically not be omnipotent, He is just so good at predicting our actions that He might as well be.  But if God is omnipotent like I believe then that argument doesn't work.  I would say that your decisions are truly free because you make them, God just happens to know what descision you will make...let me try to explain it this way, think of God excisting outside of time so as you make a descision ten years from know God will know what that descision is right now.  Let me try to give an example, think of God as having the dvd to you life and you want to know what you're going to be doing in ten years, so He fastforwards real quick, takes a look at what you're doing, then rewinds back to here and now.  I can try to explain that better if you want, I am by no means very good at this.

butterbattle wrote:
I didn't make this very clear, so I just want to say that I'm grappling with God's omniscience again. In a nutshell, God knew that Adam and Even would eat the fruit before he even planted the tree or allowed the serpent into the garden, so he allowed evil to come into the world.

Yes, I would say that He allowed it into the world, but it was not Him that actually brought it into the world.  To try to explain it better, God allowed the concept of evil to exist, but it was Adam and Eve that brought it into the world with their sin.  I would say that the reason that He allowed it would be to give us meaning to the concept of good.  Maybe to explain that better would be to say if there wasn't evil then being good wouldn't mean anything and it would be the same as not giving us a chance at life because if He's going to give us a chance what would be the point at life without giving us any desicions to be made?  That's a horribly awkward sentence so let me explain that one too; K, lets assume that God is giving us a chance at life but he does not allow evil into the world, then we are no more special than the laws of physics because there is no room for us to change, we're just another constant.  But if He allows evil then our lives aren't constant, we can change and grow in ways that we could not without evil there.  Does that help explain things?  I know it's kinda random but I don't want to just half answer a question on you like this.

butterbattle wrote:
Edit: Omniscience and omnipotence necessarily leads to predeterminism?

I would disagree with that, but I'm kinda out of time tonight so I'll try to actually answer that tomorrow night instead of just telling you that I disagree .  I hope you have a great day tomorrow, God bless.

-fatty

Yes I am a Christian. I'm sorry that there are jerks out there that have done bad things all in the name of, I ask that you don't judge all of us because of the acts of those few. I pray that you're having a great day today. Since that doesn't mean much to most people on this site lets just say that I really really hope you have an awesome day. God bless. -fatty


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3686
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
fatty wrote:But if God is

fatty wrote:

But if God is omnipotent like I believe then that argument doesn't work.  I would say that your decisions are truly free because you make them, God just happens to know what descision you will make

I think I see what you're saying.

Quote:
Let me try to give an example, think of God as having the dvd to you life and you want to know what you're going to be doing in ten years, so He fastforwards real quick, takes a look at what you're doing, then rewinds back to here and now.  I can try to explain that better if you want, I am by no means very good at this.

 

Well, this example doesn't help much at all. All the data in the DVD is already encoded and none of it can be changed.

Also, this leads to another potential problem (I'm just full of complaints, aren't I?). When God made me, he knew whether I was going to heaven or hell, meaning that I am either saved or doomed depending on the traits that he gives me. Is this free choice? Why doesn't He make everyone so that they will use their "free will" to choose to go to heaven? Because then it wouldn't be free will?

Quote:
Yes, I would say that He allowed it into the world, but it was not Him that actually brought it into the world. To try to explain it better, God allowed the concept of evil to exist, but it was Adam and Eve that brought it into the world with their sin.

I'm not so sure about original sin either. Try this essay: http://www.rationalresponders.com/the_fall_commits_an_internal_contradiction

Quote:
I would say that the reason that He allowed it would be to give us meaning to the concept of good.  Maybe to explain that better would be to say if there wasn't evil then being good wouldn't mean anything and it would be the same as not giving us a chance at life because if He's going to give us a chance what would be the point at life without giving us any desicions to be made?  That's a horribly awkward sentence so let me explain that one too; K, lets assume that God is giving us a chance at life but he does not allow evil into the world, then we are no more special than the laws of physics because there is no room for us to change, we're just another constant.  But if He allows evil then our lives aren't constant, we can change and grow in ways that we could not without evil there.  Does that help explain things?  I know it's kinda random but I don't want to just half answer a question on you like this.

Okay. I'll kind of accept that one. Or, maybe I just don't want to think anymore.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


fatty
Posts: 22
Joined: 2009-03-18
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Okay.

butterbattle wrote:
Okay. I'll kind of accept that one. Or, maybe I just don't want to think anymore.

haha, I don't blame you, this stuff is hard to grasp.  As much as I want to answer some of these things now I'm afraid I probably won't be able to post anything for a few days so don't think I'm chickening out on you, think of it more as I'm giving you a weekend off before I'm back to making you think .  See you in a few days, God bless, have a great "weekend."

-fatty

Yes I am a Christian. I'm sorry that there are jerks out there that have done bad things all in the name of, I ask that you don't judge all of us because of the acts of those few. I pray that you're having a great day today. Since that doesn't mean much to most people on this site lets just say that I really really hope you have an awesome day. God bless. -fatty


doctorpeppor (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
I'm kind of coming in late

I'm kind of coming in late on this topic, but I'd like to put in a new perspective on omniscience/omnipotence/omnipresence.

God is able to do anything in His will.

God is everywhere as long as it's in His will.

God knows everything that pertains to His will.

 

I often times see God's will taken out of the picture, and God is stuck as the puppetmaster.  The classic question to smash God's omnipotence is "can God create a rock so big he can't lift it?"  If he does, then he can't lift the rock.  If he doesn't, then he can't create it.  One way or another, there's something he can't do.  When you put his will in the picture, the answer is clearly "no", since creating such a rock would not serve to further His purpose.

Does God know everything?  No.  And I can say that with confidence and Scriptural backup.  Psalm 103:12, Isaiah 53:6, 2 Corinthians 5:21.  And other such passages, but these come to mind.  When God forgives our sins, He forgets them.  He no longer knows our sins.  He separates them from us as far as the east from the west, which is eternally distant.

Is God everywhere?  I can't prove this with Scripture, but I don't think He's in hell right now.  I don't think he's in the cereal I ate this morning.  I don't think he's in the toilet when I take a dump.  He very well may be in all those places.  It just seems trivial.  But of course, God has His reasons for whatever He chooses to do.

 

Just some light on those three aspects from another perspective.

I'm a Christian, who believes knowledge, questions, and ceaseless pursuit of wisdom will lead to truths far greater than a hard head ever could.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3686
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
doctorpeppor wrote:I'm kind

doctorpeppor wrote:

I'm kind of coming in late on this topic, but I'd like to put in a new perspective on omniscience/omnipotence/omnipresence.

Ah, interesting. So, your interpretation is that God, by definition, isn't truly omniscient, omnipotent or omnipresent?

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


fatty
Posts: 22
Joined: 2009-03-18
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Well,

butterbattle wrote:
Well, this example doesn't help much at all. All the data in the DVD is already encoded and none of it can be changed.

K, let me try explaining it this way.  God knows each and every possible decision that you can make in your life and He just so happens to know which decisions out of all of those that you will make, as an example you could put a red shirt or a blue shirt on today and He knows which one you will choose.  Perhaps a better way to explain it is that God exists at every point in time so as you are deciding which shirt to wear He is watching you put that shirt on.  If that makes sense...I'm kinda outa the loop after being gone a few days .

butterbattle wrote:
Why doesn't He make everyone so that they will use their "free will" to choose to go to heaven? Because then it wouldn't be free will?

Yes, because if God gave us so much evidence that we could only choose one option it's not really free will.

doctorpeppor wrote:
Does God know everything?  No.  And I can say that with confidence and Scriptural backup.  Psalm 103:12, Isaiah 53:6, 2 Corinthians 5:21.  And other such passages, but these come to mind.  When God forgives our sins, He forgets them.  He no longer knows our sins.  He separates them from us as far as the east from the west, which is eternally distant.

Is God everywhere?  I can't prove this with Scripture, but I don't think He's in hell right now.  I don't think he's in the cereal I ate this morning.  I don't think he's in the toilet when I take a dump.  He very well may be in all those places.  It just seems trivial.  But of course, God has His reasons for whatever He chooses to do.

Interesting perspective, I would disagree with some of this, although I think I might agree with you about God not being in hell; not entirely sure though, while I've heard hell being described as the absence of God I've somehow never quite grasped it as God not being there.  I would say that God forgetting our sins is more metaphorical than what physically happens.  My reason being I remember something about a verse somewhere in the Bible (or it may have just been a sermon, if you haven't heard anything about it feel free to call me out on it) that said if you repeat the same sin over and over He starts to have a problem with it, it's not that He doesn't forgive you, it's more that He starts...hmm, how do I describe it...He starts getting tougher on you about it if that makes sense, He starts wanting you to change some things so you don't do that any more.  This is not like some "oh I lied today and yesterday and now God has problems with me" type of thing, it's something more chronic and long term.  I realize that it's a rather weak argument and I can't for the life of me remember where I've heard it so this one might be better to just mark down as completely my opinion without any Biblical weight behind it.

And one more question I'll try to answer before bed.

Quote:
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

Assuming that the Noah story is in fact literal (which I believe it is, it might not be, but I'm pretty sure it is) I'm afraid that I'm going to have to chalk this one up under the God is infinite argument.  If God is in fact infinite then it's not a problem for him to somehow make it so that fresh water fish could survive in salt water or salt water fish in fresh water.  I really don't like using this argument because I don't think it's one the majority of people on this forumn will accept but that's really the only answer I have.

Bleh, I need to stop answering these late at night, I want to talk more about that one but I need sleep, I'll try to get more on that one tomorrow, good night rational responsers.

-fatty

Yes I am a Christian. I'm sorry that there are jerks out there that have done bad things all in the name of, I ask that you don't judge all of us because of the acts of those few. I pray that you're having a great day today. Since that doesn't mean much to most people on this site lets just say that I really really hope you have an awesome day. God bless. -fatty


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Assuming that the Noah

Quote:

Assuming that the Noah story is in fact literal (which I believe it is, it might not be, but I'm pretty sure it is) I'm afraid that I'm going to have to chalk this one up under the God is infinite argument.  If God is in fact infinite then it's not a problem for him to somehow make it so that fresh water fish could survive in salt water or salt water fish in fresh water.  I really don't like using this argument because I don't think it's one the majority of people on this forumn will accept but that's really the only answer I have.

 

 

Hi Fatty. The above response from you admirably highlights the anti-intellectual convolutions that devout adherents to bronze-age scientific theory are obliged to perform and which, if you forgive me, marks such adherents out as pretty stupid to anyone with even a tinge of respect for reason and logic.

 

You begin by making an unsupportable assertion (you are "pretty sure" that the Noah story is a factual account) and invite us to "assume" the same, the idea presumably being that what follows in your statement will be drawn on that assumption. Yet it's not - and nor can it be of course since both the assertion and what you're inviting us to assume is ludicrous in terms of elementary scientific knowledge of even the most basic understanding.

 

You therefore simply make another assertion completely and one which has no bearing whatsoever on what follows it either. You assert that god is infinite.

 

What follows this assertion defies any explanation, even in the warped logic of religious doctrine. You claim that it is because of this quality of infinity that your god can allow animals live outside of the only habitat in which they can.

 

Maybe you meant to say "infinitely powerful"? Or maybe you chose completely the wrong wording and simply meant to say "omnipotent", the usual escape clause from logic which religionists employ when challenged to justify illogical assertions regarding their perceived deity? Either way you must realise that you have in effect said nothing by way of answering the original question and could just as easily (and more honestly) have responded with a "who gives a shit?" answer.

 

And here's your dilemma, whether you know it or not. The question about the fish in the Noah story (and this is just one of countless questions which could be asked to the same end) invites the religious person, and especially the religious literalist, to justify bronze-age reasoning in a modern world which has advanced its understanding of the physical universe almost incalculably in the meantime. The religionist really only has two options - the quasi-intellectual option of reducing what once had been cutting edge scientific theory three thousand years ago to a metaphysical level in the hope that some analogous quality can be divined from the text, or the non-intellectual option of cutting out reason altogether and attempting to elevate unprovable assertion over proven fact. You choose the latter, but both are equally anathema to intelligent reasoning in the end of the day since both arrogantly attempt to subvert that process by which humans (and society) advance understanding, and in doing so advance their prospects for both their general survival and the opportunity to live a life in which the individual is not obliged to commit all his faculties and resources simply to ensuring his own corporeal survival (ironic - given the claims religion makes on its own behalf regarding freeing people from that chore).

 

It would be tempting simply to say, based on the stupidity of your reasoning, that you yourself were also stupid. But it is evident from your willingness to engage in the subject that an intellect is at least being applied in your assertions, albeit one which in my view is being misapplied to such an extent that it need not have been employed at all. I would recommend however, if your curiosity about such matters has not been totally eradicated by your religious affiliation, to begin by studying the historical era and geopolitical circumstances in which the Noah story, and much else contained in the old testament, emanated - not of course as "bible study", but with reference to proper historical and archaeological studies of the subject. You might also want to concentrate your study on the roots of the flood story as represented in the old testament - itself a fascinating subject of literary and mythological detective work which stretches back to the belief systems pertaining in the first known urban conurbations in Mesopotamia.

 

If you approach such a study with a mind divested of its misperceived need to justify a particular approach to a particular faith in a particular perception of a particular god but open enough to respect the academic method used to reconstruct the record, I guarantee you that it would not be long into your research before you yourself would cringe in recalling that you ever made the comment that I quote above.

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3686
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
fatty wrote:K, let me try

fatty wrote:

K, let me try explaining it this way.  God knows each and every possible decision that you can make in your life and He just so happens to know which decisions out of all of those that you will make, as an example you could put a red shirt or a blue shirt on today and He knows which one you will choose.  Perhaps a better way to explain it is that God exists at every point in time so as you are deciding which shirt to wear He is watching you put that shirt on.  If that makes sense...I'm kinda outa the loop after being gone a few days .

So, basically, I have free will, but it just so happens that God understands me perfectly; thus, he already knows exactly what I'm going to choose. Therefore, it's possible that I am destined to choose to go to hell.

Alright, so there is a way to reconcile omniscience/omnipotence and free will. Or, at least, I'm satisfied.

Quote:
Yes, because if God gave us so much evidence that we could only choose one option it's not really free will.

Possibly, but couldn't he at least give us enough evidence to make it more plausible? As a comparison, do I have the free will to believe that the world is 6,000 years old? Do I have the free will to believe that the Earth is flat?

Quote:
Assuming that the Noah story is in fact literal (which I believe it is, it might not be, but I'm pretty sure it is) I'm afraid that I'm going to have to chalk this one up under the God is infinite argument.  If God is in fact infinite then it's not a problem for him to somehow make it so that fresh water fish could survive in salt water or salt water fish in fresh water. I really don't like using this argument because I don't think it's one the majority of people on this forumn will accept but that's really the only answer I have.

Bleh, I need to stop answering these late at night, I want to talk more about that one but I need sleep, I'll try to get more on that one tomorrow, good night rational responsers.

-fatty

"God is infinite" is the logical equivalent of saying "God works in mysterious ways;" it is a sweeping rejection of all rational discussion. Had the question been, "Where did the water come from?" or "What about micro-organisms?" you could have supplied the same phrase. God is infinite, so he must have had some way of acquiring enough water to flood the entire planet up to the highest mountain or, God is infinite, he can obviously handle transporting a few bacteria. In fact, you can use a variation of this for every single question in the OP; after all, nothing is a problem for God. But, notice that these responses don't actually provide an answer; you didn't explain how God did these things. Of course, if you had said, "Well, obviously, God temporarily transformed the respiratory systems of all the fish in the world," non-theists would chuckle because it sounds absurd. Making the solutions to these dilemmas ambiguous might make them feel less absurd, but they're still just as unsupported as before, which is why nobody on this forum will accept this as a response. 

We do not believe in your God, fatty, so for any question that hints at an internal inconsistency or contradiction with science, what we are looking for a coherent, logical response. Otherwise, from our perspective, we end up exactly where we started, with Bronze Age myth vs. laws of nature, in which case laws of nature always wins. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


fatty
Posts: 22
Joined: 2009-03-18
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:"God is

butterbattle wrote:

"God is infinite" is the logical equivalent of saying "God works in mysterious ways;" it is a sweeping rejection of all rational discussion. Had the question been, "Where did the water come from?" or "What about micro-organisms?" you could have supplied the same phrase. God is infinite, so he must have had some way of acquiring enough water to flood the entire planet up to the highest mountain or, God is infinite, he can obviously handle transporting a few bacteria. In fact, you can use a variation of this for every single question in the OP; after all, nothing is a problem for God. But, notice that these responses don't actually provide an answer; you didn't explain how God did these things. Of course, if you had said, "Well, obviously, God temporarily transformed the respiratory systems of all the fish in the world," non-theists would chuckle because it sounds absurd. Making the solutions to these dilemmas ambiguous might make them feel less absurd, but they're still just as unsupported as before, which is why nobody on this forum will accept this as a response. 

We do not believe in your God, fatty, so for any question that hints at an internal inconsistency or contradiction with science, what we are looking for a coherent, logical response. Otherwise, from our perspective, we end up exactly where we started, with Bronze Age myth vs. laws of nature, in which case laws of nature always wins.

You've said exactly the reason why I really don't like using the God is infinite response, it really means nothing to you.  However there really isn't any other answer.

butterbattle wrote:
We do not believe in your God, fatty,

Yes, I know, and there is absolutely nothing I can say that will change that, which is why I'm not trying too, I am trying to explain a few things Christians believe and perhaps make up for some jerks out there that used God as an excuse for their jerkiness.  I am fully aware that you aren't going to accept some of my answers because some of the things God does defies science, that's just how He works.  If you don't want to accept an answer that's ok, despite how some other Christians act, trying to force you to believe something is not good.  And as a bit of a side note there are things about science that are equally as ridiculous to me as "God changed their lungs" is to you, I'm thinking about posting something about that later on actually so you'll have to wait until then to chew me out

butterbattle wrote:
Possibly, but couldn't he at least give us enough evidence to make it more plausible? As a comparison, do I have the free will to believe that the world is 6,000 years old? Do I have the free will to believe that the Earth is flat?

As for the first question, one could argue that there is already enough evidence, people are just choosing to ignore it.  As for the second two questions yes, you do.  It's part of the whole free will thing, you can believe what you want.  I think you may be going somewhere along the lines of "how do you know god is there" but I think I'll let you ask that rather than assume your answer.

I'll try and get a few more answers in.

Quote:
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.]

To be honest, trying to answer what exactly went through God's mind when He made this decision (and in fact anyone's mind when they make any decision) is a little too presumtuous (as in I want you to tell me why Einstein spoke his last words in German, sure you can answer but you'll never know for sure if you were right, if that makes sense), but I'll give it a shot...hmm, I probably should of said that earlier, ah well.  I would say because they hadn't done it yet.  Yes, God knew they would do it, but He had to give them a chance because of the whole free will argument that we've been talking about. 

There is actually a possiblility that it would not be considered a sin.  Bloodlines were a big thing back then and because Lot didn't have a male heir, his entire line would die with him.  So because of that, one might be able to argue that by not sleeping with Lot, his daughters were sinning.  I don't know if that's right or not but it's another perspective on it.

That's all I've got time for I'm afraid, peace.

-fatty

Yes I am a Christian. I'm sorry that there are jerks out there that have done bad things all in the name of, I ask that you don't judge all of us because of the acts of those few. I pray that you're having a great day today. Since that doesn't mean much to most people on this site lets just say that I really really hope you have an awesome day. God bless. -fatty


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3686
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
fatty wrote:You've said

fatty wrote:

You've said exactly the reason why I really don't like using the God is infinite response, it really means nothing to you.  However there really isn't any other answer.

Yes, I know, and there is absolutely nothing I can say that will change that, which is why I'm not trying too, I am trying to explain a few things Christians believe and perhaps make up for some jerks out there that used God as an excuse for their jerkiness.  I am fully aware that you aren't going to accept some of my answers because some of the things God does defies science, that's just how He works.  If you don't want to accept an answer that's ok, despite how some other Christians act, trying to force you to believe something is not good.

 

Well.....fine! *slams door*

fatty wrote:
]And as a bit of a side note there are things about science that are equally as ridiculous to me as "God changed their lungs" is to you, I'm thinking about posting something about that later on actually so you'll have to wait until then to chew me out

I look forward to that. Actually, just so you know, if you post a new thread discussing some often contested scientific law or theory, a lot of people are going to chew you out.

fatty wrote:
Yes, because if God gave us so much evidence that we could only choose one option it's not really free will.

butterbattle wrote:
Possibly, but couldn't he at least give us enough evidence to make it more plausible? As a comparison, do I have the free will to believe that the world is 6,000 years old? Do I have the free will to believe that the Earth is flat?

fatty wrote:
As for the first question, one could argue that there is already enough evidence, people are just choosing to ignore it.  As for the second two questions yes, you do.  It's part of the whole free will thing, you can believe what you want.  I think you may be going somewhere along the lines of "how do you know god is there" but I think I'll let you ask that rather than assume your answer.

When you state "if God gave us so much evidence," it follows that there is some boundary that defines when there is too much evidence. There's no way to comprehend or abstractly describe where this boundary is, so I offered some examples as test. So, my question should be obvious. If the evidence for an old Earth is inadequate to take away Creationists' free will to believe in a young Earth or a flat Earth, then why couldn't God present as much testable, observable evidence for his existence as there is for an old Earth or a spherical Earth? Or geocentricity?

I am also confused by the sentence, "It's part of the whole free will thing, you can believe what you want." I assume that this only applies when the evidence is insufficient to "force" you to believe in something? Otherwise, you're contradicting yourself.

fatty wrote:
To be honest, trying to answer what exactly went through God's mind when He made this decision (and in fact anyone's mind when they make any decision) is a little too presumtuous

Why is it presumptuous? Assuming that I have the answer is presumptuous. Looking for an answer is not presumptuous.

fatty wrote:
I probably should of said that earlier, ah well.  I would say because they hadn't done it yet.  Yes, God knew they would do it, but He had to give them a chance because of the whole free will argument that we've been talking about. 

There is actually a possiblility that it would not be considered a sin.  Bloodlines were a big thing back then and because Lot didn't have a male heir, his entire line would die with him.  So because of that, one might be able to argue that by not sleeping with Lot, his daughters were sinning.  I don't know if that's right or not but it's another perspective on it.

That's all I've got time for I'm afraid, peace.

-fatty

Haha, I was looking at Leviticus 20, and I couldn't find a verse where it stated that it was wrong for a man to sleep with his daughter. It's got man and other man's wife, man and father's wife, man and daughter-in-law, man and man, man marries woman and the woman's mother simultaneously, man and animal, woman and animal, man and his sister, man and woman during monthly period, man and aunt, and man and brother's wife. Where's man and daughter? Lol.

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


fatty
Posts: 22
Joined: 2009-03-18
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Why is it

butterbattle wrote:

Why is it presumptuous? Assuming that I have the answer is presumptuous. Looking for an answer is not presumptuous.

I meant it that assuming that I have the answer is presumptuous, like me answering for God is a tad presumptuous of me, sorry.  I try not to be confusing when I answer things but I keep thinking ahead and tend to lose my train of thought sometimes

butterbattle wrote:
I look forward to that. Actually, just so you know, if you post a new thread discussing some often contested scientific law or theory, a lot of people are going to chew you out.

meh, if you haven't posted something that gets you a bunch of caps locked replies you haven't lived!   I'm going to have to brush up on my scientific vocabulary though, deludedgod's vocabulary far surpases mine .

butterbattle wrote:
am also confused by the sentence, "It's part of the whole free will thing, you can believe what you want." I assume that this only applies when the evidence is insufficient to "force" you to believe in something? Otherwise, you're contradicting yourself.

To be honest I'm confused myself...it's kind of embarassing actually.  Umm...would you mind explaining the contradition to me?  I'm not seeing it.

K, I think I understand this question, I can't for the life of me figure out what I was trying to say with my whole last comment but I think I can understand this question.

butterbattle wrote:
then why couldn't God present as much testable, observable evidence for his existence as there is for an old Earth or a spherical Earth? Or geocentricity?

K, because if He gives us so much evidence then we really don't have free will...hmm, you know what, lets hold off on this argument, I've got a good idea on how to explain this but it's going to take alot of work on my part to set things up...I won't have time to do it for like a week though, so if you want me to keep trying to explain it now I can.

butterbattle wrote:
Haha, I was looking at Leviticus 20, and I couldn't find a verse where it stated that it was wrong for a man to sleep with his daughter. It's got man and other man's wife, man and father's wife, man and daughter-in-law, man and man, man marries woman and the woman's mother simultaneously, man and animal, woman and animal, man and his sister, man and woman during monthly period, man and aunt, and man and brother's wife. Where's man and daughter? Lol.

haha, I didn't know that but it doesn't surprise me.  Incestial relationships in ancient Israel weren't unheard of although I think it was mostly the Egyptians that did it when the Israelites were slaves, and mostly the Egyptian royalty at that, they didn't like their bloodlines to be dilluted apparently so they tended to marry close to home...like within the home in many cases .

That's all I've got time for I'm afraid, g'night butters, hehe .  Peace.

-fatty

Yes I am a Christian. I'm sorry that there are jerks out there that have done bad things all in the name of, I ask that you don't judge all of us because of the acts of those few. I pray that you're having a great day today. Since that doesn't mean much to most people on this site lets just say that I really really hope you have an awesome day. God bless. -fatty


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3686
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
fatty wrote: I meant it that

fatty wrote:

I meant it that assuming that I have the answer is presumptuous, like me answering for God is a tad presumptuous of me, sorry.  I try not to be confusing when I answer things but I keep thinking ahead and tend to lose my train of thought sometimes

Ah, so you actually meant what I thought you should have meant. Lol.

fatty wrote:
meh, if you haven't posted something that gets you a bunch of caps locked replies you haven't lived!

Amen!

fatty wrote:
  I'm going to have to brush up on my scientific vocabulary though, deludedgod's vocabulary far surpases mine .

Good luck with that. 

fatty wrote:
To be honest I'm confused myself...it's kind of embarassing actually.  Umm...would you mind explaining the contradition to me?  I'm not seeing it.

Well, let's recap.

-----------------------------------------------------

butterbattle: Why doesn't He make everyone so that they will use their "free will" to choose to go to heaven? Because then it wouldn't be free will?

fatty: Yes, because if God gave us so much evidence that we could only choose one option it's not really free will.

butterbattle: Possibly, but couldn't he at least give us enough evidence to make it more plausible? As a comparison, do I have the free will to believe that the world is 6,000 years old? Do I have the free will to believe that the Earth is flat?

fatty: As for the first question, one could argue that there is already enough evidence, people are just choosing to ignore it.  As for the second two questions yes, you do.  It's part of the whole free will thing, you can believe what you want.  I think you may be going somewhere along the lines of "how do you know god is there" but I think I'll let you ask that rather than assume your answer.

butterbattle: When you state "if God gave us so much evidence," it follows that there is some boundary that defines when there is too much evidence. There's no way to comprehend or abstractly describe where this boundary is, so I offered some examples as test. So, my question should be obvious. If the evidence for an old Earth is inadequate to take away Creationists' free will to believe in a young Earth or a flat Earth, then why couldn't God present as much testable, observable evidence for his existence as there is for an old Earth or a spherical Earth? Or geocentricity?

I am also confused by the sentence, "It's part of the whole free will thing, you can believe what you want." I assume that this only applies when the evidence is insufficient to "force" you to believe in something? Otherwise, you're contradicting yourself.

fatty: K, I think I understand this question, I can't for the life of me figure out what I was trying to say with my whole last comment but I think I can understand this question.

K, because if He gives us so much evidence then we really don't have free will...hmm, you know what, lets hold off on this argument, I've got a good idea on how to explain this but it's going to take alot of work on my part to set things up...I won't have time to do it for like a week though, so if you want me to keep trying to explain it now I can.

-------------------------------------------------- 

Arrg, no, I...will...not...be...confused.

I wrote, "As a comparison, do I have the free will to believe that the world is 6,000 years old? Do I have the free will to believe that the Earth is flat?"

You wrote, "As for the second two questions yes, you do."

I wrote, "If the evidence for an old Earth is inadequate to take away Creationists' free will to believe in a young Earth or a flat Earth, then why couldn't God present as much testable, observable evidence for his existence as there is for an old Earth or a spherical Earth? Or geocentricity?"

You wrote, "K, because if He gives us so much evidence then we really don't have free will."

So, do I have the free will to believe otherwise with X amount of available evidence?  

fatty wrote:
haha, I didn't know that but it doesn't surprise me.  Incestial relationships in ancient Israel weren't unheard of although I think it was mostly the Egyptians that did it when the Israelites were slaves, and mostly the Egyptian royalty at that, they didn't like their bloodlines to be dilluted apparently so they tended to marry close to home...like within the home in many cases .

Weren't these God's laws?

fatty wrote:
That's all I've got time for I'm afraid, g'night butters, hehe .  Peace.

-fatty

*gasp* How dare you make a different reference?   butterbattle

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


fatty
Posts: 22
Joined: 2009-03-18
User is offlineOffline
Bleh, I missed a Dr. Seuss

Bleh, I missed a Dr. Seuss reference?  I am shamed.

butterbattle wrote:
Weren't these God's laws?

Yes, I meant it as more of an interesting comment on the prevalence of incestial relationships during the times of ancient Israel...interesting for lack of a better way of putting it...

butterbattle wrote:
So, do I have the free will to believe otherwise with X amount of available evidence?

I believe I have unconfused myself enough to know an answer and figure out where I may have gone slightly offtopic in my explanations.  When I say free will I mean that what ever we do it is actually us doing it and not God forcing us into anything.  So yes, you can believe X whether or not there is any evidence or not.

Or do you mean X to be the point where there is so much evidence that there it has passed the point of it being free will?  Meh, I may as well talk about that anyways.  Suppose you're faced with evidence X and the obvious thought is that you can come up with some sort of an excuse, choose to ignore it, write yourself off as delusional, etc. so of course you have a choice.  But, if there is a possibility of having second doubts then X obviously hasn't been met.  That leads to two different points the first being a question; can X be met?  My opinion that yes, it is possible, but it will be very, very, VERY hard to do so, and can probably only be done by someone of infinite proportions (hint hint ).  The second point is that, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, there will be doubt; and, I would say that that doubt is a good thing.  It is because of that doubt that we can critically examine whatever it is that we have evidence on which can help us grow into better, more knowledgeable individuals rather than people merely accepting what they believe without question.

I hope that somewhere in there I answered your question.  If not, we have more stuff to talk about .  As always if my logic is wrong please tell me.  Peace.

-fatty

 

Yes I am a Christian. I'm sorry that there are jerks out there that have done bad things all in the name of, I ask that you don't judge all of us because of the acts of those few. I pray that you're having a great day today. Since that doesn't mean much to most people on this site lets just say that I really really hope you have an awesome day. God bless. -fatty


fatty
Posts: 22
Joined: 2009-03-18
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Haha, I

butterbattle wrote:
Haha, I was looking at Leviticus 20, and I couldn't find a verse where it stated that it was wrong for a man to sleep with his daughter. It's got man and other man's wife, man and father's wife, man and daughter-in-law, man and man, man marries woman and the woman's mother simultaneously, man and animal, woman and animal, man and his sister, man and woman during monthly period, man and aunt, and man and brother's wife. Where's man and daughter? Lol.

I meant to comment on this the other night but forgot about it.  Have you read much of the New Testament?  The reason I ask is that because alot of atheists on this forumn (not necessarily you butterbattle) but of people and alot of these questions seem to be stuck on things in the Old Testament, which, as the first word implies, is old.  Alot of things in there have been made clearer or even replaced by things in the New Testament.  Umm...I wanted to say something else here but I can't remember what exactly .

So ya give the New Testament a shot if you've only read some of the Old Testament.  If you've never read it (or never read the Bible and want to get an idea of what Christianity is about) read John first.  If you just want dirt to argue about I suggest you start with Leviticus, lots of controversial stuff in there.

Peace.

-fatty

Yes I am a Christian. I'm sorry that there are jerks out there that have done bad things all in the name of, I ask that you don't judge all of us because of the acts of those few. I pray that you're having a great day today. Since that doesn't mean much to most people on this site lets just say that I really really hope you have an awesome day. God bless. -fatty


crazymonkie
Silver Member
crazymonkie's picture
Posts: 336
Joined: 2009-03-09
User is offlineOffline
fatty wrote:butterbattle

fatty wrote:
...alot of atheists on this forumn (not necessarily you butterbattle) but of people and alot of these questions seem to be stuck on things in the Old Testament, which, as the first word implies, is old.  Alot of things in there have been made clearer or even replaced by things in the New Testament.

Ugh, this old gem.

Look: This whole theory that Jesus was meant to fulfill the Law is bullshit of the highest order. The Law was meant for the Jewish people *for all time.* Some Jews believed it should be applied to non-Jews before the destruction of the Second Temple, but NEVER was there the idea that it needed 'fulfilling.' That's an incoherent concept, period.

So if you say you believe in what Jesus said, and at the very least take his word over Paul's (which I think you do- but Christians wobble back and forth depending on what point they want to make and who's going to give them the most 'clobber-worthy' verse) then you have to remember that Jesus *specifically* said he wasn't going to get rid of the Law.

At this point, you're probably digging for some more hogwash theories to stack on top the massive Pauline anti-Jesus nonsense you've built up, so I'll save you the trouble of stating your point: No, it's not metaphorical. No it's not the 'law that's written on our hearts' or some bull like that. No, it's not 'love thy neighbor' and 'love God.' No- it's all those hundreds of regulations that God put up for his followers. If you're going to follow God- the one true God- you can't half-ass this thing. Your god doesn't like that.

Or put another way: You can't fulfill something that's complete, perfect and unchangeable.

Quote:
So ya give the New Testament a shot if you've only read some of the Old Testament.  If you've never read it (or never read the Bible and want to get an idea of what Christianity is about) read John first.  If you just want dirt to argue about I suggest you start with Leviticus, lots of controversial stuff in there.

Speaking of the Gospels: Why are there four? There aren't four accounts of Abraham's life, or Moses' life, or David's, or Solomon's.... and they're arguably just as important as Jesus. No Moses, no Law. No Abraham, no Jews. No David, no well-established kingdom. No Solomon, no Temple.

AND ANOTHER THING: The entire 'god in the flesh' concept is TOTALLY alien to Judaica. Getting imbued with power *from* God happened a lot, hence why the Arians were probably right- or at least closer to right than the Nicenes, but God in the flesh? I'd go so far as to say the Jews probably would have considered that blasphemy. Or heresy. Or both.

Christianity was NOT a direct descendant of Judaism. At least, not completely. There's far more Greco-Roman in it than there is Jewishness. Beyond the fact that the Christians misused the Septaugint for their vision of a 'fulfilled' Law and their idea of a savior (who's *just a bit* like so many other pre-Christian dying/resurrected gods) there's not much else there that's Jewish.

OrdinaryClay wrote:
If you don't believe your non-belief then you don't believe and you must not be an atheist.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3686
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Hmmmm...fatty wrote:I

Hmmmm...

fatty wrote:
I believe I have unconfused myself enough to know an answer and figure out where I may have gone slightly offtopic in my explanations.  When I say free will I mean that what ever we do it is actually us doing it and not God forcing us into anything.  So yes, you can believe X whether or not there is any evidence or not.

Or do you mean X to be the point where there is so much evidence that there it has passed the point of it being free will?  Meh, I may as well talk about that anyways.  Suppose you're faced with evidence X and the obvious thought is that you can come up with some sort of an excuse, choose to ignore it, write yourself off as delusional, etc. so of course you have a choice.  But, if there is a possibility of having second doubts then X obviously hasn't been met.  That leads to two different points the first being a question; can X be met?  My opinion that yes, it is possible, but it will be very, very, VERY hard to do so, and can probably only be done by someone of infinite proportions (hint hint ).  The second point is that, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, there will be doubt; and, I would say that that doubt is a good thing.  It is because of that doubt that we can critically examine whatever it is that we have evidence on which can help us grow into better, more knowledgeable individuals rather than people merely accepting what they believe without question.

So, do you believe that there is as much evidence for a spherical Earth as there is for the existence of God? Yes, this is a very rhetorical question (as in, it's part of my argument, not that I don't want you to answer).  

fatty wrote:
I meant to comment on this the other night but forgot about it.  Have you read much of the New Testament?  The reason I ask is that because alot of atheists on this forumn (not necessarily you butterbattle) but of people and alot of these questions seem to be stuck on things in the Old Testament, which, as the first word implies, is old.  Alot of things in there have been made clearer or even replaced by things in the New Testament.  Umm...I wanted to say something else here but I can't remember what exactly .

So ya give the New Testament a shot if you've only read some of the Old Testament.  If you've never read it (or never read the Bible and want to get an idea of what Christianity is about) read John first.  If you just want dirt to argue about I suggest you start with Leviticus, lots of controversial stuff in there.

Peace.

-fatty

Admittedly, I've read most of the Bible, but the majority of what I haven't read is in the NT.

But, there might be an easier way to resolve this. Do you believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God? Or, do you believe that it's simply inspired by God and written by man, thus, containing errors?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


doctorpeppor (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
altered explanations

<b>Butterbattle </b>- <i>Ah, interesting. So, your interpretation is that God, by definition, isn't truly omniscient, omnipotent or omnipresent?</i>

If you're going to misquote me, feel free to e-mail me and we can straighten it out personally.  If you want to have a "logical intelligent conversation," then don't do stuff like that.  I didn't do that so you could go around saying "I found a Christian that doesn't believe God is omniscient."  I did it to further the rationale behind the arguments of the conversation.  If you didn't mean it that way, I apologize.  But if you're in my shoes, you'll agree it sounds pretty much like "so you're going back on your beliefs?"  I won't have a conversation that tries to pin that on me.  And it irks me even more when people try to simplify what I'm saying while leaving out the important details that I spent time to specifically include.  Needless to say, I've had quite a few arguments that ended just because people would do that to me.

<b>fatty</b> - <i>I realize that it's a rather weak argument and I can't for the life of me remember where I've heard it so this one might be better to just mark down as completely my opinion without any Biblical weight behind it.</i>

The closest thing I could find is Romans chapter 6 where it talks about a saved man being dead to sin and adresses the issue of "should the man continue to live in sin?"  But it doesn't really address God's punishment for the issue.


fatty
Posts: 22
Joined: 2009-03-18
User is offlineOffline
crazymonkie wrote:Ugh, this

crazymonkie wrote:

Ugh, this old gem.

Look: This whole theory that Jesus was meant to fulfill the Law is bullshit of the highest order. The Law was meant for the Jewish people *for all time.* Some Jews believed it should be applied to non-Jews before the destruction of the Second Temple, but NEVER was there the idea that it needed 'fulfilling.' That's an incoherent concept, period.

So if you say you believe in what Jesus said, and at the very least take his word over Paul's (which I think you do- but Christians wobble back and forth depending on what point they want to make and who's going to give them the most 'clobber-worthy' verse) then you have to remember that Jesus *specifically* said he wasn't going to get rid of the Law.

At this point, you're probably digging for some more hogwash theories to stack on top the massive Pauline anti-Jesus nonsense you've built up, so I'll save you the trouble of stating your point: No, it's not metaphorical. No it's not the 'law that's written on our hearts' or some bull like that. No, it's not 'love thy neighbor' and 'love God.' No- it's all those hundreds of regulations that God put up for his followers. If you're going to follow God- the one true God- you can't half-ass this thing. Your god doesn't like that.

Or put another way: You can't fulfill something that's complete, perfect and unchangeable.

Matthew 5:17, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them...."

Yes, Jesus said that he wasn't going to get rid of the law...Why exactly is this bullshit?  How exactly do you know that this is not metaphorical?

craziemonkie wrote:
Speaking of the Gospels: Why are there four? There aren't four accounts of Abraham's life, or Moses' life, or David's, or Solomon's.... and they're arguably just as important as Jesus. No Moses, no Law. No Abraham, no Jews. No David, no well-established kingdom. No Solomon, no Temple.[/quote

Why does it matter that there are four?  No Moses does not necessarily mean no Law, if there was no Moses then God could have very well chosen someone else or could of gone about giving the Law in some other way.  Let me give you an example, if there was no Abraham Lincoln is does not mean that slaves would never have been freed.

Thats all I have time for tonight I'm afraid, peace.

-fatty

Yes I am a Christian. I'm sorry that there are jerks out there that have done bad things all in the name of, I ask that you don't judge all of us because of the acts of those few. I pray that you're having a great day today. Since that doesn't mean much to most people on this site lets just say that I really really hope you have an awesome day. God bless. -fatty


crazymonkie
Silver Member
crazymonkie's picture
Posts: 336
Joined: 2009-03-09
User is offlineOffline
fatty wrote:Yes, Jesus said

fatty wrote:
Yes, Jesus said that he wasn't going to get rid of the law...Why exactly is this bullshit?  How exactly do you know that this is not metaphorical?

Because: IF Christianity came from Judaism, which it claims it does, and IF ALL the traditions before Jesus' time agreed that the Law was for all time and complete- there is no way it could be 'fulfilled.' It's a nonsense concept. You can throw all the Bible verses you want to at me, all you prove is that there were other people who horrendously misunderstood what the Law was about.

Quote:
craziemonkie wrote:
Speaking of the Gospels: Why are there four? There aren't four accounts of Abraham's life, or Moses' life, or David's, or Solomon's.... and they're arguably just as important as Jesus. No Moses, no Law. No Abraham, no Jews. No David, no well-established kingdom. No Solomon, no Temple.

Why does it matter that there are four?  No Moses does not necessarily mean no Law, if there was no Moses then God could have very well chosen someone else or could of gone about giving the Law in some other way.  Let me give you an example, if there was no Abraham Lincoln is does not mean that slaves would never have been freed.

The point is that Moses, or whoever god would have chosen for the task, was given the Law. Without whoever that was, there would have been no Law at all, and questions of its relevance today wouldn't even come up. .... I'm not exactly explaining this well.

You're saying 'it would have been someone else,' and I'm saying, 'that's irrelevant.' What matters is that, whoever it was doing what god wanted- whether that's establishing god's earthly kingdom (Solomon and David), receiving the Law (Moses), or being the first of the *one true god's* chosen people (Abraham)- they don't get four stories.

I was actually just leading you into a little history lesson. I wanted to know if you knew the actual, historical answer behind why there are four Gospels and not one, and why it was so.

The answer: A now-obscure, but then really well-known, 2nd century bishop named Irenaeus of Lyons decided, based on Middle Platonic philosophy popular at the time, to have four Gospels- each to reflect a different Platonic animal and the four quarters. His theory about Platonic balance became the basis for the canonization of the four Gospels carried out by Eusebius and several others.

Neoplatonism, BTW, cribbed practically point-for-point from Plotinus, became the basis for the mainstream Christian view of god, mystery, the 'other world,' and the acceptance (I should say non-acceptance) of empirical evidence for god's existence.

OrdinaryClay wrote:
If you don't believe your non-belief then you don't believe and you must not be an atheist.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3686
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
doctorpeppor wrote:If you're

doctorpeppor wrote:

If you're going to misquote me, feel free to e-mail me and we can straighten it out personally.

I was not trying to create a strawman or misquote you. If I did, I apologize.

Quote:
If you want to have a "logical intelligent conversation," then don't do stuff like that.  I didn't do that so you could go around saying "I found a Christian that doesn't believe God is omniscient."  I did it to further the rationale behind the arguments of the conversation.  If you didn't mean it that way, I apologize.  But if you're in my shoes, you'll agree it sounds pretty much like "so you're going back on your beliefs?"  I won't have a conversation that tries to pin that on me.  And it irks me even more when people try to simplify what I'm saying while leaving out the important details that I spent time to specifically include.  Needless to say, I've had quite a few arguments that ended just because people would do that to me.

My response was not tongue-in-cheek. I wrote what I wrote because I honestly thought that was what you believed.

Quote:
I often times see God's will taken out of the picture, and God is stuck as the puppetmaster.  The classic question to smash God's omnipotence is "can God create a rock so big he can't lift it?"  If he does, then he can't lift the rock.  If he doesn't, then he can't create it.  One way or another, there's something he can't do.

To be omnipotent is to be all-powerful. If there's something God can't do, then he's not all powerful.

Quote:
When you put his will in the picture, the answer is clearly "no", since creating such a rock would not serve to further His purpose.

What does his will to perform an action have to do with his ability to perform it? You're confusing two completely unrelated characteristics. Whether or not I choose to bench 300 pounds has no bearing on whether I can. 

Quote:
Does God know everything?  No.  And I can say that with confidence and Scriptural backup.  Psalm 103:12, Isaiah 53:6, 2 Corinthians 5:21.  And other such passages, but these come to mind.  When God forgives our sins, He forgets them.  He no longer knows our sins.  He separates them from us as far as the east from the west, which is eternally distant.

To be omniscient is to know everything. If God forgets our sins, then he know longer knows about them. Ergo, he's not omniscient.

Quote:
Is God everywhere?  I can't prove this with Scripture, but I don't think He's in hell right now.

To be omnipresent is to be everywhere. If he's not currently in hell, then he's not everywhere. Ergo, he's not omnipresent.

 

 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


fatty
Posts: 22
Joined: 2009-03-18
User is offlineOffline
craziemonkie wrote:Because:

craziemonkie wrote:
Because: IF Christianity came from Judaism, which it claims it does, and IF ALL the traditions before Jesus' time agreed that the Law was for all time and complete- there is no way it could be 'fulfilled.' It's a nonsense concept. You can throw all the Bible verses you want to at me, all you prove is that there were other people who horrendously misunderstood what the Law was about.

Ah I understand you now, I disagree, but I understand your view point.  Once again, sources man, sources, where does it say that the law was complete?  If I can't use any Bible verse to change your mind then you should have to use a Bible verse to change mine.

And furthermore, why does this one little detail somehow negate everything in the New Testament?  That's kind of like me saying that evolution is completely negated because scientists have not found humans and chimpanzees common ancestor.

craziemonkie wrote:
The answer: A now-obscure, but then really well-known, 2nd century bishop named Irenaeus of Lyons decided, based on Middle Platonic philosophy popular at the time, to have four Gospels- each to reflect a different Platonic animal and the four quarters. His theory about Platonic balance became the basis for the canonization of the four Gospels carried out by Eusebius and several others.

...so?  You're basing this whole argument off of the premise that God does not exist therefore it was this man that caused this to be this way.  I base all my premises that God does exist therefore He caused this to be this way.  My way of viewing things seems laughable to you, your way of viewing things seems laughable to me.

Yes I am a Christian. I'm sorry that there are jerks out there that have done bad things all in the name of, I ask that you don't judge all of us because of the acts of those few. I pray that you're having a great day today. Since that doesn't mean much to most people on this site lets just say that I really really hope you have an awesome day. God bless. -fatty


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote:You're basing this

Quote:

You're basing this whole argument off of the premise that God does not exist therefore it was this man that caused this to be this way.  I base all my premises that God does exist therefore He caused this to be this way.  My way of viewing things seems laughable to you, your way of viewing things seems laughable to me.

 

What, God decided to limit the number of gospels to four?

 

Or Iranaeus of Lyons created the universe?

 

All very vague, Fatty.

 

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


crazymonkie
Silver Member
crazymonkie's picture
Posts: 336
Joined: 2009-03-09
User is offlineOffline
fatty wrote:Ah I understand

fatty wrote:
Ah I understand you now, I disagree, but I understand your view point.  Once again, sources man, sources, where does it say that the law was complete?  If I can't use any Bible verse to change your mind then you should have to use a Bible verse to change mine.

You know, I honestly can't find it. That doesn't necessarily mean it isn't there, just that I can't find it in the mess of commands and stories about what Moses and Aaron did.

Really, though, it's only one of several issues with the narrative of Jesus. I mean, even *before* we start talking about his walking on water, or the fact that there are 2 different stories *in each synoptic Gospel* about the feeding of the 5000/4000, geographical issues, and so on.

Quote:
And furthermore, why does this one little detail somehow negate everything in the New Testament?  That's kind of like me saying that evolution is completely negated because scientists have not found humans and chimpanzees common ancestor.

First point: If there was no evidence for common ancestors of humans and chimpanzees (like, say, the recent discovery of the fused 2 chromosomes that explain how all other hominids have 28 chromosomes and we have 26), then science WOULD discard it. If there was no evidence for the continuing evolution of animals, and the shift from species to species or further, evolution WOULD be falsified, and thus, discarded. So your analogy is inapt.

Second point: The problem is the 'narrative' of Jesus' need. It's just not there. It depends upon the idea of original sin- ALL 'mainstream' Christian sects have it- which Judaism NEVER believed in; it then depends upon the Messianic prophecies, which are then reinterpreted not to mean a Jewish ruler who will bring peace to the world as a temporal leader, but as a spiritual leader who, for some strange reason, and completely against Judaic thought, was god in the flesh. The prophesies of Isaiah, et al, were taken WAY out of context and from a bad translation regardless, and even then, Christianity has to REALLY stretch it and ignore parts of the prophesies.

I don't have any specifics, but I'm sure there are lots of old articles out and about on this site. Or elsewhere. Or you could just do what I did (part of what made me start losing faith in Christianity): actually go back and read the original passages. Even in the 'foul papers' (sorry, taking a Shakespeare class) of the Christian 'Old Testament' they match up really badly. The misuse of Isaiah's 'suffering Israel' passages really did it for me.

Quote:

craziemonkie wrote:
The answer: A now-obscure, but then really well-known, 2nd century bishop named Irenaeus of Lyons decided, based on Middle Platonic philosophy popular at the time, to have four Gospels- each to reflect a different Platonic animal and the four quarters. His theory about Platonic balance became the basis for the canonization of the four Gospels carried out by Eusebius and several others.

...so?  You're basing this whole argument off of the premise that God does not exist therefore it was this man that caused this to be this way.  I base all my premises that God does exist therefore He caused this to be this way.  My way of viewing things seems laughable to you, your way of viewing things seems laughable to me.

That's a very typical apologist response, really. "So what if the Sumerians wrote a story about a worldwide flood caused by the gods thousands of years before the Hebrews did? That just means it was god setting the groundwork for the acceptance of the right story!" OR "That just  means it was Satan testing humanity... boy did we fail; we sure do need god!"

Come on, dude. I'm working on the premise that the weight of actual, historical, empirical proof is greater than disputed (at best) books about magic and the supernatural. So when I say 'it was Ireneus', and you say 'Bible doesn't say that,' I say 'So fucking what?' It's what HAPPENED, not what you think did, or what the book says did.

None of this bullshit about 'my opinion is my opinion and yours is yours.' Facts, not conjecture; truth, not blind belief.

Fact: Christianity is almost all Neoplatonism. Fact: It outright ignores the parts of Judaism it doesn't like and sticks like glue to the parts it does like. In fact, the way it looks at the Law proves outright that it didn't come from Judaism; the idea in the latter is that the strictures are meant to be an ongoing act of worship. By thinking about what god wants them to do and not do, and actually doing or not doing them, Jews believe they are moving closer to the holy. They are not meant to be god's impossible standards which needed to be fixed by god coming to earth and sacrificing himself so the Law wasn't needed any more; that doesn't make sense to the Jews, and rightly so. It just doesn't make sense, certainly not for strict monotheists such as the Jews.

OrdinaryClay wrote:
If you don't believe your non-belief then you don't believe and you must not be an atheist.


doctorpeppor
Posts: 7
Joined: 2009-04-09
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Ah,

butterbattle wrote:

Ah, interesting. So, your interpretation is that God, by definition, isn't truly omniscient, omnipotent or omnipresent?

No.  My interpretation is that God, by definition, is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent as it pertains to His will.

butterbattle wrote:

To be omnipotent is to be all-powerful. If there's something God can't do, then he's not all powerful.

People create false positives for that very reason, to prove that nothing is solid enough to stand up against everything.  Why would God create something that would limit Himself?  Could anyone YOU create do that and still be all powerful?  No.

 

butterbattle wrote:
Quote:
When you put his will in the picture, the answer is clearly "no", since creating such a rock would not serve to further His purpose.

What does his will to perform an action have to do with his ability to perform it? You're confusing two completely unrelated characteristics. Whether or not I choose to bench 300 pounds has no bearing on whether I can.

Because you're not God.  You, as a person, are able to do things that you don't will yourself to do.  God is not a man, and placing human attributes on Him creates your false image of Him.  God can do, be, and think anything and everything that will serve His purpose.  If He doesn't do something, it's because it won't be useful.  God has nothing to prove to anyone.  He already did all His proving, and still today I believe He proves Himself without needing to.

There is no specific place in the Scriptures that say "God only does His will," but numerous times throughout the Bible God performs His will, and nowhere does He perform an action against His will.  This is the evidence.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3686
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
doctorpeppor wrote:Because

doctorpeppor wrote:

Because you're not God.  You, as a person, are able to do things that you don't will yourself to do.  God is not a man, and placing human attributes on Him creates your false image of Him.

 

That's rather ironic; the entire Christian concept of God is so anthropomorphized, that he's frequently referred to as our heavenly father. Without these attributes, he would be a deist's concept of the creator. Thus, your argument is not that I can't apply human attributes to God, but that I can't apply a specific human attribute to God. Why not? If you cannot demonstrate why this particular characteristic shouldn't be applied to God, then you're just special pleading.

Quote:
God can do, be, and think anything and everything that will serve His purpose.  If He doesn't do something, it's because it won't be useful.  God has nothing to prove to anyone.

Okay, so your God can do everything that pertains to his will or, as you also stated, he can't do anything that isn't useful. So, your God wouldn't be able to paint my bathroom walls pink because there's no utility to such an action? That seems like a rather significant limit on God's power, don't you think? Even I, a measly human, can paint my bathroom walls pink.

P1 - To be omnipotent is to be able to do anything and everything.

P2- Your God can't do things that aren't useful.

P3 - Thus, your God can't do anything and everything.

Conclusion - Ergo, he's not omnipotent.

Q.E.D.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


crazymonkie
Silver Member
crazymonkie's picture
Posts: 336
Joined: 2009-03-09
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Okay, so

butterbattle wrote:

Okay, so your God can do everything that pertains to his will or, as you also stated, he can't do anything that isn't useful. So, your God wouldn't be able to paint my bathroom walls pink because there's no utility to such an action? That seems like a rather significant limit on God's power, don't you think? Even I, a measly human, can paint my bathroom walls pink.

P1 - To be omnipotent is to be able to do anything and everything.

P2- Your God can't do things that aren't useful.

P3 - Thus, your God can't do anything and everything.

Conclusion - Ergo, he's not omnipotent.

Q.E.D.

That was awesome.

OrdinaryClay wrote:
If you don't believe your non-belief then you don't believe and you must not be an atheist.


Love of the Lord (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
My God

I just wanna say i am not here to debate. I am just here to say i know God is real cause i hear his voice. Now if you want to know God is real then do the experiment that you all have been waiting to see. Get into a truely spirit filled church and ask God to reveal himself to you...if you were near me i could prove it. Its not a drive thru experience...it will take time of you proving yourself to him. He knows your heart...if you truely seek him out daily he will not let you down. If all you want is to disprove him then he will give you over to your own delusions and allow the enemy to give it to you. I don't need to prove the Lord to you...read the bible cause it will show you that events are happening and he is coming soon and well once he is here thats proof enough. How sad will it be to stand in front of a loving Lord and say sorry i have done everything i can to reject you and get others to do the same?


doctorpeppor
Posts: 7
Joined: 2009-04-09
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:That's

butterbattle wrote:
That's rather ironic; the entire Christian concept of God is so anthropomorphized, that he's frequently referred to as our heavenly father. Without these attributes, he would be a deist's concept of the creator. Thus, your argument is not that I can't apply human attributes to God, but that I can't apply a specific human attribute to God. Why not? If you cannot demonstrate why this particular characteristic shouldn't be applied to God, then you're just special pleading.

The anthropomorphisms attributed to God are metaphors.  God is obviously not human, as when it states in the Bible that He comes to earth "in human form," it indicates that His original state is not human.  I don't see how calling Him "Heavenly Father" makes Him human.

 

butterbattle wrote:
Conclusion - Ergo, he's not omnipotent.

I already told you why that statement is incorrect in that state.  And again, I already told you the difference between what God can do and what He can't do.  Does the president of the United States find it trivial to paint his bathroom pink?  Would Beethoven find it trivial to leave burning piles of dog poo on his neighbor's doorstep?  The difference is that God doesn't do these trivial things in order to keep Himself holy.  If He could perform tasks outside of His will, then He would also be permitted to sin, create rocks so big He can't lift them, imbue every human with powers greater than His own, commit suicide, etc.

Now, step outside of your point of view, and step into my shoes for a second and look at God.  Look at where He is, what He's accomplished, and think for a moment.  Let go of your unbelief while you're in my shoes, and rationalize "if God were completely omnipotent, then what?  What would happen?  What could happen?"  Now imagine God having a will, pure, holy, superior to any understanding.

Now you can step back into your shoes.

God is not characterized as "not this this and this."  He is "everything according to His will."

If I were to smack label you as "not very smart," I can prove it by naming all the people in history and present day that were/are smarter than you.  Instead, you're characterized by what you are, not by what you're not.

Fair warning, you can break down these analogies, but know that these conversations will be over.  I'm tired of you going back to your original argument without presenting new evidence.  I've given you as much evidence as I can think of at the moment.  I expect something a little more substantial than "but he can't do everything, so he's not omnipotent".


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3686
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
doctorpeppor wrote:The

doctorpeppor wrote:

The anthropomorphisms attributed to God are metaphors.

 

A metaphor for what?

"And God said, "Let there be light, and there was light." Genesis 1:3. Is that a metaphor? No?

How about..."So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." Genesis 1:27. Is that a metaphor?

"because he rested from all the work of creating that he had done." Genesis 1:31. Is that a metaphor?

That's just Genesis 1. I have my Bible right next to me. You want me to start pulling dirt from the next chapter?

doctorpeppor wrote:
God is obviously not human, as when it states in the Bible that He comes to earth "in human form," it indicates that His original state is not human.

Of course he's not human! I never said he was human. Anthropomorphizing is ascribing human traits to entities that are NOT human. Holy shit! You don't even know what the word means.

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

"to ascribe human form or attributes to (an animal, plant, material object, etc.)."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anthropomorphize "to attribute human form or personality to things not human"

doctorpeppor wrote:
I don't see how calling Him "Heavenly Father" makes Him human.

Ditto, because it doesn't. It makes him anthropomorphized. A father is a male human who impregnated a female, that then gives birth to the child. God, being non-human, cannot be a father. Ergo, calling him a father makes him anthromorphized. 

butterbattle wrote:
Conclusion - Ergo, he's not omnipotent.

doctorpeppor wrote:
And again, I already told you the difference between what God can do and what He can't do.

Oh my, this discussion appears to be of dramatically lower quality than my discussion with fatty.

If God is omnipotent, then there's nothing that "He can't do." If there's something he can't do, then he's not omnipotent. If you want to change the definition of omnipotence to mean 'virtually all-powerful' or 'all-powerful within certain limits' (ha), fine, but you can't simultaneously hold that God is all-powerful and that there are things he can't do. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Edit: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think most theistic philosophers would compromise by saying that God can do everything that doesn't go against logic. His omni traits are irreconcilable unless they're toned down anyways.   

Also, I think some definitions of omnipotent actually state "virtually all-powerful," so I suppose the word can be used as long as the user is referring to "virtually all-powerful."

 

Quote:
Does the president of the United States find it trivial to paint his bathroom pink? Would Beethoven find it trivial to leave burning piles of dog poo on his neighbor's doorstep?

What does this have to do with anything?

Quote:
The difference is that God doesn't do these trivial things in order to keep Himself holy.

Of course not, He's infinitely holy by definition.

Quote:
If He could perform tasks outside of His will, then He would also be permitted to sin, create rocks so big He can't lift them, imbue every human with powers greater than His own, commit suicide, etc.

Ergo, he's not omnipotent.

Quote:
Now, step outside of your point of view, and step into my shoes for a second and look at God.

Look at where He is, what He's accomplished, and think for a moment.  Let go of your unbelief while you're in my shoes, and rationalize "if God were completely omnipotent, then what?  What would happen?  What could happen?"  Now imagine God having a will, pure, holy, superior to any understanding.

In the same paragraph, you told me to rationalize God's position and claimed that he was superior to any understanding. That's rather strange, isn't it?   

Quote:
Now you can step back into your shoes.

God is not characterized as "not this this and this." He is "everything according to His will."

NO. Everything can be described by what it is and what it is not. Your God cannot do everything. Therefore, by definition, he is NOT omnipotent.

Quote:
If I were to smack label you as "not very smart," I can prove it by naming all the people in history and present day that were/are smarter than you.

NO. All you would prove is that there are people smarter than me. I can respond by citing twice as many people that are dumber than me. It wouldn't prove that I'm "not very dumb" either. "Smart" and "dumb" are completely relative and partly subjective concepts. In fact, the terms are too vague to even be considered for proof anyways. Your statement would certainly never hold up in philosophical discourse.

Quote:
Instead, you're characterized by what you are, not by what you're not.

NO. Everything can be described by what it is and what it is not.

Quote:
I've given you as much evidence as I can think of at the moment.

No, you haven't given me any evidence. There's no evidence supporting God's omnipotence. He's supernatural.

 

Quote:
I expect something a little more substantial than "but he can't do everything, so he's not omnipotent".

You want something more substantial than a proof? It's deductive reasoning. What more substance do you want? You haven't even responded to the argument yet.

Quote:
Fair warning, you can break down these analogies, but know that these conversations will be over. I'm tired of you going back to your original argument without presenting new evidence.

What evidence do you want? What are you trying to say? How do I present evidence for a proof based on syllogistic reasoning where you have already agreed with all the premises? Is God omnipotent? If so, then he can do everything. If he can't do everything, then he's not omnipotent. This is not rocket science.

You want to leave?

Alright.

GO AWAY! Arrogant idiots like you piss me off.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


doctorpeppor
Posts: 7
Joined: 2009-04-09
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:What does

butterbattle wrote:
What does this have to do with anything?

I think this can pretty much sum up what you said in your last post.  You obviously aren't even trying to understand what I'm saying, and your frustration is coming from that.  If you want to have an intellectual 1 on 1 conversation, you can e-mail me at pentagon_520@hotmail.com.  I won't have you cussing at me on public forums, insist I have no idea what I'm talking about, insult fellow Christians, and expect results.

 

You want me to give you the evidence that you're supposed to give to me?  You want me to spoonfeed you an argument that goes in your favor?  You're trying to give me a close-ended question.  That's as stupid as answering "have you stopped killing people yet?"  You give me a loaded question and tell me to pick a gun to blow my brains out with.  I won't do that as I stated from the beginning.  I answered your question with a more rational response than you've answered any of mine.  You want to open the minds of the world?  Start with yourself.


Blackroseseeker
Posts: 25
Joined: 2009-01-22
User is offlineOffline
Question 3

Sapient wrote:

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

Okay so, I have two choices here. Option 1: I could go into some long explanation about changing geography, possible flaws in the out of Africa theory, and the sweeping global changes experienced by our planet over time, but we all know that would be nothing more then conjecture and bull crap. Option 2: I can keep it simple, which in the case seems prudent.

First I should state that not finding a place where four rivers merge on the modern face of the earth is attributable to changing geography that much is certain.

Now as for weather mankind came from near the Euphrates or Africa that's simple. Naming places and major geographic featrues after places we already know or heard of was not a practice that started when Europeans came to the Americas.

If God doesn't do things the way you think they should be done maybe you should entertain the idea that it's you who doesn't understand.


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Now as for weather

Quote:

Now as for weather mankind came from near the Euphrates or Africa that's simple. Naming places and major geographic featrues after places we already know or heard of was not a practice that started when Europeans came to the Americas

 

Ah - so the Euphrates is called after Africa? Or Africa is called after Iraq? Or the bible was written by Europeans?

 

What exactly did you actually mean to say here - because it's as clear as mud.

 

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3686
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:What does

butterbattle wrote:
What does this have to do with anything?

doctorpeppor wrote:
I think this can pretty much sum up what you said in your last post.

Obviously, that response wasn't clear, but I was asking you to expand on your analogies because I didn't even understand what you were trying to say. 

doctorpeppor wrote:
If you want to have an intellectual 1 on 1 conversation, you can e-mail me at pentagon_520@hotmail.com.

I won't have you cussing at me on public forums,

I refuse. If you want, you may start a new thread in the "Kill 'em with Kindness" sub-forum.

Here

doctorpeppor wrote:
insist I have no idea what I'm talking about,

You have no idea what you're talking about. You don't know the definitions that you're using. Your explanations are incoherent. You contradict yourself. You commit numerous logical fallacies.

doctorpeppor wrote:
insult fellow Christians,

No, just you.

doctorpeppor wrote:
and expect results.

I always want results, but I can never really expect an intelligent discussion. Most of the theists that come to this forum drive-by with a few comments, then scurry off with their tail between their legs because they're afraid of having their beliefs challenged.

doctorpeppor wrote:
You want me to give you the evidence that you're supposed to give to me?

You claim that an intelligent creator of the entire universe, 'God,' exists, and that he is omnipotent, but that he can only do things that are within his will. How, in the world, do I hold the burden of proof here?

doctorpeppor wrote:
You want me to spoonfeed you an argument that goes in your favor?

I want you to respond to my previous post. I want you to either admit that you didn't know what anthropomorphized meant or explain your perspective so we can determine where our communication fails. I want you to explain how all the characteristics attributed to God are metaphors. I want you to supply a detailed definition "god" without using any anthropomorphized traits, i.e., father, love, body, intelligent, etc. I want you to define omnipotence, state whether or not God is omnipotent, and explain why the term still fits in light of the metaphysical problems. I want you to tell me what kind of evidence you're looking for. Evidence of what?

doctorpeppor wrote:
You're trying to give me a close-ended question.  That's as stupid as answering "have you stopped killing people yet?"  You give me a loaded question and tell me to pick a gun to blow my brains out with.

I really don't understand how "Is God omnipotent?" or "Can he do everything?" are loaded questions.

doctorpeppor wrote:
I won't do that as I stated from the beginning.  I answered your question with a more rational response than you've answered any of mine.

How? Examples?

doctorpeppor wrote:
You want to open the minds of the world?  Start with yourself.

 

Ah, see? You know how to throw insults too. You just don't use certain words that you consider to be "below you."

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


fatty
Posts: 22
Joined: 2009-03-18
User is offlineOffline
crazymonkie wrote:You know,

crazymonkie wrote:
You know, I honestly can't find it. That doesn't necessarily mean it isn't there, just that I can't find it in the mess of commands and stories about what Moses and Aaron did.

ok, I believed you to be misinformed on your information, that's why I wanted to know where you were getting it.

crazymonkie wrote:
First point: If there was no evidence for common ancestors of humans and chimpanzees

My source http://anthropology.si.edu/HumanOrigins/ha/primate.html  Third paragraph from the bottom.

crazymonkie wrote:

That's a very typical apologist response, really. "So what if the Sumerians wrote a story about a worldwide flood caused by the gods thousands of years before the Hebrews did? That just means it was god setting the groundwork for the acceptance of the right story!" OR "That just  means it was Satan testing humanity... boy did we fail; we sure do need god!"

Come on, dude. I'm working on the premise that the weight of actual, historical, empirical proof is greater than disputed (at best) books about magic and the supernatural. So when I say 'it was Ireneus', and you say 'Bible doesn't say that,' I say 'So fucking what?' It's what HAPPENED, not what you think did, or what the book says did.

None of this bullshit about 'my opinion is my opinion and yours is yours.' Facts, not conjecture; truth, not blind belief.

Fact: Christianity is almost all Neoplatonism. Fact: It outright ignores the parts of Judaism it doesn't like and sticks like glue to the parts it does like. In fact, the way it looks at the Law proves outright that it didn't come from Judaism; the idea in the latter is that the strictures are meant to be an ongoing act of worship. By thinking about what god wants them to do and not do, and actually doing or not doing them, Jews believe they are moving closer to the holy. They are not meant to be god's impossible standards which needed to be fixed by god coming to earth and sacrificing himself so the Law wasn't needed any more; that doesn't make sense to the Jews, and rightly so. It just doesn't make sense, certainly not for strict monotheists such as the Jews.

You're just proving what I said, God does not exist therefore everything that happened is the work of man.  I said nothing about Ireneus not doing what you said, you just assumed he did it because he wanted to, I assume he did it because God wanted it.

Quote:
Facts, not conjecture; truth, not blind belief.[/quote[

Yes, because if I believe something different from you  I must obviously just be full of blind belief and I haven't done any examining of what I believe in at all.

Yes I am a Christian. I'm sorry that there are jerks out there that have done bad things all in the name of, I ask that you don't judge all of us because of the acts of those few. I pray that you're having a great day today. Since that doesn't mean much to most people on this site lets just say that I really really hope you have an awesome day. God bless. -fatty


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3686
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
crazymonkie wrote:First

crazymonkie wrote:
First point: If there was no evidence for common ancestors of humans and chimpanzees

fatty wrote:
My source http://anthropology.si.edu/HumanOrigins/ha/primate.html  Third paragraph from the bottom.

This paragraph seems to imply that there is abundant evidence for common ancestry.

"Comparisons of DNA show that our closest living relatives are the ape species of Africa, and most studies by geneticists show that chimpanzees and humans are more closely related to each other than either is to gorillas. However, it must be stressed that humans did not evolve from living chimpanzees. Rather, our species and chimpanzees are both the descendants of a common ancestor that was distinct from other African apes. This common ancestor is thought to have existed in the Pliocene between 5 and 8 million years ago, based on the estimated rates of genetic change. Both of our species have since undergone 5 to 8 million years of evolution after this split of the two lineages. Using the fossil record, scientists attempt to reconstruct the evolution from this common ancestor through the series of early human species to today's modern human species."

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


crazymonkie
Silver Member
crazymonkie's picture
Posts: 336
Joined: 2009-03-09
User is offlineOffline
fatty wrote:You're just

fatty wrote:
You're just proving what I said, God does not exist therefore everything that happened is the work of man.

What am I proving but reality, truth not dependent upon begging the question? Assuming the Sumerian, Akkadian, Babylonian, Assyrian and Ugaritic texts were there as a sort of 'test run' or, worse, that it was some sort of corruption from the 'purity' of a monotheism that exists *only* in the Pentateuch IS BEGGING THE QUESTION TO BEGIN WITH. It starts with the assumption that god is there, that the events as described happened. Then ignoring all evidence to the contrary. This is what you're doing, and it is dead wrong.

Quote:
I said nothing about Ireneus not doing what you said, you just assumed he did it because he wanted to, I assume he did it because God wanted it.

I told you why he did it, and "Just because he wanted to" is a misrepresentation of my point.

He did it to reflect the Neoplatonism popular at his time. Not because god wanted him to.

In any case, the broader point was that canonization isn't a god-centered process; it's a human-centered process that claims to be god-centered.

Quote:

Quote:
Facts, not conjecture; truth, not blind belief.

Yes, because if I believe something different from you  I must obviously just be full of blind belief and I haven't done any examining of what I believe in at all.

Not at all. It's only when you start with a conclusion and work backwards to the evidence, ignoring the obvious and blatantly true, that you are wrong and have blind belief. Active blind belief, no less- the kind that puts the metaphorical blindfold on *nice and tight.*

OrdinaryClay wrote:
If you don't believe your non-belief then you don't believe and you must not be an atheist.


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Upon reading the thread

Upon reading the thread post, I've got this to say...

Oh my fucking god!

Lastly, the friggin burden of proof is upon their shoulders.
It's for THEM to provide empirical evidence which can be tested by the Scientific Method.

Why the hell are you OBFUSCATING SCIENCE AND LOGIC, with philosophical B.S., instead of teaching Atheists that what you are doing IS NOT the basis for a discussion.

A discussion begins with the Theist providing empirical evidence which can be put to the test via the Scientific Method, NOT by the Atheist provide a bunch a philosophical B.S. as if the Atheist a burden of ANY KIND upon their own shoulders to either prove of disprove anything relating to the existence of god(s), or any other theory such as Creationism, based upon the existence of any supposed god(s).

I very much dislike such threads, as the TEACH NOTHING!
Instead, such threads do NOT inform the Atheist as to how to even conduct a discussion or a debate with a theist of any kind on ANY subject whatsoever (for the reasons explained above.)


mcap
Posts: 16
Joined: 2009-05-23
User is offlineOffline
85

 who said adultery was worse than anything?


Blackroseseeker
Posts: 25
Joined: 2009-01-22
User is offlineOffline
let's do this again

So my previous posts have disappeared, and I am gonna take a stab at these questions again. Luckily I had only gotten through the first few questions.

Sapient wrote:
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. 1. If Jesus fulfilled all the OT prophecies so well, why didn't the Jews recognize him as the messiah? - Francois Tremblay
Part of the old testiment prophecies was that the Jews would not accept him. Isaiah 53:1-9 
Sapient wrote:
2. If Gen 3:24 is true, why hasn't anyone found the Cherubims and the " flaming sword which turned every way"?
I won't pretend to have a definative answer for this one, but God never said they would remain forever. Some believe they where taken away either at Adam's death or more commonly the flood.
Sapient wrote:
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
First no one ever said it was the modern Euphrates. We all know things get renamed and geography changes. I personnally do agree with Pangea think how that changes things.
Sapient wrote:
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.]
The bible dose not call Heaven utter bliss, not even once. What it says is that God shall wipe evey tear from our eyes meaning he will personally comfort us.

If God doesn't do things the way you think they should be done maybe you should entertain the idea that it's you who doesn't understand.


Blackroseseeker
Posts: 25
Joined: 2009-01-22
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:5. How can a

Sapient wrote:
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.]
You partly answered the question in the way you worded it. Emotional states are reactionary for the most part, meaning not entirely, and I would add for us humans. To understand how God has emotions I think you need to understand the nature of his regret. I think his regret may be the key to all his other emotions. The best way I can think of to explain how God feels regret is to state that it is not the type of regret you may first think of. It's more like the feeling you have about something you would say in all honesty you regret, but if you had it to do over again you'd do the same thing. If you've never felt that way think of a parent who does something to give their child a chance knowing in their heart the child will likely disappoint them. The child lives down to their expectations even with the display of faith in them. That parent may regret the whole thing, but if they had it to do over knowing the outcome they would because they love their child enough that they must give them the chance anyways. God knows what's going to hurt him, but he gives us the chance anyways.
Sapient wrote:
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.]
Sin is a choice and this doesn't miss the point it just does not go far enough. First sin being a choice means that Adam and Eve did not have to sin. Sin may never have entered the world and wouldn't that be nice. God is not limited by free will but he does give it to us freely. It's like the fact that I could probably do a pretty good con and get lot's of money and not get caught. The fact that I don't isn't a limitation of my ability I choose not to. Just as God chooses not to interfere with free will because it wouldn't be free will if he did. I for one am glad I exist and that God didn't decide not to make us because we would mess up and most of us would never get it. As for Hell that is part of the package God may be love but he is also perfect justice. (Personally I don't think they exist without one another.) So to create us he risked people going to hell. We all get the chance to go to Heaven but many will end up in Hell. So the question remains is it fair to create us so that those who will choose him get to exist; is it fair not to.

 

 

If God doesn't do things the way you think they should be done maybe you should entertain the idea that it's you who doesn't understand.


Luposian
Theist
Luposian's picture
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-09-15
User is offlineOffline
I have to congratulate you...

Even as a Christian, I have to give you credit for the "logic" behind so many of the questions posed.  It was quite entertaining to hear one Christian give his answers to many of the questions and how you replied.

But the bottom line is this... the majority of the questions are designed to be more or less unanswerable.  For example:

 

"If God can do anything, can He create a rock He cannot lift?" (it may be phrased differently, I'm not sure)

 

To the lay Christian, this is a real head scratcher, because we KNOW that statement is a double-impossiblity (impossible from both sides).  But that's because we assume God would undertake such a foolish endeavor, in the first place, based on the question.  That's where the mistake is made.

 

The answer is:  "God would never do such a thing."  But, because the question is asked, with the full knowledge that it is impossible to answer (the logical answer to the question is "No." (which premises "all-powerful" from both sides of the question), but that very answer then "proves" the question's intent), the atheist scoffs and says... "then God CAN'T do something!"  But God is not just all powerful, but all knowing and all wise.  Thus, it behooves us to realize that God would never start creating heavier and heavier rocks, because it's a foolish (and pointless) endeavor.  He will be able to infinitely create heavier rocks and He will be able to infinitely lift them.  God doesn't do things just for the sake of stupid entertainment.  It is a question designed to make God look weak or to, in some way, cast doubt as to His aspects of being God, as I'm sure the majority of the questions of this thread are.

 

Some of the questions are "answerable" (and won't "prove" against God) and some are not.  But all are intended to belittle God to a remnant in reader's minds.  They wouldn't be asked otherwise.

 

So, given the fact the "opponent" is cheating from the very beginning (asking questions designed to make God (or Christians) look bad, from almost any angle you answer from ), what sane Christian would even want to play this game?  Do you play a game you KNOW you won't win?  If so, why?  Why play when you have NO chance of winning?   Seems like a waste of time to me.

 

But I will answer a statement you made in one part of a post:

 

"Faith is belief without evidence."

 

Nope.  Sorry.  Wrong.  The bible clearly says:

 

Hebrews 11:1  Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

 

Thus, Faith is belief WITH evidence!  It is the SUBSTANCE (tangible element) of things HOPED FOR (that which has not yet come to pass), and is PROOF (evidence) of those things we cannot see, at the moment.

 

Latre!

 

Luposian