Debate the Concept of God, itself.

[tanduhman]

Originally Posted by JLI2infinity

Sigh. I was going to enter the thread to perhaps add a different perspective on to the OP, but this comment caught my eye.

It's the argument of subjectivity. "Oh we all view this concept a different way so you have no way to say your way is right." Except for the concept itself is made off of a fundamental idea and there are views that are closest to that fundamental idea and views that are further away. If we both see the color blue, sure I can't prove that your blue looks like my blue but we both know that the color blue is created by an object absorbing all other wavelengths of visible light while reflecting the range of wavelengths that shades of blue fall under. Therefore, if your blue falls WAY out of that wavelength range and is perhaps red, your view is no longer in any way representative of the concept of blue.

The concept of omnipotence is based on the idea of absolute power. Yes, it can be interpreted differently, however if someone were to say my interpretation of omnipotence means being the weakest possible organism in existence...THEY ARE DEAD WRONG. Therefore, if you have an alternative view of the word share it and counter his arguments but don't just try to say he's forcing his view of the word onto people, because he's not. The definition of the word itself is what he's stating and expounding upon.




Oh Ho Ho. I see what you're doing here mr.sticky. You want to play the causality game. I'll take your God always existed, and downsize it one step to the universe always existed. Your move pal.

Well yes I agree that is a common way to generalize it. Some people are closer to being right than others, and like you said some people have no idea what they are talking about. Yet that is looking at the point of view that there is a proven answer. For example a bunch of people are debating on the concept of 2+2. Some may say 3 and be close or in some viewpoints right, some may say 4 and be accurate, some may be way off and say one hundred. Thats just it though, we are relating this situation to a question where we already know the answer.

Where in this situation there is no proven answer. Noone has proven that God is actually there, and noone has proven that he is not. So where im getting at is simply what I said before. Just because he thinks he is right on the concept of those words does not mean that he is. We all have our own perception on the word omnipotent as well as we all have our own perception on God. None of us are going to know the answer until we die. That is truely the only way we can go about this topic. It is a waste of time for me to try to prove to him that God is out there. I have no facts, yes I can try to influence him, yet there is not an answer for the time being. That is something that everyone just needs to accept. Since proving the defenition of a word is not real evidence just a mere opinion where there are millions out there.

[JLI2infinity]

Originally Posted by tanduhman

Well yes I agree that is a common way to generalize it. Some people are closer to being right than others, and like you said some people have no idea what they are talking about. Yet that is looking at the point of view that there is a proven answer. For example a bunch of people are debating on the concept of 2+2. Some may say 3 and be close or in some viewpoints right, some may say 4 and be accurate, some may be way off and say one hundred. Thats just it though, we are relating this situation to a question where we already know the answer.

Where in this situation there is no proven answer. Noone has proven that God is actually there, and noone has proven that he is not. So where im getting at is simply what I said before. Just because he thinks he is right on the concept of those words does not mean that he is. None of us are going to know the answer until we die. That is truely the only way we can go about this topic. It is a waste of time for me to try to prove to him that God is out there. I have no facts, yes I can try to influence him, yet there is not an answer for the time being. That is something that everyone just needs to accept.

You made the exact same mistake AGAIN. The word omnipotent like other words, has a distinct definition, it means absolute power. The "concept" of the word is it's definition. Even if humans don't understand being all powerful the definition of the word still exists and therefore there are right ideas and wrong ideas about it. Like I said before once cannot say "My view of omnipotence means have severe limits that impede your abilities" because that is the furthest point away from the word's definition.

The thread title is "debate the concept of God" and he was giving distinct characteristics.

Since proving the defenition of a word is not real evidence just a mere opinion where there are millions out there.

What are you talking about? How is proving the definition of a word not evidence that you understand the word? How are there millions of definitions for the same word. Like I said not just for specific scientific things like color, concepts are rooted in aspects of truth or reality. There are millions of ways to perceive and experience happiness; however, the concept (and definition) of happiness itself doesn't change, utter misery will never be an acceptable definition or interpretation of happiness.

We all have our own perception on the word omnipotent as well as we all have our own perception on God.

See above. No matter what perception you may have of the word omnipotent it has a specific meaning, and it is possible for your perception to deviate so far away from that meaning that it is no longer valid. As for God, the entire point of this thread is to "debate the concept of God" not prove or disprove his existence.

[Satsuki]

Originally Posted by mrsticky005

Why does God need to kill the Devil? You make it sound as if
the Devil is a problem for God. Believe it or not the Devil
really isn't even mentioned all that much in the Bible.
If the Devil was such a big deal you think it would be
mentioned all the time and in great deal. But it's not.

Why save us from our sins and the Devil by dying on a cross if the Devil isn't a problem... -____-

Considering God is supposed to have created everything
then yes God is the origin of the Devil.
Though I don't see that meaning anything.

God is the beginning of everything GOOD and everything BAD as well.

People look at God as the 'good guy', when that is clearly not true.

Especially considering that the Devil was created as a GOOD being
and then later CHANGED to become evil.

Lucifer wanted to be like God, God abided to his wishes, but he wanted MORE than that, he wanted to have God's job. God kicked him out, also gave him the Earth to wander.

Lucifer was the first Angel. He was also the first Demon.

In Magenta.

Originally Posted by Kunoichi

Because the previous one was too "cluttered" with spam.

3% of my brain can see the irony here.

I would have deleted it if I had the choice to do so.

[Shisko Shi]

Originally Posted by l3thall3g3nd

I know we don't use all our brain but I thought it was higher than 3% I thought it was 20-25%.

Mabey I know it all came from Einstine saying we use 10% but that was then.

[Satsuki]

Originally Posted by JLI2infinity

I don't want to seem too biased so I'll play the Devil's Advocate here. Satsuki seems like a young atheist or maybe a new atheist. Full of righteous fury. Striking down the concept of God with the basic philosophical paradoxes, so I guess I'll add some food for thought and see how well Satsuki responds to what I view to be the more well thought out responses to the initial atheist arguments.

I am a non-religious person. I do not believe in any certain God, however, I am spiritual.

3.) Omniscience Paradox. This is the most complicated one so here are two responses I found interesting when I first became an atheists...

Prayer and the Divine Plan. God is omniscient so perhaps he created a nexus with the trillions of different possible outcomes in our everyday lives all being inconsequential in taking away from his Divine Plan. Perhaps his plan allows for an inconceivable number individual alterations.

Exceptions would be a better word, thanks

Predestination. I've never really heard a good counter to this point but I will point out that you shouldn't be satisfied with that broad overarching argument. There are many doctorate level theologians and Christian philosophers that attempt to answer it. You should know this point at more than a conversational level if you wish to debate it with a more knowledgeable crowd.

If I am able to make a pastor question his own beliefs, then a pigeon should be able to question a 'doctorate level theologian'.

I remember the first time I almost got caught off guard bringing this up, when someone mentioned the concept of presentism to me. Presentism is the idea that the future and the past only exists as concepts, even modern technology considers time travel science fiction. Therefore, if we assume that it's not possible, the only form of time that really exists is the present. So God cannot know the future because his omniscience only grants him knowledge of everything that exists. (This goes against several Christian ideas but pointing this out won't work against a debater who's compromised on deism).

Ehh, Deism isn't something I enjoy talking about. I do not believe something created the universe, however, I do believe in a higher power, and a person who harnessed my soul before I was born.

Anyways, these are some points that made me question my atheism at first. It'll be interesting to see how you respond. Maybe you've encountered some of them before. Again, just food for thought.

Sorry that I didn't respond to your first two statements, the paradoxes, I didn't really understand what you were talking about.

I have answered all that I can.

In Magenta.

[mrsticky005]

Originally Posted by JLI2infinity

Theory of an oscillating universe. If the density of the universe is greater than its critical density then it's possible that the universe goes through an endless cycle of expanding and then contracting. The universe expands to a certain point, then gravity forces it back into a point of singularity with a Big Crunch, then at it's point of singularity time elapses until there is another Big Bang.

Your move .

A few questions on the oscillating universe model.
(I have actually heard this one before.)

"If the density of the universe is greater than its critical density"

That seems like a pretty big "If" to me. What makes you
think it is the case?

Why does the universe expand to a "certain point" why not expand
forever? Is it gravity that causes it to stop at that "certain point"?
If so why at that "certain point" and not before?

How does after going to a certain point does it go to another Big Bang?

What keeps this process from breaking down?

How is this process not losing usable energy?

[mrsticky005]

Why save us from our sins and the Devil by dying on a cross if the Devil isn't a problem... -____-


Because sin is a problem and the Devil didn't make you do it. You did.



God is the beginning of everything GOOD and everything BAD as well.

People look at God as the 'good guy', when that is clearly not true.

I agree that God is the beginning of everything at least in the sense that
nothing is created independent of God. Or without God nothing is created.

However I do not think Good nor Bad was ever actually "created"
or rather there was never a time in which Good or Bad didn't exist
because if God always existed then God would have to been always
Good or Bad since forever ago.

I would say that God is by nature--Good.
Bad would then be the rejection of the Good
which is the nature of God.


Lucifer wanted to be like God, God abided to his wishes, but he wanted MORE than that, he wanted to have God's job. God kicked him out, also gave him the Earth to wander.

Lucifer was the first Angel. He was also the first Demon.

How does that argue against what I said? Lucifer was created Good.
Then by is own choice he changed to become evil

[BMC1994]

Originally Posted by mrsticky005

How does that argue against what I said? Lucifer was created Good.
Then by is own choice he changed to become evil
[/COLOR][/COLOR]

Kinda jumping in the middle of this but just one small question in between why didnt god just poof him good again would save him the whole judgement day thing and the sword in the devil and stuff (idk if thats in every religion but i heard some one talk about it)

[JLI2infinity]

Originally Posted by mrsticky005

A few questions on the oscillating universe model.
(I have actually heard this one before.)

"If the density of the universe is greater than its critical density"

That seems like a pretty big "If" to me. What makes you
think it is the case?

We don't know if it's the case and we won't know for another few billion years I think but it's just a theory.

Why does the universe expand to a "certain point" why not expand
forever? Is it gravity that causes it to stop at that "certain point"?
If so why at that "certain point" and not before?

Yes, the theory is that gravity limits the expansion. Why at that certain point? That would be my whole explanation you know the density vs critical density thing you just mentioned. I am not a physics major so I don't understand it all in detail but look up the Hubble constant and you'll get about the same broad overview I have on the subject. It explains that at the point where gravity becomes such a strong force that the universe rapidly compresses in a Big Crunch.

Here straight from the ultimate source of knowledge, wikipedia....

The Hubble Constant measures the current state of expansion in the universe, and the strength of the gravitational force depends on the density and pressure of the matter and in the universe, or in other words, the critical density of the universe. If the density of the universe is greater than the critical density, then the strength of the gravitational force will stop the universe from expanding and the universe will collapse back on itself. Conversely, if the density of the universe is less than the critical density, the universe will continue to expand and the gravitational pull will not be enough to stop the universe from expanding. This scenario would result in the 'Big Freeze', where the universe cools as it expands and reaches a state of entropy.[1] One theory proposes that the universe could collapse to the state where it began and then initiate another Big Bang, so in this way the universe would last forever, but would pass through phases of expansion (Big Bang) and contraction (Big Crunch)

Oh yeah...

How does after going to a certain point does it go to another Big Bang?

What keeps this process from breaking down?

How is this process not losing usable energy?

It goes into a Big Bang similar to the way the first Big Bang happened. Originally all the matter in the universe was at a point of singularity...

According to the Big Bang theory, the Universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state which expanded rapidly...After its initial expansion from a singularity, the Universe cooled sufficiently to allow energy to be converted into various subatomic particles, including protons, neutrons, and electrons. While protons and neutrons combined to form the first atomic nuclei only a few minutes after the Big Bang, it would take thousands of years for electrons to combine with them and create electrically neutral atoms.

As for your question about losing usable energy. That's a good one my basic knowledge of thermodynamics led me to wonder the same thing. I don't know, I'm sure someone who better understands the theory could explain it.

[mrsticky005]

Originally Posted by JLI2infinity

We don't know if it's the case and we won't know for another few billion years I think but it's just a theory.

Another billion years? Thanks. I'll be sure to put that down on my calendar.



Yes, the theory is that gravity limits the expansion. Why at that certain point? That would be my whole explanation you know the density vs critical density thing you just mentioned. I am not a physics major so I don't understand it all in detail but look up the Hubble constant and you'll get about the same broad overview I have on the subject. It explains that at the point where gravity becomes such a strong force that the universe rapidly compresses in a Big Crunch.

Alright.

Here straight from the ultimate source of knowledge, wikipedia....




Oh yeah...


It goes into a Big Bang similar to the way the first Big Bang happened. Originally all the matter in the universe was at a point of singularity...

I suppose.
I dunno maybe I'm just too simple minded for this stuff.

As for your question about losing usable energy. That's a good one my basic knowledge of thermodynamics led me to wonder the same thing. I don't know, I'm sure someone who better understands the theory could explain it.

Here's what I think. I can't disprove the Oscillating model.
But that's not so much because I'm giving it credit but
because it's like trying to figure out if Schrodinger's cat
is dead or alive or dead and alive at the exact same time.

To me it's like

"This is what MIGHT have happened IF things were a certain way
and as a result we believe that some time in the future, although
we do not know when that will occur if such and such happens."

Fundamentally it sounds rather...religious/philosophical.

[mrsticky005]

Originally Posted by BMC1994

Kinda jumping in the middle of this but just one small question in between why didnt god just poof him good again would save him the whole judgement day thing and the sword in the devil and stuff (idk if thats in every religion but i heard some one talk about it)

Because that would defy free will.
And a forcibly "good" devil wouldn't actually be good at all.
Would it?

[Cult of Personality]

Silly thread is silly.

Originally Posted by Satsuki

The concept of God is quite flawed, precisely because it is a man made construct. The basic premise of God is that he is three things: omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient.

Actually, these are attributes of God. The basic premise is of an entity that created the universe for reasons clear only to him, so you're on the wrong track right out the gate.

Spoiler:

God is not omnipotent-
If God is omnipotent, then he can do pretty much anything with his power. His unlimited power is what created the earth and the heavens, according to scripture. Omnipotence allows God to do anything. Which means God can create another being that can kill God. Which means that if the other being can kill God, God isn't omnipotent.

If God can't create another being that has the power to kill him, then that too means that God is not omnipotent. It isn't a question of whether or not God is willing or refusing to do this, it's a question of ability. If he can, he is not omnipotent. If he can't, he also is not omnipotent.

This is just a rehash of the unliftable rock argument. It was bologna when it was conceived and it's bologna now, because it requires applying logic to a concept that explicitly carries to potential of defying human logic.

Can God create a rock that God can't lift? Yes. Can He proceed to lift it? Yes.

Spoiler:

God is not omnipresent-
According to scripture, God is present everywhere at the same time. God exists simultaneously in the past, present, and future, in all places at once. Which means God exists in the heavens and on earth. Oh, and in hell. If God is omnipresent, then God exists in pure evil at all times. God exists in lust, in hate, in jealousy, and in all negative emotions. He always existed in them and continues to exist in them forever. God is the embodiment of evil, always has been, and always will be.

God being omnipresent means that he is there, inside the mind, body, and private part of a pure evil rapist serial killer as he commits his heinous acts. But that person was under the influence of the devil, you say? Well, it just so happens that God is also inside the devil as well. But the devil overpowered God's will, you say? Well, then that means that God isn't omnipotent, since there is something more powerful than him.

You do realize that this is no way refutes the concept that God is omnipresent don't you?

Spoiler:

God is not omniscient-
God knows all things and nothing can be hidden from his knowledge. If you lie, he knows. If you decide to watch porn, he knows. If you are alone and you mutilate a cat, he knows. Yet we are taught to live our lives in as good of a manner as possible because that is what God wants from us. We must live according to his will. God being omniscient means that we do not live our lives with any choice whatsoever. God already knows what we have done, what we are doing, and what we will do. Therefore, how we live our lives bears no weight as to whether we will go to heaven or hell. God already has our lives laid out for us, he knows what we will do. Therefore, repenting, going to church, and doing "good things" to have him forgive our sins is irrelevant, since our paths in life are already known by God. There's no such thing as changing that path or tricking God or asking for forgiveness, as God is already one step ahead of you and knows exactly what you will do. Which means the whole concept of practicing religion is pointless, since you are not in control of your choices and destiny.

The other fun thing about God being omniscient is that it means that God has limited knowledge. God knows everything, therefore if he knows everything, he can't create any new idea or concept or piece of knowledge. If God were to create something new, then that would invalidate the claim that he was omniscient. Unless of course he knows what he is going to create in the first place, meaning that his omniscience stands and his knowledge is limited. And having limited knowledge without the ability to create new ideas and concepts means that your power is limited, therefore showing that being omniscient means you have to sacrifice being omnipotent. Which is why you can't be omnipotent and omniscient at the same time

As before, this doesn't actually do anything to refute his omniscience. It's just a(n extremely clumsy and extremely failed) attempt to further disprove his omnipotence with the unliftable rock argument.

Therefore, the three basic concepts of God are soundly proven wrong, meaning that God doesn't exist.

1: None of them were proven wrong.
2: None of them are required for the concept of God to exist.
3: Are you one of those annoying ass 15 year old internet atheists who are only atheists because they want to spite their parents for not getting them that 29th pony they always wanted? Because it sure seems like it.

Spoiler:

Pray for anything you want, but, what about the Divine Plan? Remember that? The Divine Plan, a long time ago, God made a Divine Plan, gave it a lot of thought, thought it was a good plan, and put it into practice. And for billions and billions of years, God's Divine Plan has been doing just fine. Now you come along and pray for something, well say whatever you pray for, isn't in God's Divine Plan. What do you want him to do?

Change his plan?

Just for you?

Doesn't that seem a little arrogant?

It's a Divine Plan. What's the use of having a Divine Plan if every rundown schmuck with a two-dollar prayer book can come along and screw up your plan?

And here's another problem you might have, suppose your prayers aren't answered, what do you say?

"Well, it's God's will, thy will be done."

Well, fine, but if it's God's will and he's going to do what he wants to anyway, why the hell bother praying in the first place?

I don't know what you think you're trying to disprove with this, but you've not only failed utterly at it, you've also failed to make any sort of sense in doing so.

Spoiler:

Well, you see those stars, up in the sky at night? The ones that are 20 billion light years away?

The fact that you can see those stars, it means that you're seeing what happened to those stars 20 billion years ago, because it has taken the light, that long to reach your retina.

The Bible, states that the world is roughly 6000 years old. False.

The Bible is a book written by men. Even if you take into account the possibility that they were inspired to write it by God, that doesn't discount the possibility that God is a liar. So again, you've failed to disprove anything.

Jeez, you keep reading? You're just not convinced are you?

When you start making sense instead of spouting random gibberish I'll start working on being convinced.

Spoiler:

Well, let's tell you this, did you know that the Bible was written by multiple different people, over the course of centuries? It wasn't even compiled together until around 300AD by Constantine the Great! And even then, he left out certain books, like the book of Mary.

And your point is?

Spoiler:

Deuteronomy 20:10-14,17. Read.

It specifically states that if your kingdom is without a home, you are able to walk up to another village, knock on their gates and pillage their city and keep the women and children for your own if they do not let you in, however, if they do let you in, you are able to befriend the city and use their artisians and blacksmiths.

I didn't really see that all-merciful God in the sentence above, did you?

I suppose God really does reside inside the Devil as well!

Again. Point?

Check and mate, number five.

I don't want to say you're an idiot, because Poe's Law means it's just as likely you're being parodic as it is that you're being totally serious, but in the event of the latter, you're an idiot. In the event of the former, an excellent parody. Well played.

[JLI2infinity]

Originally Posted by mrsticky005

Here's what I think. I can't disprove the Oscillating model.
But that's not so much because I'm giving it credit but
because it's like trying to figure out if Schrodinger's cat
is dead or alive or dead and alive at the exact same time.

To me it's like

"This is what MIGHT have happened IF things were a certain way
and as a result we believe that some time in the future, although
we do not know when that will occur if such and such happens."

Fundamentally it sounds rather...religious/philosophical.

Yes, except unlike religion this hypothesis is actually based on amassed evidence in the observable universe and cooperation between physicists and astronomers.

The point is not to say that it's known with certainty this just provides an alternative to your theory that God had to be the primal cause to the universe. Perhaps it's not the oscillating universe, maybe there's another explanation that we don't know yet but the point is there may be a scientific reason that the universe is it's own cause. And before you make the accusation that "well that requires just as much blind faith as religion." It really doesn't.

Believing that there are complex phenomena that exist in this universe that we have yet to understand is just a hypothesis but it's more of a gamble than a prayer. It has actually been demonstrated countless times throughout history that human understanding of the universe itself, not the supernatural but the observable, natural universe, is extremely limited. Therefore it makes far more sense to posit that we simply don't understand the extremely complex nature of this plane of existence rather than creating a completely separate more complex plane of existence to explain this one.

It'd be like if Superman actually existed and came to this planet among primitive humans. He'd be worshipped as a god because rather than believe he can manipulate matter of this universe for his own power those cultures would've been more likely to posit some extremely complex force separate from the physical world gives Superman his abilities. That way they don't have to cope with that which they don't understand.

[Jutsu Junkie]

Originally Posted by Ur Mom

You wanna see a spammed thread
http://naruto.viz.com/forum/showthread.php?t=50651

All religious debate has gone here for a long time

Yessss.

Originally Posted by Satsuki

There was no original point, so I don't see why you kept bringing back the omni point. There were five points. God's Morality, in church, is stated to be benevolent. If he is benevolent, why is he allowing the people to burn down their village and rape their women and children? Why is he allowing that?

In the fleeting pico-moment that is the entire history of the earth relative to the duration of time and the non-duration of anything outside time, it may merely have value you cannot see. You see it as evil and pointless, but evil and pointless things have inspired some of the most beautiful aspects of humanity -- which are also fleeting pico-moments. Being so brief in the context of eternity, you might ask why any Supreme Being would bother with us at all, but if we are speaking of the Judeo-Christian God, then the Bible does not say He is only good -- it says He does not sin (error, especially an error which separates a being from the Divine), which is an entirely different thing than good or evil. In fact, the Bible states that He creates evil as well as good (Isaiah 45:7)-- He simply doesn't do so in error.

In response to another point, free will is an illusion, so there's another reason that characterization of God is flawed. (you will probably twitch and flail, as most do when told this, but you won't find evidence of free will either). We do not choose God. Nowhere in the Bible does it give weight to independent choice as a means of entering into salvation. In Christianity, both salvation and faith in God are free gifts of God, not something you earn or achieve or change into like changing a shirt. It doesn't rely on you being good -- or doing anything else. It doesn't say "choose" to believe. It is stated as a condition, rather than an action: Whoever believes, not whoever chooses to believe. In Christianity, if you don't believe now, you will eventually (Isaiah 45:23, Romans 14:11, Philippians 2:10).

Originally Posted by JLI2infinity

Yes, except unlike religion this hypothesis is actually based on amassed evidence in the observable universe and cooperation between physicists and astronomers.

The point is not to say that it's known with certainty this just provides an alternative to your theory that God had to be the primal cause to the universe. Perhaps it's not the oscillating universe, maybe there's another explanation that we don't know yet but the point is there may be a scientific reason that the universe is it's own cause. And before you make the accusation that "well that requires just as much blind faith as religion." It really doesn't.

Believing that there are complex phenomena that exist in this universe that we have yet to understand is just a hypothesis but it's more of a gamble than a prayer. It has actually been demonstrated countless times throughout history that human understanding of the universe itself, not the supernatural but the observable, natural universe, is extremely limited. Therefore it makes far more sense to posit that we simply don't understand the extremely complex nature of this plane of existence rather than creating a completely separate more complex plane of existence to explain this one.

It'd be like if Superman actually existed and came to this planet among primitive humans. He'd be worshipped as a god because rather than believe he can manipulate matter of this universe for his own power those cultures would've been more likely to posit some extremely complex force separate from the physical world gives Superman his abilities. That way they don't have to cope with that which they don't understand.

Actually, this isn't saying anything different than a scientist claiming "God of the gap." You are positing something you can't understand, and therefore are indeed relying on a prayer. Your sole point of departure from faith is that we have gained understanding of complexity in the past, so it stands to reason, you claim, that we will do so in the future, but what your are explaining is a trend rather than a principle, which is to say that there is no basis upon which to rely on its eternal fruition -- at least not anymore than faith.

In fact, statistically speaking, there is every reason to believe we will never fully understand the universe in scientific terms anymore than we understand it in religious terms, merely because the odds of having evolved a psyche capable of doing so given our survival pressure is unlikely in the extreme. It already stretches credulity, in evolutionary terms, that we happen to be so very good at rendering reliable explanations of the world at large. The odds are against happening to be a member of a species so capable. But it is hubris to assume that such capability is the end of the road when it comes to that which is required to deduce the deepest secrets of the cosmos, especially since much of the cosmos can't be observed -- and if we inhabit a multiverse, it's nearly impossible to meaningfully conjecture about it, and we are even more barred from observations of any kind, and thus it is opaque to being falsifiable. It is therefore essentially not a scientific question.

[JLI2infinity]

Originally Posted by Jutsu Junkie

Yessss.

Actually, this isn't saying anything different than a scientist claiming "God of the gap." You are positing something you can't understand, and therefore are indeed relying on a prayer. Your sole point of departure from faith is that we have gained understanding of complexity in the past, so it stands to reason, you claim, that we will do so in the future, but what your are explaining is a trend rather than a principle, which is to say that there is no basis upon which to rely on its eternal fruition -- at least not anymore than faith.

Hey. This is a very well thought out post. Yes, an interesting argument *rubs hands*. I'm tempted to address the first part of your post as well but I'll just settle for this since it was specifically directed toward me.

I accept your assertion that my belief does require a certain type of faith. But as you seem to understand this type of faith is not synonymous with religious faith. It's more of an informed faith based on previous experience as you pointed out. If a father picks his child up from school everyday, when that child waits outside he can tell his teacher or friends that his father will be picking him up. Of course there is no way he can know for sure, there are a million things that could happen to prevent his father from picking him up, but his faith is rooted in past experience and logic.

Like you said it's a trend not a principle but as any statistician can tell you although it's risky to extrapolate the reason why we amass data and find a pattern is so we can make predictions for values outside our data set.

In fact, statistically speaking, there is every reason to believe we will never fully understand the universe in scientific terms anymore than we understand it in religious terms, merely because the odds of having evolved a psyche capable of doing so given our survival pressure is unlikely in the extreme. It already stretches credulity, in evolutionary terms, that we happen to be so very good at rendering reliable explanations of the world at large. The odds are against happening to be a member of a species so capable. But it is hubris to assume that such capability is the end of the road when it comes to that which is required to deduce the deepest secrets of the cosmos, especially since much of the cosmos can't be observed -- and if we inhabit a multiverse, it's nearly impossible to meaningfully conjecture about it, and we are even more barred from observations of any kind, and thus it is opaque to being falsifiable. It is therefore essentially not a scientific question.

I'm not sure I'm getting your comparison here. Religious terms to explain the universe are not evidence based and posit explanatory power in an unfalsifiable metaphysical realm. So technically they tell us nothing about the nature of our physical universe. And I'm not sure you can adequately compare the two since our scientific knowledge can help create limits based on the concepts we devise and the limits of the universe itself. For example, we know that there are 20 amino acids (the building blocks of protein) and to make a polypeptide chain requires 100 or more amino acids to be linked together therefore there are 20^100 possible chains 100 amino acids in length. While that is an absurdly large number, it is finite and therefore knowable to a degree. To give perhaps a better, clearer example since wikipedia is probably going to do a better job explaining the next point I was trying to make, take a look at the human genome...

An analogy to the human genome stored on DNA is that of instructions stored in a book:
The book (genome) would contain 23 chapters (chromosomes);
Each chapter contains 48 to 250 million letters (A,C,G,T) without spaces;
Hence, the book contains over 3.2 billion letters total;
The book fits into a cell nucleus the size of a pinpoint;
At least one copy of the book (all 23 chapters) is contained in most cells of our body. The only exception in humans is found in mature red blood cells which become enucleated during development and therefore lack a genome.

Once again science creates finite limits on something it is trying to explain. Not to mention with this knowledge we can isolate specific genes and understand their function. We can determine what bacteria causes leprosy or what genetic error might have caused a person's insanity. I'd say that has a lot more explanatory power than a soul, demons, or spirits. Wouldn't you agree?


But to wrap this all up, I think you got the wrong impression. I'm not saying science can answer every question in the universe as a matter of fact there's probably a section in every respectable science textbook out there that at least gives an overview of the limits of science. I'm just stating that it can give us a more complete understanding. You know like how we figured out how old the earth really is, how far we are from the moon, how we orbit around the sun, and so on and so forth. I'm also very cautious of what extent humans should go to to gain knowledge. I was just watching Prometheus the other day and smacking my forehead as I witnessed their stupidity. I doubt any answer is worth killing everyone for, especially if you take my view that this life is the only one we have for certain.

[Shisko Shi]

NO we use more then 20%, That was al based on ALbert Einstien saying that we use 10-20% because the peopel he was working with didnt listen to hi very well. that was his joke the bain is using more then 50% that for sure. In fact you brain works harder when you are asleep then awake. how much the averge human uses depends on how you take care of it.

[Saiyan]

Originally Posted by Satsuki

Before you start, this MAY or MAY NOT, infringe the first rule of the Debate Forum, not entirely sure.

The concept of God is quite flawed, precisely because it is a man made construct. The basic premise of God is that he is three things: omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient.

God is not omnipotent-
If God is omnipotent, then he can do pretty much anything with his power. His unlimited power is what created the earth and the heavens, according to scripture. Omnipotence allows God to do anything. Which means God can create another being that can kill God. Which means that if the other being can kill God, God isn't omnipotent.

If God can't create another being that has the power to kill him, then that too means that God is not omnipotent. It isn't a question of whether or not God is willing or refusing to do this, it's a question of ability. If he can, he is not omnipotent. If he can't, he also is not omnipotent.

God is not omnipresent-
According to scripture, God is present everywhere at the same time. God exists simultaneously in the past, present, and future, in all places at once. Which means God exists in the heavens and on earth. Oh, and in hell. If God is omnipresent, then God exists in pure evil at all times. God exists in lust, in hate, in jealousy, and in all negative emotions. He always existed in them and continues to exist in them forever. God is the embodiment of evil, always has been, and always will be.

God being omnipresent means that he is there, inside the mind, body, and private part of a pure evil rapist serial killer as he commits his heinous acts. But that person was under the influence of the devil, you say? Well, it just so happens that God is also inside the devil as well. But the devil overpowered God's will, you say? Well, then that means that God isn't omnipotent, since there is something more powerful than him.

God is not omniscient-
God knows all things and nothing can be hidden from his knowledge. If you lie, he knows. If you decide to watch porn, he knows. If you are alone and you mutilate a cat, he knows. Yet we are taught to live our lives in as good of a manner as possible because that is what God wants from us. We must live according to his will. God being omniscient means that we do not live our lives with any choice whatsoever. God already knows what we have done, what we are doing, and what we will do. Therefore, how we live our lives bears no weight as to whether we will go to heaven or hell. God already has our lives laid out for us, he knows what we will do. Therefore, repenting, going to church, and doing "good things" to have him forgive our sins is irrelevant, since our paths in life are already known by God. There's no such thing as changing that path or tricking God or asking for forgiveness, as God is already one step ahead of you and knows exactly what you will do. Which means the whole concept of practicing religion is pointless, since you are not in control of your choices and destiny.

The other fun thing about God being omniscient is that it means that God has limited knowledge. God knows everything, therefore if he knows everything, he can't create any new idea or concept or piece of knowledge. If God were to create something new, then that would invalidate the claim that he was omniscient. Unless of course he knows what he is going to create in the first place, meaning that his omniscience stands and his knowledge is limited. And having limited knowledge without the ability to create new ideas and concepts means that your power is limited, therefore showing that being omniscient means you have to sacrifice being omnipotent. Which is why you can't be omnipotent and omniscient at the same time.

Therefore, the three basic concepts of God are soundly proven wrong, meaning that God doesn't exist.

Check and mate.

Oh, you want more?

Pray for anything you want, but, what about the Divine Plan? Remember that? The Divine Plan, a long time ago, God made a Divine Plan, gave it a lot of thought, thought it was a good plan, and put it into practice. And for billions and billions of years, God's Divine Plan has been doing just fine. Now you come along and pray for something, well say whatever you pray for, isn't in God's Divine Plan. What do you want him to do?

Change his plan?

Just for you?

Doesn't that seem a little arrogant?

It's a Divine Plan. What's the use of having a Divine Plan if every rundown schmuck with a two-dollar prayer book can come along and screw up your plan?

And here's another problem you might have, suppose your prayers aren't answered, what do you say?

"Well, it's God's will, thy will be done."

Well, fine, but if it's God's will and he's going to do what he wants to anyway, why the hell bother praying in the first place?

Check and mate, number two.

Oh, now you want even more?

Well, you see those stars, up in the sky at night? The ones that are 20 billion light years away?

The fact that you can see those stars, it means that you're seeing what happened to those stars 20 billion years ago, because it has taken the light, that long to reach your retina.

The Bible, states that the world is roughly 6000 years old. False.

Check and mate, number three.

Jeez, you keep reading? You're just not convinced are you?

Well, let's tell you this, did you know that the Bible was written by multiple different people, over the course of centuries? It wasn't even compiled together until around 300AD by Constantine the Great! And even then, he left out certain books, like the book of Mary.

Check and mate, number four.

I think this will be my last one...

Deuteronomy 20:10-14,17. Read.

It specifically states that if your kingdom is without a home, you are able to walk up to another village, knock on their gates and pillage their city and keep the women and children for your own if they do not let you in, however, if they do let you in, you are able to befriend the city and use their artisians and blacksmiths.

I didn't really see that all-merciful God in the sentence above, did you?

I suppose God really does reside inside the Devil as well!

Hah.

Check and mate, number five.

Dude go bury yourself alive.

[Souret]

Just to say that the original post on this thread only actually disproved the idea of a theistic God. Personally I'm one of those people still exploring there beliefs but recently we have been studying evil and suffering in philosophy and ethics and the whole idea of the three omni's not working so long as there is evil in the world is one of the main things that either changes peoples veiws of christianity or makes them lose belief.
However the main argument against the this is that God with all his knowledge, love and power must have a greatest reason or purpose for allowing evi or prehaps that we do gain something from evil, even that becoming close to evil or feeling suffering is the only way for you to truly appriciate what is good in the world.

[Shisko Shi]

For Omnipotont...

Think of it this way... He can do anything that is POSSIBLE.
Asko you self... Can God create a Rock that is unliftable?
He can do anything that isn't contridicting...
God can not create a Trinagnle with out three sides. So it is in the possible range as in not contrididcting, which you as most get mixed up.

Omniscient...

He knows everything? Think of it more that we are extreamly predictable. He just knows the posiible outcome due to us doing thinks that are prodictable.
You are free to act as you wish.. You are predictable.

Could God have done this diffrently - elected not to know how I will choose and leave me free to fool even God? Not with out contridicting God's Omniscience.

[Mekuto]

The words you use to describe god are man made and thus incapable of describing god accurately, your thoughts on god are that of a human and thus unable to comprehend the truth. God is beyond your words, theories, and your wildest expectations.

I would like to state that I only use the term god as it is readily identifiable.

Think of it like this; You imagine god putting god in the limits of your consciousness. You then bring this consciousness into a perspective that allow you to examine your idea of god, and limit god further. Finally you take your refined and much limited idea of god and define it into words that others can comprehend, thus limiting god to some theory or rational idea that can be explained or proven wrong.