Locke

I'm not God, but Christian scripture seems to suggest all sins except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit are forgivable.

1. I am not arguing about the validity of the Bible. I don't care who thinks the Bible is correct or not. 2. If the people you are talking about are Christians, that means they believe what the Bible says. 3. Please logically explain to me, using your knowledge of Greek culture when that verse was written, why a verse that speaks not only until the end of this time, but also through all of eternity, would change over time. If a Christian who believes in the Bible reads a verse that says "this will never change," what culturally would make that Christian who believes in the Bible think that the verse is now irrelevant? What is the purpose of the Bible if a Christian doesn't even believe a verse that blatantly says it will never, ever, under any circumstances, change its meaning? Sure, I could see where some people might interpret different passages to mean different things. But how could you do it with a verse that specifically says it will not change over time?

Even I know that the Bible says

Both of you all are still responding from secular viewpoints. You don't understand the Christians perspective which says that blasphemy is the unpardonable sin. Compare a finite earthly life with eternity in hell. To someone who believes hell is their fate for that sin, the situation isn't even a question. It's perfectly logical for you all to not understand that, because it is not your belief that blasphemy will send you to Hell for eternity like barihawk does. So try this thought experiment to try and understand the Christian perspective here. 1. Misery for a limited time 2. A far worse misery for eternity. If you are given the option to choose situation 1 or situation 2, which would you pick?

Too bad God doesn't pay the bills if the father, the only working person of the family, rather dies after being kidnapped by a terrorist than temporarily lie. Everybody is allowed to have as much faith in anything as they want. Still, trusting your family to 'God' is naivety. God will not look after some children who starve to death on a daily bassi, neither will he specificly help a family living in a first world country just because their living standard dropped a little. That wasn't a belief by the way, just looking at death statistics for starvation/thirst of children. Mustn't be important for God. You are not looking at it from a Christian perspective, though. You're looking at it from a perspective that says Earthly life and comfort is vitally important, a Christian doesn't see it in exactly the same way you do. It's not to say that your point isn't logical, I'm only pointing out that it is secular. You view 'paying bills' as more important than salvation, because you do not believe in salvation. I think that it's just a point that Christians and non Christians will never be able to see eye to eye on.

You misunderstood Ambassador's point. He is not making any claim about whether or not anyone had the evidence to attack Hitler. He is responding to the point that was made that preemptive war is never good; that we should only enter war if we have been attacked. Ambassador's point is that to question whether or not so many lives had been lost and if the war would have been as difficult if we had preemptively attacked Hitler when he illegally started expanding his military, but before it was as powerful as he made it? His point is about whether or not preemptive war is okay, since preemptively attacking Hitler could have potentially saved millions of lives.

As a Christian, barihawk most likely believes that blasphemy is a terrible sin. Death, although an evil event in the Christian faith, would be much more welcomed than blasphemy. Most Christians I know would rather die than commit blasphemy, knowing that God will take care of their family when they die.

I understand that point entirely. However, what you are saying is that for this reality, God exists. and for an entirely different reality, God does not exist. God does not exist and not exist at the same time because you are not talking about the same realities.

We all live in the same reality. We simply build unique models of this reality in our minds, based not only on our perceptions of reality from our physical senses, but from other factors such as societal pressures or faith in a higher being or the use of mind altering drugs. Because we are each living in our own model of reality, yet still existing and interacting with actual reality, which has no definable substance (is there a world if there is no mind to apply logic to it? of course not, everything is just matter floating around, mass is frozen energy, etc...). Consider for a second that you spend a huge amount of your mental resources simply logically parsing what you see, hear, touch, smell, and feel at any given moment. You do not think about all the process your brain must go through to achieve this understanding of self. And yet, by meditating or using certain substances you can easily reveal the workings of this unseen mechanism, and train your minds eye upon it, showing you how to see music, or hear coors. There is no reality without a mind to apply logic to it, and therefore everyone creates their own reality. Yet, in the same token, we all live in the same ineffable "Real" space. Anyone can make god real, by believing. Therefore god exists, and he does not exists. He is a girl, and her name is eros. What you are describing then, is that God can be different for everyone because it is only based on their reality. All you are doing, though, is stating that "God exists and he does not exist." It's still not possible just because you state it. You are giving no account for how both something can exist and not exist, you are merely stating it over and over. Even if God exists for me, and does not exist for you, those are still different instance, and logically acceptable. You have yet to prove how something can exist and not exist at the same time. If by writing about what God did in the past, before he existed, because it happened before we imagined him, you are assuming God both existed and did not exist at the exact same time. This is impossible. Either what was written is false, or God existed before he was thought up.

It is fine for you to assume logic is his creation, there really is no way to no anyway. But the point you are making is that through logic, we can deduce that an uncaused cause cannot happen. However, my point is that you are applying logic to the physical universe and its laws and it is my firm belief that logic transcends the physical world. You are right. In this physical universe, an uncaused cause cannot happen. Anything else is merely speculation on our part. Pault you have taken this completely off the point. The point you are responding to is this: Can something both exist and not exist at the same time? You have still failed to respond to this. None of your examples, which include plural existence and one's perception of reality being reality itself, even address the issue of it being impossible to both exist and not exist at the same time. I'm not responding to the point about drugs because 1) You admit it is only your perception of reality, not reality itself that is changed and 2) That has nothing to do with whether or not existence and non-existence can happen simultaneously. The only point I am making is that something cannot exist and not exist at the same time. By the definition of existence, it is impossible for it to happen.

It depends on what you consider the laws of the creator's universe. Does "good" exist? It is the Christian belief that God is good, therefore, applying the idea of "good" to him. Yet, the idea of "good" exists in the universe as well. In the same way that Christians might believe that God is good, I posit that if God exists, it appears that He is "logic."

No, you are confusing the logics of the world and the physics of the world. Logic allows you to make predictions and declarations about the world by connecting the physics of the world together. Logic, however, would remain the same if applied to another set of physical laws. If the physical universe, for instance, had a force that was opposite of gravity, you could still use logic to make statements about the universe. The statements themselves change because the physical boundaries of the universe are different, but Logic itself remains the same. Yes, and I do not refute that at all. However, you are still saying the existence or non-existence because they cannot happen at the same time. If you believe something exists, it cannot NOT exist by the very nature of the meaning of existence. It might be entirely up to your perception of reality as to whether or not it exists, but it still cannot exist and not exist at the same time.

Plural existence (the holy spirit and jesus being the same entity, for example) does prove the self-contradiction and simultaneous existence and non-existence of reality (and objects and concepts within it), insofar as the concept illustrates the human dillemma (later expressed as existentialism) that I myself have already explained; it being the gap between the ability of human beings to understand what senses define their privately created sentient reality and how many actually affect their consciousness. The best representation of this dilemma comes from Plato's Cave. If a man lives his entire life in a cave, with only a tiny pinhole of light to flesh out his small reality, if ever a cave wall is broken down and he experiences the full light and joy of life, it will be as if he has broken down the gate of heaven and ran inside. It still does not show that something exists and simultaneously does not exist. The allegory of the cave, for instance, still depends on the existence of reality outside of the cave. Whether or not the person in the cave ever experiences it, and even if his perception of reality is hindered, whatever is outside of the cave still exists. This is especially true by Plato's insistence that the Forms are not mere conceptual ideas, but that they actually do exist. Whether or not someone knows about the Forms, the Forms still exist. You have still failed to explain how something can exist and not exist simultaneously. I understand that there are beliefs that reality is dependent on perception, but even then, something in that reality either exists or it does not exist. I know you did. Forgive me, I do not understand the point you are trying to make.

Sure. Starting with the Zoroastrian concept of having a body and a soul, dualism and self-contradiction has been a feature of every major religous or philosophical doctrine known to mankind. For example, Christians worship one god, who is the father and the son (Jesus, who is also both a man and god), and who is part of the holy trinity (which is just one god). In more scientific terms, dualism and contradiction appear in the big bang theory, where an equal amount of matter and antimatter should have appeared at the start of the universe, but the antimatter is mysteriously missing from the known universe. That does not explain how something both can exist and not exist at the same time. The examples you give do not show something to exist AND not exist at the same time. Existing as more than one thing at once is not the same as not existing and existing. If something exists as more than one thing, it still exists.

Explain how something can exist and not-exist at the same time. If it is existing, by the very nature of existence, it cannot NOT exist. It is a logical law, not a physical law.

No. Let me try to say it again in another way, because my point isn't being communicated very well. I take fault, because communication is always the fault of the communicator. I am not arguing for the existence of God. My argument assumes the existence of God and is ONLY relevant IF God exists. If God does not exist, this argument is irrelevant. IF God does exist, he existed before he was written about in the Bible. IF he exists as described in the Bible, he must precede the Bible and the stories written about him. IF God exists, ideas written about him did not create him, nor did they give him any characteristics. If he does exist, the writings about "Him" create ideas that only exist as ideas, not as a real existence. Agreed. The Bible is not proof of God's existence. My point is not, and never has been, to argue for the proof of God's existence.

Is impossible because the faith of people within itself is the profound and truthful proof of gods existence (it being a faith based religion, the faith in god existing actually causes him to exist and defines his existence). Consider discordianism, a religion based upon chaos. The existence of any "God" is up to people, to believe and make it real. This reasoning has its roots in the ideaology that we do not experience reality directly, our brain interprets the signals from the world around us, using not only our five senses but societal pressures, and other hidden senses and creates a "Matrix" like dreamworld which we actually do our living in. Every human percieves the world differently, and within this paradox is how we create our own reality, on our own, together. Not only is my logic not fallacious, you failed to show how you believe it is. I'm not arguing that there is proof of God's existence. I have repeatedly said that I am not arguing for the existence. My point is this. Look at the Bible, read it's pages. The Bible depicts the existence of a God that precedes being written about. If this is true (not the IF, I am not saying it is) then God exists outside just thinking about him, because he is being written to exist before he was being written about. It breaks the law of non-contradiction to assume that he exists and does not exist before he was written about, which you must assume in order to make the statement that was initially made.

The principle of time doesn't apply to a deity. Also, sentient thought is just a clever adaptation monkeys have developed to more efficiently absorb sunlight, (by mining up ancient plants full of energy and using fossil fuels, genetically modifying plants to work more efficiently, etc..) and is most likely unrelated to any god who doesn't want to be the laughing stock of the entire pantheon. For the purposes of our limited linguistic capabilities, God would have to precede anything he created, if he did in fact create something. Of course, using the word before is only because of our linguistic limitations in describing the universe, but since the universe is finite in time, it is perfectly logical to discuss things preceding it. You're making a fallacy by attributing our knowledge of something to its existence. I understand what you're trying to say, it just isn't logically coherent. Knowledge of something does not define its existence. I know exactly what you're saying, and as stated before by insane, this has nothing to do with trying to prove God's existence. You cannot equate knowledge of something to its existence. Period. Whether or not God actually exists, our knowledge of him does not define that either way. You are also making the assumption that if we could not write, God, if he exists, would not be able to make his presence known to us. This is a logical fallacy because you are describing a situation that doesn't exist, and attempting to define what the situation would be like. Once again, I understand exactly what you're saying, you are just make statements that are illogical.

Actually, the principles of formal logical, specifically the principle of causality states that all things in the physical world have a cause. The principles of logic do not make that statement about things that might or might not exist outside of the physical world. It is not a counter to your argument because your argument itself is fallacious. You are using logical principles that only pertain to the physical world for events or beings that exist (or do not exist) outside the physical world. You are speaking of, as you suggest, that the idea of God would not exist without humans. The point you initially made was however, that God would not exist without humans to write about him. The two are completely separate notions. If God does in fact exist, He would have to precede humans writing about him. You are attempting to blur the line between God's actual existence and the existence of an idea about God. insane's argument, like mine, does not require the existence of God to be true. The argument is like this: IF God exists, his existence would precede humans being able to think about Him. The argument allows for the non-existence of God and only addresses whether or not He actually exists. Your argument should be as follows: IF God does not exist, ideas about God only exist because humans are intelligent enough to write. Both of those arguments are valid, because they only address either the existence or the lack of existence of God, without make exclusionary statements about the opposite. Your initial statement, however, is fallacious, because you are speaking about God's existence, not just an idea of God's existence.

To reiterate insane's point in as concise a way as I can death_by_pod. If something exists, it either exists or it does not. Writing about it does not affect its existence. By saying, "God only exists because humans wrote about Him," you are actually trying to say that God does not exist and the only thing that does exist is an idea of "God." If God Himself actually does exist, His existence would have to precede people writing about Him. If He does exist, his existence is not dependent on the writing's of man, only ideas about Him (whether they be true or false) are dependent on our writings. Once again, it is a subtle use of the Law of Non-Contradiction. God exists or he does not. It cannot be both, and by saying that our writings which assume that God precedes them actually made God come into existence cause God to exist and not exist at the same time. You are confusing the notions of "the idea of a God that may or may not exist" and "a God that exists." One is affected by man's ability to write, the latter is not.

As I said, we may create the idea of God, because unlike existence, merely thinking can create ideas. But if God really does exist, our ideas and thoughts have no bearing on his actual characteristics.

I believe that insane's point is more along the lines of the Law of Non-Contradiction. If God exists, he exists. If he does not exist, He does not exist. If God only exists because people believe he exists, He is merely an idea. The idea of God then would exist, but not God Himself. To say that God only exists because people are intelligent to write about him is contradictory to the belief in God. When religious people write about God, they are presupposing that God exists and they are writing about him. They are not writing "in order to create" God, because they do not believe their ability to write is what is creating God. It could create an idea of God, but not God. Therefore, to argue that God only exists because people are intelligent enough to write about him is to presuppose the existence of God before people write about him, and to suppose that God exists only because (and therefore after) people have written about him. Your logical formula would then say that "Before people were smart enough to write about Him, God exists and God does not exist," aka, (P and -P). That's a contradiction.

I can't read. :P

I think the word you're looking for is metaphysical. If you are serious about submitting the argument that "existence" comes down to our perception then I'll respond. If existence is nothing more than our perception of it, does existence change for someone who cannot see? Is "existence" actually different for a blind man, because his perception is different, or is existence an absolute and he only perceives it differently? I believe strongly that existence is absolute. Therefore, God either exists or he does not. Humans thinking about him, or perceiving him, does not force Him into existence. Writing a book about God did not create Him (if He exists); He existed first, and then someone wrote a book about Him OR He did not exist first and someone wrote an fiction story about him. If existence is absolute, His existence would have to precede perceiving Him.

Irrelevant. Actully it makes perfect sence. If humans never wrote the Bible, people wouldn't believe in God. People just dont believe in a God then use a book to support it, the read the book first and then believe in God. Er, God would have to precede the Bible. In order for the Bible to be written, someone would have to have initially believed in him.