Is God real post your thoughts!

[Zierro]

To say that anything else is a superior decision system without evidence is plain ignorant.

 

 

 

Looks like you actually don't understand. I never said that.

 

 

 

Anyways to Lateralus: I know and I hope you didn't think I meant to abandon logic. It is the best we have, but when you use it to try to explain the great mysteries of the universe, it's almost pointless. No matter what kind of reasoning we use, all it will come down to is theories yet some people think that we have substantial proof that there is no way in hell that a God can exist. (Yes, pun intended.)

[warri0r45]

Yeah, I live in this time and I deem those laws archaic. Thats how the term archaic works. It really goes without saying. But it is a good point that Id probably see those laws as the norm if I were around at the time, however thats not what I was getting at.

 

 

 

It seems you semi-grasped the point being made. And ummm... I know.

 

 

 

What I mean by playing to the time period is that he sees that these people are archaic and makes archaic laws to suit them. Presumably, good to a good and all loving god doesnt include going around burning or stoning others, especially not for ridiculous reasons like disobeying parents or being homosexual. Do you agree? Do you think those are good commands from a good god?

 

 

 

Two things.

 

 

 

1.) You fail to realize that laws are "archaic" only with the passing of time.

 

 

 

2.) You fail to understand what was meant by essential character, so let's try this again. God is what He is. His actions do not change that. For example, humans are typically seen as evil creatures. However, simply because man is an evil creature does not mean that all of his actions are evil nor can he do good. It simply means that his nature is one of evil. The inverse is true for God. Simply because He is good and all-loving does not mean he can not commit evil (If you want to call it that) nor does it mean he is any less good or loving for doing so. Hell, even the Bible and Quran both attest to this fact (God/Allah makes evil for His own purpose). Double hell... You play Runescape. I know for a fact there are instances of Sara doing what would be considered evil and Zammy doing what would be considered good.

 

 

 

But then you bring up Jesus comments on Mosaic Law. Fair enough. So am I right in saying that god still commands these things of some people? If so then obviously the point I was making is moot and he wasnt playing to archaic people hes just got a seriously skewed moral compass himself. If thats the case, then I think that kind of god is no more venerable than any other obviously man-made god with seriously outdated characteristics.

 

 

 

I do believe we've gone over this point before. Twice, if not three times. In this very thread no doubt. The laws are still there. Jesus simply fulfilled them (He did not abolish them). The laws will remain until the day Jesus returns and Heaven and Earth are washed away. Pretty simple, really.

 

 

 

What do you mean by this? Why would god command such nonsense if he didnt think it was a good thing to do?

 

 

 

What nonsense? You continue to make value judgments concerning a system of laws because it does not conform to what you personally deem as right and wrong.

 

 

 

Just for [cabbage] and giggles? I dont think those commandments are good in any way shape or form, therefore I dont think they could have possibly come from a good god. To me, they indicate anything but.

 

 

 

That's great for you buuut... What you think of any particular law/commandment is irrelevant. I happen to think quite a few current laws we have are idiotic, but that doesn't make them so now does it?

 

 

 

Your last two comments prove that you completely fail to understand the concept of an opinion. I'm making value judgments? I think these laws are idiotic? Yes, that's right. It's expression of an opinion. Being an apologetic believer, clearly yours is different. Ill express my opinions no matter how much you don't agree with them.

 

 

 

Of course I realise these laws are only archaic with passing time. Again, that's exactly when people deem things archaic. How do you go from me actually acknowledging that in the paragraph before to "you fail to realise that..."? Do you seriously think Im going to look at these laws any more sympathetically because of that, especially considering they supposedly come from a good, timeless and all-loving god? Ill make judgments of archaic laws and customs as I wish.

 

 

 

As for his essential character, god is whatever you judge him to be, as making value judgments is all you can do with god. Hes not going to come down to you and say oh, by the way guys, my essential character is actually good. Even then, people who dont have a vested interest in seeing everything he does as good will judge him by his actions.

 

 

 

You merely uttering that his essential character is good even though he commands homosexuals to be killed makes no sense to someone like me and therefore Ill judge that hes not good. Your judgment that he is good is one of opinion, and so is mine. Do you understand this concept? People judge others by their actions all the time. Millions have judged Hitler as an evil bastard, but some Nazi sympathetic type saying you fail to understand what is meant by essential character isnt going to dim that view.

 

 

 

To the believer, the view of god is a rosy one, usually no matter what. To someone like me, Ill judge him by his actions like any person would judge another by his actions. There is no preconceived perception of he must be good, therefore Ill be apologetic and try and retrofit his actions into that view to keep the faith.

 

 

 

I seriously doubt that discussing this with you will go anywhere, so Ill end there. Ive made my point, and others can judge that as they see fit.

[Lateralus]

To say that anything else is a superior decision system without evidence is plain ignorant.

 

 

 

Looks like you actually don't understand. I never said that.

 

 

 

Anyways to Lateralus: I know and I hope you didn't think I meant to abandon logic. It is the best we have, but when you use it to try to explain the great mysteries of the universe, it's almost pointless. No matter what kind of reasoning we use, all it will come down to is theories yet some people think that we have substantial proof that there is no way in hell that a God can exist. (Yes, pun intended.)

 

 

 

Well a mystery, by definition, is something that defies explanation by reason, so you're right there. All I can say is that if people are going to assert the existence of a god (especially one who seems to interfere with everything) because of a revelation or any other untestable means, it's not unreasonable to deny it. Theists don't mind because they have faith, but to have most of the 'evidence' on my side means a lot to me.

[EdgedThesis]

Wow, even as an anti-religious person, I have to say the religious people here are making much more sense. For some reason, people think that logic is an infallible tool that can crack all the codes in the universe. There's a problem with that. Logic is a tool used by man, just like faith therefore neither can be ever considered "perfect".

 

 

 

Just think about animals. They use some degree of logic and to them, it probably seems 'perfect'. For example, there is an experiment where a mouse presses a button to get food - logic is being applied there, even though it's a very scant amount. Human logic is more advanced, but I'm pretty sure it's nowhere near perfect. I'm sure if there are higher beings out there, they are capable of making our logic look like that of a mouse's. There are some things in the universe that we still cannot grasp and I doubt we ever will. Why? Because our logic is limited, just like a mouse.

 

 

 

In other words, the logic of human is not perfect so I don't see why people put so much trust into it. If you ask me, that's just the definition of closed-mindedness.

 

 

 

I know I'm gonna regret posting this, but oh well. I'll be happy if at least one person understands. *submits*

 

 

 

Quick question, how can logic be fallible? It's adaptive.

 

Logic isn't our body of knowledge, it is how we acquire it. Even in a completely different universe with different laws, logic would be used to ascertain those laws.

 

I think that when we reach a point where we are self aware, and can analyze and mold the path our species takes as a whole, that's the peak of intellect. I think higher beings would only be separate in the magnitude in which they can use the tool of logic.

 

 

 

Of course, this conclusion was brought to you by conventional human thought processes... and there's no way I can ever disprove your belief. Because I am human.

[Zierro]

Well a mystery, by definition, is something that defies explanation by reason, so you're right there. All I can say is that if people are going to assert the existence of a god (especially one who seems to interfere with everything) because of a revelation or any other untestable means, it's not unreasonable to deny it. Theists don't mind because they have faith, but to have most of the 'evidence' on my side means a lot to me.

 

 

 

Oh don't get me wrong, I know it's not unreasonable to think that way - my post wasn't directed towards nonbelievers as a whole. I understand atheism just as much as I understand theism. It's the intolerance of the other party which I don't like. If there was a Christian proclaiming that everyone who doesn't believe is an idiot, then I'd feel the same way about them. In my post I said that both faith and logic are man-made tools, so neither can be perfect. Just for the record, I'm Agnostic. Yeah, biased, I know. \

 

 

 

Quick question, how can logic be fallible? It's adaptive.

 

Logic isn't our body of knowledge, it is how we acquire it. Even in a completely different universe with different laws, logic would be used to ascertain those laws.

 

I think that when we reach a point where we are self aware, and can analyze and mold the path our species takes as a whole, that's the peak of intellect. I think higher beings would only be separate in the magnitude in which they can use the tool of logic.

 

 

 

Of course, this conclusion was brought to you by conventional human thought processes... and there's no way I can ever disprove your belief. Because I am human.

 

 

 

It's either perfect or it's not. I don't see how there can be a middle ground here... but you can explain it to me if I'm wrong.

 

 

 

I never said logic wasn't good - it's just not good enough when dealing with things of this nature.

 

 

 

PS: I like your last paragraph. :P

[EdgedThesis]

Yeah, I agree with you there. There's no arguing the existence of a being that exists outside of our universe. We can't use logic on something we can't observe, right?

 

 

 

Oh, I was just saying that I viewed our thought processes as supreme, in terms of technique. Sure, there might be beings out there that can use it in higher magnitudes, for example at greater speed (or, an even greater leap, if they could observe the world in higher dimensions).

 

 

 

But even if these beings could observe time as a whole (4d-vision, woot), they'd be using the same techniques. If they have electrical signals ripping through their brain at a higher rate than ours, they'd still be using the same techniques.

 

 

 

Mice and animals have specific types of info they can learn. Like, they tend to associate things with other things. They don't understand that correlation doesn't equal causation, like humans. That is why a harmless animal can remain safe if colored the same as a toxic animal.

 

 

 

They have even different types of learning that is based off of their genetic code. It's nothing like how we think. If you look at animal behavior, you begin to realize they are kind of like organic machines.

 

 

 

Our ability to think isn't really hardwired, and our processes, like our brains themselves, are adaptive. Optimal.

[dusqi]

 

Wow, even as an anti-religious person, I have to say the religious people here are making much more sense. For some reason, people think that logic is an infallible tool that can crack all the codes in the universe. There's a problem with that. Logic is a tool used by man, just like faith therefore neither can be ever considered "perfect".

 

 

 

 

Everyone seems to be so sure that reason/logic (applied in a "perfect" sense) are fallible. I do not agree. Sure, there are some "great mysteries", but to say that reason is fallible you'd have to find a way of showing that reason could never ever fathom them. My view is that they are mysteries now, but not forever. So, I see no reason to not think that logic is an infallible tool that can crack all the codes in the universe.

[Lateralus]

 

Wow, even as an anti-religious person, I have to say the religious people here are making much more sense. For some reason, people think that logic is an infallible tool that can crack all the codes in the universe. There's a problem with that. Logic is a tool used by man, just like faith therefore neither can be ever considered "perfect".

 

 

 

 

Everyone seems to be so sure that reason/logic (applied in a "perfect" sense) are fallible. I do not agree. Sure, there are some "great mysteries", but to say that reason is fallible you'd have to find a way of showing that reason could never ever fathom them. My view is that they are mysteries now, but not forever. So, I see no reason to not think that logic is an infallible tool that can crack all the codes in the universe.

 

 

 

By "great mysteries" I assumed he meant things like the existence of a God, which you can never really disprove because it's so easy to change the argument when new evidence comes to light. I have every faith in us discovering things like the unknowns of the quantum world and unifying quantum theory and general relativity and basically anything else physical science sets its sights on. There's always going to be philosophy and metaphysics which exist outside the realms of the testable.

[Zierro]

My view is that they are mysteries now, but not forever.

 

 

 

That's my point. "Now" is what matters since this discussion is taking place in the present. I believe that we can still achieve a greater level of consciousness and greater logic - as cheesy as that sounds. Until there's a foolproof way of proving the existence/nonexistence of God, no one should be intolerant with the other party - and I have a feeling that lots of people take this thread too seriously. If you can't tell me how the universe started (might not be the best example but I'm sure you get the point), then how can you tell me whether God exists or not? We're all entitled to opinions on this thread, but I don't like when people speak as if their opinions are facts.

[Sly_Wizard]

So explain what 'the truth' is and the support it with evidence and reason. For this exercise i will assume that a god exists; you must prove that your interpretation is more truthful than everybody elses.

 

 

 

What? I'm thking you missed the point. You made a claim about God, more specifically that He's, in essense, the embodiment of all we don't know and nothing further (i.e., "filler", or a "God of the gaps", so to speak). One which A.) is unsubstantiated and B.) has no basis in Christian doctrine (I'm not going to deal with what other religions say on the matter, because I'm not a pantheist).

 

 

 

I find it really quite startling how you all argue about which point of view makes the world seem the most "Beautiful, Startling and Thrilling". OK, so by scientific and logical approach means you can decode everything (theroretically) into formulae, rules and numbers; and that, for you, may make the world seem less thrilling but you shouldn't scrap logic because you don't like the answer it gives. The answer that is the one you like, doesn't make it truth.

 

 

 

What are you talking about? That's really not what I was doing nor the point attempting to be made.

 

 

 

The answer which has reason behind it makes it truth.

 

 

 

Ha ha! If it were as simple as that, all things would be true. Reason and logic are not infallible tools which lead to one, ultimate truth.

 

 

 

And where did you get that idea?

 

 

 

...Logic. And reason...

 

 

 

This is the anti-intellectual approach of faith.

 

 

 

No. It really isn't. How do you figure?

 

 

 

Can you not see that you have been told this by the Church to scare you away from reasoning for yourself?

 

 

 

I have gained this by philosophy; that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law."-- Aristotle

 

 

 

Following your logic, the only reason you adhere to certain laws is because you've been scared into following them by the governing powers that be-- Not because you're thinking for yourself.

 

 

 

Now the real test here is if you can back up your statements about how Evil reason is by using reason, because that is the only acceptable form of argument- not just statements based on blind faith.

 

 

 

I don't understand what you're saying/asking. Care to restate that in a way I can make sense of? :|

 

 

 

Research for yourself (independant of relgious influence) about how logic and reason have eliminated Smallpox, created windfarms and many other revolutionary things.

 

 

 

I'm not so sure you understand what logic and reason are. For one, they are not limited to the betterment of mankind. You seem to forget that even Hitler was able to form a logical argument for his eugenics programs using human reason. Even more importantly than that, they don't exist indepently of religion. Even though you never explicitly said it, atheism/agnosticism is no more inherently (il)logical than is theism. It's all a matter of how you derive your conclusions. Henceforth why two people can arrive at two seperate, but valid, conclusions given the same information.

 

 

 

I won't start on your actual statements until you actual give them any weight by using reason.

 

 

 

I have. Perhaps you should learn what reason is :wall:

 

 

 

So why are you so sure that your interpretation is so correct and good?

 

 

 

That's not exactly what I'm saying (Nor was it the point I was trying to make). The fact that people have done evil based on a Holy Scripture speaks more to the character of the man than it does the validity of the text. I mean... If I were to read the Declaration of Independence and conclude that only men were entitled to be free and rescinded the rights of all women in the U.S., does it mean that the document is inherently flawed? No. It means that my understanding of the text is flawed.

[Sly_Wizard]

Your last two comments prove that you completely fail to understand the concept of an opinion. I'm making value judgments? I think these laws are idiotic? Yes, that's right. It's expression of an opinion. Being an apologetic believer, clearly yours is different. Ill express my opinions no matter how much you don't agree with them.

 

 

 

There's a difference between an opinon and an opinion passed off as fact.

 

 

 

Of course I realise these laws are only archaic with passing time. Again, that's exactly when people deem things archaic. How do you go from me actually acknowledging that in the paragraph before to "you fail to realise that..."? Do you seriously think Im going to look at these laws any more sympathetically because of that, especially considering they supposedly come from a good, timeless and all-loving god? Ill make judgments of archaic laws and customs as I wish.

 

 

 

Right. And that's exactly the problem. You ignore the biggest and most pertinent of facts; culture. It's a different culture, so of course the laws are going to be different. To judge laws from another culture as idiotic because they don't conform to whatever view you hold (3,400 years later, mind you) is, as you would say, idiotic. I'd like to call that Western snobbery at it's finest. I'm fairly sure I can go to some Middle Eastern, African or even Asian countries, show them some of the laws you abide by and they'd consider them idiotic.

 

 

 

As for his essential character, god is whatever you judge him to be, as making value judgments is all you can do with god. Hes not going to come down to you and say oh, by the way guys, my essential character is actually good. Even then, people who dont have a vested interest in seeing everything he does as good will judge him by his actions.

 

 

 

No, God is not whatever you judge him to be. You're still not understanding anything I wrote out. You can say whatever you want to about God's actions-- Right or wrong. Fair or unfair-- But it doesn't change his nature (Being good and all-loving). It's really not that hard to understand, ya' know?

 

 

 

You merely uttering that his essential character is good even though he commands homosexuals to be killed makes no sense to someone like me and therefore Ill judge that hes not good. Your judgment that he is good is one of opinion, and so is mine. Do you understand this concept? People judge others by their actions all the time. Millions have judged Hitler as an evil bastard, but some Nazi sympathetic type saying you fail to understand what is meant by essential character isnt going to dim that view.

 

 

 

I said once before that I shouldn't argue with non-philosphy majors, and this is the reason why. The nature of a being-- Any being-- Is not affected by his or her actions. Here, let's take the phrase "humans are selfless". This does not mean that humans will not occassionally do things to benefit themselves (Because they do, and we know they do), but rather that-- At the core-- They are altruistic and care moreso for the well-being of others than they do themselves. Here... Let me break this down Runescape style.

 

 

 

Zammy is evil.

 

Zammy does something which can be considered good.

 

Does that make Zammy good?

 

 

 

Sara is good.

 

Sara does something which can be considered evil.

 

Does that make Zammy evil?

 

 

 

To answer both of these question, no, it doesn't. It merely means that Zammy's an evil being who happened to do something good while Sara is a good being who happened to do something evil. Your objections seems to be something along the lines of "You are what you do", but this is incorrect.

 

 

 

To the believer, the view of god is a rosy one, usually no matter what. To someone like me, Ill judge him by his actions like any person would judge another by his actions. There is no preconceived perception of he must be good, therefore Ill be apologetic and try and retrofit his actions into that view to keep the faith.

 

 

 

Ummm... Excuse me, but I do believe the Bible (Once again, not concerned with what other religions say as I'm not a pantheist) says that not only is God vengeful but he also brings forth evil for his own will (I believe I said that earlier. Can't remember if it was to you or to someone else). The Bible also happens to say that God is good. You take this to be some sort of contradiction when it is not. Judging of one's actions is not the same thing as the judging of one's nature.

[Furah]

Your religion is stupid, please stop, you're killing the species.

 

 

 

not true, we are not killing the species, it's things like depression, drugs, abuse, a can't-do attitude, hatred, alcohol they are killing our species

[dusqi]

My view is that they are mysteries now, but not forever.

 

 

 

That's my point. "Now" is what matters since this discussion is taking place in the present. I believe that we can still achieve a greater level of consciousness and greater logic - as cheesy as that sounds. Until there's a foolproof way of proving the existence/nonexistence of God, no one should be intolerant with the other party - and I have a feeling that lots of people take this thread too seriously. If you can't tell me how the universe started (might not be the best example but I'm sure you get the point), then how can you tell me whether God exists or not? We're all entitled to opinions on this thread, but I don't like when people speak as if their opinions are facts.

 

 

 

By "great mysteries" I assumed he meant things like the existence of a God, which you can never really disprove because it's so easy to change the argument when new evidence comes to light. I have every faith in us discovering things like the unknowns of the quantum world and unifying quantum theory and general relativity and basically anything else physical science sets its sights on. There's always going to be philosophy and metaphysics which exist outside the realms of the testable.

 

 

 

 

 

It just sounds like the tiny teapot to me (I imagine you know the argument, but I will write it here for those who do not). There's a tiny teapot that is orbiting the Earth. As soon as we go looking for it, they just say that the teapot is smaller than we can detect. It goes on to infinity where as our detecting equipment gets better, the teapot just gets smaller and smaller. It's basically impossible to disprove that kind of negative. But, of course, that doesn't mean that it is at all likely that there is actually a teapot out there.

 

 

 

So, how this ties in with the "great mysteries", is because if someone can find a good argument to say that actually science could never ever discover something like the origin of the universe, then that means that there's a decent-sized gap for a God to fit in. However, since I don't know of any argument that could say that science could never ever answer one of these great mysteries, there is no reason to just assume that there's space for a God. There's no evidence for a God, and there's no need for a God either.

[assassin_696]

Of course I realise these laws are only archaic with passing time. Again, that's exactly when people deem things archaic. How do you go from me actually acknowledging that in the paragraph before to "you fail to realise that..."? Do you seriously think Im going to look at these laws any more sympathetically because of that, especially considering they supposedly come from a good, timeless and all-loving god? Ill make judgments of archaic laws and customs as I wish.

 

 

 

Right. And that's exactly the problem. You ignore the biggest and most pertinent of facts; culture. It's a different culture, so of course the laws are going to be different. To judge laws from another culture as idiotic because they don't conform to whatever view you hold (3,400 years later, mind you) is, as you would say, idiotic. I'd like to call that Western snobbery at it's finest. I'm fairly sure I can go to some Middle Eastern, African or even Asian countries, show them some of the laws you abide by and they'd consider them idiotic.

 

 

 

Moral/cultural relativism doesn't excuse Bible ethics. Contrary to popular opinion, you don't need a God to make judgements about morals or ethics that hold absolutely because trying to argue the necessity of God from morality simply doesn't work. The Greek philosophers realised that thousands of years ago, I wish people were more aware of it nowadays.

 

 

 

As for his essential character, god is whatever you judge him to be, as making value judgments is all you can do with god. Hes not going to come down to you and say oh, by the way guys, my essential character is actually good. Even then, people who dont have a vested interest in seeing everything he does as good will judge him by his actions.

 

 

 

No, God is not whatever you judge him to be. You're still not understanding anything I wrote out. You can say whatever you want to about God's actions-- Right or wrong. Fair or unfair-- But it doesn't change his nature (Being good and all-loving). It's really not that hard to understand, ya' know?

 

 

 

It is when your (good and all loving) God explicity lays down immoral laws. How can God apparently repeatedly contradict his own nature? You seem to be arguing that God's nature is independent of his actions/words, and if you think that's the case then this is a pointless exercise since you're just changing the rules to protect your God.

 

 

 

You merely uttering that his essential character is good even though he commands homosexuals to be killed makes no sense to someone like me and therefore Ill judge that hes not good. Your judgment that he is good is one of opinion, and so is mine. Do you understand this concept? People judge others by their actions all the time. Millions have judged Hitler as an evil bastard, but some Nazi sympathetic type saying you fail to understand what is meant by essential character isnt going to dim that view.

 

 

 

I said once before that I shouldn't argue with non-philosphy majors, and this is the reason why. The nature of a being-- Any being-- Is not affected by his or her actions. Here, let's take the phrase "humans are selfless". This does not mean that humans will not occassionally do things to benefit themselves (Because they do, and we know they do), but rather that-- At the core-- They are altruistic and care moreso for the well-being of others than they do themselves. Here... Let me break this down Runescape style.

 

 

 

Zammy is evil.

 

Zammy does something which can be considered good.

 

Does that make Zammy good?

 

 

 

Sara is good.

 

Sara does something which can be considered evil.

 

Does that make Zammy evil?

 

 

 

To answer both of these question, no, it doesn't. It merely means that Zammy's an evil being who happened to do something good while Sara is a good being who happened to do something evil. Your objections seems to be something along the lines of "You are what you do", but this is incorrect.

 

 

 

I wouldn't get patronising about "non-philosophy majors", your arguments are as leaky as anyone's. You have not provided any compelling evidence whatsoever that you can detach someone's character from their actions, especially Yahweh's. Human beings are fallible, you can't compare their "intrinsic character" (if they even have one) to that of an omnipotent, all loving God. It's frankly absurd to admit all the bizarre ethics of the God of the Old Testament then continue to insist that his nature is good. Why is it good?

[warri0r45]

I honestly wasn't going to bother assassin, but thanks anyway. I suspected my point would be completely glossed over and Sly's repeated again, but I'm not a philosophy major so what would I know. :lol:

[Sly_Wizard]

Moral/cultural relativism doesn't excuse Bible ethics. Contrary to popular opinion, you don't need a God to make judgements about morals or ethics that hold absolutely because trying to argue the necessity of God from morality simply doesn't work. The Greek philosophers realised that thousands of years ago, I wish people were more aware of it nowadays.

 

 

 

Wow... Okay. Two things here.

 

 

 

1.) Moral relativism is not the same as cultural relativism. Moral relativism means that all value systems are equally as valid. This ain't what cultural relativism says. Cultural relativism states that whether or not a specific action within any culture is acceptable can be determined given the nature of the culture and environment in which it lives or operates. Henceforth why it's "idiotic" to judge the laws and subsequent actions of a nomadic tribe 3,400 years ago by today's standards. It doesn't work. Sorry.

 

 

 

2.) Who was arguing "the necessity of God from morality"? No one. Not a single soul. It wasn't even mentioned until you bothered to bring it up.

 

 

 

It is when your (good and all loving) God explicity lays down immoral laws.

 

 

 

Please, tell me how the laws are "immoral"? I'd really want to hear it. No. Seriously. Go ahead and amuse me.

 

 

 

How can God apparently repeatedly contradict his own nature?

 

 

 

He doesn't.

 

 

 

You seem to be arguing that God's nature is independent of his actions/words, and if you think that's the case then this is a pointless exercise since you're just changing the rules to protect your God...

 

 

 

...I wouldn't get patronising about "non-philosophy majors", your arguments are as leaky as anyone's. You have not provided any compelling evidence whatsoever that you can detach someone's character from their actions, especially Yahweh's. Human beings are fallible, you can't compare their "intrinsic character" (if they even have one) to that of an omnipotent, all loving God. It's frankly absurd to admit all the bizarre ethics of the God of the Old Testament then continue to insist that his nature is good. Why is it good?

 

 

 

*Combined the last two statements, since the responses will be virtually the same*

 

 

 

No one is changing any rule. The nature of a person or object is within the realm of metaphysics (To be exact, ontology). Ontology does not concern itself with the actions of the person or thing, as those are merely what the person or thing does and is dealt with in a seperate branch of philosophy all together. Said again: What one does is not what one is. The nature of a person or object is mutally independent of it's actions. That is, one's nature does not inhibit one from engaging in certain actions, just as certain actions do not define one's nature. If man is indeed altruistic, yet he does something in self-interest, does that make him selfish? You effectively evaded answering this question before with a "You can't compare man to God!" response without realizing that no one is comparing man to God (So perhaps you'll answer it this time). It's an example used to highlight the fallacy in equating being to action. God is good =/= God's actions are good, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE BIBLE EXPLICITLY STATES THAT GOD BRINGS FORTH EVIL FOR HIS OWN PURPOSE!!!. The sooner you realize this, the better.

 

 

 

And, yes, sometimes I do dislike trying to argue with non-philosophy majors because, most of the time, they argue adamantly what they don't understand. And, no, no one understands everything. But it's good to understand something (:

[Zierro]

However, since I don't know of any argument that could say that science could never ever answer one of these great mysteries, there is no reason to just assume that there's space for a God.

 

 

 

What are you saying? You deny the fact that our logic gets progressively better and allows new discoveries? Sorry, but I disagree. I see a world of difference between the average person's intelligence from the 1800's and someone of our time. We're always making new discoveries. What used to be "great mysteries" back in the day can now be considered common knowledge (how to fly, how to get into space, human anatomy, I could go on and on!).

 

 

 

Where is your evidence (that thing atheists crave so much) that we can't become more advanced in concerns to our thought process? Where is your evidence that proving/disproving God in the future is impossible?

 

 

 

There's no evidence for a God, and there's no need for a God either.

 

 

 

Now that's just plain silly. Is there is a "need" for atheism?

 

 

 

Your argument is one-sided. I just wanted to point that out to you. I can almost use your own words against you. You sound like the atheist version of Sly.

[Sly_Wizard]

You sound like the atheist version of Sly.

 

 

 

I'll just take that as a compliment -.-

[assassin_696]

Sly_Wizard, before I start. Maybe you can't help it, but arguing every point in a facetious patronising tone of voice really doesn't help your case. Try and have a little more humility and maybe you won't have people giving up on you quite so quickly.

 

 

 

Wow... Okay. Two things here.

 

 

 

1.) Moral relativism is not the same as cultural relativism. Moral relativism means that all value systems are equally as valid. This ain't what cultural relativism says. Cultural relativism states that whether or not a specific action within any culture is acceptable can be determined given the nature of the culture and environment in which it lives or operates. Henceforth why it's "idiotic" to judge the laws and subsequent actions of a nomadic tribe 3,400 years ago by today's standards. It doesn't work. Sorry.

 

 

 

That would be fine, except when those laws were handed down from a God who surely isn't bounded by the same cultural rules? It seems absolutely absurd to say that God gave those tribes ethics that were okay back then but not acceptable nowadays, but insists that the laws are eternal. Why couldn't God just be ahead of his time and argue for equality of all sexes etc. etc. Why wait for the cultural zeitgeist to do his work for him?

 

 

 

2.) Who was arguing "the necessity of God from morality"? No one. Not a single soul. It wasn't even mentioned until you bothered to bring it up.

 

 

 

It's what all these arguments essentially boil down to at some point or another, I thought I might jump the gun.

 

 

 

Please, tell me how the laws are "immoral"? I'd really want to hear it. No. Seriously. Go ahead and amuse me.

 

 

 

I don't need to if you've ever read the Old Testament. Nearly all scholarly evidence points to the fact that the God of the Old Testament was a vindictive one, the burden of proof is on you to show me how he isn't.

 

 

 

How can God apparently repeatedly contradict his own nature?

 

 

 

He doesn't.

 

 

 

You say God has a good nature. Yet God repeatedly commits heinous and awful crimes in the Old Testatment. Hence contradictory.

 

 

 

No one is changing any rule. The nature of a person or object is within the realm of metaphysics (To be exact, ontology). Ontology does not concern itself with the actions of the person or thing, as those are merely what the person or thing does and is dealt with in a seperate branch of philosophy all together. Said again: What one does is not what one is. The nature of a person or object is mutally independent of it's actions. That is, one's nature does not inhibit one from engaging in certain actions, just as certain actions do not define one's nature. If man is indeed altruistic, yet he does something in self-interest, does that make him selfish? You effectively evaded answering this question before with a "You can't compare man to God!" response without realizing that no one is comparing man to God (So perhaps you'll answer it this time). It's an example used to highlight the fallacy in equating being to action. God is good =/= God's actions are good, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE BIBLE EXPLICITLY STATES THAT GOD BRINGS FORTH EVIL FOR HIS OWN PURPOSE!!!. The sooner you realize this, the better.

 

 

 

Ah, so now we're engaging in metaphysical speculation? Excellent. Your philosophy states that nature is independent of actions, a kind of dualism I suppose. But that's your philosophy. I find no compelling whatsoever why I should simply accept that fact, and no amount of figurative arm-waving on your behalf will help me to understand that point. Point me towards some famous philosophers who've put forward some compelling arguments as to why nature is independent of actions and i'll do my best. But until we get past this stick in the mud I can't see this going anywhere. As to your question, maybe I did evade it. However I didn't think man's nature and actions had much to do with God's. Does it make him selfish? It depends, if he repeatedly acted in his self-interest then i would declare that all evidence showed that he seemed to have a selfish nature. I think this is where we differ. Quite why man should have any inherent nature I can't quite see, and would simply declare man's nature to be whatever actions he is most likely to take. You seem to be more of a rationalist.

[mmmcannibalism]

on the whole justification of laws based on culture, there is a difference between practices being archaic and just being wrong

 

 

 

any example is going to be a little iffy here but

 

 

 

when europeans discovered the americas we slaughtered a ton of indians because of our culture. Do you want to argue that was justified just because it was considered okay back then?

 

 

 

an example of something cultural that is reasonable though we find it odd is the ritual suicide of japanese warriors in ww2. General western philosophy says that suicide is/was bad but it has to be respected that they were doing something considered honorable, and if you are tolerant perfectly reasonable

 

 

 

 

 

edit--as to nature being opposed to actions, the only way i can see that is either someone acting good in a long scheme to gain political power or a vigilante that is truly good but is doing something that is considered bad

 

 

 

edit again--light yagami in the beginning of death note may be a decent example, killing hundreds with the goal of peace could be considered being a good person doing bad acts with good intent. Granted he does become ego centered and therefore not good at all later.

[Lenticular_J]

when europeans discovered the americas we slaughtered a ton of indians because of our culture. Do you want to argue that was justified just because it was considered okay back then?

 

No, but you can't argue against it, either. I don't believe in debating historical morals personally (I honestly don't believe in debating anything with actual purpose, but I do anyways - I argue for the sake of arguing), but you can't exactly judge them for it. In a couple centuries, maybe people will consider something we do wrong and immoral. Are you gonna argue over that right now?

[m0nkeym0j030]

Hes real.

 

Thats All i have to say. x)

[dusqi]

However, since I don't know of any argument that could say that science could never ever answer one of these great mysteries, there is no reason to just assume that there's space for a God.

 

 

 

What are you saying? You deny the fact that our logic gets progressively better and allows new discoveries? Sorry, but I disagree. I see a world of difference between the average person's intelligence from the 1800's and someone of our time. We're always making new discoveries. What used to be "great mysteries" back in the day can now be considered common knowledge (how to fly, how to get into space, human anatomy, I could go on and on!).

 

 

 

Where is your evidence (that thing atheists crave so much) that we can't become more advanced in concerns to our thought process? Where is your evidence that proving/disproving God in the future is impossible?

 

 

 

 

 

I think that I have not explained myself. Here goes:

 

 

 

1. You say there are great mysteries

 

2. I say that they are, but that there is no reason to assume that science won't solve them one day

 

3. You say that "now is what matters since this discussion is taking place in the present".

 

4. I say, but since we have no reason to assume that science won't solve them in the future, they're not by definition beyond science. Therefore, there is no need for a God to do the solving. For example, the origin of the universe if a "great mystery". If we could logically never solve it, then we'd need a God to do it. But, since there is no reason to assume that science will not solve it one day, we have no need for a God.

 

5. Since God doesn't solve any great mysteries, why bother to think that there might be one? I could say that there is a tiny teapot circling the Earth. It doesn't serve any purpose, and it's too small for you to detect. Do you believe me? No? Because you have no evidence that there is one (like God), and because the teapot has no reason for being there (like God).

 

 

 

 

 

 

There's no evidence for a God, and there's no need for a God either.

 

 

 

Now that's just plain silly. Is there is a "need" for atheism?

 

 

 

Your argument is one-sided. I just wanted to point that out to you. I can almost use your own words against you. You sound like the atheist version of Sly.

 

 

 

God is the one that has to have a "need". Atheism just says that we have no evidence for God, so why even consider it? I can come up with a thousand other stupid ideas that have no evidence and fulfill no purpose. Are you agnostic about the flying spaghetti monster? What about the ancient weather Gods? There's no evidence for their existence, and since we learned how the weather works (or, at least, we have no reason to assume that one day we won't fully understand how the weather works), there's no need for them to exist either.

 

 

 

Most atheists are technically agnostic, in that they would admit that you can never "disprove" God. However, since there is no evidence for a God, and there is no reason for there to be a God, the atheists just say that it is extremely unlikely (0.0000001% chance). If God turned up and performed some miracles, then the atheists wouldn't have been wrong. They'd just say that there was no evidence in the past, but now there is. So they'd have no problem accepting it once the evidence came.

[Lenticular_J]

God is the one that has to have a "need".

 

Then why are you so compelled to that prove to us lowly theists? Atheism is still a theism. You want to be totally void of it all, just be nonreligious. Not atheist, not theist, just not caring period.

 

 

 

However, since there is no evidence for a God, and there is no reason for there to be a God, the atheists just say that it is extremely unlikely (0.0000001% chance)

 

Show me some evidence that there isn't.

 

 

 

EDIT: Added another response. I just feel like picking occasional pieces of text I want to reply to lately.

[Zierro]

1. Yes

 

2. You just said that you don't think they will be mysteries forever. To me, that implies that we can discover incredible things in the future. I quote you:

My view is that they are mysteries now, but not forever.

 

3. Yes

 

4. You keep speaking of this "no reason" and "no need". You don't think that boils down to opinions?

 

5. Again with your personal opinions.

 

 

 

God is the one that has to have a "need". Atheism just says that we have no evidence for God, so why even consider it? I can come up with a thousand other stupid ideas that have no evidence and fulfill no purpose. Are you agnostic about the flying spaghetti monster? What about the ancient weather Gods? There's no evidence for their existence, and since we learned how the weather works (or, at least, we have no reason to assume that one day we won't fully understand how the weather works), there's no need for them to exist either.

 

 

 

I think the idea that a God exists would have a much greater effect on humanity than a teapot would.

 

 

 

Most atheists are technically agnostic, in that they would admit that you can never "disprove" God. However, since there is no evidence for a God, and there is no reason for there to be a God, the atheists just say that it is extremely unlikely (0.0000001% chance). If God turned up and performed some miracles, then the atheists wouldn't have been wrong. They'd just say that there was no evidence in the past, but now there is. So they'd have no problem accepting it once the evidence came.

 

 

 

Judging by your opinions you showed me, I'd say it would take a lot to convince you. Your posts sound like they are of an atheist nature - not agnostic. I'm gonna ask a question. Why is the chance such a low percentage? Doesn't 50/50 sound more reasonable for an agnostic?

 

 

 

Then why are you so compelled to that prove to us lowly theists? Atheism is still a theism. You want to be totally void of it all, just be nonreligious. Not atheist, not theist, just not caring period.

 

 

 

Thank you. :D