January 31, 200719 yr I love the mass generalizations of illogical inductive reasoning going on. "Religious types don't believe in dinosaurs" "Religious types do this, don't do that" blah blah blah. The blanket statements are insulting. We are all not a bunch of fools blinded by the Bible. We believe in science, we believe in creation at the same time. I once asked a Bishop if he believed in evolution. He said that evolution could be a tool of god, you never know. It's comforting to think that Christianity can umbrella out over science, but in the same token it's actually quite alarming. The God of the Christian bible has too much personality and vengeance to be a true omnipotent and omniscient being of love and neutrality, and trying to put him behind the scientific creation of the universe (big bang, evolution) is as ridiculous as trying to prove science wrong with religion or visa versa. God doesn't do natural selection, he does God selection.
January 31, 200719 yr Alas Pault, he gave us free will and a lack of fate. Natural Selection still has a place. My heart is broken by the terrible loss I have sustained in my old friends and companions and my poor soldiers. Believe me, nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won. -Sir Arthur Wellesley
January 31, 200719 yr My problem is though Religion have said they accept science in the past and the gaps science left they have filled with God. When the gaps close they accept science and then God becomes irrelevant to that particular thing. The same is happening with evolution. As you said Bari you beleive in evolution from animals yet don't beleive we came from the monkey. Theres not definite proof we did yet it's quite logical we may have done. Lets hypothesize that science explains that evolution is fully correct. What would you say then? That you accept sciences' explanation and then focus your beleif that God created the universe as science hasn't proved that yet. Sounds like you're actually just using God to fill the gaps science has at the moment. Like has happened in the past. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
January 31, 200719 yr 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. Actually, according to quantum mechanics, matter only exists because we know it is there. Is that the same with God? Im a Christian, and I think most people would agree that Christianity is the most persecuted major religion (Im not going to go into Satanism here...) ~ W ~
January 31, 200719 yr I disagree, deep south in america you say you're atheist and you're treated differently. A documentary i watched showed how admitted atheists have trouble getting jobs ect because of it. By Christians. At the moment Islamic religions are persecuted a lot more because of the whole terrorism thing and ignorant people. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
January 31, 200719 yr I love the mass generalizations of illogical inductive reasoning going on. "Religious types don't believe in dinosaurs" "Religious types do this, don't do that" blah blah blah. The blanket statements are insulting. We are all not a bunch of fools blinded by the Bible. We believe in science, we believe in creation at the same time. Oh, I never implied you didn't believe in Dinosaurs. You just believe that God created them. But the fact, yes, fact, is that Dinosaurs and man were not created together. They couldn't have been. If the Bible said that God created certain things at different times, then of course God would still be plausible. But it says everything was created at once, soooo. Like I said - Early people didn't friggin' know about dinosaurs or early man because they were buried 20 feet beneath their feet. And yes, Insane, that means they did not exist to them. Does something REALLY not exist if you can't see it? Well, while you can't prove it does, logical thinking says that yes, it does exist. However, if you can't see it, it doesn't exist to you. Did atoms exist to us before we knew they were real? No. They just did not exist to us at all. After we discovered, they were written about and are now taken to be true because we've seen them. God was written about, and people took that as factual. Nevermind the fact that noone has ever seen God (so says the Bible, while also having many stories about people who've seen God, gg contradictions), if God was never written about, he would not exist to us. Or perhaps if instead of God being written about, the same people wrote about my Oogle Monkey from Gonka instead. Now look what you'd be worshipping today. An Oogle Monkey. The logic isn't "does something REALLY exist because we don't see it", it's "would something still exist and be Omnipotent if it were never written about?" and you can't answer that question due to your beliefs. You've proved it here over and over. If the Bible was NEVER written, God would not exist to us. You would not be worshipping him today. You COULDN'T be. You can't just say "My God is Omnipotent, so even if he wasn't written about, he'd still exist." That's...not how it works. That's circular logic, which is a fallacy. Religion itself is circular logic, by definition. Noone can change that. Until people stop saying "The Bible says God exists, and the Bible must be right since it is the revealed word of God, so God exists.", all religion will be is circular logic. Until there is a cold-hard FACT in there somewhere, you're not actually coming to any conclusion. If your University papers are so revering (and please, anyone with the brain power to study and skip the parties can pass University), you would think you'd know that. However, I believe that religion is a handicapped for you. Perhaps you are very intelligent...But then when it comes to religion, you believe in it and can only give circular logic as proof, which makes you seem stupid. That's one reason I don't believe in God. There is no proof. So what, Jesus existed. So what, geographical locations existed. That does not prove that EVERYTHING in creation goes against scientific things we know to be factual. Again with that word factual, which is absolutely is. Which brings me to Defender - Your theory makes no sense. See, this is why I don't question scientists unless it makes no sense. These guys put a lot of work into their findings and don't publish stuff unless they know what they're talking about. What you're saying is that entire dinosaur skeleton's were pushed by water and placed back together on the other side of the world. I don't know what the chances of that happening really are, but it's got to be the same chances as a group of atoms in the arm of a statue moving in unison and making it look as if the statue is waving. That's ENTIRELY possible, but you'd have to had started 13 billion years ago writing 0's and you still wouldn't be done. So, 1:1000^83659863598265...A bigger number than that. I'm just giving a huge example. :lol: Plus, you'd have to take into effect that MANY skeletons have done the same thing...So basically, if that happened, the chances are so low that you could write 0's for trillions of years and never be done. In other words, it isn't happening, and didn't happen. It isn't just dinosaur's bones they found, it's also the rock types in which they laid beneath. You believe it to be coincidence that where scientists believed Pangea to fit together, there are the same rock types? Eastern South America is the exact same rock structure as Western Africa, for example. The dinosaurs could once freely roam an entire single continent, and there is proof of that. You'd be better off saying "The Flood cut Pangea into seperate parts. Praise God." than what you're saying. It's circular logic, but at least it isn't statistically impossible (though, impossible all the same). Does noone find it odd that the Bible takes place entirely in one area of the Earth? Quite a small area, too. Does anyone have a guess why? Yes, this is when religious people claim that it is "Holy land", and I say "No...". It's because people didn't know anywhere else existed. They couldn't write about far-away lands if they weren't SURE they existed. They couldn't write about anything they weren't sure was true or not. EXCEPT God. You can't, and never will, see God. That's the only thing they could write about without knowing it existed. Anyways, nothing in the Bible happens in North America...South America...Australia...Asia...Russia...Europe...Just in the Israel-Egypt middle east area. Now, you can say "So? That just happens to be where it happened...No big deal." And you'd be right. However, do you not find it odd that for 40 days and 40 nights, Noah was afloat on the ENTIRE Earth, made up of water. Know where he landed? IN THE SAME DAMN GENERAL AREA. Um?! Floating for 40 days and he went almost nowhere? If you get in a boat, on the ocean, you WILL end up thousands of miles away. You won't just sit in the same few hudred miles. You'd expect that Noah might have landed SOMEWHERE early people didn't know about, but no...Of course, once again, he lands in an area they knew existed. What's my point? My point is that these people were not messengers of God...They were humans. They wrote only what they knew about, and nothing else existed to them. It is impossible, even TODAY, for us to gather up 2 of every animal in the world and put them all on a boat. We'd fail to gather them up, for one, and second, there isn't a boat big enough. Not even God's righteous hand could make 2 of every animal in the world COME to us and get on our impossible-to-build boat. Nevermind the fact that Noah landed in the same middle-eastern area, yet somehow, there are still animals in North America, South America, Australia (you get the point) that is land that Noah has never even seen. He would have had to go and put those there. He didn't, because the place did not exist. It is factual to say that the world has *never* flooded on a global scale. The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past. - Me!
January 31, 200719 yr 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. Actually, according to quantum mechanics, matter only exists because we know it is there. Is that the same with God? Im a Christian, and I think most people would agree that Christianity is the most persecuted major religion (Im not going to go into Satanism here...) It is nowhere near the most persecuted religion. It's the most wide-spread and accepted, actually. It may SEEM you're persecuted because Christianity is pretty much the forefront of the Jewish/Christian God's religion. People question you because said religion makes no sense. Christians themselves even persecute from within their "clique". Take Jehova's Witnesses - My girlfriend was raised as one. She's absolutely normal. The only thing they do that is "different" from Christians is that they DON'T accept blood transfusions, because Christ said that the life is in the blood, and therefore, if you accept blood, you're mixing your life with another person's life. That's the only major difference. They still teach the love and acceptance of Jesus, but they are labeled cultists by the Christian faith as a whole - Why? My girlfriend (and her mother who raised her with the beliefs) are so far from cultists it isn't even funny. They don't run around knocking on doors asking to convert you, but even if they did, so what? Christians do you one better and invade your TV trying to convert you. There's no difference. Christians do a great deal of persecuting and forcing their beliefs on others like that. Just yesterday I read a story about a rape victim who was perscribed the "Morning After" pill, and we all know what that is for. A nurse, who was Christian, then refused to give the woman the second pill, because it was against her religion. So? And was she going to raise the bastard seed of rape? I don't think so - Give the woman the pill and stop trying to be a martyr. You guys have it good. Feel sorry for Muslims, because they're the new 1800's black people. You're seeing it already...Muslim's being beaten for their beliefs because of the 9/11 attacks. Should they be beaten in response? No way. But at the same time, Muslims will call themselves martyr's if they are, and that's just stupid. How about this for a change - Some stupid guy beat you up. You're not a martyr, he's just dumb. Sounds good to me. :P The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past. - Me!
January 31, 200719 yr God would not exist to us. Last time I checked, existence wasn't subjective. . You would not be worshipping him today. You COULDN'T be. We would still be worshiping a God - the idea of a God precedes writings of a God. You can't just say "My God is Omnipotent, so even if he wasn't written about, he'd still exist." I'm not saying that. I'm saying that existence is objective, and irrelevant to what we think about existence. If I write about a unicorn that exists in the dining room I am typing this out on right now, the unicorn doesn't appear. It doesn't matter how much I write about the unicorn in my dining room, it's not appearing. Existence is irrelevant to thought. And I know you're going to say "you just can't comprehend it, you're close minded, illogical, blah blah blah". But no, until you refute the point I made that existence is separate from thought, you are the ignorant one. I have provided multiple examples that you have neither quoted or refuted. Quit saying the same things over and over again. Religion itself is circular logic, by definition. Everybody has basic beliefs. Even you. Until people stop saying "The Bible says God exists, and the Bible must be right since it is the revealed word of God, so God exists."....But then when it comes to religion, you believe in it and can only give circular logic as proof, which makes you seem stupid. When was the last time I used the Bible to prove God's existence? Where have you been? Where is my circular logic? In this entire argument I have never stated that God exists. This argument isn't even about the existence of God. This argument is about whether or not writing some empty words on some empty paper somehow brings a being into an objective existence. And I think the answer to the argument is clear - you just don't see it.
January 31, 200719 yr God would not exist to us. Last time I checked, existence wasn't subjective. . You would not be worshipping him today. You COULDN'T be. We would still be worshiping a God - the idea of a God precedes writings of a God. You can't just say "My God is Omnipotent, so even if he wasn't written about, he'd still exist." I'm not saying that. I'm saying that existence is objective, and irrelevant to what we think about existence. If I write about a unicorn that exists in the dining room I am typing this out on right now, the unicorn doesn't appear. It doesn't matter how much I write about the unicorn in my dining room, it's not appearing. Existence is irrelevant to thought. And I know you're going to say "you just can't comprehend it, you're close minded, illogical, blah blah blah". But no, until you refute the point I made that existence is separate from thought, you are the ignorant one. I have provided multiple examples that you have neither quoted or refuted. Quit saying the same things over and over again. Religion itself is circular logic, by definition. Everybody has basic beliefs. Even you. Until people stop saying "The Bible says God exists, and the Bible must be right since it is the revealed word of God, so God exists."....But then when it comes to religion, you believe in it and can only give circular logic as proof, which makes you seem stupid. When was the last time I used the Bible to prove God's existence? Where have you been? Where is my circular logic? In this entire argument I have never stated that God exists. This argument isn't even about the existence of God. This argument is about whether or not writing some empty words on some empty paper somehow brings a being into an objective existence. And I think the answer to the argument is clear - you just don't see it. I'm not trying to say that like...You snap your fingers, and it automatically exists because your fingers were snapped. I'm saying it exists to us. There is no proof God even exists. He's just an idea. The idea is what makes him exist or not, considering that there is no proof. If God reached his hand from the sky and flicked me in the back of the head, then surely my argument would be pointless, because God would infact exist. But until then, he's merely an idea, and we made that idea exist by writing about it. And so the question is - If God was never written about, would he exist to us? And the answer is no. Another way to look at it is to think "What if he WAS written about, but it was VERY different from what we read today?" Would that God then exist to us? You have a great argument, but only if we were 100% sure God exists. Not even you can be that sure. Noone on this Earth can be more than 99.9% sure. For everything, there is always that .1% that makes it impossible or possible. Like my "waving atoms" example...There is a 99.99~(to infinity :P)% that they would never move together to make the statue wave, but there's always that chance. For you, there is a .1% chance God does not exist, for me there is a .1% chance that he does. If God DOES exist, he surely went through a lot of trouble putting evidence that he didn't exist all over the damn place...But of course, a lot of religious people will shrug that off saying it's the work of Satan, which is circular reasoning and an entire different, yet same story in itself. ;) The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past. - Me!
January 31, 200719 yr The Bible wasn't the cause of Gods existance if he does exist. The Bible was the cause of a lot people to beleive he exists. If the Bible didn't exist then God can exist because the bible did not create God. If it did then that would save a lot of questions about the logic of God being an uncaused cause. (1)Everything has a cause. (2)The Universe must be caused by something. (3)God created or caused the universe. Which the premise undermines the conclusion. I guess you could counter that with God being spiritual therefore not needing cause - which is faith. Or that infinite regress' are impossible which again doesn't neccessarily lead to a God. 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. I'm not trying to say that like...You snap your fingers, and it automatically exists because your fingers were snapped. I'm saying it exists to us. There is no proof God even exists. He's just an idea. The idea is what makes him exist or not, considering that there is no proof. If God reached his hand from the sky and flicked me in the back of the head, then surely my argument would be pointless, because God would infact exist. But until then, he's merely an idea, and we made that idea exist by writing about it. And so the question is - If God was never written about, would he exist to us? And the answer is no. Another way to look at it is to think "What if he WAS written about, but it was VERY different from what we read today?" Would that God then exist to us? 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. You have a great argument, but only if we were 100% sure God exists. Not even you can be that sure. Noone on this Earth can be more than 99.9% sure. For everything, there is always that .1% that makes it impossible or possible. Like my "waving atoms" example...There is a 99.99~(to infinity Razz)% that they would never move together to make the statue wave, but there's always that chance. For you, there is a .1% chance God does not exist, for me there is a .1% chance that he does. If God DOES exist, he surely went through a lot of trouble putting evidence that he didn't exist all over the damn place...But of course, a lot of religious people will shrug that off saying it's the work of Satan, which is circular reasoning and an entire different, yet same story in itself. Wink 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.
January 31, 200719 yr You can't argue about faith based religion. If God does in fact exist, He would have to precede humans writing about him. 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.
January 31, 200719 yr There is no proof, other than the Bible, that God exists. So if the Bible was never written, God doesn't exist to us. That's what I've been trying to say. The actual existence of God would be irrelevant if the Bible was never written, because the idea of him wouldn't even be there. You could not even think about God. I find it curious that people who believe in God on this thread have NO idea what I'm trying to say, but people who don't believe in God know exactly what I'm saying. Certainly it couldn't be a conflict of interests... The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past. - Me!
January 31, 200719 yr You can't argue about faith based religion. If God does in fact exist, He would have to precede humans writing about him. 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. There is no proof, other than the Bible, that God exists. So if the Bible was never written, God doesn't exist to us. That's what I've been trying to say. The actual existence of God would be irrelevant if the Bible was never written, because the idea of him wouldn't even be there. You could not even think about God. 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 find it curious that people who believe in God on this thread have NO idea what I'm trying to say, but people who don't believe in God know exactly what I'm saying. Certainly it couldn't be a conflict of interests... 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.
January 31, 200719 yr You love the word fallacy but you can't apply it to your own logic. Debate of faith based religion, for example trying to counter the statement: There is no proof, other than the Bible, that God exists. 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.
January 31, 200719 yr Like I said. There is no proof God exists. If we were 100% sure, my argument would be illogical because I'd be saying, "Yea, he exists, but would he if we never wrote about him?", meaning that our writing about him made him poof into existence. Since there is a good chance he DOESN'T exist, my argument is just fine...What I'm TRYING to say is, that since he doesn't exist, our writing about him is what made him exist to us. You guys aren't getting this because you're not taking into account the chance that God doesn't exist. The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past. - Me!
January 31, 200719 yr You love the word fallacy but you can't apply it to your own logic. Debate of faith based religion, for example trying to counter the statement: There is no proof, other than the Bible, that God exists. 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.
January 31, 200719 yr You love the word fallacy but you can't apply it to your own logic. Debate of faith based religion, for example trying to counter the statement: There is no proof, other than the Bible, that God exists. 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. 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. ...That in itself is illogical. God was written to have existed before he was written about? Does that honestly make sense to you? Yes, he was written to have existed before we were even created, but does that mean he did? No. It means someone was a creative writer. You're trying to use the Bible to prove the existence of God, and that can't be done...By anyone. The Bible says God exists, but shows zero proof. Infact, it contradicts itself numerous times and doesn't add up with what we know as fact today. The Bible is not going to be what helps prove God's existence...If it were possible, it would be the world around us proving him to be factual, and so far, it's saying he's fictional. The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past. - Me!
January 31, 200719 yr The existence of any "God" is up to people, to believe and make it real. You missed the whole point made a few posts up about the pink unicorn... If I write it exists and believe it exists in my living room and I convince 1 million people it exists and they all write it exists... Guess what? It still doesn't exist. Belief does not make truth. Truth makes truth. God does not exist... unless he exists... It has absolutely nothing to do with whether people believe in him or not. If God existed and no one believed in him... he would still exist. If everyone believed in God yet he didn't exist then everyone would be wrong. This point you make does not make sense. The only way I can understand how a reasonably intelligent person could make this point is if they 100% believed without a shadow of a doubt that there was not a God and so they can't even concede the point that those people might be right. Because of this the only way their in your opinion imaginary God could be true is if they invented him for themselves.
January 31, 200719 yr ...That in itself is illogical. God was written to have existed before he was written about? Does that honestly make sense to you? Yes, he was written to have existed before we were even created, but does that mean he did? No. It means someone was a creative writer. You're trying to use the Bible to prove the existence of God, and that can't be done...By anyone. 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. The Bible says God exists, but shows zero proof. Infact, it contradicts itself numerous times and doesn't add up with what we know as fact today. The Bible is not going to be what helps prove God's existence...If it were possible, it would be the world around us proving him to be factual, and so far, it's saying he's fictional. 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.
January 31, 200719 yr You missed the whole point made a few posts up about the pink unicorn... If I write it exists and believe it exists in my living room and I convince 1 million people it exists and they all write it exists... Guess what? It still doesn't exist. Belief does not make truth. Truth makes truth. Actually, my whole point was that belief does make truth. Our reality is based not only upon our five senses, but many other factors as well, and our reality is created wholly within our own brain, being a closed off system not in direct contact with the "Real" world, allowing our consciousness very little unfiltered contact with higher level concepts; try some mescalin. It breaks the law of non-contradiction Laws don't apply to deities. Seriously, you have a lot of learning to do.
January 31, 200719 yr Actually, my whole point was that belief does make truth. I know someone who has schizophrenia. He believes Britney Spears came to Wendy's when he was eating there and made him move to the other side of the resteraunt. Then he followed that story up saying he also saw Pamela Anderson there one time. BTW this Wendy's isn't anywhere close to a place stars would be visiting. (he can't get out much so he incorporates what he sees on television into his real life) He truly believes this happened... It didn't. It is not true.
January 31, 200719 yr Laws don't apply to deities. Seriously, you have a lot of learning to do. 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.
January 31, 200719 yr Explain how something can exist and not-exist at the same time. 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.
January 31, 200719 yr Explain how something can exist and not-exist at the same time. 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.
January 31, 200719 yr If something exists as more than one thing, it still exists. 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.
Create an account or sign in to comment