Religious debate

[Eastoff]

Actually, I didn't say anything about the subject of knowledge and truth vs belief and faith. I simply pointed out that there can be no proof, in the scientific or mathematical sense that you are insisting upon, on the subject of the existence or lack thereof of a god or supernatural being. The fact that science can't test for something says nothing about the ultimate truth regarding this issue. God either does exist or does not and that fact is not dependent upon proof or belief or any other human interpretation of the matter.

Well there could be something like Tinkerbell in Peter Pan. If we stop believing it dies. But that's just making up loopholes for loophole sake.

Each of these passages reflects a decision to deny god. If God created mankind because he desired a relationship with us, which is what the Bible teaches, and we won't even go the single step of acknowledging his existence, then we are choosing not to be eternally in relationship with him...which is what hell is.

oh sweet, I'm cool with that! I was worried about those lakes of fire and stuff. But not believing in santa claus doesn't sound too bad to me!

 

[maxiep]

Doing for others what you would want others to do for you. I think there are two basic mindsets for an agnostic, you are either in it as a collective or you're in it for yourself.

I happen to believe that self-interest leads to a better society. My self-interest leads me to do all sorts of things that makes a better world, for me and my family. No one wants people starving, homeless or uneducated. No one wants garbage rolling through the streets. No one wants rampant crime. In other words, there is a whole set of actions one would consider selfless that are in fact completely self-interested.

 

[rocketeer]

You guys are missing the logical fallacy pointed out in the paradox. If the god you mention is all this, then there shouldn't be such a huge fallacy.

as i said before, there is no paradox.

 

[zєяσ]

as i said before, there is no paradox.

The paradox of omnipotence and omniscience and logical fallacy of an absolute moral being.
An all knowing being wouldn't be open to such fallacies.

 

[Eastoff]

I happen to believe that self-interest leads to a better society. My self-interest leads me to do all sorts of things that makes a better world, for me and my family. No one wants people starving, homeless or uneducated. No one wants garbage rolling through the streets. No one wants rampant crime. In other words, there is a whole set of actions one would consider selfless that are in fact completely self-interested.

yeah, that's what i'm trying to talk about! I don't think we need a god to tell us this is a good thing.

 

[Eastoff]

as i said before, there is no paradox.

So if God can know everything, he knows how the world will end, correct?

 

[zєяσ]

So if God can know everything, he knows how the world will end, correct?

But if he prevents, it means he changed his mind-eliminating the possibility of him being all knowing.

 

[rocketeer]

So if God can know everything, he knows how the world will end, correct?

if god knows everything, he knows everything.

 

[yakbladder]

The paradox of omnipotence and omniscience and logical fallacy of an absolute moral being

Well, what if omnipotence and omniscience were based upon human's understandings of those things at that time? That would make sense.

It's like people excluding either creationism or evolution. Why couldn't there be both?

But to follow up on something Rocketeer said and e-blazer touched upon...

god can be all powerful, all knowing, good, and perfect and evil can still remain in the world. if god wanted to create people with free will, the ability to go against god and the choice of "evil" is necessary.

So I would think that a child getting hit is evil. I understand that the person hitting the child could be considered evil for turning against God's will/word, whatever. But wouldn't an omnipotent, omniscient God, regardless of whether he/she/it/they/them believes in free will intercede to protect the life and well-being of one who follows God's word? In other words (no pun), while the person doing the hitting is acting out of free will, the child is not. Yet the child is punished by "evil".

Explain?

 

[yakbladder]

But if he prevents, it means he changed his mind-eliminating the possibility of him being all knowing.

Not really. Him (and we use that term loosely) changing his mind would have nothing to do with the ability or inability of him to be all-knowing. It might just mean he changed his mind.

 

[e_blazer]

And what reasoning do you have that there is an existence outside of our universe?

As I understand it, the best physics we have today says that the universe began with a "Big Bang" some ten to twelve billion years ago. The origin of the universe was not only the beginning in space and time, it was the origin of space and time. The space-time continuum says that these things didn't exist prior to the origin of the universe. If you accept that every physical event that we know and understand has a cause, then the origin of the universe had some causative agent outside of our material universe.

And pay attention to the vocabulary you are using- "deny god"
This inherently assumes that a god exists yet there is no knowledge of such an existence.

I was trying to answer a theological question you raised about the existence of evil. Theological questions beget theological answers.

I know belief in a god is currently based on faith. I'm talking about knowledge though. Not faith. I know what faith is, and I do not consider it something to be equal to knowledge.

You talk as though "knowledge" is a finite and complete thing. At one point in history, knowledge said that the sun revolved around the earth. Newtonian physics were accepted as true knowledge until Einstein brought us his theory of relativity. If either of us had the inclination and the time, we could get off on a philosophical discussion of the limitations of knowledge imposed by the fact that what we "know" of reality is filtered through the lens of our own perceptions.

Tell me, do you believe that a male god created the earth and heavens in six days ten thousand years ago despite what we have found out about the universe?

No, I do not believe that is the case. There are some Christians who choose to read Genesis very literally, but there are many others who believe that it is the central description of God's creation of the universe, our world, and man, as well as the fall from grace through the introduction of sin, that is the central point of that scripture. Although it is often depicted that science and Christianity are in some perpetual war, that is not the case. The Catholic Church and many Protestant denominations accept that the universe is very old and that a process of evolution has occured.

 

[rocketeer]

So I would think that a child getting hit is evil. I understand that the person hitting the child could be considered evil for turning against God's will/word, whatever. But wouldn't an omnipotent, omniscient God, regardless of whether he/she/it/they/them believes in free will intercede to protect the life and well-being of one who follows God's word? In other words (no pun), while the person doing the hitting is acting out of free will, the child is not. Yet the child is punished by "evil".

Explain?

i don't agree that god has to step in there, in fact god stepping in there takes away free will. if he chose to give free will, him stepping in any time some "evil" occurs takes that away. yes, the child is punished for nothing. that's what makes it evil. i'm not sure what needs to be explained. with free will, bad things will happen because we certainly aren't perfect.

 

[e_blazer]

Well, what if omnipotence and omniscience were based upon human's understandings of those things at that time? That would make sense.

It's like people excluding either creationism or evolution. Why couldn't there be both?

But to follow up on something Rocketeer said and e-blazer touched upon...



So I would think that a child getting hit is evil. I understand that the person hitting the child could be considered evil for turning against God's will/word, whatever. But wouldn't an omnipotent, omniscient God, regardless of whether he/she/it/they/them believes in free will intercede to protect the life and well-being of one who follows God's word? In other words (no pun), while the person doing the hitting is acting out of free will, the child is not. Yet the child is punished by "evil".

Explain?

Yak, I wish that it worked that way. That God would choose to intercede to protect the innocent, that he would protect the good from harm's way, that he'd be much more genie-like in general. Unfortunately, a consequence of a fallen world is that we all deal with the impacts of the actions of ourselves and others. Somebody chooses to drink and drive, and we know the all-too-frequent results. Bottom line, Christianity says that God has created a heaven...and this ain't it.

 

[zєяσ]

As I understand it, the best physics we have today says that the universe began with a "Big Bang" some ten to twelve billion years ago. The origin of the universe was not only the beginning in space and time, it was the origin of space and time. The space-time continuum says that these things didn't exist prior to the origin of the universe. If you accept that every physical event that we know and understand has a cause, then the origin of the universe had some causative agent outside of our material universe.

This also begs what created the outer existence and so forth. But by the laws of thermodynamics, energy cannot be created or destroyed.

I was trying to answer a theological question you raised about the existence of evil. Theological questions beget theological answers.

Yet theology is limited because it banks on certain assumptions

You talk as though "knowledge" is a finite and complete thing. At one point in history, knowledge said that the sun revolved around the earth. Newtonian physics were accepted as true knowledge until Einstein brought us his theory of relativity. If either of us had the inclination and the time, we could get off on a philosophical discussion of the limitations of knowledge imposed by the fact that what we "know" of reality is filtered through the lens of our own perceptions.

Hence why I put such emphasis on how science is self correcting. As the evidence keeps coming in, so do the ideas and possibilities. We make hypothesises and later theories based on what is provided. A theory must also account for other findings. God is only at the hypothesis stage.

No, I do not believe that is the case. There are some Christians who choose to read Genesis very literally, but there are many others who believe that it is the central description of God's creation of the universe, our world, and man, as well as the fall from grace through the introduction of sin, that is the central point of that scripture. Although it is often depicted that science and Christianity are in some perpetual war, that is not the case. The Catholic Church and many Protestant denominations accept that the universe is very old and that a process of evolution has occured.

I never said the two cannot co-exist, but rather only one of them is more dependent for truth and knowledge, while the other is very much resilient to changes, especially when they debunk certain beliefs within the construct. And again, I mentioned the different sects of Christianity are reliant on different interpretations. Obviously, the Catholic Church and Protestants in these regards have proved to be the more open sects. But all of them are still dependent on a claim which in higher and better standards of evidence, does not hold up. They made the hypothesis but jump the gun and shoot it as a law.


[video=youtube;8N8zi-mUvt4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8N8zi-mUvt4[/video]

 

[zєяσ]

Not really. Him (and we use that term loosely) changing his mind would have nothing to do with the ability or inability of him to be all-knowing. It might just mean he changed his mind.

The underlying cause being?

Also, teaching creation and evolution in the science classroom is a horrible idea until intelligent design actually holds up to the standards of evidence. Making the claim both should be taught in science now is as stupid as teaching flat earth and round earth in science.

 

[yakbladder]

i don't agree that god has to step in there, in fact god stepping in there takes away free will. if he chose to give free will, him stepping in any time some "evil" occurs takes that away. yes, the child is punished for nothing. that's what makes it evil. i'm not sure what needs to be explained. with free will, bad things will happen because we certainly aren't perfect.

But that's the person's free will, not the child's. The child's free will is to be happy, to play, to live, to not suffer abuse. There is a conflict of free wills here.

God could step in and prevent "free will" when it affects others "free will", could he not? If his morality is absolute then wouldn't he be bound to do that?

e - I get what you're saying. I certainly don't think Earth is heaven (please let me be right about this), I just think that perhaps there are some interpretations that are "guided" by our ancestors based upon cultural norms or beliefs. For example, the all-powerful God...what if he isn't? Can a person still have faith that THE God exists when that belief is altered?

 

[Eastoff]

Well, what if omnipotence and omniscience were based upon human's understandings of those things at that time? That would make sense.

I like to think, but do not believe, the Bible was some kind of handbook from a previously superior civilization.

 

[yakbladder]

The underlying cause being?

What would prevent a God who changes his mind from being both omniscient and all-powerful?
It doesn't violate the theory.

Also, teaching creation and evolution in the science classroom is a horrible idea until intelligent design actually holds up to the standards of evidence. Making the claim both should be taught in science now is as stupid as teaching flat earth and round earth in science.

I never said it should be taught in the classroom - I'm not sure where you are getting that. But I also think that if we were to hold everything to that bar that many things wouldn't be taught in class. The theory of gravity and theory of relativity are just that, theories. Yet we teach them in class because there holds SOME evidence that they do exist. But I don't want to go down this path anyways as this was covered ad nauseum in another thread.

 

[zєяσ]

What would prevent a God who changes his mind from being both omniscient and all-powerful?
It doesn't violate the theory.



I never said it should be taught in the classroom - I'm not sure where you are getting that. But I also think that if we were to hold everything to that bar that many things wouldn't be taught in class. The theory of gravity and theory of relativity are just that, theories. Yet we teach them in class because there holds SOME evidence that they do exist. But I don't want to go down this path anyways as this was covered ad nauseum in another thread.

I skimmed over the quotes. I misread it. sorry.

 

[yakbladder]

I like to think, but do not believe, the Bible was some kind of handbook from a previously superior civilization.

I do not believe we are living in a bad episode of Greatest American Hero.

[video=youtube;e9Q3orQhEcA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9Q3orQhEcA[/video]

 

[Eastoff]

...
No, I do not believe that is the case. There are some Christians who choose to read Genesis very literally, but there are many others who believe that it is the central description of God's creation of the universe, our world, and man, as well as the fall from grace through the introduction of sin, that is the central point of that scripture...

So what things in the Bible do you take literally?

 

[Eastoff]

I do not believe we are living in a bad episode of Greatest American Hero.

What if heaven really means utopia? What if we were meant to be good to one another, and that if we do, eventually our society would be a utopia?

 

[Eastoff]

i don't agree that god has to step in there, in fact god stepping in there takes away free will. if he chose to give free will, him stepping in any time some "evil" occurs takes that away. yes, the child is punished for nothing. that's what makes it evil. i'm not sure what needs to be explained. with free will, bad things will happen because we certainly aren't perfect.

When do you think god has/would intervene?

 

[yakbladder]

What if heaven really means utopia? What if we were meant to be good to one another, and that if we do, eventually our society would be a utopia?

There actually is some basis in this with the Mayans...I believe, where 2012 would be the dawn of a new age of humanity with increased enlightenment, compassion, etc. It's late or I'd look it up - it's all from "those" websites, you know.

I have a hard time believing this is the best a God (or no God) could come up with. If this really is it and that's all there is, I want my money back.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I take the bible literally. I think the earth is about 6013 years old, depending on the hebrew translations you go by.

 

[Eastoff]

I take the bible literally. I think the earth is about 6013 years old, depending on the hebrew translations you go by.

What are your thoughts on the tree of knowledge? Was it a real thing?

 

[zєяσ]

Just a question to those who do not take it literally, do you consider it a moral book? Why?

 

[Eastoff]

There actually is some basis in this with the Mayans...I believe, where 2012 would be the dawn of a new age of humanity with increased enlightenment, compassion, etc. It's late or I'd look it up - it's all from "those" websites, you know.

I have a hard time believing this is the best a God (or no God) could come up with. If this really is it and that's all there is, I want my money back.

nah man, this isn't the end of the evolution of utopia. We still have to get universal health care

 

[zєяσ]

There actually is some basis in this with the Mayans...I believe, where 2012 would be the dawn of a new age of humanity with increased enlightenment, compassion, etc. It's late or I'd look it up - it's all from "those" websites, you know.

Those sites are so full of crap.

"And the world will be directly aligned with the sun on Dec. 21st 2012."

It does that on the 21st of every year dumbasses! (They neglect to tell you that)

I have a hard time believing this is the best a God (or no God) could come up with. If this really is it and that's all there is, I want my money back.

 

[Eastoff]

Those sites are so full of crap.

"And the world will be directly aligned with the sun on Dec. 21st 2012."

It does that on the 21st of every year dumbasses! (They neglect to tell you that)

what does that mean "directly aligned with the sun" ? Aligned to what else? Two points can make any line...