The Creation Of Gods And Other Human Habits
Human beings design intelligent designers :~
They use a process which although logically flawed, goes much like this.
- 1. Human beings design things.
- 2. Human beings are intelligent beings who design things.
- 3. Human beings are intelligent beings because they have a capacity to learn, reason, and understand.
- 4. Human beings although they are intelligent, did not design the universe.
- 5. Human beings did not design the universe because they are not intelligent enough.
- 6. If intelligent humans did not design the universe, then it must have been a being which is more intelligent than humans.
- 7. Human beings then go on to imagine and design an intelligent being which is intelligent enough to design the universe.
- 8. Human beings then decide that the degree of intelligence which is required to design the universe is omniscience because in order to design everything, the being must know everything.
- 9. Human beings having designed an omniscient being which is capable of designing the universe as it knows everything, then proceed to call this being god.
- 10. Human beings then go on to imagine what this god must be like. It must be like us, but better in everyway than us. Afterall, we know what we would need in order to design the universe. Therefore our god designer must be like us; but the superdooper version of us. It must be like us, but on supernatural steroids.
a. Therefore it is not just intelligent like us, it is omniscient.
b. It is not just benevolent like us, but omnibenevolent.
c. It is not just powerful like us, but omnipotent.
d. It is not just in this one place in time and space like us, but omnipresent.
e. It is not just in the natural world like us, but in a supernatural realm.
(Humans attribute these characteristics to this being because they know that they lack these qualities, and these qualities must be what a being would need in order to create everything.)
- 11. Human beings then go on to claim that because they are capable of imagining and designing a being which is capable of these things and of having these attributes and characteristics, that this is because the being created human beings. Or, because they can imagine and construct epistomologically such a being, it must be because the being actually exists.
- 12. Some human beings even go on to claim that the being created humans in its image instead of the more obvious, where human beings, being intelligent, but not omniscient, created the concept of an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent god.
"We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes." - Gene Roddenberry
(PS: ~ There is a free cookie/biscuit for the people who can state the deliberate logical fallacies in the constructed argument.)
intelligent design gods design intelligence omniscient ID omniscience
posted by beepbeepitsme | 10:04 pm
48 Comments:
"We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes." - Gene Roddenberry
Very true, but God did not create "faulty Humans".
Gen 1:31 And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
Man was created Innocent, pure, and good. Then man fell (Gen. 3) which leaves us all at our present state.
Rom 5:12 Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned.
Completely off topic Beep, but could you please do me a favour and revist El Diablo and tell us all how you get your name to link to here in my comments? Pretty please? With sugar and honey? Maybe even a biscuit (I'm guessing Tim-Tams)?
I didn't have dessert after my last meal, so I'm looking forward to that cookie.
Your argument falls apart on at least five levels.
1.) Look at the nearest building and/or entire city. How do you know there was a builder? Wait, answer the question. Look at the building: how do you know there was a builder? The building is proof that there was a builder.
Now, look at the nearest painting (and try to avoid abstracts. ;)). How do you know there was a painter? Because of the painting.
Examine the computer you are using. Would you dare to risk admission into a mental hospital by claiming that no one made the computer--but it just appeared, over a course of millions of years, of course? The same goes for your car: perhaps the engine, windows, steering wheel, brakes, tires, brake fluid, axle, frame, body, seats, pedals, radio, muffler, exhaust pipe, spark plugs, windshield wipers, air conditioning, heating, radio speakers, 6-CD changer, and everything else just jumbled together (possibly from an explosion) and created a perfect car? If you believed this, you better also believe that your reputation is going down the drain.
The Swiss watch is a good example. If you took all of the pieces--separately--of a Swiss watch, put them in a plastic bag, and shook them continuously (created a "Big Bang"), how many millennia do you think it would take to get a functioning Swiss watch? Actually, we don't measure those amounts of time in millennia. We call it "infinity" or "eternity."
The fact is: THE CREATION IS PROOF THAT THERE IS A CREATOR. (Romans 1:20) Creation is far, far, far, far, far, far more complex than anything that man creates--especially given the fact that the Creator created from nothing, unlike men, who create with materials FROM the Creator.
THAT is the logical, rational, reasonable way to look at this universe, not the evolutionary, atheistic way.
2.) The second place where your argument falls apart is closely related to the first. You said this:
"12. Some human beings even go on to claim that the being created humans in its image instead of the more obvious, where human beings, being intelligent, but not omniscient, created the concept of an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent god."
This is as foolish as saying that the builder is made in the image of the building; the painter in the image of the painting; the carmaker in the image of the car; and the computer-engineer in the image of the computer. RIDICULOUS!
3.) The third way in which your argument crumbles is that all religions do not--as you say-- create a designer in humans' image and decide to worship it as a god. Yet, not all religions do this: in fact, most religions don't. The Indians is just one group of people who worshipped the planets. Hindus worship animals, believe in reincarnation, and eventually becoming a part of the nothing-ness of the universe. Buddhists desire to become part of the "Great Force." Muslims do not believe in a personal god. Satanists worship Satan as a god, despite the fact that even they don't think he created the universe. Deists believe--like the Muslims--in an impersonal god. Agnostics don't know if there's a god, and wouldn't know what He's like if there was One. Others worship nature as a whole. Some cults worship demons. Atheists--whether they be Communists, socialists, Fascists, or liberals--often worship the leaders of their causes.
So you see, your argument is accurate to only a certain percentage of people: oh, yes, Christians. How conspicuous.
4.) The fourth place you go wrong is in assuming that there is no chance whatsoever that God actually DID create man in His own image, actually DID reveal this to man, and actually DID inspire the writing of the Bible. This is a big--and inappropriate--assumption. I guess you don't even make any claims to open-mindedness (although, of course, I really appreciate you printing my comments).
The fact is, the Judeo-Christian view of God has existed for six thousand years or more--the longest thriving view of God out there. If any view was credible on God, it would be this one. In fact, in those days it could probably be said that the existence of God was a given, especially to the Jews, since He talked to them, punished them, rewarded them, rescued them, and instructed them.
5.) The fifth and final place in which you even lack authority in your argument is that you don't have a satisfactory replacement theory. The Theory of Evolution is so full of holes. The fact that any educated person believes in it is virtually incomprehensible, unless you explain it with the Bible, that says that men love the darkness rather than the light.
You reject the parachute but you jump anyway. You reject the vest and get shot through the heart. You reject the shield and get sliced and stabbed. You reject the boat but try to swim the sea--when you can't swim.
If you had a good alternate, that would be one thing. But, of course, you couldn't have a good argument, because the "Case for the Creator" (you should read that) is the CASE FOR THE TRUTH. (Genesis 1:1; Romans 1:20; 2 Timothy 3:16,17)
RE ted: Show me the link to the El Diablo site you mentioned as I am not sure what you mean. Maybe the administrator linked me? I am not sure.
RE under the mercy:
Well, you said it yourself - "Gen 1:31 And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good."
Good, but not perfect. If humans were created by god as perfect beings, they would have been incapable of sinning.
RE Kingdom Advancer:
I am aware that the argument is flawed because I constructed the first part of it in the way that a believer would.
Re: "The fact is: THE CREATION IS PROOF THAT THERE IS A CREATOR."
And this is the very point, I don't argue for a creation, you do.
This is the first logical fallacy which believers indulge in:
Because we were all created, therefore there is a creator. That is the first major mistake in the argument and why thousands of gods have been created by numerous societies.
Instead of the hackneyed, loaded religious question of "Who created us" which presumes a creator, I prefer, as do many other people of reason, a neutral question.
An example of a neutral question could be this: " If the universe, (the totality of everything) has a beginning, what is it's origin?"
Of course a semantically neutral question like this doesn't go over well with people who have already decided that a god created everything in 6 days.
But it allows for an answer which could include a god, or not include a god.
Therefore it is a question which is NOT framed in favour of god belief, nor is it framed in favour of any other theory.
There is no point to asking a question which has the answer implied in the question.
RE kingdom advancer:
"THAT is the logical, rational, reasonable way to look at this universe, not the evolutionary, atheistic way."
Excuse me at this point if I correct you. I have not made a claim for evolution, nor have I made a claim for big bang, multi-verses, string theory or anything else.
You make the claim for a god and that your god did it. Your claim is based on a ancient book which you believe to be the words of a god and which I think are the words of men.
So settle petal, when and if I make a claim for the "big bang" you can explode with your refutation of it. Until then, you are just constructing a strawman argument.
What I find interesting is that you didn't realise that the first six points of the argument are based on a logical fallacy committed by theists.
The points from 7 - 10 are my thoughts on where the inital logical fallacy leads and points 11 and 12, sum up the illogical conclusion.
Did you not realize that this was "the believer's" illogical argument for the existence of god?
"I have not made a claim for evolution, nor have I made a claim for big bang, multi-verses, string theory or anything else." -Beepbeepitsme
Your website has something that says: "Evolution is FACT. God is just a theory."
You have a recent article that says "Fossil Find is Missing Link in Human Evolution."
You claim to be an atheist.
You have atheistic, evolutionist quotes and resources on your site.
Please, I don't have to see your claim to evolution on this particular post, do I? If I have a straw man, than you made it.
"Because we were all created, therefore there is a creator. That is the first major mistake in the argument and why thousands of gods have been created by numerous societies.
"Instead of the hackneyed, loaded religious question of "Who created us" which presumes a creator, I prefer, as do many other people of reason, a neutral question."--Beepbeepitsme
That neutral question could be, "Where did we come from?" Is that neutral enough? Well, we can tell with our intelligence that we--and everything else in this complex universe--did not come about from a process of chance and did not come from nothing. Therefore, we had to come from a process of design and creation (or invention, if you despise the word "creation"). Design is not a chance process. Therefore, there must have been intelligence behind it. There must have been a designer behind it. It must be bigger and stronger than anything in this universe, and must not come from this universe, for it created the universe. If that's as far as you want to take logic for now, fine, but you don't seem to want to go that far.
Now, for clarity, let me analyze the entire argument:
Point One: Correct. But humans can only design with what they are supplied with. Agreed?
Point Two: Correct. Ditto first comment. Agreed?
Point Three: Partially Correct. Human beings are intelligent because of the ENTIRE definition of intelligence. Agreed?
Point Four: Correct. Agreed?
Point Five: Incorrect. Human beings did not design the universe because they were not powerful enough, not intelligent enough, they weren't around before the universe was around, human beings cannot create from nothing, and who created humans?
Point Six: Incorrect. A being more intelligent than humans is not assumed, but rather this: the universe could not have been designed from a chance process; humans--nor any other creature--could've designed the universe. THEREFORE, a being more intelligent must have.
You can't possibly be calling points 7 through 12 even so much as the "next-logical-step" argument of believers, can you? If you are, you are gravely mistaken, and I addressed those points in my first comment.
Even points 5 and 6 are not completely representative of the believers' position, as I pointed out.
And just for clarification: My statement "THE CREATION IS PROOF THAT THERE IS A CREATOR" was clearly misunderstood. I'm not saying that the creation argues for a creator, and therefore there is one. I'm not saying that the very word "creation"--as a root--means there must be a "Creator." I'm saying that our very existences--the universe' very existence--our very complexity, our very design, PROVES--illustrates beyond the shadow of a doubt--that there is a Creator.
RE kingdom advancer:
RE : I have not made a claim for evolution, nor have I... "I have not made a claim for evolution, nor have I made a claim for big bang, multi-verses, string theory or anything else." -Beepbeepitsme
I say this because the argument we were having did not have as one of its components an argument for or against evolution. We were discussing god claims. Specifically we were discussing your claim that god is the intelligent designer. We were not discussing as part of the argument any claims I may or may not make in any other argument regarding evolution.
The argument we were having was not stated as the false dichotomy of: -
1. Either god is true. Or 2. Either evolution is true. We were discussing the claim of god as an intelligent designer, so let's stick to the topic.
When you try to include something else into the argument, or when you assume some other factor into the argument that hasn't been stated, you are indulging in an irrelevant diversion. This irrelevant diversion is in the form of a false correlative. This argument was never based on the false dichotomy of either god or evolution, so please don't try to make it one now.
RE: "Well, we can tell with our intelligence that we--and everything else in this complex universe--did not come about from a process of chance and did not come from nothing."
Firstly, that we as humans consider things complex is not evidence of any god. It is evidence of our ability to consider things to be complex. It takes an illogical leap of faith to presume a god. It is an example of a hasty generalization, also known as fallacy of insufficient statistics or the logical fallacy of reaching an inductive generalization based on too little evidence.
Secondly, I don't claim that we came from a process of chance. Though I would like an extremely precise explanation of what you mean by "chance" in this context.
And I do not claim, and neither does any scientist I know claim, that we came from nothing. You seem to be stuck in a very limiting either/or mentality. No wonder you create so many false dichotomies and make so many logical fallacies.
In fact, that god comes from nothing is the usual claim from theists.
This claim usually goes something like this: ~ Everything else comes from something, but god comes from nothing. Which is just another logical fallcy of special pleading. That is, that these rules apply to everything else, but not to god. Well, nothing comes from nothing and something comes from something.
So where did god come from? Nothing or something? My thoughts on this is that the idea of a god or gods comes from a human need to provide an explanation to explain intangible conditions.
Intangible conditions are conditions which are difficult to understand. Which is why faulty logic leaps from " I didn't do it - therefore god."
RE: "Therefore, we had to come from a process of design and creation (or invention, if you despise the word "creation"). Design is not a chance process."
Firstly again, I don't claim design as the origin of the universe, you do. And I have suggested that you prefer the idea of "design" because it fits in with your preconceived belief in a supernatural power which is capable of designing things.
RE: " Therefore, there must have been intelligence behind it. There must have been a designer behind it. It must be bigger and stronger than anything in this universe, and must not come from this universe, for it created the universe. If that's as far as you want to take logic for now, fine, but you don't seem to want to go that far. "
I have already demonstrated to you how this argument is logically flawed, yet you keep repeating it like a mantra. If you assume an intelligent designer is the answer, you haven't asked a neutral question.
You're a gem! Thanks Beep. Help yourself to Tim-Tams and an Iced Vovos on the way passed please...:)
What it is is that you seem to be able to get a link to "beepbeepitsme" in the "from" field whenever you post a comment (where it says "Posted By - " at the bottom of my comments. You'll see what I mean). No-one else seems to be able to make that work, so there's a few people who'd like to know how you do it, that's all.
El Diablo is here....
the Judeo-Christian view of God has existed for six thousand years or more--the longest thriving view of God out there. If any view was credible on God, it would be this one.
Actually, Saivism is the oldest religion on earth and Siva, the Compassionate is in fact the oldest god concept. Aruguing for credibility on the premise of age just doesn't work with the Judaic god.
RE ted:
Do you mean this bit when I posted a comment on your blog.
Posted By - beepbeepitsme - 11:05 PM - 19/9/2006 - - (and the beepbeepitsme is linked to my blog address) ?
RE ted: I think it is because I registered as a user with "whitepage" which hosts your blog. (If we are talking about the same thing, that is.. )
RE: beep
Very true, but look at my post and notice the word "innocent". Man was perfect in the sence that he had never sinned, not that he could not sin.
RE: under the mercy
Original post: -
Very true, but God did not create "faulty Humans".
"Gen 1:31 And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
Man was created Innocent, pure, and good. Then man fell (Gen. 3) which leaves us all at our present state."
So, "very good" means to you "innocent, pure and good" but capable of sinning.
Now did god know they were capable of sinning? Well, he would have to know if he was an omniscient god or one that was all-knowing.
So, if he was an omniscient god, why did he allow them to be tempted to sin?
God could have placed that tree with the apple anywhere, or nowhere, yet he chose to place it where adam and eve had full access to it then tell adam and eve not to eat of it.
It is a bit like placing a loaded gun in the middle of the room and telling 2 toddlers not to touch it.
Not only that, but he allowed a talking snake (supposedly evil or the devil), to live in the tree and talk eve into eating the apple.
If god is an omnipotent god (all-powerful, )and an omniscient god (all-knowing), he didn't have to allow the snake to live there, and he would have KNOWN that the snake was going to tempt eve.
Not only that, but he would have known that eve was going to eat the apple.
So, why did he set up a situation where innocent, pure people could be tempted into committing sin?
And why would an all-loving god place his children, (creation), in a circumstance which was beyond their ability to reason?
Let's not forget that adam and eve we not instructed at any time prior to the eating of the apple, that they had "freewill".
Were adam and eve aware of the details of the contract? If they had freewill, were they made aware of this fact and that their actions would lead supposedly to the sin in all men?
And why would an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving god chose to construct such a world KNOWING that Adam and Eve would sin, and that he was going to allow that sin to negatively effect the lives of all subsequent humans?
And what is this that god speaks after he finds out that they have eaten the apple?
Genesis3:21 : ~
And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil."
Theoretically, adam and eve had no concept of good and evil prior to eating the apple, so they didn't know that eating it was sinful.
But god knew and he allowed it to happen.
Therefore, it follws that it is god who is responsible, not adam and eve.
Let me get this straight, then: you wanted the argument to be between theses two choices:
1) God is not true.
2) God is false.
Oh, wait, you wanted the discussion to be an open-minded "God is true or false."
By saying this is not an issue about evolution, or about any other belief alternate from the intelligent designer, is to say that you--as a professed atheist and evolutionist--want to be able to attack without the fear of counter-attack. To advance without fear of having to retreat. To strike with the sword with no need for a shield.
Much of the proof for a Creator comes from the evidence that such theories as Evolution (and others, I guess, although this is the main one) are simply inexplicable. You cannot take this out of any argument. What? Do you expect to disarm believers and THEN debate them?
Actually, however, you prove my point. You're not claiming to be pro-any-theory in this debate. Therefore, if you refuse to espouse a theory here, you have virtually no place from which to knock down a legitimate theory. You may not think it legitimate, but it is, especially in comparison to an "I'm not claiming anything"-view. This confirms my statements:
"...you don't have a satisfactory replacement theory..."
"You reject the parachute but you jump anyway...You reject the boat but you try to swim the sea--when you can't swim."
You say: "And I do not claim, and neither does any scientist I know claim, that we came from nothing. You seem to be stuck in a very limiting either/or mentality. No wonder you create so many false dichotomies and make so many logical fallacies.
In fact, that god comes from nothing is the usual claim from theists."
Here we go again: "I don't claim-I don't claim-NOBODY ELSE CLAIMS."
First of all, anybody who claims the Big Bang believes that an explosion made everything happen. That explosion came from certain chemical elements. Are you calling that the "something not nothing"? Well, where exactly did the original elements come from?
I'm not saying you espouse the Big Bang, although it's an American freedom to speculate. But surely you know some scientists who endorse it!
The second part of your statement utilizes circular reasoning. "Theists say that God came from nothing." You don't seem to like that. But then, you yourself, are claiming that everything must come from something--that God must have come from something, or somebody. Yet Evolution (nor any other atheistic theory, by the way) cannot satisfactorily explain "what something" everything came from. In fact, ultimately Evolution says everything came from nothing. The "forever universe" theory, as I call it, which theorizes that the universe has always existed, has been proved both scientifically impossible and still doesn't answer the question of origins.
"Secondly, I don't claim that we came from a process of chance. Though I would like an extremely precise explanation of what you mean by "chance" in this context."
The process of "chance" to which I am referring is that no one was behind it. No Creator--no designer--no maker. Atheists believe this because they believe that no god, or greater being, created them. Unless, of course, they believe in aliens who created them (but what, then, are the aliens origins?). So, then, if atheists espouse any theory at all, they generally regard Evolution as numero uno, which of course, is a process with no design or direction, but, of course, chance.
You say: "Firstly, that we as humans consider things complex is not evidence of any god. It is evidence of our ability to consider things to be complex. It takes an illogical leap of faith to presume a god. It is an example of a hasty generalization, also known as fallacy of insufficient statistics or the logical fallacy of reaching an inductive generalization based on too little evidence."
When you start talking about human beings' conception of complexity, you outsmart yourself. I believe it was C.S. Lewis who once said, "If we had no purpose, we never would have been able to discover that we have no purpose." Deciding there is a Creator is not a hasty, generalistic, giant leap of faith. I've shown you the logic before.
"...preconceived belief..." "If you assume an intelligent designer is the answer, you haven't asked a neutral question.'
I haven't assumed anything. I asked the neutral question, "Where did we come from?" [not "Who created us?"] and I came to an intelligent designer as the logical answer. This is how most Christians come to the faith...by THINKING. Don't accuse me of preconceived ideas or notions. The door swings both ways, you know.
Your claim of insufficient information is based on what you require to believe. You refuse to believe my (or anybody else pro-Creator's) logical arguments, and therefore you consider there to be insufficient information. However, the only sufficient information for people like you would probably be to see God Himself. Therefore, you would die not believing anything rather than believe in God...then you'd get to see God...then it'd be too late.
In summary: you "demonstrated" how my argument is illogical; I demonstrated how you're wrong; and you are left with only that you've "already demonstrated" that I'm wrong.
p.s.
"Actually, Saivism is the oldest religion on earth and Siva, the Compassionate is in fact the oldest god concept. Aruguing for credibility on the premise of age just doesn't work with the Judaic god." --ted
Before I could give a whole answer, I'd have to research Saivism more. However, the Judeo-Christian view has literally been around since Adam, and then established itself firmly in Abraham. If you reject these theories off-hand, then you are claiming divine knowledge yourself.
RE kingdom advancer:
RE: "Let me get this straight, then: you wanted the argument to be between theses two choices:
1) God is not true.
2) God is false. "
No, the argument was :
1. Do human beings create intelligent designers?
2. Do human beings create intelligent designers and then call them gods?
This is what the post which you added your comments to is about.
So go back and read the article again, and try and keep on point, and discuss from the points made in the article.
Now the following comment you make is actually related to the article and hence the current discussion.
RE: "The second part of your statement utilizes circular reasoning. "Theists say that God came from nothing." You don't seem to like that. But then, you yourself, are claiming that everything must come from something--that God must have come from something, or somebody."
Yes, as an atheist I claim that theists do NOT apply the same logic to their god.
Firstly, they make the inaccurate claim that scientists claim that we came from nothing. No scientist I know or have read, claims that something comes from nothing.
It is in fact, THEISTS who claim that their god came from nothing. Or that EVERYTHING needs to have come from something, EXCEPT god.
This is a case of special pleading because if everything must come from something, then god must come from something as well. And is a logical fallacy.
MY claim is that god does come from something. And that something is a human need to provide an answer for an unknown. So the something from which the gods spring is human beings or simply, that human beings create gods.
This claim, as from the argument expressed in the article "The Creation Of Gods And Other Human Habits", is that the concept of god/gods comes from human beings and is the topic of discussion.
You have said very little which is relevant to this claim except to try and change it into an argument which revolves around the false dichotomy of either god or evolution.
RE: "The process of "chance" to which I am referring is that no one was behind it. No Creator--no designer--no maker." Atheists believe this because they believe that no god, or greater being, created them. Unless, of course, they believe in aliens who created them (but what, then, are the aliens origins?). So, then, if atheists espouse any theory at all, they generally regard Evolution as numero uno, which of course, is a process with no design or direction, but, of course, chance."
Firstly, thank you for at least trying to define what you mean by "chance".
Secondly, atheists don't believe in the existence of god/gods, but that doesn't mean they automatically believe something else. It certainly doesn't mean that atheists, as a group, "believe" in evolution.
Many atheists would state simply that they don't know. But they would not presume a god BECAUSE they don't know. They leave this presumption up to theists.
RE: "When you start talking about human beings' conception of complexity, you outsmart yourself. I believe it was C.S. Lewis who once said, "If we had no purpose, we never would have been able to discover that we have no purpose." Deciding there is a Creator is not a hasty, generalistic, giant leap of faith."
I don't claim that human beings don't have a purpose or humans cannot find meaning in their lives. As an atheist, I just don't claim meaning or purpose THROUGH god belief. It is you who make the claim that there is NO purpose or meaning WITHOUT god belief.
The neutral question which was posed was : " If the universe, (the totality of everything) has a beginning, what is it's origin?"
This was posed instead of the usual theisticly loaded question of "Who created us?' as this question is obviously loaded towards god belief.
It was and still is my claim that you SUPPOSE a creator which fits your preconceived belief system.
And it will continue to be my claim until you can show me the logical steps that get you from "I don't know, therefore god" WITHOUT mentioning modern scientific theory, the big bang, string theory, multi-universes or evolution.
That is: ~ The concept of god predates all modern scientific study. So you should be able to provide the logical steps that point towards the reality of a creator WITHOUT mentioning what you consider to be the flaws in modern scientific thinking.
Because even if you can prove that ALL scientific knowledge is flawed, you still need to show the logical steps which prove the existence of a god.
RE: "Deciding there is a Creator is not a hasty, generalistic, giant leap of faith."
Now I have shown you in this article "The Creation Of Gods And Other Human Habits", what I think those steps are and those steps DO NOT abide by the rules of logic. In fact those steps DO involve "a hasty, generalistic, giant leap of faith."
If you have other steps which abide by the rules of logic, which do NOT mention evolution, big bang, or any other scientific knowledge please post them.
Otherwise, "deciding that there is a Creator IS a hasty, generalistic, giant leap of faith."
Because as I have been trying to tell you, it isn't a debate of "NOT evolution, NOT Big Bang, NOT String Theory and >> therefore god.
It isn't that sort of an argument because that is a flawed argument. You can't prove the existence of something, by attempting to disprove the existence of something else especially when your god claim existed PRIOR to modern scientific thought.
Proving the existence of something doesn't involve making choices between various theories or concepts. It isn't "not evolution", "not big bang" therefore god.
Now, once again, I have shown you in the article how I think mankind created gods using a very illogical process. Unfortunately, you "believe" that the process I laid out in the article IS logically sound.
Maybe I will need to go through it point by point with you and explain why it isn't logically sound.
Thanks for looking at the link thing Beep, but I see my mistake. You have a whitepage blog as well. You can still have a biccies though...:)
Sorry KA, I should have said "oldest documented". Their writings and inscriptions are older, that's all. Unfortunatley though, that's the only tangible historical evidence we can bring to bear on the whole question, so perhaps the question should be "which God learnt to write first?" That another god might have beaten Yahweh to it would imply that He doesn't know everything though, so it's probably not the right question...
RE: Ted
Okay, I think I can see what you're saying, and I think I can explain it. Adam didn't write Genesis. Abraham didn't write Genesis. Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible. If the pagan--not Jewish--religion of Saivism originated before God inspired Moses to write the history of the earth, I can see how it would be documented as older.
However, I wouldn't say that it is a "which God learned to write first" issue. This assumes that all gods are equal. This assumes that person number one is worshipping a real god, and person number two is worshipping a completely different, but equally real god.
The Bible says differently. The God of the Bible refers to Himself and is referred to as the "One True God," with all other gods being called "false gods." Some times these gods are demons, but oftentimes the worship and prayers to these gods fall on deaf ears--dead ears. False gods can almost always accredit their creation much to the efforts of pagans to turn their back on the real God.
This is beginning to amuse me. It's kind of like a game. The combination, maybe, of ring-around-the-rosy and dodgeball (going around in circles and you dodging many of my comments). Many of your last comments can be answered by my previous statements.
" You have said very little which is relevant to this claim except to try and change it into an argument which revolves around the false dichotomy of either god or evolution."--beepbeep
I've already explained that it is unfair for you--as an atheist and evolutionist--to make an attack on the Intelligent Designer without putting forth any defense of your own. The fact that you insist on keeping Evolution out of it shows that you don't hold a strong belief in such a theory.
I also noted that when discussing the idea of an Intelligent Designer, Evolution is part of the intelligent and logical method of inductive reasoning. It's not enough to prove God, of course, but it certainly is a step forward, despite what you think.
"Many atheists would state simply that they don't know."--beepbeep
I already addressed this, when I stated that you would rather believe nothing...and die...and then discover the truth, than to believe in a Creator. I'm not asking you to believe something you can't possibly believe because of the evidence against it "just in case," but--again--as I stated in earlier comments, there is evidence for Creation, and evidence needed, as you say, is in the eye of the beholder. And you clearly are turning a blind eye to any concept or possibility of Creation.
"I don't claim that human beings don't have a purpose or humans cannot find meaning in their lives. As an atheist, I just don't claim meaning or purpose THROUGH god belief. It is you who make the claim that there is NO purpose or meaning WITHOUT god belief."--beepbeep
When you say there is no God, that means there is no Creator. That means we were not created. And therefore we were not created with a purpose. Therefore, no one created us with a purpose.
When you come to this desperate and depressing conclusion, you are left with no purpose but that which you make for yourself. But, that is not a true purpose. A TRUE purpose for a human being would be that WE WERE PURPOSED. A self-purpose which we invent really means the human race as a whole does not have a purpose, for an individual can choose not to have a purpose, or an individual can choose to do evil. But if you believe there is no Creator and therefore no Creation holding the Creator's purpose, there is no true evil. There is only a culture's demands. Sure, you can do universally "nice" things to your fellow man, but you cannot do the "right" thing or the "wrong" thing. You may say you don't believe this, but this is the secular humanist's philosophy, so don't shoot the messenger.
The only actual purpose--you could say--that survives such a philosophy is the purpose--or will--to survive. But this can't be a purpose for the whole human race, either, because some humans murder others (affecting the survival of the human race), others abort babies (ditto), others commit suicide, others commit euthanasia--to themselves or to others, others eat unhealthily, ad nauseam. Therefore, the purpose to survive is not an arbitrary purpose but rather an effect-able instinct.
"The neutral question which was posed was : " If the universe, (the totality of everything) has a beginning, what is it's origin?"" --beepbeep
I've already written that the way I addressed origins is with the question: "Where did we [and the entire universe] come from?" I don't see how that's any different or more biased than your question.
"It was and still is my claim that you SUPPOSE a creator which fits your preconceived belief system. "--beepbeep
I can't believe you said it twice! I already told you the door swings both ways. Are you going to accuse me of entering this debate in thoughtless preconception of Creation? Are you going to say this when it is as clear as day that you entered this very same debate with the preconceived idea of "not-God"?
"Unfortunately, you "believe" that the process I laid out in the article IS logically sound."--beepbeep
I showed you that Points 6 through 12 are neither logical, nor the beliefs and arguments of Christians. They are entirely yours.
Your argument claims that humans came up with the idea of God to solve intellectual problems they couldn't figure out about their origins. But by saying this, you make my C.S. Lewis quote relevant again. If the only answer is God, how did you [and your cause's ancestors] come up with something else? Are you that much smarter? Have you somehow broken the molds of human thought, so that now you can think outside of the "God-box"? If you claim this, then you claim that you not only possess new inspiration that no other human [besides those in agreement with you] can grasp, but you also claim that you know all of history, since you must know that God has never revealed Himself, etc., etc.
Lastly, Beepbeep, I must say this related to my last paragraph: I've tried to reason with you on the basis of man's reasoning ability. But clearly, that is not working, although I really think you should memorize Romans 1:20 and ponder it deeply. However, I am left with the blunt truth to tell you.
1.) Did humans create intelligent designers? No.
2.) Did they then decide to call them god? No.
I've already pointed out that all gods--in fact, most gods--were not created to explain Creation. You ignored that part of my argument.
Secondly, humans did not have to create the idea of an intelligent designer and a god. Why? Because God did create the earth, and He calls Himself God and demands to be worshipped. He revealed Himself to man.
He walked and talked with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. He spoke with Noah. He spoke with Abraham. He spoke with Moses. Moses saw His...back, I believe it was. He spoke with Job. He spoke to and through the prophets. He performed miracles. He punished and blessed, rescued and let be captured.
In the New Testament, He spoke through Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
The reason so many other gods have originated is not to explain away our origins, but to escape the True God. People at the beginning knew that there was a God--that was an undeniable fact. But, however, fallen men so love the darkness; so hate the light; so love evil; so hate what is truly good; and so hate God, that they turned their backs on Him and created their own gods to put their trust in. This is true even of atheists, who have elevated both the sciences and their own minds above God and His Word.
Obviously, I could back up what I'm saying, but that is all I have to say, since I don't want to get more "off-topic."
Interesting all these claims of creation, yet no one knows this god's "recipes."
It's all quite bizarre...when humans can't explain something, they just write it off as "god did it" instead of just admitting "I don't know." Some make up quite complex explanations in defense of this god who never shows himself or speaks for himself.
All believers have different versions of this gawd belief, and claim their's to be the truth. If we put them all in a room together these believers would fight and argue about who is right and who is wrong till the sun died out and never come to an agreement.
People believe in god because they are afraid to die...pure and simple. Everything in this universe dies, from the stars to the tiniest life forms. If there was an all powerful god that made everything (which I don't believe there is)then this god did a piss poor job of creating things...nothing this god makes lasts...not a single damn thing.
So, what can we do? Accept reality. Death is a natural and unavoidable occurrence for all living things. It is better to accept this fact of nature with dignity instead of wishing for the impossible and pretending some imaginary santa is going to grant your unreasonable and irrational request.
Why not live for the here and now and enjoy this beautiful and wonderful planet we are lucky to have been born upon instead of being obsessed with death and wishing for something that cannot be. That thinking is quite primitive. The here and now is the only thing we are certain of, so make the best of it.
Groucho Marx wrote -- "I, not events, have the power to make me happy or unhappy. Yesterday is gone, tomorrow hasn't arrived yet...I have but one day, today, and I am going to be happy in it."
It's not a god, or an imaginary friend or whatever...it's up to you. NOTHING happens unless humans do it for themselves.
RE: "This is beginning to amuse me. It's kind of like a game."
RE: kingdom advancer:
Well, I am glad to see you are finally starting to have some fun.
RE: "The combination, maybe, of ring-around-the-rosy and dodgeball (going around in circles and you dodging many of my comments). Many of your last comments can be answered by my previous statements. "
Your previous comments were not relevant to the argument posed in the article, so they were ignored.
RE: " You have said very little which is relevant to this claim except to try and change it into an argument which revolves around the false dichotomy of either god or evolution."--beepbeep
Your reply: "I've already explained that it is unfair for you--as an atheist and evolutionist--to make an attack on the Intelligent Designer without putting forth any defense of your own. "
It is not a question of fairness, it is a question of relevance. You still have stuck in your brain that this is a fight between evolution and god belief. Which is, I hasten to add for what feels like the 90th time, a logical fallacy and one which I am not willing to indulge in.
You, on the other hand, obviously having very little knowledge of what constitutes logic, or a fallacy, seem illogical enough to want to do this. It is a common flaw in many theists' brains.
Your position assumes these points and this is why the argument you want of "either god or evolution " is flawed.
1. People either support evolution or a god, never both or neither.
This is logically flawed because there are many people who believe in a god/ or gods and who also support evolution. They can do this because evolution neither dismisses the idea of a god, nor does it make claims for one. It is "god neutral." Hence a discussion of "god or evolution" is irrelevant to them.
Furthermore, if they have a god belief, evolution may not conflict with it.
It is also flawed because there are people who don't support, understand, or accept evolution and who do not believe in god or gods. Hence a discussion of "god or evolution" is irrelevant to these people as well.
It is also logically flawed because you cannot prove the existence of god, by proving or alluding to any supposed flaws in either: a. evolution b. astro-physics c. modern cosmology. d. tupperware production or d. cat hygiene.
You cannot do this logically because they are not areas of knowledge which make the same claims.
If you claim the existence of a god, the burden of proof is on you to present an argument which is both logical and relevant. You have the burden of proof.
"Burden of proof" means that someone stating a claim must provide evidence to support it. It is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this".
Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, such as god exists, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the person's responsibility who is making the bold claim to prove it.
RE: kingdom advancer:
RE: "Many atheists would state simply that they don't know."--beepbeep
I already addressed this, when I stated that you would rather believe nothing...and die...and then discover the truth, than to believe in a Creator."
Now that is an outright lie. I didn't state that at all. But I will address it because I am bored.
Firstly, you make yet another assumption, that I believe nothing. I do not believe in the existence of god or gods, but it does not follow that "I believe in nothing."
Secondly, I cannot pretend to believe in a god anymore than you can pretend to believe that flowers are inherently evil.
Example: If you don't believe that flowers are inherently evil, I will visit you in your dreams and give you nightmares.
Can you believe that flowers are inherently evil so that I won't visit you in your dreams and create nightmares in your subconscious? If you are honest, you will say no.
You cannot pretend to believe that flowers are inherently evil even under a hypothetical threat because the claim is outlandish to you.
I cannot pretend to believe in a god or gods because the claims of their existence, and or, the hypothetical threats are ALSO outlandish to me.
This is aparts from the obvious, which is : - If god exists and is an omniscient being, he/she/it would know that I was faking it.
RE: kingdom advancer:
RE: " When you say there is no God, that means there is no Creator. That means we were not created. "
Almost correct. I don't believe in the existence of god or gods, but I do not state emphatically that they do not exist.
Personally, I just don't believe in their existence. However, it is possible to suggest that, because of internal inconsistencies in the attributes of some god definitions, that because of these discrepencies, that certain gods cannot logically exist.
RE: "Therefore, no one created us with a purpose. "
Yup, you are finally getting it. I don't believe there is a "godly purpose".
RE: "When you come to this desperate and depressing conclusion, you are left with no purpose but that which you make for yourself."
Not entirely correct. Certainly, I can claim that there is a biological purpose which is the continuation of an individual's genes.
But essentially, I do think that the idea of purpose and meaning is man-made. Therefore it is up to human beings to define their purpose and to find meaning. Some people find their purpose and meaning by creating a god which they spend their lives worshipping, I don't.
And it is neither "desperate nor depressing" to me to have this responsibility. Perhaps, YOU would find this to be desperate and depressing, and this is one of the primary reasons you assume it would be the same for everyone else.
RE: " But, that is not a true purpose. A TRUE purpose for a human being would be that WE WERE PURPOSED. "
So, for you, a purpose is only a "true purpose" if someone ELSE provides you with a purpose.
A desire to kiss "asprodipra" and to have a supreme leader is quite common. I don't have that desire, but apparently, you do. In fact, your desire to have a "supreme commander" might be so strong that you make one up.
RE: "But if you believe there is no Creator and therefore no Creation holding the Creator's purpose, there is no true evil. There is only a culture's demands. "
Nearly correct. There are worldviews which are not particular to culture which provide reasons for human beings to "be nice" to each other, without the necessity of god belief.
And, it is correct that I do not believe in the existence of what you call "true evil." Especially if that means some sort of supernatural evil, like devils, werewolves, vampires etc etc.
RE: " Sure, you can do universally "nice" things to your fellow man, but you cannot do the "right" thing or the "wrong" thing."
Well, if you believe that the concepts of "right and wrong" are created by a god, of course you would say that. I don't believe they were created by any god, but by human beings.
RE: "The only actual purpose--you could say--that survives such a philosophy is the purpose--or will--to survive. But this can't be a purpose for the whole human race, either, because some humans murder others (affecting the survival of the human race), others abort babies (ditto), others commit suicide, others commit euthanasia--to themselves or to others, others eat unhealthily, ad nauseam."
People do all that sort of stuff whether they believe in a god or not. The fact that by far the majority of people in the world believe in a god or gods, and the fact that there are still lots of people who kill, rape, murder, suicide, eat fatty foods etc is evidence that god belief doesn't inhibit people from doing stuff that is self destructive or destructive to other people.
Neither god belief nor the lack of it, is any guarantee of morality.
You just want to be able to claim that if everyone believed the same as you do, that these problems would go away. Well, I could say a similar thing, if everyone took personal responsibility for their actions, all these problems would go away.
RE: "Therefore, the purpose to survive is not an arbitrary purpose but rather an effect-able instinct."
Well, I it IS arbitrary in the sense that people are capable of killing themselves. It may be against the law in some places, but it is difficult to smack someone over the wrist after they have done it.
Please do not confuse this comment with the possible assumption rattling around in your brain which says " She suports people killing themselves."
I am not sure what "an effectable instinct" is, but no doubt you will make something up in your next post.
I told myself I wasn't going to comment on this topic anymore, but I have to say a couple quick things:
First of all: I know you're an evolutionist. Therefore, I am willing to debate you on the virtues of Evolution and an Intelligent Designer at the same time. You--as you've made clear--are not willing to do this.
Secondly, you make the widespread claim that Evolution doesn't have to conflict with a god-theory. Well, you're correct in that it doesn't have to conflict with false gods, for people make gods to fit themselves (see the second Commandment). However, I'm willing to debate you on the LOGIC of a Creator "designing" a "chance" process.
Thirdly, can you not take a whole statement of mine, and take it in context? I specifically said that you SHOULDN'T believe in God upon the sole basis of "just in case," but I rather said that with the evidence you require (did you read that part?), you would rather [and will] believe nothing. You say you believe more than nothing, but you refuse to bring your beliefs into this discussion, saying that "evolution is not the only other option." If you believe that Evolution might not be how things are, then you are admitting that you don't actually put trust in anything. However, if you do believe in Evolution, why are you so scared to state it in this post?
Fourthly, you say that you can't pretend to believe something. Well, I already addressed--in the above paragraph--that you misinterpreted what I meant. But also, you don't even seem to give God a chance. If you told me that flowers are inherently evil and that you will haunt me if I don't believe that, then I probably will research what you say. I will study flowers, and I will research your authority--to say such things and to make such threats. It wouldn't take me long to find out you are telling falsehoods, of course. (although, do you have some scary, evil, nightmare-giving flowers out there in Australia?). But certainly it would take you much longer to determine the truth (or, yes, if you must: the lack thereof) behind God-claims. Yet, I saw you admit on another post that you read the Bible cynically and as you would read any other mythological story--just to see "what the ancients believed." Well, that's pretty close-minded, and un-studied (because if you studied rightly with a seeking heart, you'd find the Bible is true and Divine). Of course you'd HAVE to pretend you believed with that type of attitude. I'm not saying for you to dive into Christianity in blind faith, because, in spite of what many critics would say, Christianity does not require that. I'm asking you to give God and the Bible a chance to speak to you and prove His and its accuracy and truth.
Fifthly, I don't have stuck in my head that this is a fight between Creation and Evolution. In fact, I know it to be a fight between believing in God(theist) and believing in no god(a-theist). However, in my experience, atheists generally throw their fates in with Evolution--as of now--when they're debating Creationists. And, again, did you not read that I stated that defeating the Theory of Evolution is part of the LOGICAL inductive method? After that, I even said that it certainly does not prove God one-hundred percent, but--as I said--it IS a step forward, despite--as I said--what you think.
Lastly, I've been stating what I know, and I continued to state it in the last two paragraphs of my last comment. I could begin to prove to you the Divine inspiration of the Bible; I could tell you about my personal relationship with God; I could tell you about other people's past and current experiences and relationships with the One True God. But is that what you want to hear on this post? I doubt it. But that's part of my "Burden of Proof." You want some type of empirical, arbitrary evidence, but--deep down--you know that you can't get that, since science and reason are flawed and always changing--whether in proving God or TRYING to disprove Him.
RE kingdom advancer:
RE: "The neutral question which was posed was : " If the universe, (the totality of everything) has a beginning, what is it's origin?"" --beepbeep. I've already written that the way I addressed origins is with the question: "Where did we [and the entire universe] come from?" I don't see how that's any different or more biased than your question. "
Well, no you didn't as you assumed a beginning. It is also a possibility that the universe, in some form or another, has always existed. I don't know if it has or not, and neither do you.
RE: "It was and still is my claim that you SUPPOSE a creator which fits your preconceived belief system. "--beepbeep. I can't believe you said it twice! I already told you the door swings both ways. Are you going to accuse me of entering this debate in thoughtless preconception of Creation? Are you going to say this when it is as clear as day that you entered this very same debate with the preconceived idea of "not-God"?
Firstly, you don't have to "believe" that it was said twice, it is evidential that it was said twice, so your belieiving that it was or not, is inconsequential.
I have evidence that you DO have a preconceived belief in a creator, as per your post - " My beliefs do define me. I'm not afraid to say it. Your beliefs don't define you. I know that. "
Not only do your beliefs define you, they define HOW and if you think. Which means you spend your time trying to make everything fit your preconceived god belief.
RE: "Unfortunately, you "believe" that the process I laid out in the article IS logically sound."--beepbeep. I showed you that Points 6 through 12 are neither logical, nor the beliefs and arguments of Christians. They are entirely yours.
Well, I agree that points 6-12 are not logical. Now show me that all christians do not think they are logical. Sorry, but you can only speak for yourself, not for all christians; in the same way that I can only speak for myself and not all atheists.
RE: "Your argument claims that humans came up with the idea of God to solve intellectual problems they couldn't figure out about their origins. But by saying this, you make my C.S. Lewis quote relevant again. If the only answer is God, how did you [and your cause's ancestors] come up with something else? Are you that much smarter? Have you somehow broken the molds of human thought, so that now you can think outside of the "God-box"?
Once again the logical fallacy of if you don't know, then it must be a god. Or allah, or Aten, or Tikki Tikki Tembo. I don't know if the universe had a beginning. I don't know if any gods exist and neither do you. The difference is that you BELIEVE they exist and I don't.
Also, you seem determined to suggest that if there is an unknown, it proves the existence of a god. I call it it "god of the gaps syndrome." Or where there is a gap in knowledge insert "the flying spaghetti monster" here.
This "god of the gaps mentality" explains why people believed in "volcano gods" and "water gods" and nearly any other god-like entity you can mention. It filled a gap in their knowledge.
So, the process was and still is for many people: - "I don't know >>> therefore god."
RE "If you claim this, then you claim that you not only possess new inspiration that no other human [besides those in agreement with you] can grasp, but you also claim that you know all of history, since you must know that God has never revealed Himself, etc., etc. "
On the contrary, I don't claim to have "special knowledge" of a supernatural being that knows everything. You do.
RE: "Lastly, Beepbeep, I must say this related to my last paragraph: I've tried to reason with you on the basis of man's reasoning ability. But clearly, that is not working, although I really think you should memorize Romans 1:20 and ponder it deeply."
Your reasoning ability is obviously insufficient as I still don't believe in the existence of any of the gods, including yours.
Romans 1:20: Is, in my opinion, the writing of men. I see no reason why I should ponder over that anymore than I would ponder over the writings of "Thomas the Tank Engine."
RE: "However, I am left with the blunt truth to tell you.
1.) Did humans create intelligent designers? No.
2.) Did they then decide to call them god? No. "
My claim is that the origin of your "god belief" is no different to the origin of any other god belief. Because once you understand how and why people created gods to explain unknowns, you will also understand how your religion did the same.
RE: "I've already pointed out that all gods--in fact, most gods--were not created to explain Creation. You ignored that part of my argument."
Of course other gods were created to explain creation. I will include just a small list of 10 which are arranged alphabetically.
1. Anu: (Summerian god), father and king of all the gods. He was claimed to have the ability that anything he put into words, became reality. So, the claim is that he spoke the world into existence.
2. Adroa: Adroa is a god of the Lugbara people of central Africa. Adroa has two aspects: one good and one evil. He is the creator of Heaven and Earth.
3. Ahone: Ahone was the chief god and creator of the Native American Powhatan tribe.
4. Aiomun-Kondi, also spelt Aiomum-Kondi and Aimon-Kondi, is an Arawak deity, whose name means "top king creator god". He is said to have attempted to create a model world, but considered his first two attempts to be failures due to their inhabitants' depraved behavior. He burned his first world and flooded the second, but saved one couple from the latter; Marerewana and his wife.
5. Aramazd: In Armenian mythology, Aramazd was the father of all gods and goddesses, the creator of heaven and earth. The first two letters in his name - AR - are the Indo-European root for sun, light, and life.
6. Ataguju was a deity of the Incans of Peru (Huamachuco) regarded as the creator of heaven and earth.
7. Awonawilona to the Zuni Indians of Mexico, was the creator of the world, becoming the sun and making the 'mother-earth' and 'father-sky', from whom all living creatures came, born in four caves deep in the earth.
8. Batara Kala is a balinese god who is the creator of the light and the earth.
9. Brahma is the Hindu God of Creation, and one of the Hindu Trinity - Trimurti, the others being Vishnu and Shiva.
10. Bumba is the creator god of the Bushongo people. Bumba dwelt in the primordial waters and vomited up the sun, moon, stars, animals, and men. He also showed man how to make fire.
Ok, that is just 10 out of the thousands of gods who believers have claimed to have created everything. The idea of gods is as old as mankind. In fact, one could say, and I will, that human beings have created thousands of gods.
RE: "Secondly, humans did not have to create the idea of an intelligent designer and a god. Why? Because God did create the earth, and He calls Himself God and demands to be worshipped. He revealed Himself to man."
This is your belief speaking. In the same way that thousands of other peoples and cultures claim that THEIR god that they believe in, did it also.
RE: "The reason so many other gods have originated is not to explain away our origins, but to escape the True God."
I am sure many of them think the same thing about your god. Because every believer, having picked a god, believes that they have the picked the right one.
RE kingdom advancer:
RE: "First of all: I know you're an evolutionist. Therefore, I am willing to debate you on the virtues of Evolution and an Intelligent Designer at the same time. You--as you've made clear--are not willing to do this."
Whether I accept evolution or not has nothing to do with the topic. You only want to bring evolution into the topic of discussion because you cannot prove the existence of your god.
RE: "Secondly, you make the widespread claim that Evolution doesn't have to conflict with a god-theory. Well, you're correct in that it doesn't have to conflict with false gods, for people make gods to fit themselves (see the second Commandment). However, I'm willing to debate you on the LOGIC of a creator "designing" a "chance" process."
In my opinion, all the gods are false. The difference is that you have dismissed all the other gods as being false except the one you believe in. You are an atheist when to comes to not believing in all the other gods. I just don't believe in one more god than you.
You keep harkening back to this "chance process" as if somehow this will lend credibility to belief in a god. Once again, you have failed to realise that you claim that a god exists. Prove the existence of said god without trying to use another argument as your foil.
RE: "Thirdly, can you not take a whole statement of mine, and take it in context? I specifically said that you SHOULDN'T believe in God upon the sole basis of "just in case," but I rather said that with the evidence you require (did you read that part?), you would rather [and will] believe nothing."
Once again, it is YOUR claim that I believe nothing. Have I expressed such a thing? No. I have expressed that I do not believe in the existence of gods. Neither yours, nor any of the other thousand or so I could probably mention.
That you have insufficient evidence to prove the existence of your god is why you are feeling frustrated. And if you had sufficient evidence of the existence of a god, I wouldn't need to believe and neither would you.
RE: " You say you believe more than nothing, but you refuse to bring your beliefs into this discussion, saying that "evolution is not the only other option."
Well, I didn't say I believe in "more than nothing" either. I am beginning to think you might have a comprehension problem.
RE: " If you believe that Evolution might not be how things are, then you are admitting that you don't actually put trust in anything. However, if you do believe in Evolution, why are you so scared to state it in this post?"
None of that follows as an argument. I now understand how faith is harmful to one's ability to reason. I am not scared to state any beliefs I may, or may not have. They are simply not going to be part of an argument where you are attempting to prove the existence of your god.
RE: "Fourthly, you say that you can't pretend to believe something. Well, I already addressed--in the above paragraph--that you misinterpreted what I meant. But also, you don't even seem to give God a chance. If you told me that flowers are inherently evil and that you will haunt me if I don't believe that, then I probably will research what you say. I will study flowers, and I will research your authority--to say such things and to make such threats. It wouldn't take me long to find out you are telling falsehoods, of course."
Firstly, well, giving god a chance to me means to have faith in the existence of something. I am not prepared to do that. You are.
Not only that, you claim that your faith in something is evidence of the existence of said something. Not my cup of illogic at all.
Secondly, I don't believe in evil, so I wouldn't need to go searching around looking on the internet for some whacked out posting by some dipstick who claims that "the devil resides in the centre of roses because the centre is red like the devil's skin." Or some such tripe.
But you get the point, you cannot force anyone to believe something which soumds ridiculous to them, even if their life is threatened.
RE: " (although, do you have some scary, evil, nightmare-giving flowers out there in Australia?)."
Not to my knowledge, though there are enough whackjobs anywhere who will claim all sorts of insanity. Once a person is prepared to believe in extraordinary claims, like gods, I am not convinced that their tests for veracity are logically sound.
RE: "Yet, I saw you admit on another post that you read the Bible cynically and as you would read any other mythological story--just to see "what the ancients believed."
Of course I read it critically. "Cynically" is the descriptor you use, not me. I read all books critically. If I didn't read books critically and with a degree of skepticism, I might be praying to Papa Smurf.
RE: " Well, that's pretty close-minded, and un-studied (because if you studied rightly with a seeking heart, you'd find the Bible is true and Divine)."
So, only people who read the bible with a "seeking heart" are ones who will believe it. That is probably true. Those who want to believe it, will believe it regardless of what it says or doesn't say.
And by the way, by 'seeking heart" I suppose you mean those who have an emotional need to believe it; as a heart does not seek, it pumps blood.
RE: " Of course you'd HAVE to pretend you believed with that type of attitude. I'm not saying for you to dive into Christianity in blind faith, because, in spite of what many critics would say, Christianity does not require that. I'm asking you to give God and the Bible a chance to speak to you and prove His and its accuracy and truth."
You have so many assumptions about me it is difficult to entertain all of them. Faith IS blind. So to talk about "blind faith" is redundant.
RE: "Fifthly, I don't have stuck in my head that this is a fight between Creation and Evolution. In fact, I know it to be a fight between believing in God(theist) and believing in no god(a-theist). However, in my experience, atheists generally throw their fates in with Evolution--as of now--when they're debating Creationists."
No, if anything, it is a fight between theocracy and the secular state. Dominionism also rears its ugly head.
A secular state supports people's right to a religious belief and also their right to no religious belief. I support your right to a religious belief, I do not support your attempt to impose it upon everyone.
Which is why in free societies people have the right to hold whatever beliefs they want or to not hold beliefs. But they do not have the right to demand that everyone believe as they do.
I am not demanding that you don't believe. I am using my right, if you make your beliefs public, to question any beliefs that you did not keep private.
RE: " And, again, did you not read that I stated that defeating the Theory of Evolution is part of the LOGICAL inductive method? After that, I even said that it certainly does not prove God one-hundred percent, but--as I said--it IS a step forward, despite--as I said--what you think."
Defeat evolution when I post about it. Though I am sure you have as many misconceptions about evolution as you have about atheists and just about everything else you have tried to discuss.
RE: "Lastly, I've been stating what I know, and I continued to state it in the last two paragraphs of my last comment. I could begin to prove to you the Divine inspiration of the Bible; I could tell you about my personal relationship with God; I could tell you about other people's past and current experiences and relationships with the One True God."
Go right ahead. Enthrall me with how you believe the bible to be the divine inspiration of god.
"A personal relationship with god" means to me, a personal relationship with your emotional and psychological needs which you then attribute to a god. But anyway, go right ahead. No one is stopping you.
RE: " But is that what you want to hear on this post? I doubt it. But that's part of my "Burden of Proof." You want some type of empirical, arbitrary evidence, but--deep down--you know that you can't get that"
I know you have no proof. You have a crusty old book and your emotional need to believe in a god.
Science is self correcting. Which is why people are no longer believing that the earth is flat. Well, most of them don't. There is always the odd whacko out there that denies the preponderous amount of scientific evidence to the contrary.
Religion is evolves or is almost self correcting as well, which is why people don't stone homosexuals to death very often anymore, or burn women at the stake for being witches.
Basically, nothing has stopped people from interpreting the bible or any other religious book to suit their psychological or emotional needs. Which is exactly what you do when you claim to "read the bible with a seeking heart."
"I just believe in one less god than you." - yours truly
RE: beep
Simply because God did not wish to make puppets or robots to praise Him, but rather a being that would have a choice whether or not to worship Him. You must remember that in the biblical worldview man was created in the image of God. Thus man is personal, intellegent, and has the capasity to reason, to think for himself.
"Theoretically, adam and eve had no concept of good and evil prior to eating the apple, so they didn't know that eating it was sinful."
Not at all,
Gen 2:16-17 And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Adam and Eve simply did not have an inherent knowledge of good and evil, as all men do today, but God told them NOT to eat the fruit, thus they knew they were NOT to do so.
I don't have a whole lot of time, so let me see if I can go through all your statements once more.
"Well, no you didn't as you assumed a beginning. It is also a possibility that the universe, in some form or another, has always existed. I don't know if it has or not, and neither do you."--Beepbeep
By trying to play everything to your advantage, you come out with the disadvantage. Once you say that if the universe had to have a beginning, then so would God. Then you say that the universe--"in some form or another"--might always have existed, implying that much of the universe had a beginning, but the universe itself might not have needed one. You can't play both sides of the argument at the same time.
And by the way, whether "I know" or not is both irrelevant (since you wouldn't believe my proof), and not your place to say.
"I have evidence that you DO have a preconceived belief in a creator, as per your post - " My beliefs do define me. I'm not afraid to say it. Your beliefs don't define you. I know that."--Beepbeep
This suggests that I took my beliefs on a whim. That's not true. My beliefs have grown stronger and stronger over the years, not because I force them to, but because--as I've stated previously--I grow in my relationship with God, my knowledge of the world, the Word, and the way things work, and through my experience, my beliefs are verified. God proves Himself to me every day...not in a way sufficient for you, but that's because your life is predicated on proving He doesn't exist so that you can live your life exactly as you want to.
Yet, I want to re-inforce, my "preconceived belief" is not some blind and deaf belief. Yours is more than mine, for I imagine your worst nightmares have something to do with having no choice but to believe in a Creator, and therefore, you'd do anything to deny His existence. My belief is based on knowledge--which has been built through experience, relationship, and faith. So, in other words, saying I have "preconceived beliefs in God" is like saying that you have "preconceived beliefs that you are a human."
"Well, I agree that points 6-12 are not logical. Now show me that all christians do not think they are logical. Sorry, but you can only speak for yourself, not for all christians; in the same way that I can only speak for myself and not all atheists." --Beepbeep
Consider your points consist of saying that people "imagined their must be an intelligent designer," and then "decided they would call him 'god,'" and then "came to the decision that humans must be made in His image, rather than the more obvious answer,bla,bla,bla."
I don't think you'd have many Christians saying they agree with that.
"I don't know if any gods exist and neither do you. The difference is that you BELIEVE they exist and I don't."--Beepbeep
First of all, I don't believe in godS! I believe in the One True God.
Secondly, you brought up the "and neither do you" argument again. Well, it sounds as if you KNOW that NOONE CAN KNOW if God or gods exist. With your stubborness and your self-assumed but not appropriate authority of telling me what I do and do not know, I'm afraid I'm left only with "We'll see." The difference is, I know what we'll see. You don't.
"Also, you seem determined to suggest that if there is an unknown, it proves the existence of a god."--Beepbeep
Actually, I've said more than once that disproving other theories does not prove God for sure, but is part of THE LOGICAL INDUCTIVE METHOD. It's a step forward. (Why are you making me sound like a broken record?)
The reason that I debate this way, and the difference in our views, is that I have [at least one] leg to stand on. I've shown that you have none.
"Your reasoning ability is obviously insufficient as I still don't believe in the existence of any of the gods, including yours."--Beepbeep
I'd like to thank you for calling the One True God "mine." That is one of the nicest things someone can say to me. Perhaps I am [or can be] a "man after God's own heart," like David.
More directly related to your comment, however. It has nothing to do with my reasoning ability. I pointed out that it has everything to do with man's fallen, sinful, finite reasoning ability. That's all of our reasoning abilities, including yours. However, Christians have the truth and the "truth has set them free."
The following is on everything you said about origins and god-belief:
I already pointed out that the reason there are so many gods is not because all religions tried to explain their origins the same--through an intelligent designer. I explained that the reason there are so many gods is because those who hate God must try to explain why they're here by creating a god of their own. You've actually taken the next logical step for unbelievers, to deny the existence of any god, so that you can sin to your heart's desirous extent.
"This is your belief speaking. In the same way that thousands of other peoples and cultures claim that THEIR god that they believe in, did it also."--Beepbeep
This doesn't make all beliefs wrong, any more than thousands of people on the streets are all the same. Because I believe something to be true, does that make my beliefs equal to all other belief-systems because everyone believes their beliefs to be true? No.
"I am sure many of them think the same thing about your god. Because every believer, having picked a god, believes that they have the picked the right one."--Beepbeep
And it's a sad state of affairs that I must ultimately pray about, for I can't do it all myself--in fact, I can do nothing apart from God, although "I can do all things through Christ Who strengthens me." (Philippian 4:13)
Before you start analyzing others beliefs, though, notice that you've made a god out of your own fallen mind, which, as your "god," is telling you that NO OTHER GOD EXISTS.
"Whether I accept evolution or not has nothing to do with the topic. You only want to bring evolution into the topic of discussion because you cannot prove the existence of your god."--Beepbeep
You only want to keep it out of the discussion because you CAN'T PROVE EVOLUTION.
Whether you accept my and others proofs has nothing to do with whether God is provable. Someone can refuse to believe airplanes exist, if they want, no matter what you say.
"I just don't believe in one more god than you." --Beepbeep
I believe in the only beneficial One to believe in. Plus, you can believe in thousands of other gods. But, if you don't believe in the One True God, all your other beliefs won't help you at all.
"You keep harkening back to this "chance process" as if somehow this will lend credibility to belief in a god. Once again, you have failed to realise that you claim that a god exists. Prove the existence of said god without trying to use another argument as your foil."--Beepbeep
If we had to be designed, then we couldn't have come about by chance. Chance can't design us, and chance can't follow through with our design. Therefore, someone[or something--if you must] must have designed us. You'll probably say again that I'm committing "logical fallacies," but that's a broken and false record, so save your keyboard.
"Once again, it is YOUR claim that I believe nothing. Have I expressed such a thing? No.""Well, I didn't say I believe in "more than nothing" either. I am beginning to think you might have a comprehension problem. "--Beepbeep
Who's got the comprehension problem again? Read your statements twice through, and then you can take your foot out of your mouth. So you don't believe nothing, but you don't believe more than nothing, either? What? Do you believe "less" than nothing?
"Firstly, well, giving god a chance to me means to have faith in the existence of something. I am not prepared to do that. You are.
Not only that, you claim that your faith in something is evidence of the existence of said something. Not my cup of illogic at all."--Beepbeep
Giving God a chance means not approaching everything with the sole purpose of denying the existence of God and the inerrancy of the Bible. That is all.
I did not say that faith is proof of truth; I said that faith in the One True God comes from Divine knowledge of the truth.
" Of course I read it critically. "Cynically" is the descriptor you use, not me. I read all books critically. If I didn't read books critically and with a degree of skepticism, I might be praying to Papa Smurf."--Beepbeep
Describing the way you read things does not make your self-analysis accurate. You go into the Bible saying "It's not true. It's not true. It's not true. I refuse to believe it's true. I'll read only commentaries that tell me it's not true. The Bible's words are the words of men." (And then you repeat these things like a mantra.)
"So, only people who read the bible with a "seeking heart" are ones who will believe it. That is probably true. Those who want to believe it, will believe it regardless of what it says or doesn't say."--Beepbeep
That's not what I meant. You don't read the Bible SEEKING TRUTH. You don't even accept the possibility of the Bible being true. Even when you take the time to read the Bible, you are reading it not to seek possible truth, but to prove the Bible truthless. That is what I meant when I said you need a seeking heart.
"Faith IS blind. So to talk about "blind faith" is redundant. "--Beepbeep
My faith is not blind. If you're saying my beliefs are firm and unwavering, I'm complimented. But my faith is the "assurance of things hoped for," as the Bible says. In other words, I don't have blind hope--I have assurance of my hopes.
Your "faith"--in atheism--is more blind than mine. For you have a lot at stake in your belief: your freedom to sin; your right to your life to do with what you please; your right to your pride and self-sufficiency. Therefore, you will not accept the idea of God because you have so much of your own pleasure riding on your atheism.
These comments are about your comments about theocracy and the secular state:
You're not going to make this about governmental structure, now, are you? Although religion can't be completely separated from politics, I'm not making the case for a theocracy; I'm making the case for conversions. Christianity is not about making a nation a theocracy; it's about making a nation's worth of individuals believers.
I'm not imposing my belief on you with guns or governmental infractions (as some religions do). If you think I am "imposing" my beliefs on others, than you are too sensitive.
"A secular state supports people's right to a religious belief and also their right to no religious belief."--Beepbeep
Have you forgotten the genocides of "secular states" like Communist Russia and the current persecution by "secular states" like Communist China against Christians? I'll admit that a Christian attempt (although it's mostly been Catholic in the past) to spread the faith through violence is wrong--how can you convert someone who you killed? But, you must also admit that "secular states" aren't always so big into the idea of religious freedom.
And, by the way, you can't consider America as a entirely secular state.
"There is always the odd whacko out there that denies the preponderous amount of scientific evidence to the contrary."--Beepbeep
I'll take that as you referring to Evolutionists who cling tightly to the Theory of Evolution, denying "the preponderous amount of scientific evidence to the contrary."
"Religion is evolves or is almost self correcting as well, which is why people don't stone homosexuals to death very often anymore, or burn women at the stake for being witches." --Beepbeep
Yet, Muslims do these types of things incessantly. And there are many other Christian-haters who persecute Christians.
The reason that people are not often hanged or burned for their sins is not because religion has evolved, but because Christianity is less often executed with "zeal without knowledge," as the Bible says. Such acts damage the Faith, and doom forever those guilty of the sins for which they were punished. Christians' job is to save sinners, not eliminate them--unless if "eliminating them" means by washing them in the blood of Christ. Jesus' words to the woman caught in adultery--saving her from execution but telling her to "Go and sin no more," should be the Christian's example.
Of course, our society HAS "evolved" and that also causes some of the change.
"I know you have no proof."--Beepbeep
I know you know that you will refuse any evidence I have and would put forth, for you hate God and therefore the very existence of Him. Don't worry, though. Others have this same feeling before getting saved. So don't think there is not hope for you!
"I am using my right, if you make your beliefs public, to question any beliefs that you did not keep private." --Beepbeep
As the Bible says, I am not to hide my "lampstand" under a basket. I'm to put it out in the open. The Bible calls for Christians to be "cities on a hill" and "the salt of the earth." I do not despise you asking questions. Especially since the Bible tells me that the wicked will be punished, but if the righteous don't warn them, then their blood will also be on the hands of the righteous. This is my warning to you, and I'm happy to do it: for my sake, for God's sake, and for your sake.
"Go right ahead. Enthrall me with how you believe the bible to be the divine inspiration of god."--Beepbeep
The Bible talks about how Christians should not throw their pearls before swine. I'd paraphrase: "Wait 'til the swine are no longer swine before you throw your pearls before them."
The following comments are about you talking about my "emotional needs."
1.) You can't even explain emotions, although you try to explain away the spirit and soul in terms of emotions. So I find it funny that you would even refer to such a thing.
2.) I'll admit that people do create gods to fill their needs. Not usually emotional, however. The essence of the 2nd Commandment is that people create gods to suit themselves. "My god wouldn't send anybody to hell." Well, of course that person's god wouldn't, because that person's god doesn't exist. He's a figment of that person's imagination.
I could go on with many other mentally created gods, but they generally have the same thing in common: their "gods" want them to be happy; therefore, they can do whatever vulgar, grotesque, sinful, lustful, selfish things they want to, cause "their god" allows it. You take it to the next logical level with your beliefs: you believe in no god, meaning you have absolutely no rules forced on you.
3.) But my question is, why do you think I'd pick the God of the Bible? The One True God certainly does not cater to all my fleshly desires. Quite the opposite. He does not cater to my selfish desires. Quite the opposite again: I have to give up my life to Him. He does not cater to my self-sufficiency: I must depend entirely on Him. He doesn't even cater to all my immediate emotional needs: for sometimes I don't always get the answers immediately.
I believe in God and the Bible because I've seen my need for a Savior, I've seen the certainty of a Creator, I've seen the inerrancy of the Bible, I've seen the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in myself, and I've seen the work that God has done in mine and others' lives.
You can see your need for a Savior, too, Beepbeep. If you would listen to your conscience, which you've probably been denying, ignoring, and scarring for many years, you'd realize that you've transgressed God's Holy Law. You've most likely lied (false witness), lusted (the essence of adultery), stolen, coveted(desired to steal), hated (the essence of murder), put other gods or things before god (I know you've done that, and that's the essence of the First and Second Commandments), taken God's name in vain, violated the Sabbath, and more, at least once each.
Now, you've said that you don't believe in evil, but your heart knows evil exists--your conscience knows it. When you transgress the Law, you know you are doing it. You are doing it with your conscience ("con" means "with" and "science" means knowledge: "with knowledge.")
My comments have not been to insult or polarize, but to shine the light of the Gospel in your eyes. I can only pray now that God will do a work in your heart.
RE under the mercy:
RE: So let me get this straight. God put what amounted to a loaded pistol in the middle of the garden. His creation, adam and eve, who were innocent, pure, and good were told by god not to touch the gun or they would die.
Question1. Why would a loving god place a loaded weapon in the reach of children who are incapable of reason?
Qustion2: As adam and eve had no knowledge of good and evil, how could they know that it was bad to "touch" the gun?
Question3: As adam and eve had no knowledge of good and evil, or life or death, how could they know what "to die" meant?
Question 4: What sort of a loving god would do leave innocent children in a garden with a gun, when they didn't know wrong from right, good from evil or life from death?
Question 5: As god is supposed to represent a loving father and the "supreme all-loving and all-knowing parent" what sort of a role model is this for good parenting?
Question 6: Why did an omniscient god put the loaded gun there, tell them not to play with it, KNOWING all the time that they would?
Question 7: What sort of a loving parent would THEN blame innocent children for his lack of parenting skills?
Either an evil or a stupid god would leave innocent children alone in a garden with a loaded gun and then blame the children for playing with it.
RE kingdom advancer:
RE: "Point Six: Incorrect. A being more intelligent than humans is not assumed, but rather this: the universe could not have been designed from a chance process; humans--nor any other creature--could've designed the universe. THEREFORE, a being more intelligent must have."
Provide me with a list os well known peer reviewed scientists who claim that the universe came into existence by "chance."
RE kingdom advancer:
And I want to see those words specifically being uttered by a peer reviewed scientist in a scientific paper, not some half assed apologetic site which claims to understand science.
RE: "By trying to play everything to your advantage, you come out with the disadvantage. Once you say that if the universe had to have a beginning, then so would God. Then you say that the universe--"in some form or another"--might always have existed, implying that much of the universe had a beginning, but the universe itself might not have needed one. You can't play both sides of the argument at the same time. "
I am not playing both sides of the argument, I am trying to impress upon you that there is more to the argument than what you are willing to admit. No one knows if a god exists. No one knows if the universe had a beginning or not. The only thing you have is a belief that you know.
RE: " This suggests that I took my beliefs on a whim. That's not true. My beliefs have grown stronger and stronger over the years, not because I force them to, but because--as I've stated previously--I grow in my relationship with God, my knowledge of the world, the Word, and the way things work, and through my experience, my beliefs are verified. God proves Himself to me every day...not in a way sufficient for you, but that's because your life is predicated on proving He doesn't exist so that you can live your life exactly as you want to."
I am aware that your delusion grows day by day as you practice your delusion on a daily basis.
RE: "Yet, I want to re-inforce, my "preconceived belief" is not some blind and deaf belief. Yours is more than mine, for I imagine your worst nightmares have something to do with having no choice but to believe in a Creator"
I don't have a belief, I have a lack of belief. Bald is not a hair colour and no belief isn't a belief. And I stopped having nightmares as soon as I stopped believing in silly things such as gods.
RE: " My belief is based on knowledge--which has been built through experience, relationship, and faith."
Your belief is based on a fear of death. Sorry to tell you this, but we all die. There is no evidence of any life after death. And to imagine there is, just so you feel emotionally and psychologically better, is no more than a panacea to ease your sense of mortality.
RE: "Show me that all christians do not do steps 6-12."
I am still waiting for you to be able to do that. You canot speak for all christians, so it is an unknown that you have assumed to have an answer for.
RE: "First of all, I don't believe in godS! I believe in the One True God."
The point still stands, you believe in invisible friends and you want to imply that I am the one with the problem.
RE: "Secondly, you brought up the "and neither do you" argument again. Well, it sounds as if you KNOW that NOONE CAN KNOW if God or gods exist."
No one knows of the existence of gods. No one. Many claim to know but that is part of their delusional fantasy which they adamantly try to enforce upon other people.
I consider them to be like lunatics demanding that everyone else pretend to feel and hear their invisible friend. Rather like the story of "The Emperor's New Clothes."
RE: "Actually, I've said more than once that disproving other theories does not prove God for sure, but is part of THE LOGICAL INDUCTIVE METHOD. It's a step forward. (Why are you making me sound like a broken record?) "
I am not making you sound like a broken record, your god delusion does that. And using either the "logical inductive method" or the "Betty Crocker Create a God recipe" will NOT talk a god into existence.
RE: "This doesn't make all beliefs wrong, any more than thousands of people on the streets are all the same. Because I believe something to be true, does that make my beliefs equal to all other belief-systems because everyone believes their beliefs to be true? No."
Believing something is true doesn't make it true. Put that one in your recipe book.
RE: " I pointed out that it has everything to do with man's fallen, sinful, finite reasoning ability. That's all of our reasoning abilities, including yours. However, Christians have the truth and the "truth has set them free."
It has nothing to do with man's fallen, sinful, finite reasoning ability. It has to do with the fact that you can't handle reality. You are afraid of death. This is why you kiss an imaginary friend's arse in hope that you and your pathetic ego will live forever.
RE: "I explained that the reason there are so many gods is because those who hate God must try to explain why they're here by creating a god of their own. You've actually taken the next logical step for unbelievers, to deny the existence of any god, so that you can sin to your heart's desirous extent."
Oh, so people DO create gods, just not yours? That is hilarious. I don't deny the existence of gods, you do. You deny the existence of every god except for the one into which your culture has indoctrinated you.
If you lived in India, you would be a hindu and sprouting on about how only YOU know the true gods!.
RE: "Before you start analyzing others beliefs, though, notice that you've made a god out of your own fallen mind, which, as your "god," is telling you that NO OTHER GOD EXISTS. "
My mind isn't a god and your god isn't real. It always comes down to "don't think, have faith," which is why religions have nearly always seen and intellectualism and knowledge as their enemy.
Unless it is some pseudo-science which supports their religious delusion. Nothing frees a mind of god delusion as much as knowledge does.
RE: "You only want to keep it out of the discussion because you CAN'T PROVE EVOLUTION.
Whether you accept my and others proofs has nothing to do with whether God is provable."
Evolution is not part of the discussion because it isn't relevant to you proving the existence of your god.
All I have seen from you is a belief that you can talk your invisible friend into existence. You need to pray harder and this time try it without the whips and fishnet stockings.
RE: "Someone can refuse to believe airplanes exist, if they want, no matter what you say. "
So god is an invisible aeroplane now? Wow. Let's reinterpret the "Book of Holy Babble" and make him a Fokker Friendship.
RE: "I believe in the only beneficial One to believe in. Plus, you can believe in thousands of other gods. But, if you don't believe in the One True God, all your other beliefs won't help you at all. "
Claim after claim after empty claim. I usually find that believers who are this fervent have quite often had a very chequered past. So what is it with you?
What sort of criminal or immoral activity do you hope your god belief will save you from? Drugs? Alcohol? Child abuse? Wife bashing? I am interested to know as I understand that many weak people do not have the ability to be socially responsible adults without belief in a supernatural daddy who will forgive them.
Uh oh. I think I have guessed it. You are a closet homosexual. Not surprising really, many religious men are.
RE: "If we had to be designed, then we couldn't have come about by chance. Chance can't design us, and chance can't follow through with our design. Therefore, someone[or something--if you must] must have designed us. You'll probably say again that I'm committing "logical fallacies," but that's a broken and false record, so save your keyboard."
Please post all the scientific papers from peer reviewed journals which state that "chance designed us." And as I said previously, none of your half-baked pseudo-science from an apologetic website.
RE: "Who's got the comprehension problem again? Read your statements twice through, and then you can take your foot out of your mouth. So you don't believe nothing, but you don't believe more than nothing, either? What? Do you believe "less" than nothing?"
I stand by what I said which was this : - "Once again, it is YOUR claim that I believe nothing. Have I expressed such a thing? No. Well, I didn't say I believe in "more than nothing" either. I am beginning to think you might have a comprehension problem. "
You DO have a comprehension problem. I have made no claims about believing in something, or nothing. Your initial claim was that as I didn't believe in god/gods that I believed in nothing. That was an illogical claim and remains so.
And I am under no obligation to tell you what I believe, if I believe anything or, if I believe nothing. We are discussing YOUR claim for the existence of god something which you seem to have forgotten.
RE: " Describing the way you read things does not make your self-analysis accurate. You go into the Bible saying "It's not true. It's not true. It's not true. I refuse to believe it's true. I'll read only commentaries that tell me it's not true. The Bible's words are the words of men." (And then you repeat these things like a mantra.)
Nope, I read books critically. That is, I critically analyse it especially if the book purports to be fact. The bible is NOT meant to be read critically because people are supposed to take it on faith or to burn in hell for eternity.
You read it going"It is all true!!.. The snake talked! The donkey talked! He walked on water! I can cure leprosy with bird blood!"
I have learnt that if it smells like bullshit, it probably is bullshit and I try not to stand in it. In other words, you have a very dodgy bullshit detector.
RE: "Giving God a chance means not approaching everything with the sole purpose of denying the existence of God and the inerrancy of the Bible. That is all.
So, what you are asking me to do is to shut the eye of reason and just believe. Sorry, no can do. The claims are like the claims of all religions. "Please don't think. Please become part of the cult."
I don't have a "cultish bone" in my body. I am don't even join social clubs if I can avoid it. The golf club hasn't seen me in years. You are trying to preach to someone who has spent a lifetime in becoming a self-determining individual.
I like who I am. I am resourceful and independent and I don't need to belong to a group of people who all pretend to know the same invisible friend in order to feel validated.
RE: "I did not say that faith is proof of truth; I said that faith in the One True God comes from Divine knowledge of the truth."
Those who claim to know the truth generally spend sometime abiding in "Ronald Reagan's Home For the Terminally Psychotic."
RE: "Christians' job is to save sinners, not eliminate them--unless if "eliminating them" means by washing them in the blood of Christ. Jesus' words to the woman caught in adultery--saving her from execution but telling her to "Go and sin no more," should be the Christian's example.
Please no blood washing, it is too difficult to remove from clothing.
Your job as a christian living in a free society is to stop trying to push your insane religious beliefs onto people who don't want them.
Do you value someone's right to NOT be a christian? Or does everyone HAVE to be a christian? If you answer the latter, you are as dangerous and mentally retarded as the muslim fundamentalists whom you fear.
RE: " I know you know that you will refuse any evidence I have and would put forth, for you hate God and therefore the very existence of Him. Don't worry, though. Others have this same feeling before getting saved. So don't think there is not hope for you!"
You don't have any evidence. You have a crusty old book written by ancient camel herders who thought that the earth was the centre of the universe, and a belief that yours is the one only true religion. That is all you have.
I can't hate something which I don't believe to exist. What I do dislike is religious nutcases wanting to kill each other over their silly books and putting the rest of the sane population of the world at risk.
RE: " I do not despise you asking questions. Especially since the Bible tells me that the wicked will be punished, but if the righteous don't warn them, then their blood will also be on the hands of the righteous. This is my warning to you, and I'm happy to do it: for my sake, for God's sake, and for your sake. "
If god existed and I don't believe any of them do, I wouldn't worship it. I wouldn't worship a god that supposedly killed every first born child in Egypt no matter what reason he dreamt up to do it.
It is inexcusable. It is barbaric. It is immoral and it is sadistic. I wouldn't obey any supposed god who demanded my worship or it would send me to a place where I was tortured forever.
I wouldn't obey any person who did things like that and I wouldn't obey any god who did things like that.
That being would be worse than any brutal dictator that mankind could imagine. It would be a monster and worthy of my distain and scorn, not my worship.
1. incapable of reason???? Forgive me but if this is a joke I dont get it.
2.May I subjest re-reading my post, I said inherent knowledge. God said dont do it, thus they knew.
3.Rely's on point 2 and is thus now invalid, but as a side point, considering that they were alive, I think they had knowledge of life.
4-7. Rely's on previous points and are thus invalid, however, you are forgetting that the God of the Bible is not in time. Past, present, and future dont exist.
Simply because God did not wish to make puppets or robots to praise Him, but rather a being that would have a choice whether or not to worship Him. You must remember that in the biblical worldview man was created in the image of God. Thus man is personal, intellegent, and has the capasity to reason, to think for himself.
That's exactly what this god of xian mythology wants...puppets to praise him. Obedient little puppies to lick his feet or he will drown his little pets in the pits of hell. It is not a choice if one is condemned for eternity for not making the "right" choice. That is a manipulation via threats and scare tactics.
Adam and Eve simply did not have an inherent knowledge of good and evil, as all men do today, but God told them NOT to eat the fruit, thus they knew they were NOT to do so.
Again, Adam and Eve were god's little pets and really had no choice of their own. It had to be gawd's way or the highway.
This god of xian mythology is such a prankster the way he is constantly setting people up to step into booby traps he sets up for humans to stumble into. This gawd is said to have made everything, therefore he must have made satan, devils, evil and all that scary stuff in the bible.
If one took the time to study World Mythologies with an open mind,then believers may begin to doubt the believed "reality" of their superstitious beliefs. Mythology and World Religions along with Astronomy and history are things that made me question my xian beliefs until I finally realized just how absurd and silly humans are. (Although quite imaginative, I must say.)
RE under the mercy:
Adam and eve were innocent, pure and good" according to your description.
They had no knowledge of good and evil. If they had no knowledge of good and evil, they had no idea that it was wrong to disobey god.
They had no knowledge that the snake was evil, and they had no knowledge that it was wrong to listen to the snake.
They also had no knowledge that to die would be a bad thing, as having knowledge of what death is, requires knowledge of what life is.
And having knowledge of what good is, requires knowledge of what evil is.
They had no way of being able to know that it was bad to disobey god. Remember, their eyes were only "opened" AFTER they had eaten of the apple, not before.
It was only then that they were aware of the consequences of their actions.
RE: Stardust
"That's exactly what this god of xian mythology wants...puppets to praise him"
Puppets dont disobey the one controling them.
"Obedient little puppies to lick his feet or he will drown his little pets in the pits of hell. It is not a choice if one is condemned for eternity for not making the "right" choice. That is a manipulation via threats and scare tactics."
I would suggest a study of the Bible before an interpritation, man is not condemned for not making the "right" choice, but for sinning. According to God you were BORN condemned, Christ just provided a way out.
RE: beep
Why are you simply repeating what you said a few posts ago? I would suggest reading my last two posts.
Concerning knowledge:
Let me put this in caps, I am not trying to be rude just making sure you notice it this time.
INHERENT knowledge.
P.S. As a side note, I have noticed that before me and KA your blog was mostly commented on by aithests. If you would prefer that I dont post on your site in the future please simply tell me and I will be happy to oblige. I realise you may not want your site to turn into a creation vs. evolution debate.
RE: under the mercy
RE: "I said inherent knowledge. God said dont do it, thus they knew."
They had no knowledge of good and evil. If they had no knowledge of good and evil, they could not know that it was wrong to disobey god.
Where in the Bible does it say that they had NO knowledge of good and evil, or that they could not understand the concept?
Gen 3:6 "the woman saw that the tree was good for food"
BTW, the word "know" or "knowledge" in the verses mean reconize (Strongs exhaustive concordance).
RE under the mercy:
RE: "Where in the Bible does it say that they had NO knowledge of good and evil, or that they could not understand the concept?"
Genesis 3:22 "And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
The story goes that before adam and eve ate of the tree of knowledge, they had NO knowledge of good and evil, they had no wisdom.
So, how could eve know in Genesis 3:6 that the fruit of the tree was good for gaining wisdom? (gaining the knowledge of good and evil, if it isn't until Genesis 3:22 where she gains the knowledge of good and evil?
Genesis 3:6 "When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it."
She couldn't have known what wisdom was as she hadn't received wisdom yet. She only received wisdom AFTER eating the apple not before it.
WISDOM : the quality or state of being wise; knowledge of what is true or right coupled with just judgment as to action; sagacity, discernment, or insight.
Sorry, but "the story goes" is not an adaquite source.
"and ye shall be as God, knowing GOOD and evil."
"the woman saw that the tree was GOOD for food"
The word "good" in both passages are the EXACT same word in the original text, thus adam and eve COULD understand the concept of good. The difference between the two is the the word KNOWLEDGE used to precede "good" in the first passage.
The word knowledge tells us that man now has an inner concience, he inherently knows good from evil. (I noticed you listed "kindness" which is considered "good" as something that attracted you.)
Wisdom??? why are you talking about wisdom, the topic is knowledge.
"She couldn't have known what wisdom was as she hadn't received wisdom yet."
The logic then follows: one can never understand or desire something one does not have. right...
"and ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil."
"the woman saw that the tree was good for food"
The word "good" in both passages are the EXACT same word in the original translation, the key therefore is the KNOWLEDGE of good and evil.
RE: "Sorry, but "the story goes" is not an adaquite source."
Well, I showed you from the bible that this WAS the story.
According to the bible this is the sequence of the relevant events.
Genesis3:4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
(So eve was told that she would know the difference between good and evil if she ate of the apple. She obviously didn't know the difference yet because she hadn't eaten the apple yet. If she didn't know the difference between good and evil, she couldn't have known that it was evil/bad to eat the apple.)
Genesis 3:6 "When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it."
(So eve was told that the apple was desirable for gaining wisdom. It is obvious that the bible uses the words "knowing good and evil" and "for gaining wisdom" to mean the same thing because in the previous passge, G3:4 eve will know the difference between good and evil if she eats of the apple and in G3:6 it says that she will gain wisdom if she eats of the apple. She couldn't have known what wisdom was or what good and evil was, as she hadn't eaten the apple yet. So, once again, she couldn't have known that it was evil/bad to eat the apple.)
Genesis3: 11 And he said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?"
(So eve only knew the difference of good and evil AFTER she had eaten the apple, as she didn't know that she was naked before. She gained this wisdom AFTER she ate the apple.)
Genesis 3:22 "And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
(So adam and eve only gained the knowledge of good and evil AFTER they had eaten of the apple, they had no idea what good and evil was before that time. They gained this wisdom AFTER they ate the apple.)
If they only gained the knowledge of good and evil after they ate the apple. If they only acquired this wisdom after the eating of the apple, they obviously did not know that it was evil/bad to eat the apple in the first place.
Kingdom Advancer:
I know this is far along, but as the OTHER KA, gotta say it:
1.) Look at the nearest building and/or entire city. How do you know there was a builder? Wait, answer the question. Look at the building: how do you know there was a builder? The building is proof that there was a builder.
Now, look at the nearest painting (and try to avoid abstracts. ;)). How do you know there was a painter? Because of the painting.
Examine the computer you are using. Would you dare to risk admission into a mental hospital by claiming that no one made the computer--but it just appeared, over a course of millions of years, of course? The same goes for your car: perhaps the engine, windows, steering wheel, brakes, tires, brake fluid, axle, frame, body, seats, pedals, radio, muffler, exhaust pipe, spark plugs, windshield wipers, air conditioning, heating, radio speakers, 6-CD changer, and everything else just jumbled together (possibly from an explosion) and created a perfect car? If you believed this, you better also believe that your reputation is going down the drain.
The Swiss watch is a good example. If you took all of the pieces--separately--of a Swiss watch, put them in a plastic bag, and shook them continuously (created a "Big Bang"), how many millennia do you think it would take to get a functioning Swiss watch? Actually, we don't measure those amounts of time in millennia. We call it "infinity" or "eternity."
I then contend, that each designer is constrained by the physical laws that constrain the designed.
Toss a watchmaker & a watch off a tall building, & see the result.
You've borrowed an analogy from Fred Hoyle, I see. How typical.
Evolutionists don't maintain that everything just 'sprang' up. It's obvious, watching growth on this world, that everything is done in increments. & sometimes evolution goes backwards, forwards, or sideways.
Debunked in 1, but I'll go on:
This is as foolish as saying that the builder is made in the image of the building; the painter in the image of the painting; the carmaker in the image of the car; and the computer-engineer in the image of the computer. RIDICULOUS!
That is complete sophistry. If you watch any Disney film, for instance, anthropocentrism is a part of the human psyche. Witness the cat person saying, "Oh, she thinks she's people!" Children are taught by playing w/teddy bears that bears are cute & cuddly. It's projection.
The third way in which your argument crumbles is that all religions do not--as you say-- create a designer in humans' image and decide to worship it as a god. Yet, not all religions do this: in fact, most religions don't. The Indians is just one group of people who worshipped the planets. Hindus worship animals, believe in reincarnation, and eventually becoming a part of the nothing-ness of the universe. Buddhists desire to become part of the "Great Force." Muslims do not believe in a personal god. Satanists worship Satan as a god, despite the fact that even they don't think he created the universe. Deists believe--like the Muslims--in an impersonal god. Agnostics don't know if there's a god, and wouldn't know what He's like if there was One. Others worship nature as a whole. Some cults worship demons. Atheists--whether they be Communists, socialists, Fascists, or liberals--often worship the leaders of their causes.
& yet to some degree, each of these deities have human characteristics - i.e., chase women/men, have human bodies w/animal heads. Satanists, as a rule, really don't worship satan. Moreover, it's primarily Occidental, that deities resemble humanity.
The fact is, the Judeo-Christian view of God has existed for six thousand years or more--the longest thriving view of God out there. If any view was credible on God, it would be this one. In fact, in those days it could probably be said that the existence of God was a given, especially to the Jews, since He talked to them, punished them, rewarded them, rescued them, and instructed them.
Argument from antiquity - logical fallacy.
Could it be that the xtians have squelched, destroyed, persecuted many others into oblivion? Hmmmm?
The fifth and final place in which you even lack authority in your argument is that you don't have a satisfactory replacement theory. The Theory of Evolution is so full of holes. The fact that any educated person believes in it is virtually incomprehensible, unless you explain it with the Bible, that says that men love the darkness rather than the light.
So wrong, so many problems.
Evolution answers many (but not all) questions. The fact that any educated person disputes it shows that person isn't educated at all. The main problem w/it is this: it reduces mankind to a simple component, instead of glorifying him as the penultimate.
We are not the glory of anything. We just are.
lol,
A to B to C to A to B to C...
Can you please stop repeating youself and actually address the points in my post? This is about the 5th post where you have ignored what I have said and simply restated your position.
RE: under the mercy:
Did you make a point?
I guess thats a no...
Correct, you made no point.
Post a Comment
<< Home