God.

[devonin]

Re: God.

Well, his logic is inherantly meaningless, so elaboration on mistaken premesis will just make for more mistakes.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: God.

How is it meaningless?

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Re: God.

You do see how that logic is nonsense though right?

God is said to be X, Y, Z.....

Just because some people say that doesn't make it the case. The people saying that could just be -wrong- which woudln't invalidate the existance of God at all.

Exactly. People may be wrong about what they say about a god, but that doesn't mean that a god doesn't exist. It means that the people are at fault for their beliefs. For example, some people expect god to be righteous and yet they make god to look like an evil dictator that makes them serve in a church for so long as well as some people who believe that god created hell. If you pray to such a religion that does this, wouldn't that mean that you pray to a dictator who created mischief? Perhaps I wouldn't care if you prayed to something evil or unjust, but if it's a population of people that thinks that this god (if god really was an evil dictator) is righteous, prayer contradicts their personal beliefs of righteousness. Just because everyone thinks that god has to be righteous and yet god might do bad things doesn't mean that god doesn't exist. Over all, what I mean to say is that even though certain parts of a religion may be able to be proven false, that doesn't automatically give evidence that everything else must be false.

[hayatewillown]

Re: God.

So the point is, Hayate, that your friend has basically given no proof that a deity, and the belief of a deity or deities is purely based on faith. Can we prove that he exists? No. Can we prove that he doesn't? No. Can we change the way that millions or possibly billions of people live their lives? No.

Just because your cousin's statement sounds intelligent (to you, atleast) doesn't mean that it is intelligent.

There are two ways you might be able to change our minds just a little bit:
-Tell us how your cousin proved that there is a god. In fact, do YOU understand this at all? If not, why did you post this?
-Arrange a visit with God (Whether spiritually or him visiting your house) and tell him to bring from heaven the following items:
a) a harp
b) a tuft of hair from his beard
c) a yo-yo

OK, He proved a god using Einsteins theory for one. Plus, you your self could look up proof, and from the looks of it, no one has.

The second way that you said is invalid, and considered blasphemy in my religion. You expect me to bring forth a celestial being down onto earth when he is not supposed to interfere with humans? Ha, nice try smart one. Not going to happen.

Why don't we actually act smart and put forward some intelligence people?

And by the way, wikipedia is a COMMUNITY based encyclopedia. You have to actually look. Me? I have to study, so I will return later to see if anyone intelligent actually did something.

[devonin]

Re: God.

How is it meaningless?

Well, as he said:

God is said to be all good, all loving, all forgiving, etc. God created Hell, therefore God cannot be all good, and if God is not all good, God cannot be God. Therefore, God does not exist.

Premise one: God is said to be all good, all loving, all forgiving etc.
Premise two: God created hell (Implicit in this is that hell is not good)
Conclusion: God cannot be Good
Corollary: Since God -is- Good, and God cannot be Good, God cannot be God
Conclusion: Therefore God does not exist

I find premise one faulty: Just because "some people" say that God possesses those characteristics doesn't mean he does. As a statement, it is unsupported hearsay, and since the statement doesn't represent provable truth, proceeding on the basis of its veracity seems foolish. (Argumentum Ad Populum: 'Everybody knows God is good')

I find premise two faulty: God is in fact -only said- to have created hell, and any definition we have as to what hell is like, and whether it is good or bad is also hearsay, even more unsupported because nobody has ever provably gone to hell and come back to make a valid report. (Argumentum Ad Populum again: 'Everybody knows hell is bad')

The first conclusion, that since God is good, and hell is bad, God cannot be good: I find that reasoning faulty. Even on earth, we see cases where people are punished "for their own good" and do not condemn their parents/lawgivers etc etc as evil simply because they've engaged in an action that the recipiant finds -undesireable- if I don't like eating vegetables, being forced to eat vegetables seems 'not good' to me, but clearly my dietary needs strongly reccomend I do so, and so being made to do so is actually to my benefit even though I personally disagree with the directive.

The corollary to the conclusion: Since god is good (not proven by this logic) and god cannot be good (not proven by this logic) god therefore cannot be god is faulty because it rests on unproven premesis.

The final conclusion that therefore, God does not exist is faulty. It requires us (In the midst of a proof of the nonexistance of God, no less) to simply -grant- that God is good simply because people say so, that Hell is bad simply because people say so, and that it is impossible for a good god to do a not good thing, simply because people say so.

[purebloodtexan]

Re: God.

OK, He proved a god using Einsteins theory for one. Plus, you your self could look up proof, and from the looks of it, no one has.

The second way that you said is invalid, and considered blasphemy in my religion. You expect me to bring forth a celestial being down onto earth when he is not supposed to interfere with humans? Ha, nice try smart one. Not going to happen.

Why don't we actually act smart and put forward some intelligence people?

And by the way, wikipedia is a COMMUNITY based encyclopedia. You have to actually look. Me? I have to study, so I will return later to see if anyone intelligent actually did something.

Alright then. Since you seem to understand it, tell me how Einstein's theory (Which Jewpin even explains that it's been improved on) proves the existence of a higher calling.

If he's not supposed to interfere with human affairs, then explain the concept of miracles to me.

And tell me what your comment on Wikipedia has to do with any of this. You can read Wikipedia and still be as dumb as a bad hammer.

Go ahead. Prove us wrong.

[hayatewillown]

Re: God.

Alright then. Since you seem to understand it, tell me how Einstein's theory (Which Jewpin even explains that it's been improved on) proves the existence of a higher calling.

If he's not supposed to interfere with human affairs, then explain the concept of miracles to me.

And tell me what your comment on Wikipedia has to do with any of this. You can read Wikipedia and still be as dumb as a bad hammer.

Go ahead. Prove us wrong.

Miracles were performed by Jesus ( In Christianity if anyone cares ). Jesus was the son of god, and therefore, they were the same person. For more info, god and Jesus are the same. After Jesus was crucified, he opened the way to heaven AND hell. After that, god was not supposed to interfere with humans.

In other words, even though Jesus was a part of god, Jesus sought wisdom through god, which would clarify on the father to son relationship. God did not completely control Jesus, otherwise he wouldn't of had to seek wisdom through god.

And Pure, who's "us"? Not everyone in the forums believes the same beliefs you do, or fully agrees with you. So "us" is invalid.

Oh, and the miracles were performed by the power of god given to Jesus. Jesus would pray to god to help him perform these miracles, and in Jerusalem, the stories of the miracles still remain there. It's obvious that it is not propaganda, because many of the bloodlines have people that had seen the miracles performed.

And for the person that said that since god created hell, he is not entirely good...

Thats a lie. He created hell because the archangel Lucifer wanted his own heaven and even attempted to overthrow god.

[devonin]

Re: God.

Miracles were performed by Jesus ( In Christianity if anyone cares ).

Prove it.

After Jesus was crucified, he opened the way to heaven AND hell. After that, god was not supposed to interfere with humans.

And yet being responsible for a number of miracles is -required- to become a saint...and there are a -lot- of people who have been canonized in the history of the church...so where are those miracles coming from?

Oh, and the miracles were performed by the power of god given to Jesus. Jesus would pray to god to help him perform these miracles, and in Jerusalem, the stories of the miracles still remain there. It's obvious that it is not propaganda, because many of the bloodlines have people that had seen the miracles performed.

Um...so if my great great great great grandfather passed down the story that he personally saw someone who built a ladder that reached to the moon, and discovered that it was made of cheese; simply because the bloodline of the person persists makes his story completely true?

[purebloodtexan]

Re: God.

Miracles were performed by Jesus ( In Christianity if anyone cares ). Jesus was the son of god, and therefore, they were the same person. For more info, god and Jesus are the same. After Jesus was crucified, he opened the way to heaven AND hell. After that, god was not supposed to interfere with humans.

In other words, even though Jesus was a part of god, Jesus sought wisdom through god, which would clarify on the father to son relationship. God did not completely control Jesus, otherwise he wouldn't of had to seek wisdom through god.

And Pure, who's "us"? Not everyone in the forums believes the same beliefs you do, or fully agrees with you. So "us" is invalid.

Oh, and the miracles were performed by the power of god given to Jesus. Jesus would pray to god to help him perform these miracles, and in Jerusalem, the stories of the miracles still remain there. It's obvious that it is not propaganda, because many of the bloodlines have people that had seen the miracles performed.

And for the person that said that since god created hell, he is not entirely good...

Thats a lie. He created hell because the archangel Lucifer wanted his own heaven and even attempted to overthrow god.

Since you seemed to emphasize Wikipedia earlier, let's have a look at "miracle."

A miracle, derived from the old Latin word miraculum meaning "something wonderful", is a striking interposition of divine intervention by a god in the universe by which the ordinary course and operation of Nature is overruled, suspended, or modified.

So yes, God can supposedly get into human affairs.

And you still haven't explained to me how your friend proves the presence of a higher calling using Einstein's theory.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: God.

I find premise one faulty: Just because "some people" say that God possesses those characteristics doesn't mean he does. As a statement, it is unsupported hearsay, and since the statement doesn't represent provable truth, proceeding on the basis of its veracity seems foolish. (Argumentum Ad Populum: 'Everybody knows God is good')

Um, we're talking about religion here. The only support that can be given for premises is textual, and since it is reasonable, even virtually universal, to argue that the bible states God is good, it doesn't seem to be a bad premise to start with, whether or not lots of people agree with it or not.

I find premise two faulty: God is in fact -only said- to have created hell, and any definition we have as to what hell is like, and whether it is good or bad is also hearsay, even more unsupported because nobody has ever provably gone to hell and come back to make a valid report. (Argumentum Ad Populum again: 'Everybody knows hell is bad')

Again arguing textually. According to the bible people have gone to hell and come back. The bible also gives descriptions of hell. While it is possible to contextualize the bible in a way that makes hell seem not evil, it's a reasonable and common argument that hell is evil.

The first conclusion, that since God is good, and hell is bad, God cannot be good: I find that reasoning faulty. Even on earth, we see cases where people are punished "for their own good" and do not condemn their parents/lawgivers etc etc as evil simply because they've engaged in an action that the recipiant finds -undesireable- if I don't like eating vegetables, being forced to eat vegetables seems 'not good' to me, but clearly my dietary needs strongly reccomend I do so, and so being made to do so is actually to my benefit even though I personally disagree with the directive.

You're saying that there is some objective form of "good" which human beings are generally incapable of recognizing and God is capable of recognizing. This is a reasonable premise, however from this standpoint following the classical problem of evil, you would effectively be saying that all things considered evil in the world are actually good. Now, do you really want to argue that the holocaust was good? Or rape? Or war? That is a solution to the problem of evil, just not a very popular one.

The corollary to the conclusion: Since god is good and god cannot be good god therefore cannot be god is faulty because it rests on unproven premesis.

Your entire field is unprovable. Rely on the validity of logic as your guide, not the provability of any statement.

The final conclusion that therefore, God does not exist is faulty. It requires us (In the midst of a proof of the nonexistance of God, no less) to simply -grant- that God is good simply because people say so, that Hell is bad simply because people say so, and that it is impossible for a good god to do a not good thing, simply because people say so.

You employ the tools of a skeptic with about the accuracy of a sawed-off shotgun. The bible is presumed to be the evidence, so these statements are presumed to have basis through authoritative text. Now, yes you can doubt the bible. However, if you're actually arguing theology instead of simply rejecting the entire field of theology, it's best not to argue in the way you are doing.

[devonin]

Re: God.

Er...so you think he's using the bible to prove the nonexistance of God?

The bible is only an authoratative text insofar as it is assumed to be divinely inspired. If you use God-given words to prove God doesn't exist, you are inherantly self-defeating...

[Kilroy_x]

Re: God.

If someone says "this text is the basis for claims x, y, and z", it's a reasonable course of action to examine claims x, y, and z, and search for inconsistencies and contradictions. By showing that a text doesn't make sense, you can show either that:

A: It wasn't divinely inspired
B: God's message is completely incomprehensible or contradictory to human beings following logical or rational thought.

If you accept B, as some Christians do, you either have to accept that the bible cannot be used as a basis for action when human reason contradicts it, or you have to reject reason altogether.

[devonin]

Re: God.

If someone says "I am going to prove god does not exist" and uses as a source, a book that is only a valid source is God does exist, we have a problem.

If God does exist (And thus the book is an acceptable source) any "proof" that God does not exist based on that book is faulty in some manner (be it that the person arguing was faulty in their phrasing of the argument, or interpretation of the evidence)

If God does not exist (And thus the book is not an acceptable source) any "proof" that God does not exist based on that book is (while concluding an accurate thing [ie. That God does not in fact exist]) simply a coincidence that their argument (based on faulty information) happened to lead to a conclusion that was correct.

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Re: God.

A book was written about gods some time ago from humans. First of all, there is no evidence that a god wrote this book, gave consent to this book, or met with any human beings. Second of all, we are talking about religious books written a long time ago. A religious book would only be used by a person/society to enact what they feel should be "normal" (not to mention that "normal" standards from a long time ago are different from that of today [slavery]). The book itself may be right, but there is a chance that it might be wrong (considering there is no proven connection of god to the statements). Anything that tries to counter an argument made for a religious book would be a claim that would not work because an opponent of the book could only use the text (which is hypothetical). Unless a religion contradicts itself (god is good, yet it created hell) or if a religion is proven wrong ([assuming the role of believing one god]there are many gods, not one because I met them all and you can see them for yourselves while still being alive), there is no real way to contradict a religion and even still, one part of a religion being proven wrong doesn't make everything else wrong. The bottom line is that you can't argue for or against hypotheticals, but it's best to have real evidence with 100% truth or the intent of finding 100% truth because you can have a neutral stance that doesn't involve being so one sided (bombing the World Trade Centers) and because you are always right (science so far).

[ledwix]

Re: God.

Science has always been right so far? When was this decided?