God Is Dead

Alsharad

Ahh!!
Occam CHOOSES to go to hell.
How so?
Well
He does not believe the god described by christianity exists. OR heaven or hell
as described by such.
Now
Why does he not believe it?
Because god gave him reason.
And his reason says that the only christian god/heaven/hell. He has ever experienced are human words or words in a book.
Never as things in themselves/phenomena in reality.

Occam sees the exact same 'existence' of the christian god in reality.
As he does of Zues or Odin.

He cannot reasonably say that the god of the bible exists..Any more than he can say Zues exists [or not]
He cannot say a thing is 'fact'. When he has no information to show it as such. According to his god given reason
This is logic.

So he is to burn forever.
For being what he is...
A thinking being.

It seems to occam. That only those who do not question.
Or who accept a set of concepts without question
[because the 'want' to]
Can go to a christian heaven.
Everyone else, those that see no evidence of a christian god or have no
desire such a being to exist , goes to hell.

Occam has no desire to believe in a being that would torture forever.
Anyone.
The concept of eternal torture is to occam,, pure evil..

By the way,,what if a person has never been given the opportunity
to 'choose to'. Has never even heard of christianity
[example: everyone who lived before 1AD]

God is the law giver...?
Who's responsibility is it then. To make sure everyone knows the laws?

His...
And so far he is a disaster.

Occam

 

I am sure that you recognize that just because you disagree with a premise doesn't mean that the premise is untrue.

You are applying a metaphysical reality when you use your mind to apply logic. The mind is a metaphysical reality (even if it is an illusion, the illusion is a metaphysical reality). You say you have reason and then delve into your personal experience. The fact is that there are things that exist wholly beyond your experience, but not outside your capacity to think about it. There is more to existence than experience. If you agree at all, then you must give a more compelling argument then "I have never experienced it." If you say that there is only experience (which is empiricism, by definition), then you will have a hard time saying that your own mind exists (since you cannot sense it empirically). You could say that you have not experienced God in the same way that you experience non-empirical realities (like thought or, possibly, emotion). However, if you follow that line of reasoning then someone who says that they have experienced God that way has as much evidence for God's existence as someone who hasn't.

This alone could spark such a huge debate as to be worthy of another thread. Needless to say, I disagree. For a list of evidences though... well... here's a short list:

The resurrection of Christ
The miracles of Christ (i.e. specific, in-context, purposeful)
The very character and words of Christ
The self-understanding of Christ
The very super-human complexity of Christ's life and words
The changed lives of the apostles
The explosive growth of the early church, in a very hostile environment
The conversion of skeptics/enemies (e.g. Thomas, Saul/Paul)
The radically new, yet balanced ethics of the young church.
The messianic prophecies (e.g. birthplace of Jesus, nature of death)
The "regular" prophecies (e.g. specific predicted international events in OT prophets)
The miraculous birth of Israel from Egypt
The miraculous continued existence of Israel as a people though history
The miracles in the OT (i.e. specific, in-context, purposeful)
The advanced character of the Mosaic Law (both content and argumentation)
The practical impossibility of alternative explanations for the above.
The practical impossibility of consistent atheism: the meaning, purpose, value of life.
Evidence for immortality of the soul
The argument from change
The argument from Efficient Causality
The argument from Time and Contingency
The argument from degrees of perfection
The argument from error-detection-standard
The argument from the definition of the Problem of Evil
The Design argument
The Kalam argument (e.g. whatever begins to exist has a cause)
The argument from contingency
The argument from the world as an interacting whole (e.g. "uni-verse")
The argument from miracles (general form)
The argument from the existence of consciousness
The argument from truth (requiring an eternal mind)
Argument from the origin of the idea of God
Ontological argument (various forms)
The Moral Argument
The argument from conscience
The argument from desire for the Ultimate and eternal
The argument from aesthetic experience or beauty
The argument from religious experience
The common consent argument
The argument from the character of human language
The argument from predictability of natural law
The presuppositional argument concerning knowledge
The self-consistency of the system
The predictive power of God's moral instructions in the Bible
The survival of the scriptures in history
Answered prayer and changed lives.

Now you can debate these to differing degrees, but keep in mind that in each argument above, the Judeo-Christian position is either the most plausible conclusion, or at least a distinctly possible conclusion.

It is good that you are being reasonable. Keep in mind though, that if you have logic and you come to an untrue conclusion, then there is a flaw in your logic. So, state your premises and then ask if your own premises are true. Here's the hard part (for me too), you have to recognize your own prejudices and approach it from the perspective that the other guy might be right and you might be wrong.

No, for rejecting the offer God has given you. Only a thinking being can accept it.

If you cannot see evidence (of any type, not just for God), then there are three options, you are either blind, you shut your eyes and refuse to see the evidence, or there is no evidence. How do you know you are not blind or that your presuppositions force you to reject the evidence that is there? Until you can justify that there is no evidence, you could very well be blind or in denial. Of course you could prove that you are not blind or that you do not refuse to see the evidence, but you will have a hard time proving one, if not both, of them without reconciling to the statement "I'm just not..." or "I just don't believe I am..."

Please note that this is not a personal attack. It is simply a clarification of your position. If I am wrong, please tell me how and why.

I am sorry that you think this is true. I must also point out that you are begging the question.

If the Christian God (TCG) exists, then morality is not relative to the individual.
If morality is not relative to the individual, then any non-diety's opinion of what is evil is not relevant to the question of whether Hell's existence is actually evil.
Therefore if TCG exists, any non-deity's opinion of what is evil is not relevant to the question of whether Hell's existence is actually evil.

If TCG does not exist, then morality is relative.
If morality is relative, then anyone's opinion of what is evil is totally relevant to the question of whether Hell's existence is actually evil.
However, if TCG does not exist, then then there is no Hell.
Therefore, any opinion of Hell is irrelevant because a thing that does not exist has no moral content at all.
Therefore, opinions of Hell both relevant and non-relavent. This is inconsistent.

Here is a summation:
If TCG exists, then Hell exists and is not evil (unfortunate, but not evil).
If TCG does NOT exist, then Hell does not exist and your opinion of its moral implications are irrelevant.
Your position that a loving God would not create Hell has been shown to be in error. A loving God could definitely create Hell and, if just, would be *required* to create it. He would also be obligated to provide a way to avoid it. He did in the person of Jesus Christ.

The question is really not relevant to the discussion to the existence of God. If TCG exists he is just and those who haven't heard will be dealt with justly. The Bible says that Abraham had faith and it was counted to him as righteousness. He was saved by his faith that the messiah *would* come. There is also Melchizadech, who was a priest-king of God. He was not a Hebrew or even of Abraham's line at all, yet Abraham paid tithe to him as unto God. If TCG exists, we can be sure that he will take care of those who have never heard. If He doesn't exist, then it doesn't matter.

Yep. And he gave us several ways to find Him. In Romans 2:11-16 it speaks about those who have never heard the Law of God and how they will be judged according to the law that is written in their hearts. The Law written in their hearts is the knowledge of right and wrong. Perhaps God's judgment of those without a proper knowledge of Him is included there where it says that they will be judged according to their own consciences that "bear witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them." All I know is that God will do what is right and the only way to have your sins forgiven is through Jesus.

That is opinion. If it is a statement of fact, then please provide your proof.

 

Dear Occam,

Yet another wonderful surgery with your sharp razor, an enthralling post!

Thank you.



It is always better to reason out things than being a blind believer.

And like you I also could never understand this hell and heaven thing. If we go as per the believers then God should be the most compassionate, merciful and benevolent one. How does the question of hell or heaven come? If God is our father, master and the dearest I can not think of any father sending his children to hell no matter what they do.



And first of all what are these heaven and hell ? Mysteries like God himself ?



Personally, I always believed in energies which can not be seen but their presence is manifested in some forms. I always considered that there is some supernatural power, something that can not be seen but experienced. I have many such personal experiences which can not be explained. Like Nostra Damus who could see future. How? We do not know.



My teacher(Guru), who initiated me into the spiritual world, is somebody whom I had watched very closely. My brief association with him(He is no more) has been my life's most wonderful time. I remember there was an wood apple tree close to his hut. Many of his devotees wanted to fell that tree because its dry leaves used to make the place dirty. He never consented saying that the tree will fall down on its own after his death. Very truly that big tree fell down seven days after his death after a short spell of rain.



One day I was sitting there in front of him, one young man came and touched his feet. He started shouting and reprimanding him saying that instead of trying to board a running train he should start earlier from home and catch a train peacefully.He also told him that everyday he wont be saved. We got the story later from that man, he came late to the station and the train had started moving. He tried to board and slipped and was nearly going in between the gap between the running train and the platform.He felt that somebody pulled him out and he fell on the platform.



Once it was peak of summer and that day it was extremely hot. We were sitting in front of him and discussing about the abnormal heat, he suddenly said, "I will die on one such afternoon.It will be very hot and clear sunny day but do not worry at the same time it will be raining." He died after two years and it all came true.


These are not from hear-say,all are my personal experiences.
Like these there are many other things that I have personally experienced.



I would appreciate your views on this.



With love...........Kumar.

 

Alsharad

Correct.
His belief system is based in reason/logic and method. and also on the synerg of this and human mind..its called inuition.If such a system cannot see evidence that the god of the bible is anymore than words...
Then all occam can do is say that the christain god may exist.
This in no way supports the idea that said gods moral code exists.

Yes there is more existence than experience. For all beings.
No . "Occam reasons therefore he exists. And thus a reality exists."
This is an absolute subjective AND objective FACT. It is 'direct' empericism with deductive twist. 'Direct' empiricism is that experienced without intervening senses. The experience of it. Is the FACT of it.

No. occam has experienced NO existent phenomena that are connected to the bible description of god.
If NONE of occams capabillities. Perception, logic. reason. exct.
See any existent phenomena related to the bible god..
Then why would he believe such exists?

Firstly, occam does not relate christ to the christian church.
Jesus was a great man...
When did he say his name could be used by an organisation that
only mouths his philosophy...?
And then burns people alive.
If jesus returned today. And found out what humans had done in his name.
He would never stop throwing up.
Where does christianity get off on stealing a mans good intentions.
A mans philosophy.
And tuning them into an empire that has lasted 2000 years.
PLAGARISM.

All the points you make..Occam could assign to other causes.
All the talk about what jesus was.. is just talk
There is NO evidence of ressurection but for human words.
Or miracles.
All words.
Other concepts are expalinable by other means..All of them.
None need be connected to any religion...whatsoever.

If you wish to speak of specific examples...go for it..

Yes ... possible...
But hardly the most plausable..Occam can remove 9/10ths of your list
as related to any religion at all..in a few minutes...

Occams reason and logic...Are ultimately..for him and us all.
Arbited by reality.
He is reasonable because reality is based on reason.

What if the thinking being has never been offered the choice?
Occam never has.
His understanding of the choice is purely from reffenced info.
Not experience.
He has been in a chuerch half a dozen times in his life.
He was offered no choice.
Not by any god..
If no god has offered occam the choice as you say..
Then he will just have to make his own

If some psycho god sends him to hell for being reasonable...
Then thats the way of it.
At least he had a period of freedom in this world to EXIST.
And learn
Before his potential is thrown in the trash by being sent to hell to suffer forever.
Any god that wastes for no reason..is not too smart by it's own laws of reality. And any god that that can see any purpose for eternal torture.
Is psychotic
It achieves what? [nothing. it never ends , so there is no result]

Occam sees no evidence...
His theory is that a god cannot be defined untill there is existent evidence for such..There is to occam . No verifiable existent evidence for the god of the bible.

Occam sees no personal attack..

Sorry, but statemants like
"Your position that a loving God would not create Hell has been shown to be in error. A loving God could definitely create Hell and, if just, would be *required* to create it. He would also be obligated to provide a way to avoid it. He did in the person of Jesus Christ."
[/quote]Are we as a species some creature that requires pavlovian conditioning?
Do good,, go to heaven.
Do bad. go to hell.

Please elaborate how a god of love is 'required' to create a hell.
Occam argues that a hell is required because a bunch of self seving sons of bitches in 800ad decided it was a good way of getting people to do what they want..
Where does jesus say that any who do not accept him as savior.Who
choose their own path..will go to a hell?
Where does jesus EVER USE the word HELL.
Nowhere.

So where does hell come from?
Controllers.

Please, dont quote the ink stains in a book as any sort of proof.
If any who never hear the mesage of christ as the bible describes it.
Are judged fairly as you say.
Then why have a test at all?
Obviously
God does not need to test us. He sees our hearts.
So why ANY test?

The test is a farce... God is so incompetent as to be unable to make sure all the players even know the rules.
Actually.The church is incompetent for inventing a tale that logic can refute.
where were the jesuits when all the important stuff was being made up?

Yes TCG may exist.
And so may Zues and odin.
All exist to occam , as logical probabillities.
Logic can be used to show that such a god may or may not exist.
But not that it does. [or does not]

Occam sees direction.
Is this a verification of a god? possibly

Occam

 

You could please demonstrate the logic you have used. So far your argument seems to be:

I see evidence of a higher power, therefore there is probably higher power.
I do not see evidence of the Christian God, therefore the Christian God does not exist.

Both arguments are fundamentally flawed. Even if the argument is valid, you consistently fail to prove your premises as true. You simply assert that they are true. If the above is your argument, then you argument is invalid and therefore unsound. The conclusions might be true, but you cannot use the above arguments to support your conclusion. If you are using logic then you will have either deductive or inductive arguments in favor of your position. Please outline your arguments and detail the method by which you are drawing your conclusions.

Look, here's a fun argument for God. God (at least the Judeo/Christian/Islamic standards) by definition would have to be non-contingent. Anything that is non-contigent is either logically necessary or logically impossible. God is logically possible, therefore God is logically necessary.

So if it is possible for God to exist, then He MUST exist. You said that it is possible, so you are bound to either admit that He MUST exist or you are irrational.

Anyway, that is not really a part of my response to your post, just a little interjection.

Wrong thread

I was simply saying that if God exists, then morals would be absolute. If He doesn't, then usind the idea that creating Hell would be 'evil' as an argument against the existence of God would be non-sensical since Hell would not exist and 'evil' would be totally subjective.

Or it could be that the existence of reality is an a priori synthetic truth.

But my point was that if the only argument you use to 'disprove' the Christian God is that you have not 'experienced' God, then you have a very weak argument because anyone who *has* experienced the Christian God can make just as strong a claim as you can. Actually, their position is stronger than yours. Why? Because not experiencing something does not, in any way assist in showing that said thing does not exist. Experiencing it, however, gives evidence of said thing's existence. They have evidence that you do not.

You have yet to show your logic in any formal sense. Your arguments so far seem very weak. Could you please clarify your position. How do you logically conclude that God exists, but that it is not the Christian God.

And what philosophy was that? What did he say? What did he teach? Why do you say that Jesus was a great man?

You are using ad hominem.

Again, what philosophy was that? What did Christ claim?

To the best of my knowledge, they have always attributed their teachings to Christ. If they claimed the teachings to be their own invention without acknowledging the originator of the ideas (Christ, in this case), only THEN it would be plagiarism.

There is NO evidence or have you simply seen none? We could get into the evidences, but that would probably need to be another thread. Needless to say, there IS evidence. I do not think your presuppositions and prejudices will allow you to recognize it as evidence, but there IS evidence none-the-less.

Except that some of them only work for the Judeo-Christian (and maybe Islamic) ideas of deity. That narrows it down and it DOES exclude several other religions.

Not trying to be a smartass here. Please provide a list of those that are not related to religion at all, by that I mean that they cannot have any religious implications.

Other way around, Occam. Reality is what is. Something is true if it is agreement with reality. Reason is a method of determinig what is true.

That's good to hear.

Why not? Wouldn't it be in your own self-interest to make sure that certain gods (especially if these gods have a hell to where non-believers go) did not exist? Religions make certain claims. It is irrisponsible of the skeptic to dismiss the possibility of the claims because they are from an organized religion. Note that I am not saying you do that, simply that it would be irrisponsible if you did.

But you didn't answer the question. How do you know that your inability to see the evidence comes neither from a failure in your reasoning nor from false presuppositions? How do you know that you are seeing clearly?

Again, please detail this process.

I absolutely agree with you here.

No, it has nothing to do with conditioning. We are ALL going to Hell unless someone takes the punishment for us. We can choose to accept the payment that God provided or we can pay ourselves. It is our choice. Hell hasn't thing one to do with conditioning us one way or another.

Here's two explanations (note that they are not contradictory explanations, both could be true). The thing to remember is that God is not only the God of love, He is the God of justice.

1) A loving God wants what is best for us, but He also respects our wishes. If we do not want to be with Him, then He has created a place completely devoid of His presence (Hell) and we can choose to go there. He doesn't want us too, but He loves us so much that He is willing to let us go where we choose. He respects our decision and, as the origin of love, let's us have our way.

2) A God of justice would have to punish those who offend His moral laws and His holiness. He might not WANT to, but justice demands that the punishment be equal in scope to the offense. The offense in infinite in scope, so the punishment must be also. God's justice commands it, God's love allows it.

Now, you might say that God doesn't have to be just. If that is the case, 1) we are not talking about the Christian God and 2) we now have a God who would FORCE people to come to heaven. He would want what was best for us regardless of what we wanted. Heaven would be far better than Hell, so everyone would go to Heaven even if it was against their wishes. Could you follow a God that was loving but unjust? I couldn't.

 

You are mistaken. Here is a short list quotes:

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matthew 10:28)

As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. (Matthew 13:40-42)

And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. (Mark 9:43, 44)

And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. (Matthew 25:46).

Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. (Matthew 25:41,46)

The rich man also died, and was buried; and in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. (Luke 16:22-24).

Umm... so none of the recorded speeches of Christ are factual? If not, what did Jesus actually teach? How do you know? To the best of my knowledge, the Bible is the only documentation of his teachings.

I think you are speculating. Could you please document your case with historical evidence?

Please let's keep it civil. The tone of this statement is condescending at best. There is no need for that. You could just as well say "Please don't use the Bible as proof." But that aside, I was not using it as proof per se, but was simply answering you question.

What test are you talking about? I never mentioned a test.

Aren't you the same Occam saying that there is no absolute moral law? What simple laws are you talking about?

Occam, all of logic and reason is 'words.' You refuse to accept a rational proof and there will be no empirical evidence of a non-empirical God. You then talk about how logic and reason will lead us to truth. Stop being inconsistent. If logic can lead to truth, then you have to accept the rational proofs as evidence or you have to disprove them by showing them to be inconsistent or untrue.

What 'psuedorationalities' have I spouted? Please detail the offense and then draw a clear conclusion on how my arguments are unsound.

And again, that doesn't mean that He doesn't exist.

 

Alsharad,

I'm curious; what evidence do you believe there is for your god's existence?

Your arguments pretend at logic, but at their core lies the basic assumption that your god exist. If that assumption is not blindly accepted, your logic falls of it's own weight.

What is the reason to accept that assuumption?

 

Yeah Alsharad, each of your reply always add new (and mostly unrelated) data and have a double-standart with your reasoning: it doesn't matter if what you say rely on faith but there is always a problem with Occam's logic.

For example using the Bible as source of evidence and facts *IS* absolutely right, unquestionable. But, OF COURSE, everything else is questionable.

How can you say you use reason and logic to get to the conclusion God exist if you take for granted that some book is True as the first principle ?

BTW you're talking about things totally unconnected to the Universe: Hell, Heaven, TCG, etc... We have no direct experiences concerning these, just words that came from a handful of people and saved in a book.
Before trying to argue if the universe is like described in the Bible there should first be a RATIONAL CONCEPT made from the Bible alone and in it's entirety.
Then when you have your Christian Theory you can expose it and argue with pure logic. So far, there is no actual Christian Theory that can be exposed to reason/logic for real but only an individuals' shaky Set of Beliefs that have nothing to do with reason in the first place.

Go ahead pull a concept out of the Bible (*good luck*) that is arguable. For now there is nothing to disprove with logic and reason, just mudd-slinging over a couple of beliefs.

 

Yeah Alsharad, each of your reply always add new (and mostly unrelated) data and have a double-standart with your reasoning: it doesn't matter if what you say rely on faith but there is always a problem with Occam's logic.


For example using the Bible as source of evidence and facts *IS* absolutely right, unquestionable. But, OF COURSE, everything else is questionable.


It doens’t appear to me that Alsharad is using any passage in any way shape or form, as unquestionable facts, it only appears that passages are used as answers to questions that presuppose the Christian God’s existence and/or the reliability of the Bible. In these cases, quoting Bible is not only a valid practice, but an expected one. For example, Occam claimed that Christ never mentioned Hell, and Alsharad provided verses proving otherwise. In this case I see no inconsistency with Alsharad quoting of the Bible, and your criteria.


How can you say you use reason and logic to get to the conclusion God exist if you take for granted that some book is True as the first principle ?


This is not entirely true, for example He mentions: The presuppositional argument concerning knowledge, The argument from desire for the Ultimate and eternal, The argument from conscience, The Moral Argument, Ontological argument, Argument from the origin of the idea of God, The argument from truth, The Kalam argument, The Design argument, Evidence for immortality of the soul, The practical impossibility of consistent atheism, etc… These, among others, do not require some book to be taken as the first principle.


BTW you're talking about things totally unconnected to the Universe: Hell, Heaven, TCG, etc... We have no direct experiences concerning these, just words that came from a handful of people and saved in a book.


This is not valid reasoning, for one, it completely ignores recent testimony of those who have claimed experience to these “things totally unconnected to the Universe” (be they valid or not). Second, in order to be consistent, you must also discard all other recorded human experiences, which would leave you with very little knowledge. A far better method is to examine the evidence surrounding the claim.


Before trying to argue if the universe is like described in the Bible there should first be a RATIONAL CONCEPT made from the Bible alone and in it's entirety.
Then when you have your Christian Theory you can expose it and argue with pure logic. So far, there is no actual Christian Theory that can be exposed to reason/logic for real but only an individuals' shaky Set of Beliefs that have nothing to do with reason in the first place.


I believe that what you require here is far beyond the space, time, and comprehension of any one Christian writer here. The Christian Worldview is probably far more complex than any other, and would require many many volumes to explain in a systematic way.


Go ahead pull a concept out of the Bible (*good luck*) that is arguable. For now there is nothing to disprove with logic and reason, just mudd-slinging over a couple of beliefs.


It’s apparent that you do not believe the Bible is divine in origin, but please realize that certain questions regarding Christianity, require using Christianity’s source: the Bible. If you don’t like this, simply don’t ask those questions! As for logical arguments, do some research on some of the above mentioned arguments.

 

"recorded" human experience ? Do we have a way to know the accuracy ? A lot of the texts we can find today is garbage (desinfo), how would we know they are if we had no multiple sources of info and ways to directly verify ?

You just said it. There is no Christian Worldview directly made from the Bible. Just various claims.
The problem is these couple claims are assumed to validate a Christian Worldview that is not even imagined. So people that argue against this ideology are trying to refute a polymorphous idea: you can define various things the way you want, you can accept or deny certain passages of the Bible, you can extrapolate with anything, etc... So what do we obtain in the end?

Christians have no system to defend. Each new discussion brings the same moot points. Result, there's no reasonable system. Just claims to accept (or not) making you buy into commandments.

What is there to learn in this ? Even if you accept some claims you just get a package of magical belief. No exploitable knowledge.
--------

"Divine" is just an adjective... Anything can be labelled divine. The only thing that matters is the quality of the information... What the Bible lack terribly.
BTW, if the Bible was so great of a source of knowledge (especially cutting-edge Truth). Why in all this time nobody created an appliable Worldview out of it ? Whether you "believe in" the Bible or not, everyone is still left to make their own conclusion or buy into a cult of choice.

This is all non-information. Whether or not you believe in it the empirically tested and scientific (what works) Universe is still the same. It may fix moot point though ("before the big bang", etc). Information helps you get a more functional worldview and create new questions.
I know this is not the purprose of christiannity... But christiannity is not knowledge, just an emotional bias with a couple rationalizations.

I'd rather stay without faith, if someone manages to create The Christian Theory then Mankind will be able to start real reasoning on this christian/biblical concept and actually learn from it instead of "becoming Christian".

 

Maybe your right, but explain to me how you believe the entire world and existence started...

Peace and Love,
Dan

 

We don't know...none of us know. It is unknowable, and that is the one thing that enflames our egos more than anything else. How did existence become?

 

Alsharad

Posts are fragmenting into hair splitting...

As stated before..Occam sees no existent verification for the god described in
the bible..[koran exct]
The bible is a point source reference and cannot logicaly stand alone as any conclusive verification..
As there is no verification of the GOM [God Of the Monotheism] observable to occam.
Then occam cannot make a rational decision as to the existent status of it.
If he cant see it.
If none can show it.
If reality shows no connection to it.
Then how would occam know it existed.?
If you can provide existent evidence. Then please do so.
Otherwise occam can refer only to the current existent evidence.. Which is the bible only.
The logical premise for the veracity of the god of the bible is that the bible says so...

Occam stated that he sees no heaven or hell. Or a christian god.
Or any effect on existent reality related to such.
Except for words in the bible.

You propose a theory.
That a god as described by a book , exists.
Yet like a billion before you.. No evidence is to be had to substantiate
the premise.
Occam simply points out. That in his experience..People believe such because they wish to. Not because there is existent evidence.
That belief is not FACT.
It is opinion.

Occam suggests there is evidence of direction in reality.
This is also opinion.


No human description of a god/direction is as of this now..Any more than a possibillity based on indicative evidence....
That is..Logically. One cannot support any logical conclusion on the existent nature of god based on the evidence observed by humanity.

Where there is insufficient data...Logic must stop.
That is agnosticism

If you can show that data..

Please do so.

If not, then how does the god of the bible have any more credentials for existing than Krishna...Or Odin?

Our Sauron?

Occam

ps

Occam suggests that the existence of reality is the ONLY TRUTH
ALL springs from it.

There can be no reason saying.."Cogito ergo sum"
If there is no reality.

Thus to say it is to also say by implication..That a reality exists.

Descartes forwarded 'cogito ergo sum'
Why, he did'nt add
And thus a reality exists..occam knows not.

But occam says it. An proposes it not as an 'a priori' statement.
But an Absolute logical/objective fact.

Any attempt to disprove the existence of reality.. Proves it absolutely.
The very asking of the question.

"does reality exist"

Proves that it does Absolutely [objective and subjective]

The question..is the answer.

 

I just wanted to point out the bible doesn't try to prove that God exists. It presumes that God exists and goes from there...

It looks like you are repeating the same thing over again. You still haven't answered my question. You see no evidence; that I believe. However, how you know that you are seeing clearly? You reject rational proofs, but you have not shown how they are deficient, nor have you given a logical reason to reject all rational proofs for God. You have evidence. Your presupposition that there is no evidence is preventing you from allowing it.

That is not true. Let's say that God is the creator of the universe. I look around and I can, at the minimum, recogize some logical truths. As such, I can deductively reason that God is capable of reasoning.

So you cannot use logic to back up your own beliefs at all? If the above is true, then you are arguing in circles. You cannot come to a logical series of beliefs. Perhaps you should refine what you mean by "insufficient data."

The ONLY truth? Are you sure? Can you back this up?

Because it is unnecessary and superfluous to his line of reasoning.

Not quite sure what you are getting at. Of course there is a reality. That has never been the issue. However, what that reality is... well... that gets to be a little more complicated.

To bring this all the way around... does anyone still promote that "lacking belief" in God is an intellectually defensible position? If so, please show how you can defend it using a logical argument.

 

Alsha, so what's your point with that ?
"God exists" is true because nobody can't prove it's non-existence? Give me a break. This fallacy has been discussed many times.

TCG has still no basis. And what's the point of trying to be rational with someone who think faith/belief goes together with reason ? The result will always be biased reasonning.

 

hey guys i got a question for you all. lets say you have ingredients for meth in front of a table. now lets say you go in a different room until the scientist brings you back in. there is meth on the table. you have two choices on how it got there:
A. magic
B. the scientist synthesized it using chemical reactions

if you chose A. magic, you probably beleive in some religion. if you chose B. reason, you probably look at things logically and are atheist.

lets call these ingredients the universe. the ingredients over time are attracted to eachother by the scientists (gravity) and over time they form meth, well in the universe all the matter was compressed until something fucked up and it ended up imploding upon itself, sending matter everywhere all over the place.

now being humans, we tend to be greedy and powerful, and lets say some smart fellow explained the beginning of time and where you'd go when you die by telling a fairytale about it and gather up many followers. soon everyone would beleive in it and the storyteller would be head of his church where his religion is taught, giving im extensive amounts of power (just look at the popes throughout history) and wealth. not a hard life eh?

or you could prove that the big bang theory started the universe, and that when you die you obviously go to where you were before you were born (and dont tell me about near death experiences, its just your brain going through all your memories you had in life before you die, kinda like a farewell party?).

 

Exactly...
And does a real crappy job of linking it's presumptions to reality.
It's as if the bible were writen by pre-scientific man...

Occam repeats himself because you answer with questions..
if occam asks "provide verification for existence of TCG."
You vere the debate to other issues..
And so he repeats himself again.
And will do so untill there is an answer
1.the evidence is provided
2.It is not.
The existent staus of TCG. Depends on evidence to support a premise.
Not logical arguement without evidential support.

Really. Explain these logical truths observed in reality [NOW] that support the existence of the christian god.
Not words in a book. But observable phenomena directly connected to the existence of said god.

Then the scientists all aver the world are argueing in circles.
A list of theories that are open.
They are open because there is insufficient data.

Bigbang theory
Evolutionary theory
Unified field theory
Quantum theory
Theory of gravity [there is no accepted human theory]
Theory of time [there is no accepted human theory]
Theory of space [there is no accepted human theory]
and the list continues for pages.

No theory/fact, including the existence of TCG. Can be called a fact.
Unless there is existent evidence and no contradiction to that evidence.
Many use reason/science to apply logic to this question.
Because it works.
And what does logic reveal...
That logic cannot determine if TCG exists..

Just as logic cannot say if there WAS a big bang.
Or that man evolved.
Or what gravity/time/space IS.

Ignorance is NO weakness. When we have a method that works.
We may not know NOW. But a NOW will come when we do.

Realty, all that exists.[as existent mass/space/energy]
Is all that exists.
Nothing exists that is not real.
Ergo
Truth.The desription of what is real.
Is only a desription of what exists.An no more.
It cannot descibe what does not exist.
Ergo.
As nothing but reality exists
And truth is a description of it.
Then reality is the only truth.

It is a set of one.

Not so.. what exists IS this line of reasoning.
Does TCG exist?

Quite correct.
Who can say they have ABSOLUTELY no belief in a god?
No human occam knows.

His arguement is that a whole lot of people have accepted the descriptions forwarded by religion of what god is..
Those descriptions are rationally ludicrous.

Occam states again.
We have insufficient data to lable ANY belief in a god as FACT
[Fact being that supported by existent verification, without contradiction]

Why is this a problem...?

Cannot we accept that as a race we just do not know enough
yet to understand a god..IT IS NO WEAKNESS.
It is just the current state of our understanding.

Were we fools before we learnt about electricity?
Before were learnt to build flying machines?
No.
Just uninformed.

The first step to understanding. Is to aceept that we are ignorant.
God will not blame us if we are ignorant and do not understand if it exists or not.
After all. Did not god make us this way?

Only a fool of a god would expect beings that he has given reason to.
To act rationally as a race after only a few score generations.
It must, if it exists, have a good laugh over our irrationalisations.
Maybe, All these debates are a product of insufficient data.
Between descriptions of what is evidence and what is not.
Between acceptence , and scepticism.
Between what was known and what may be.

Maybe reason and science are blinkered perspectives/methods.
But, as they seem to work.
The only method that does so at all. [for humans as of this NOW]
What else is to be used?

Occam

 

Antimatter:

I have not reasoned that way. I know the argument is fallacious. It is just as fallacious as the argument that says "You can't prove it so TCG does not exist." The premise has to be demonstrated as true (good luck), which will be difficult since no one can know all the evidences available in the universe.

Both arguments fail because they reason from the idea that evidence lends credence to reality. This is not an unreasonable premise. However, the argument would be better formulated as an inductive argument. As such, BOTH would be subject to additional rules (inductive logic has roughly twice as many rules as deductive logic). Still the arguments could be formed (good arguments too) because, at the heart of it, inductive arguments only show that the results are possible in varying degrees.

I think we ALL want to be biased towards the truth, correct? The point of debate is to unearth the truth (not to win). You argue with those who believe in order to clarify your own thoughts and bring your worldview more in line with the truth.

MeatWagon499:

Your analogy is severly lacking similarity. Meth, in comparison to the universe, is EXCEEDINGLY simplistic. What is the scientist analagous to? Also, you gave two options. Let's look at those options:

Magic: By this you can mean one of two things: 1) Someone cast a powerful spell that created the meth or 2) somehow, the meth just came to be without any scientific or logical explanation.

Scientist: Pretty self-explanatory here. The scientist created the meth using chemical reactions.

Now, if I choose A, how does that show that I am religious? If by 'magic' you mean 'someone cast a spell' then both of your answers include the idea that there was an intelligence that led to the creation of meth. If by 'magic' you mean that 'it just happened without explanation' then this is the atheist's choice. Note what atheism proposes (or supposes): the physical creates the metaphysical, life arises from non-life, precision order comes from chaos, etc. None of these are exaplined to any satisfactory conclusion. As far as the atheist is concerned, 'it just happened.'

So, it looks like your answers are reversed. The atheist says 'magic' and the believer says 'the scientist.'

Also note, being logical does not mean one is an atheist.

Where are you getting this idea? The theory might work as a theory, but can you show that it actually happened? Last I checked, the religions formed and then were corrupted by power hungry men, but that means that the religions were powerful BEFORE the corrupt individuals took it over. Very few (almost none, I think) of the major relion's founders ever recieved 'vast power' during their lifetimes. Some cult leaders do, but their power is generally far less impressive than the Pope's power (or Billy Graham or the Dali Lama (sp?) etc.).

That wouldn't disprove God.

You have made some pretty big assumptions here. You will have a hard time "proving" that you go to where you were before you were born.

 

Occam:

And here we go again. Let me try a different approach. There is no evidence of the type that you seek. There is no observable, testable phenomena that, upon application of the scientific method, leaves us with the positive proof that God exists. There never will be. Ever.

Now, let me tell you why this is entirely consistent with TCG.

Why did God let Adam sin? Free will. Why does God allow people to go to Hell? Free will. Why does God allow evil to exist at all? Free will. Why do bad things happen? Free will. Getting the picture? It has always been about free will. God is completely just. He will not force Himself upon us. Now you are probably wondering what this has to do with the lack of evidence. Consider what would happen if there was indisputable proof that TCG existed (this is the kind of evidence that you are looking for). What would happen? Specifically, what would happen to free will? It would vanish in an instant. No one could disbeleive and remain consistent. No one could choose to not believe. Me, personally, I think that TCG is so magnificent that any shred of this kind of proof would be utterly and completely convincing. None could disbelieve even if they wanted to. This, however, is my opinion. However, under any circumstances, this kind of proof would eliminate free will entirely. Free will is so important to God that He died for it. It is not a trivial thing for Him and He takes it VERY seriously. He would not jeapordize our free will by allowing the kind of proof you seek to exist.

So no, the type of evidence you seek does not exist (and thankfully so).

A thing cannot bring itself into existence.
A thing and its opposite cannot be true at the same time and in the same respect.
All true/false statements are either true or false.
All trees are trees.
There is no dog that is not a dog.

These are all logical truths that are observed in reality. The original question had to do with the idea that we cannot know anything about God. I said that we can draw conclusions based on the world. Specifically, there are logical truths that exist. That logical truths exist indicate that, if there is a God, He is capable of reasoning and logic. We therefore CAN extrapolate at least some of God's nature based on our own observation.

You specifically stated that logic cannot be applied when there is insufficient data. Would you say that of the above theories that you mentioned? You cannot apply logic to the theory of Gravity because we have insufficient data? That seems a little absurd to me. Here is a counter-example:

Given: There is no evidence at all for God.
Statement: God either exists or He doesn't.
Logic used: Law of Non-contradiction

I have applied logic to something for which there is no data. You statement that logic stops when we lack data is false.

An interesting argument, but, I think, a false one. You are changing the definition of truth. Truth is more than a simple description of reality. It is any statement that is in compliance with reality. "My car is silver" is descriptive, but it is only true if my car really is silver. Statements describe our reality and reality is the standard by which our statements are judged as true. Truth is a quality of a statement (or argument, or line of reasoning), not something wholly independent of statements. A statement is qualified as true or false (not having truth). If reality is the standard by which we judge truth, then it cannot, itself, be true in any meaningful sense. Let me give an example:

Red.

True or false? You can't really say. Red exists, to be sure. And red is red. But just red? The quality of redness? Is it real? Yes. Is it true? It is neither true nor false until it is put into some sort of statement.

Red is red. True.
Red is blue. False (logically, because blue has the quality of not-red and red cannot be red and not red at the same time. this violates the law of non-contradiction and is therefore false.)

Reality *dictates* truth, but saying that "reality is the only truth" is logically non-sensical.

It isn't. The problem is that we can say that some lines of thought are more reasonable than others. We can use discernment to label some things true or false based on understanding and experience. Would it make you feel better if people just said that TCG is far more likely than any other religious interpretation of God? If God were more likely than no God?

But what if we DO know enough? What if God said to us "HERE I AM"? Christians maintain that this is what has happened. If God exists, would he not want us to believe? He would want to give us enough information to make an informed decision, but not so much that our choice is removed. Justice requires that we have a choice. It is only a choice if there is something to decide between. If there is NO evidence nor any rational proofs nor historical evidence for God whatsoever, then that is as bad as God appearing before us and commanding us to worship and taking away our ability to say 'No.'

However, if God made himself known through multiple channels and made all sorts of information available and then we ignored it, He could very justifiably blame us.

 

you misunderstood it. to synthesize meth is to do things in a way that makes logical sense. saying you beleive in god would be saying that the scientist waved his magic wand and created the meth (universe). i dont get what was so hard to understand about that.

the meth didnt have to be like the universe, i only wanted to use something that would need to be created how the universe would be.

I'm an atheist, i dont know about you guys but all the atheists i hang out with and discuss religion with think it throug logically and try to explain how the universe was created. I'm sorry but I just cant beleive that god created it, that makes about as much sense as me taking a dump on my front lawn.