First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
Life in general
1365 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Beyond
Offline
Posted 6/2/07

SeraphAlford wrote:
All this argument you are offering is based off of a common misconception of the Christian image of God.

I’m going to clarify a few things. We are not puppets. God has plans for us but they do not always happen, as you will find if you read the bible. He knows what’s going to happen but often (more often than not in fact) wants something else to happen. Now he adds in circumstances to get the end result of the rapture and what not, but mostly he leaves us to our own devices.

Think of it like this: You plan to go to this temple at the top of a cliff. One of the monks however goes on a rampage and pushes you off the edge of the cliff. So your plan fails. Meanwhile you know your going to hit the ground. That doesn’t mean you wanted to hit the ground. You just wanted to rub a golden Buddha belly.

If you study the Christian religion we believe God has a standpoint similar to this one. In our beliefs. (This may vary from sect-to-sect, but I’m a nondenominational Christian in that I simply follow what God tells me. Sometimes through the bible sometimes through other methods. A preacher, an event, ext.)

You asked about the staple of God. Well in most religions that may be true, but in Christianity the key-note to God is not wisdom or power. In fact he actually has angels to represent such things. God is love, and love is his corner stone.

But what about all the pain and suffering in this world? Well I’ve already explained that and wont put you through the redundancy of repetition. This time.

Now the age old “Can god make something greater than him,” or “Can God microwave a burrito so hot not even he can eat it” or “Can God make a man so ugly not even he can look at him” questions. The answer is, by my personal (though not at all the exact Christian belief because this is never directly mentioned in our bible.) no. He cannot. Why? Because as I said God is simply an entity in which these things that we are calling miracles are possible. He is bound by supper natural scientific laws that we cannot comprehend. However, he is on the highest level of this, and the only way for him to make something he can’t lift is to create another level higher than his own. This being said God is at the highest reality can reach. You understand? He’s so high you can’t go higher.

Let’s look at this from a different view point. By our human logic the answer is still no. Energy cannot be created. It can only be transformed from one form to another. Matter is the same thing. Therefore God cannot make something with more energy than he already has. This being said he made existence because existence takes less energy than he has available. Though I don’t think it is at all that simple you can now asses those ridiculous questions from an intellectual standpoint.

Come to think of it those silly questions do actually limit God in a way he’s not limited. If this is an omnipotent and omniscient entity don’t you think it is at all possible for him to do something that we cannot comprehend? Remain all powerful while still making something he can’t look at, see, lift, eat, or punt? It may be possible in a way that is above our understanding with our fickle little foolish minds.

Beyond this, as I said, religion itself does not necessarily suggest that the God is an constant being. Take Greek Mythology for example. The founding “God” was Chaos, a black whole which spit all existence out, screwed Gaia and made the sky, and then poof. No more mention of Chaos. For them the first “deity” was an event. Not an entity. Do I need to clarify that better? I feel like I’m giving a poor presentation of my ideas, as they’re kind of abstract, but I really don’t know how to further simplify. If you need me too I will -try- to but that may take a moment or two of thought…

About that medical stuff. Your debate is flimsy. (not trying to be insulting here. You’re completely welcome to your beliefs and all that jazz.) Why? Because once again you don’t know enough about the religion in which you argue against. The Christians belief (coming from a nondenominational stand point that just believe what God said, and not the other added stuff of different sects) is that sometimes God says no. Plain and simple. If we do that circle thing we get a no, because we are not supposed to test God. He does not allow himself to be manipulated.

The aborted babies? Some of them he lets die, others he save but we don’t know it. (For obviously obvious reasons. ) I wonder how many more would die if God didn’t answer prayers. Now this goes to that thing we were talking about earlier. Are we puppets? Does this prayer argument counter act what I said before? Not at all. The bible says God only comes into our lives as much as we let him. So if you ask him to do something but have a subliminal block in the far reaches of our mind, said thing wont happen. Even if we don’t have a block he may still say no. A large reason he says no is actually to breed doubt. Why would he do that? “You have seen and believe so you are blessed, so how blessed are those who have not seen and do believe?” Believing in God without proof is all the more admirable. It’s faith, and God rewards it. See, there is a difference between knowing and believing.


In the bible God has been known to do ‘cruel’ things for the greater good. Now you may not consider it the greater good, but he does, and Christians trust his judgment so for us it is the greater good. However political unpolished and incorrect that may seem. Of course we’re trash for it. We’re ignorant fools, but whatever. No matter what we do we’re always going to be lesser to all the smarter and generally better atheists.

In your edit you mentioned my earlier comment. You misunderstood me. Perhaps that my fault. I meant at the mentioned time I was referring to religion in general, not that I am doing that altogether. I’m afraid I’m not willing to further this because I honestly don’t know enough about all the worlds plethora of religions to hold a respectable debate on them.

Thanks for the thought provoking argument, I await your next argument. But, I must request, put a small area between your paragraphs because that post made me glaze…



It is arguable that we are not puppets and we have free will, sure. But you see, as I've already mentioned; the Christian image of god is that of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent god that would in by all means have the ability to know what is to happen; am I not right? So here's the thing: without the existence of a free will- his plan would have a 100% success rate; a little bumps on the road here and there, but it's assured. With the free will concept in place; it creates an entirely different picture. You are free to follow or not follow his plan (giving him a 50% chance that you would follow his plan) - though if you didn't, you'd be turning your back on him. And what does the Christian philosophy say about turnin your back on god? Secondly, don't you think for an omniscient (all-knowing) being, having a plan that wouldn't work out is plain useless? People do all sorts of things for nothing, sure; but we're talking about an all-knowing being here.

About the arguement concerning the concept of ability: the definition of omnipotence leads to these certain points:
1. The ability to do anything. Meaning that if asked the question "can god do ____?" is always 'yes'
2. He can do anything that is logically possible.
3. He can do whatever he chooses to do.
4. He can do anything in accord to his nature. (i.e.god always speaks truth thus he cannot lie.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotent
You may be able to argue Augustine's idea on this but the mere point that a possibility already exists up to that point brings out the potential that in that certain cituation, he cannot manifest his omnipotence in the face of certain infinite variabilities. Being a transcendent being does nothing to excuse him from following logic since after all - he can do anything.
Thus inability to do something would bar out his omnipotence right? And correct me if I'm wrong, that would also mean this: imperfection.

I've heard this a million times (I was born into the Christian sect), god is able to answer in three ways: "Yes," "No," and "Later;" am I not right? If you look at it closely; either way god wins. Think about it. a person prays to him for a million dollars: 5 minutes after the prayer a guy knocks at his door and rewards him a million dollars and he didn't even have to join the lottery. Praise be to him! Provided the answer is "No," maybe the person didn't quite deserve the million dollars but god still answered him, right? Praise be to him! Provided the answer is "Later." The person works his ass of for 10 years in the company he is employed in and is able to save enough - a million dollars. Praise be to him? Now... say I prayed to my computer screen and that my religion tells me the computer screen answers in three ways: "Yes," "No," and "Later." Guess what? The possibilities are exactly the same. So is that with the medical feat: except that with an amputee; the answer has ALWAYS be no. I'm not asking for prosthetic limbs: I'm asking for regeneration. What if the amputee was the most deserving person on the planet; lived life as a saint. And you ask everyone to pray for him to grow his limbs back... what do you think will happen? Yes, no, later?

If we're not supposed to test god, why do we need to pray? He's all-knowing, he should already know what we need without us having to say it. Provided that the amputee really needed his legs back for him to go save the world from some unforseen threat and we all prayed for him to regain his legs back. Or let's say we just all really saw him as deserving and wanted him to grow it back. We're not testing anything; say we have complete belief he'll grow it back. Does it happen?
"If you ask for something and you have faith then you shall recieve." Right?

It's not a misconception here since I've been studying the different points of Christianity for as long as I can understand. I've been brought up the Catholic Christian way but my excessive self-questioning got the better of me. Based on experience, not all Christians are lesser and less intelligent than the atheists. I've seen a lot of atheists who don't know what the hell they believe in.

There are teachings in the bible that are worthwile use for morality but there are also a lot of them that contradict themselves in the following passages and as well as are just plain stupid:

Deut 25:11-12

11 If men get into a fight with one another, and the wife of one intervenes to rescue her husband from the grip of his opponent by reaching out and seizing his genitals, 12. you shall cut off her hand; show no pity.

1Tim 2:11-12

11Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. 12I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent.

Most probably you'd return with the argument about the errors of humanity in transcribing god's will right? You see there's a problem with that argument too. I'd talk more but my computer needs cleaning and I have to get going; I have to follow this schedule.
Posted 6/2/07

Zero20 wrote:


skygod333 wrote:

you know god exists, and ill tell you why:the one thing hes ever done for me is save me at birth.the doctor was a fuckup, no one was gonna help me,no one could help me and my mother we were an inch from our seemingly immenent dooms.but somehow we began to get better and it was not from the medicine of a doctor but the grace of god. thats the only favor i got or will ever get from god so stop saying god does not exist



AAAAHHHHH that is so sweet of god to tell u the truth it was u not god.



-laughs-
People have different opinion and beliefs. If you think there is no God, then so be it.
Others think God exist, like me, so stop forcing yours over someone else`s throat.
Posted 6/2/07
Life=CONFUSING AS HELL

Posted 6/2/07
life is random..that's all i can say!
37708 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / アメリカ
Offline
Posted 6/2/07
people dont want to face the idea that when they die they are just stuck in an empty void

thats why i believe in a soul
78167 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Japan
Offline
Posted 6/2/07

digs wrote:

Also, all the matter had to come from somewhere, meaning a supernatural phenomenon (Not saying god) had to have created it. Because logically matter cannot just form from nothing.



Sound's like William Paley's analogy of the watch. His reasoning was that it is understood that there are things of natural origin and those of intervened origin. To find a rock in the desert is to cause no alarm, but to find a watch of such intricate details in a desert leads one to believe that someone must have made it.

His philosophy basically suggests that the intricate nature of the mechanisms of the cosmos are too complicated to be deemed as simply "a matter of chance". There must have been something (or someone) that lead to the movement of events that created reality as we know it.

Of course, his theory is refuted by Christians themselves (i.e. St. Thomas Aquinas) as being a simplistic view of nature (simply acertaining that complicated intricacies is cause for divine intervention or absolute intervention as lacking proof of the existence of a divine entity of creation).

For this reason, I highly recommend St. Thomas' Quinque Viae as a philosophical approach to the dependence of creation on a divine entity (not necesarily God, but interpreted as such since he is a Christian Philosopher. The basic idea of St. Thomas was that there must be the existence of a divine entity.

I might be going off a bit here, but I guess this is just to support Digs' statement.
1365 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Beyond
Offline
Posted 6/3/07
Immortals have got to be one of the most boring people in existence. I don't like the idea of an afterlife; especially one concerning angels and people in robes. I'd rather choose reincarnation than living forever.
1365 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Beyond
Offline
Posted 6/3/07

miyuXXkanata wrote:


Zero20 wrote:


skygod333 wrote:

you know god exists, and ill tell you why:the one thing hes ever done for me is save me at birth.the doctor was a fuckup, no one was gonna help me,no one could help me and my mother we were an inch from our seemingly immenent dooms.but somehow we began to get better and it was not from the medicine of a doctor but the grace of god. thats the only favor i got or will ever get from god so stop saying god does not exist



AAAAHHHHH that is so sweet of god to tell u the truth it was u not god.



-laughs-
People have different opinion and beliefs. If you think there is no God, then so be it.
Others think God exist, like me, so stop forcing yours over someone else`s throat.


Call me if you wish a jerk for suddenly butting in like this; but I just had to mention this: belief is based on truth acceptance; meaning that whatever you deem to be true is to be your belief else you wouldn't state your life on it, right? Not to dictate but knowing full well what you believe in is just simple blind belief. Else what are you? Another unthinking part of the herd.
6687 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 6/3/07
life in general huh, well lets think hmmmmmmm.......
6687 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 6/3/07
boring at some stages

real nice at others
Posted 6/3/07

Deviance wrote:


Call me if you wish a jerk for suddenly butting in like this; but I just had to mention this: belief is based on truth acceptance; meaning that whatever you deem to be true is to be your belief else you wouldn't state your life on it, right? Not to dictate but knowing full well what you believe in is just simple blind belief. Else what are you? Another unthinking part of the herd.


Let me make it clear what I was trying to say.
People have different views on life. That`s what you think, not mine. So I don`t care.
Alright ?
I refuse to comment on the unthinking part of the herd thing.

1365 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Beyond
Offline
Posted 6/3/07
It's a way of life. Blind faith isn't a good way spend 30,160 hours of life.
Next time you go to religion class, I at least challenge you to question everything you see first. As insistent SeraphAlford is on his faith, I do commend him for taking the time to actually ponder how things work. Think of it as an alternate way to spend those 30,160 hours you spend on your faith or the x hours (x= time spent watching anime weekly * 4 (weeks/month) * 12 (months/year) * 65 - y (minimum life expectancy - (y = current age) watching anime.

Edit: I'm not shoving anything down your throat, it's just a suggestion. Whether you follow it or not is up to you. Red pill or blue pill?
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 6/3/07
@Dev.

Honestly my friend I have to call into great doubt, maybe not your study over the Christian religion, but certainly your understanding of it. Being raised in a Christian surrounding has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with knowing much about Christianity; moreover, as I understand it the Catholic and Protestant bibles do no match up as completely as people think. They spawn from the common ancestor, but the variation between protestant is the –ideal- behind the protestant sects is to follow God’s word directly. Rather it’s beneficial or not. The Catholics in their history have manipulated, destroyed, and added to the bible. One pope in Martin Luther King’s time actually spoke that “To be forgiving for sins you have to buy these indulgences from the church.” This is completely contradictory of the bible itself. At first I though this image of the Catholic Church was the result of some prejudice that I had been somehow bread into. (Note I –wasn’t- born into the Christian faith. I converted a couple years ago. This is good proof that being raised in a Christian surrounding does not mean you know a lot about Christianity, because I know, though very little, more than most people raised Christian.) The more I studied Catholic history the more I became certain. Some Catholics may be great Christians and serve God, but the Church is run a business. This is, perhaps, my opinion, but still an opinion strongly supported by fact. It was further increased whenever I spoke with some Catholics over the matter, even made a thread here on Crunchy Roll, and they themselves reluctantly agreed.

Now you talk about the bible contradicting itself. Well, my friend, your word is going up in opposition of some of human kinds most brilliant minds. Albert Einstein and Galileo are two perfect examples. Both were certain that if you found a piece of the bible in which contradicted itself, or science, or mathematics that you were simply misinterpreting the bible. Galileo expressed his adamancy on this topic when he was called by the Catholic Church because his theories of the earth rotating around the sun ‘contradicted’ a scripture. He had almost managed to convince these narrow minded characters, and even had the pope on his side. He argued that it was a metaphorical scripture, not meant literally. He would have convinced them of this, except in his book (which I strongly suggest not reading, cuz it’s horrible) The Dialogue he based a character named Simplicio on the pope. Simplico being Latin for “Simple minded person” or “Simpleton.”

Anyway I follow that. There are times when the bible purposefully and coincidently appears contradictory, and in fact I’ve located several of this myself. However, if you feverously delve yourself into further study you will always find (if you push long and hard enough) your own mistake. Not to say that the bible –is- divine word, but rather to suggest that it is generously written where it does not contradict itself.

I’ll use an example. The bible says you shouldn’t lie or deceive anyone; Jesus was perfect and thus never sinned. Right? Whenever he died and was resurrected he came to his disciples and acted as though he were a stranger. Led them to believe this in what was a –deception.- So did he sin? I was stunned. Pressing on I also found that Jesus explains to us that the laws are not actually laws, but rather guidelines. He says under certain circumstances it is okay to break the law. He shows us this by going out to save souls on the holy day when nobody was supposed to work. It was important to save souls, even if it meant breaking one of the laws.

Well, if you take bits and pieces of the bible you can easily discredit it. However, I challenge you to take every single scripture into mind (I don’t seriously expect you to do this! I myself never could! That’s a lot) and still find the end result of its proclamations contradictory.

There was once a Spanish prisoner who was locked in a dungeon with nothing to read but the bible. He spent his entire life in that dungeon and read the thing over and over again. Rather or not he converted to the Christian religion is unknown, but he found mathematical signs in the bible which show us that it was not only spiritually profound but also mathematically. It was the first time anybody considered that God should use a math in his writing. But here it was, too true and wildly complex to be a mere coincidence. This shows us the bible is so profound that we discover new sides of it all the time. So then perhaps it may seem on one level to contradict itself, but on the next it resolves itself.

Mind you I’m certainly not the creator of these theories. I’m using them to argue my side, in our wonderful debate, but that doesn’t mean I’m the first to have thought them up. As I mentioned some of the worlds most brilliant minds have argued these very points.

The original image of God, and one that still lingers strongly today was that of a magical chimera. However Einstein argued that Gods methods could be explained. He believed, “Math is the paintbrush with which God painted the world.” A beautiful quote, no? This statement here is a large part of my, or not really my because like I said I didn’t start it, that God is a supper naturally scientific entity. This my friend would mean that he is bound by supper natural scientific limitations. So then my beliefs are those of a heretic? Not at all. Forgive this brief caps but I want everyone to catch this point: THE BIBEL ITSELF TELLS US GOD IS –not- ENTIRELY OMNIPOTENT! At least not by the Human understanding of all power. Paul says God cannot lie. The rule is set for him by his own consistency and he cannot maneuver around it.

Besides this I have yet to find a single scripture (you may point one out to me, I’m not saying it’s not there) that says God is omnipotent. The word isn’t actually used. He says there is nothing to hard for him, true, but what exactly does that mean? Nothing of what caliber? Mortal caliber, or divine; moreover, the phrase suggest nothing in existence to hard for him. Sense our heavy rock has not yet been created, he’s being honest here.

Now to your contradictory definition of omnipotent. Obviously you meant for your statement to contradict each other to prove your point. However, that is not the definition of it. Like your wikapedia link said (and in the future, and this is a personal request, don’t use wikapedia to support your arguments with me! I –hate- wikapedia!) it merely means inexhaustible power. That is not to say that there are not boundaries for the uses of the power. I can have an endless supply of electricity, but try that I might I cannot use that electricity to created a giant elephant of doom.

Now here’s where my argument takes another abstract side. Eternity. Every one knows what it means. It’s as infinite as infinity. :p This being said it would never be now and God would have never created us because he existed infinity years ago. Oh no! I just ruined my own argument! But wait! God exists outside of time by our own religion. This being said there is no reason he should live within the limitations of infinity just because our Human minds cannot comprehend it.

Besides this the bible tells us that God is eternal. He is not some inconsistent human. Whenever he makes a covenant he sticks to it. Including the covenant that he will remain the most powerful entity in existence.

Anyway let us glance at the bible as a historical document. Culture my friend. Culture. You must take into account the culture of those who have written it. For example, there was a brief controversy which was quickly butchered by strong debaters saying Marry the Mother of God was not a virgin. The Greek word used, from which we derive our modern bibles, technically meant “young woman.” However taking in their culture that word had the connotation of virgin. If she had sex she would be a “whore,” a “married woman” or a “widow.” Sense they used none of these words we know the writers purposefully meant to insinuate that she was a virgin.

Let’s compare this historical document to another. My personal favorite. Herodotus’ Histories. He used the word myriad in his description of the numbers of the Persian army in the Persian Wars while he was talking about Thermopylae. This was a phrase that was used similarly to how we use the word millions. You see a large flock of birds in the sky and say, “Man, there are millions of them!” You don’t mean this literally. What you were saying was “There are lots of them.” So a historian took this word and said, “There must have been a million.” Obviously this is a human impossibility; no nation of that time could have possibly supported the massive cost of creating, controlling, and leading so large a force all the while leaving their home territory protected. Even mighty Persia.

The point of all this is to show, though I’m not saying it as fact, that maybe the Greek writers of the bible (because we lost the original manuscripts ages ago) all powerful may not hold the same concept as it does now. Look at the Titans. They were all-powerful, and yet what happened? They got their asses handed to them by Zeuse and a piece of friking flint. Now, this is a weak example, because monotheism in itself kind of rejects omnipotence but the argument it gives still stands.

Anyway the form of omnipotence in which God posses is a form such that he is all-powerful when compared to any other entity in existence, however as I mentioned before my theory is that God is a scientific entity. Not a magical chimera. This may be my own human flaw, in that I cannot comprehend a magical entity so I use science to try and explain something that cannot be explained by Humans, but none the less it is not contradicted by the bible or the Christian religion in and of its own. Now there are varying views about this, so it may be a fight against other people’s views, but I stand by this argument for the reasons given in your own debate. In other words we are, in distant ways, supporting one another’s argument.

We are both suggesting that God is not a magically and truly omnipotent entity by the base definition of the word. Where we clash is that I argue that surely there must be a God because existence makes no sense otherwise.

You know I once looked up theories of existence. Other than God there is 1 explanation for existence, and it’s a crime to call it that. The theory is “Why is their existence instead of nothingness.” “Well, why not.”

But casting aside the archetype of a stereotypical form of omnipotence and God even you must admit that there is a possibility that some all powerful entity exists. In any case you have offered strong counter arguments, but still have not countered my original point. That according to time’s laws itself, there must in fact be a start. A beginning. Sense everything within time does not exist until time, we know that there had to be something outside of time, a God or a supper natural event, in which existed outside of time. Looking at all of these possibilities God is the most logical thing to suggest.

Now, this being said, there is no way to prove or disprove God. However, as I show above, we can go so far as to make ourselves an “Illae Iacte Est” situation. This Latin quote comes from Cesar. Its commonly translated to “the die is cast” but it can also be translated to mean, “Let the dice fly high” and given Cesar’s optimistic personality this one is the more likely and so I will use it. What I am saying is, maybe it’s a bit of a gamble, but that’s faith. I present to you a logical argument for God, one that is of course incomplete, but one that does not aim to prove but rather to show that logically chances are that God does exist. And if he does not exist then some supper natural event such as Chaos must have existed. I simply refuse to believe the answer for existence given in the fickle and obviously false Greek mythology.

All this shows that God is in fact the only logical explanation for existence. The only one. There is no other.

There is always the Hartshorne attack. But the Christian religion says that God has given us free will of his own free will. So that theory can be used to discredit some religions, but not at all the Christian, or Jewish, or likeminded religious ideologies.

Alright lets get onto your other point. You assume miracles have never happened, but just as surely as any other historical event, they do. Amputees sprout new limbs. Men who’s eyes are shattered return. In our modern world we have pushed God far enough from us that he may no longer be so quick to miracles, but they happen.

There are documented cases of miraculous things that cannot be medically explained happening. Rather you accept them or not it’s true. In fact most long time medical experts, even those who go in as strictly atheists, will agree with this. Many of them go so far as to say they have converted to this religion or that. Because things happen that make no sense. There are too many cases where somebody should have died but didn’t. Cancer has vanished, though there is no cure, and people have actually died and then opened their eyes. It a statistic that they released on the radio recently.

There –are- as a matter of fact cases where things that make no sense by the Human logic system that has happened. You are completely ignoring these in your argument, which only makes sense because that’s part of a good argument, but they are out there. People just deny them. Although thousands upon thousands of people report them they are ignored. Although some of these cases have been recorded people deny them. Must be some other explanation for them.

Demonic possession, miracles, and disasters predicted by the bible have hit the land already. So why are we ignoring them? Seeing these in my life has been enough to convert me, who was an adamant and obstinate atheist, to Christianity.

For me it’s just a matter of logic. I’ve seen miracles myself, with my eyes. You may choose not to believe it but I’ve gone up to be prayed for by a woman who has no possible way to know anything about me, who proceeded to tell me about myself. Things she had no possible way to know about.

There is evidence everywhere but people are so narrow minded, as you just showed, that they call them chance. Mere coincidence. Is there no bloody limitation to this? You can’t just keep calling it chance. Everything that supports religion is chance. That’s the age old, fickle, hypocritically narrow minded argument cast out by atheists everywhere. The very argument I used to fight against the Christian faith!

There is absolutely no chance that all of these things were chance and that existence just exists and time had no beginning. I’m not calling my religion fact, but rather suggesting there –is- must be by logical, historical, statistical, scientific, and every other form of thought something divine. Maybe an event, maybe an entity, maybe multiple Gods, but there must be!

I could go on, but this is already too long, and my hand kind of hurts, and I’m a bit lazy, and I’m sure people are already going to be ticked at me for this argument, because it’s in favor of Christianity, and we Christians are dogs, evil, ignorant, narrow minded, and stupid, so goodbye for now. I await your counter argument, as always.

EDIT: O_O.... Wow, nobody is going to read this... Maybe more is less...

P.S: You may want to look at that...
http://
Posted 6/3/07
^ Hmm, hell yeah, I didn't read it. ^=^


Like I said, Life is CONFUSING SH!T!!!
8715 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / North Carolina
Offline
Posted 6/3/07

SeraphAlford wrote:


Deviance wrote:


SeraphAlford wrote:
All this argument you are offering is based off of a common misconception of the Christian image of God.

I’m going to clarify a few things. We are not puppets. God has plans for us but they do not always happen, as you will find if you read the bible. He knows what’s going to happen but often (more often than not in fact) wants something else to happen. Now he adds in circumstances to get the end result of the rapture and what not, but mostly he leaves us to our own devices.

Think of it like this: You plan to go to this temple at the top of a cliff. One of the monks however goes on a rampage and pushes you off the edge of the cliff. So your plan fails. Meanwhile you know your going to hit the ground. That doesn’t mean you wanted to hit the ground. You just wanted to rub a golden Buddha belly.

If you study the Christian religion we believe God has a standpoint similar to this one. In our beliefs. (This may vary from sect-to-sect, but I’m a nondenominational Christian in that I simply follow what God tells me. Sometimes through the bible sometimes through other methods. A preacher, an event, ext.)

You asked about the staple of God. Well in most religions that may be true, but in Christianity the key-note to God is not wisdom or power. In fact he actually has angels to represent such things. God is love, and love is his corner stone.

But what about all the pain and suffering in this world? Well I’ve already explained that and wont put you through the redundancy of repetition. This time.

Now the age old “Can god make something greater than him,” or “Can God microwave a burrito so hot not even he can eat it” or “Can God make a man so ugly not even he can look at him” questions. The answer is, by my personal (though not at all the exact Christian belief because this is never directly mentioned in our bible.) no. He cannot. Why? Because as I said God is simply an entity in which these things that we are calling miracles are possible. He is bound by supper natural scientific laws that we cannot comprehend. However, he is on the highest level of this, and the only way for him to make something he can’t lift is to create another level higher than his own. This being said God is at the highest reality can reach. You understand? He’s so high you can’t go higher.

Let’s look at this from a different view point. By our human logic the answer is still no. Energy cannot be created. It can only be transformed from one form to another. Matter is the same thing. Therefore God cannot make something with more energy than he already has. This being said he made existence because existence takes less energy than he has available. Though I don’t think it is at all that simple you can now asses those ridiculous questions from an intellectual standpoint.

Come to think of it those silly questions do actually limit God in a way he’s not limited. If this is an omnipotent and omniscient entity don’t you think it is at all possible for him to do something that we cannot comprehend? Remain all powerful while still making something he can’t look at, see, lift, eat, or punt? It may be possible in a way that is above our understanding with our fickle little foolish minds.

Beyond this, as I said, religion itself does not necessarily suggest that the God is an constant being. Take Greek Mythology for example. The founding “God” was Chaos, a black whole which spit all existence out, screwed Gaia and made the sky, and then poof. No more mention of Chaos. For them the first “deity” was an event. Not an entity. Do I need to clarify that better? I feel like I’m giving a poor presentation of my ideas, as they’re kind of abstract, but I really don’t know how to further simplify. If you need me too I will -try- to but that may take a moment or two of thought…

About that medical stuff. Your debate is flimsy. (not trying to be insulting here. You’re completely welcome to your beliefs and all that jazz.) Why? Because once again you don’t know enough about the religion in which you argue against. The Christians belief (coming from a nondenominational stand point that just believe what God said, and not the other added stuff of different sects) is that sometimes God says no. Plain and simple. If we do that circle thing we get a no, because we are not supposed to test God. He does not allow himself to be manipulated.

The aborted babies? Some of them he lets die, others he save but we don’t know it. (For obviously obvious reasons. ) I wonder how many more would die if God didn’t answer prayers. Now this goes to that thing we were talking about earlier. Are we puppets? Does this prayer argument counter act what I said before? Not at all. The bible says God only comes into our lives as much as we let him. So if you ask him to do something but have a subliminal block in the far reaches of our mind, said thing wont happen. Even if we don’t have a block he may still say no. A large reason he says no is actually to breed doubt. Why would he do that? “You have seen and believe so you are blessed, so how blessed are those who have not seen and do believe?” Believing in God without proof is all the more admirable. It’s faith, and God rewards it. See, there is a difference between knowing and believing.


In the bible God has been known to do ‘cruel’ things for the greater good. Now you may not consider it the greater good, but he does, and Christians trust his judgment so for us it is the greater good. However political unpolished and incorrect that may seem. Of course we’re trash for it. We’re ignorant fools, but whatever. No matter what we do we’re always going to be lesser to all the smarter and generally better atheists.

In your edit you mentioned my earlier comment. You misunderstood me. Perhaps that my fault. I meant at the mentioned time I was referring to religion in general, not that I am doing that altogether. I’m afraid I’m not willing to further this because I honestly don’t know enough about all the worlds plethora of religions to hold a respectable debate on them.

Thanks for the thought provoking argument, I await your next argument. But, I must request, put a small area between your paragraphs because that post made me glaze…



It is arguable that we are not puppets and we have free will, sure. But you see, as I've already mentioned; the Christian image of god is that of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent god that would in by all means have the ability to know what is to happen; am I not right? So here's the thing: without the existence of a free will- his plan would have a 100% success rate; a little bumps on the road here and there, but it's assured. With the free will concept in place; it creates an entirely different picture. You are free to follow or not follow his plan (giving him a 50% chance that you would follow his plan) - though if you didn't, you'd be turning your back on him. And what does the Christian philosophy say about turnin your back on god? Secondly, don't you think for an omniscient (all-knowing) being, having a plan that wouldn't work out is plain useless? People do all sorts of things for nothing, sure; but we're talking about an all-knowing being here.

About the arguement concerning the concept of ability: the definition of omnipotence leads to these certain points:
1. The ability to do anything. Meaning that if asked the question "can god do ____?" is always 'yes'
2. He can do anything that is logically possible.
3. He can do whatever he chooses to do.
4. He can do anything in accord to his nature. (i.e.god always speaks truth thus he cannot lie.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotent
You may be able to argue Augustine's idea on this but the mere point that a possibility already exists up to that point brings out the potential that in that certain cituation, he cannot manifest his omnipotence in the face of certain infinite variabilities. Being a transcendent being does nothing to excuse him from following logic since after all - he can do anything.
Thus inability to do something would bar out his omnipotence right? And correct me if I'm wrong, that would also mean this: imperfection.

I've heard this a million times (I was born into the Christian sect), god is able to answer in three ways: "Yes," "No," and "Later;" am I not right? If you look at it closely; either way god wins. Think about it. a person prays to him for a million dollars: 5 minutes after the prayer a guy knocks at his door and rewards him a million dollars and he didn't even have to join the lottery. Praise be to him! Provided the answer is "No," maybe the person didn't quite deserve the million dollars but god still answered him, right? Praise be to him! Provided the answer is "Later." The person works his ass of for 10 years in the company he is employed in and is able to save enough - a million dollars. Praise be to him? Now... say I prayed to my computer screen and that my religion tells me the computer screen answers in three ways: "Yes," "No," and "Later." Guess what? The possibilities are exactly the same. So is that with the medical feat: except that with an amputee; the answer has ALWAYS be no. I'm not asking for prosthetic limbs: I'm asking for regeneration. What if the amputee was the most deserving person on the planet; lived life as a saint. And you ask everyone to pray for him to grow his limbs back... what do you think will happen? Yes, no, later?

If we're not supposed to test god, why do we need to pray? He's all-knowing, he should already know what we need without us having to say it. Provided that the amputee really needed his legs back for him to go save the world from some unforseen threat and we all prayed for him to regain his legs back. Or let's say we just all really saw him as deserving and wanted him to grow it back. We're not testing anything; say we have complete belief he'll grow it back. Does it happen?
"If you ask for something and you have faith then you shall recieve." Right?

It's not a misconception here since I've been studying the different points of Christianity for as long as I can understand. I've been brought up the Catholic Christian way but my excessive self-questioning got the better of me. Based on experience, not all Christians are lesser and less intelligent than the atheists. I've seen a lot of atheists who don't know what the hell they believe in.

There are teachings in the bible that are worthwile use for morality but there are also a lot of them that contradict themselves in the following passages and as well as are just plain stupid:

Deut 25:11-12

11 If men get into a fight with one another, and the wife of one intervenes to rescue her husband from the grip of his opponent by reaching out and seizing his genitals, 12. you shall cut off her hand; show no pity.

1Tim 2:11-12

11Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. 12I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent.

Most probably you'd return with the argument about the errors of humanity in transcribing god's will right? You see there's a problem with that argument too. I'd talk more but my computer needs cleaning and I have to get going; I have to follow this schedule.


Honestly my friend I have to call into great doubt, maybe not your study over the Christian religion, but certainly your understanding of it. Being raised in a Christian surrounding has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with knowing much about Christianity; moreover, as I understand it the Catholic and Protestant bibles do no match up as completely as people think. They spawn from the common ancestor, but the variation between protestant is the –ideal- behind the protestant sects is to follow God’s word directly. Rather it’s beneficial or not. The Catholics in their history have manipulated, destroyed, and added to the bible. One pope in Martin Luther King’s time actually spoke that “To be forgiving for sins you have to buy these indulgences from the church.” This is completely contradictory of the bible itself. At first I though this image of the Catholic Church was the result of some prejudice that I had been somehow bread into. (Note I –wasn’t- born into the Christian faith. I converted a couple years ago. This is good proof that being raised in a Christian surrounding does not mean you know a lot about Christianity, because I know, though very little, more than most people raised Christian.) The more I studied Catholic history the more I became certain. Some Catholics may be great Christians and serve God, but the Church is run a business. This is, perhaps, my opinion, but still an opinion strongly supported by fact. It was further increased whenever I spoke with some Catholics over the matter, even made a thread here on Crunchy Roll, and they themselves reluctantly agreed.

Now you talk about the bible contradicting itself. Well, my friend, your word is going up in opposition of some of human kinds most brilliant minds. Albert Einstein and Galileo are two perfect examples. Both were certain that if you found a piece of the bible in which contradicted itself, or science, or mathematics that you were simply misinterpreting the bible. Galileo expressed his adamancy on this topic when he was called by the Catholic Church because his theories of the earth rotating around the sun ‘contradicted’ a scripture. He had almost managed to convince these narrow minded characters, and even had the pope on his side. He argued that it was a metaphorical scripture, not meant literally. He would have convinced them of this, except in his book (which I strongly suggest not reading, cuz it’s horrible) The Dialogue he based a character named Simplicio on the pope. Simplico being Latin for “Simple minded person” or “Simpleton.”

Anyway I follow that. There are times when the bible purposefully and coincidently appears contradictory, and in fact I’ve located several of this myself. However, if you feverously delve yourself into further study you will always find (if you push long and hard enough) your own mistake. Not to say that the bible –is- divine word, but rather to suggest that it is generously written where it does not contradict itself.

I’ll use an example. The bible says you shouldn’t lie or deceive anyone; Jesus was perfect and thus never sinned. Right? Whenever he died and was resurrected he came to his disciples and acted as though he were a stranger. Led them to believe this in what was a –deception.- So did he sin? I was stunned. Pressing on I also found that Jesus explains to us that the laws are not actually laws, but rather guidelines. He says under certain circumstances it is okay to break the law. He shows us this by going out to save souls on the holy day when nobody was supposed to work. It was important to save souls, even if it meant breaking one of the laws.

Well, if you take bits and pieces of the bible you can easily discredit it. However, I challenge you to take every single scripture into mind (I don’t seriously expect you to do this! I myself never could! That’s a lot) and still find the end result of its proclamations contradictory.

There was once a Spanish prisoner who was locked in a dungeon with nothing to read but the bible. He spent his entire life in that dungeon and read the thing over and over again. Rather or not he converted to the Christian religion is unknown, but he found mathematical signs in the bible which show us that it was not only spiritually profound but also mathematically. It was the first time anybody considered that God should use a math in his writing. But here it was, too true and wildly complex to be a mere coincidence. This shows us the bible is so profound that we discover new sides of it all the time. So then perhaps it may seem on one level to contradict itself, but on the next it resolves itself.

Mind you I’m certainly not the creator of these theories. I’m using them to argue my side, in our wonderful debate, but that doesn’t mean I’m the first to have thought them up. As I mentioned some of the worlds most brilliant minds have argued these very points.

The original image of God, and one that still lingers strongly today was that of a magical chimera. However Einstein argued that Gods methods could be explained. He believed, “Math is the paintbrush with which God painted the world.” A beautiful quote, no? This statement here is a large part of my, or not really my because like I said I didn’t start it, that God is a supper naturally scientific entity. This my friend would mean that he is bound by supper natural scientific limitations. So then my beliefs are those of a heretic? Not at all. Forgive this brief caps but I want everyone to catch this point: THE BIBEL ITSELF TELLS US GOD IS –not- ENTIRELY OMNIPOTENT! At least not by the Human understanding of all power. Paul says God cannot lie. The rule is set for him by his own consistency and he cannot maneuver around it.

Besides this I have yet to find a single scripture (you may point one out to me, I’m not saying it’s not there) that says God is omnipotent. The word isn’t actually used. He says there is nothing to hard for him, true, but what exactly does that mean? Nothing of what caliber? Mortal caliber, or divine; moreover, the phrase suggest nothing in existence to hard for him. Sense our heavy rock has not yet been created, he’s being honest here.

Now to your contradictory definition of omnipotent. Obviously you meant for your statement to contradict each other to prove your point. However, that is not the definition of it. Like your wikapedia link said (and in the future, and this is a personal request, don’t use wikapedia to support your arguments with me! I –hate- wikapedia!) it merely means inexhaustible power. That is not to say that there are not boundaries for the uses of the power. I can have an endless supply of electricity, but try that I might I cannot use that electricity to created a giant elephant of doom.

Now here’s where my argument takes another abstract side. Eternity. Every one knows what it means. It’s as infinite as infinity. :p This being said it would never be now and God would have never created us because he existed infinity years ago. Oh no! I just ruined my own argument! But wait! God exists outside of time by our own religion. This being said there is no reason he should live within the limitations of infinity just because our Human minds cannot comprehend it.

Besides this the bible tells us that God is eternal. He is not some inconsistent human. Whenever he makes a covenant he sticks to it. Including the covenant that he will remain the most powerful entity in existence.

Anyway let us glance at the bible as a historical document. Culture my friend. Culture. You must take into account the culture of those who have written it. For example, there was a brief controversy which was quickly butchered by strong debaters saying Marry the Mother of God was not a virgin. The Greek word used, from which we derive our modern bibles, technically meant “young woman.” However taking in their culture that word had the connotation of virgin. If she had sex she would be a “whore,” a “married woman” or a “widow.” Sense they used none of these words we know the writers purposefully meant to insinuate that she was a virgin.

Let’s compare this historical document to another. My personal favorite. Herodotus’ Histories. He used the word myriad in his description of the numbers of the Persian army in the Persian Wars while he was talking about Thermopylae. This was a phrase that was used similarly to how we use the word millions. You see a large flock of birds in the sky and say, “Man, there are millions of them!” You don’t mean this literally. What you were saying was “There are lots of them.” So a historian took this word and said, “There must have been a million.” Obviously this is a human impossibility; no nation of that time could have possibly supported the massive cost of creating, controlling, and leading so large a force all the while leaving their home territory protected. Even mighty Persia.

The point of all this is to show, though I’m not saying it as fact, that maybe the Greek writers of the bible (because we lost the original manuscripts ages ago) all powerful may not hold the same concept as it does now. Look at the Titans. They were all-powerful, and yet what happened? They got their asses handed to them by Zeuse and a piece of friking flint. Now, this is a weak example, because monotheism in itself kind of rejects omnipotence but the argument it gives still stands.

Anyway the form of omnipotence in which God posses is a form such that he is all-powerful when compared to any other entity in existence, however as I mentioned before my theory is that God is a scientific entity. Not a magical chimera. This may be my own human flaw, in that I cannot comprehend a magical entity so I use science to try and explain something that cannot be explained by Humans, but none the less it is not contradicted by the bible or the Christian religion in and of its own. Now there are varying views about this, so it may be a fight against other people’s views, but I stand by this argument for the reasons given in your own debate. In other words we are, in distant ways, supporting one another’s argument.

We are both suggesting that God is not a magically and truly omnipotent entity by the base definition of the word. Where we clash is that I argue that surely there must be a God because existence makes no sense otherwise.

You know I once looked up theories of existence. Other than God there is 1 explanation for existence, and it’s a crime to call it that. The theory is “Why is their existence instead of nothingness.” “Well, why not.”

But casting aside the archetype of a stereotypical form of omnipotence and God even you must admit that there is a possibility that some all powerful entity exists. In any case you have offered strong counter arguments, but still have not countered my original point. That according to time’s laws itself, there must in fact be a start. A beginning. Sense everything within time does not exist until time, we know that there had to be something outside of time, a God or a supper natural event, in which existed outside of time. Looking at all of these possibilities God is the most logical thing to suggest.

Now, this being said, there is no way to prove or disprove God. However, as I show above, we can go so far as to make ourselves an “Illae Iacte Est” situation. This Latin quote comes from Cesar. Its commonly translated to “the die is cast” but it can also be translated to mean, “Let the dice fly high” and given Cesar’s optimistic personality this one is the more likely and so I will use it. What I am saying is, maybe it’s a bit of a gamble, but that’s faith. I present to you a logical argument for God, one that is of course incomplete, but one that does not aim to prove but rather to show that logically chances are that God does exist. And if he does not exist then some supper natural event such as Chaos must have existed. I simply refuse to believe the answer for existence given in the fickle and obviously false Greek mythology.

All this shows that God is in fact the only logical explanation for existence. The only one. There is no other.

There is always the Hartshorne attack. But the Christian religion says that God has given us free will of his own free will. So that theory can be used to discredit some religions, but not at all the Christian, or Jewish, or likeminded religious ideologies.

Alright lets get onto your other point. You assume miracles have never happened, but just as surely as any other historical event, they do. Amputees sprout new limbs. Men who’s eyes are shattered return. In our modern world we have pushed God far enough from us that he may no longer be so quick to miracles, but they happen.

There are documented cases of miraculous things that cannot be medically explained happening. Rather you accept them or not it’s true. In fact most long time medical experts, even those who go in as strictly atheists, will agree with this. Many of them go so far as to say they have converted to this religion or that. Because things happen that make no sense. There are too many cases where somebody should have died but didn’t. Cancer has vanished, though there is no cure, and people have actually died and then opened their eyes. It a statistic that they released on the radio recently.

There –are- as a matter of fact cases where things that make no sense by the Human logic system that has happened. You are completely ignoring these in your argument, which only makes sense because that’s part of a good argument, but they are out there. People just deny them. Although thousands upon thousands of people report them they are ignored. Although some of these cases have been recorded people deny them. Must be some other explanation for them.

Demonic possession, miracles, and disasters predicted by the bible have hit the land already. So why are we ignoring them? Seeing these in my life has been enough to convert me, who was an adamant and obstinate atheist, to Christianity.

For me it’s just a matter of logic. I’ve seen miracles myself, with my eyes. You may choose not to believe it but I’ve gone up to be prayed for by a woman who has no possible way to know anything about me, who proceeded to tell me about myself. Things she had no possible way to know about.

There is evidence everywhere but people are so narrow minded, as you just showed, that they call them chance. Mere coincidence. Is there no bloody limitation to this? You can’t just keep calling it chance. Everything that supports religion is chance. That’s the age old, fickle, hypocritically narrow minded argument cast out by atheists everywhere. The very argument I used to fight against the Christian faith!

There is absolutely no chance that all of these things were chance and that existence just exists and time had no beginning. I’m not calling my religion fact, but rather suggesting there –is- must be by logical, historical, statistical, scientific, and every other form of thought something divine. Maybe an event, maybe an entity, maybe multiple Gods, but there must be!

I could go on, but this is already too long, and my hand kind of hurts, and I’m a bit lazy, and I’m sure people are already going to be ticked at me for this argument, because it’s in favor of Christianity, and we Christians are dogs, evil, ignorant, narrow minded, and stupid, so goodbye for now. I await your counter argument, as always.

EDIT: O_O.... Wow, nobody is going to read this... Maybe more is less...



Meow, you guessed right. :3, At least I joined the long quote game. :3
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.