Objecting the concept of a Deity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-12-2012, 04:14 PM
RE: Objecting the concept of a Deity
final statement: evidence for existence, evidence against existence= they are equivalent. thats as plain an observation as one can get. if you don't agree, which Vos and i have, i don't care. i got the validation i wanted.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-12-2012, 04:17 PM
RE: Objecting the concept of a Deity
(21-12-2012 04:14 PM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  final statement: evidence for existence, evidence against existence= they are equivalent. thats as plain an observation as one can get. if you don't agree, which Vos and i have, i don't care. i got the validation i wanted.


They are not equivalent when the evidence that should be there is not. If there is a powerful god in the universe, where is the evidence?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
21-12-2012, 04:19 PM
RE: Objecting the concept of a Deity
This is fun, so here we go.

(21-12-2012 02:20 PM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  I'd like to point out that I wrote everything on a whim, with no prep whatsoever,

Me too, that's what makes it so fun.

(21-12-2012 02:20 PM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  First off, you say I am wrong with this statement "This perfectly logical question is the result of a person who simply does not understand and is not educated properly in what the Christian faith teaches." I am not. It means that specific individual must not have a complete understanding of how the Christian faith works, if he/she did, he/she would not have to ask such a question. I refer to the fact that that Christians believe that if harm befalls them, they have not been in touch with God,(research Psalms 91).

Fine, but not every Christian believes that.

You do realize that there are about 2 billion "Christians" on this planet, divided into major sects like Catholocism, Baptist, Methodist, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and so many others. Each of those is divided into countless subdivisions such that any given Christian of one sect, say Baptist, could drive 100 miles and go into a church of the same sect and after a while, would be convinced that this particular Baptist group has gotten some things wrong (or that this one is right but his original one had some things wrong).

Back to your point. I have met many Christians, some are my family and close friends, who tell me all the time exactly the opposite of what you are saying. When my very religious aunt died of cancer, nobody ever said that she "must not have been in touch with god". Anyone who knew her knew that was extremely untrue. In fact, everyone said things like "God works in mysterious ways and we don't know why she got cancer, but now He has ended her suffering and taken her home to dwell in his house." That's pretty much NOT the same thing as saying she was out of touch with God.

My saying that, or her husband saying that, or any of her friends or family saying that, does mean that any of us have a lack of understanding of Christian teachings. Although, since your flavor of Christian teaching is different than ours, I'll grant that to you it seems that we're wrong and therefore that we do have a lack of understanding of correct Christian teaching.

But who is to say what is correct?

How can an omniscient God know that everyone has different teachings and therefore most of us are wrong and yet He is somehow OK with that? How can an omnipotent God who knows this just sit back and do nothing while letting us fight wars, kill each other, fly planes into buildings, insult each other, and do all kinds of other crap, all in HIS name, while He does nothing to fix this problem?

More interestingly, if He really is willing to let things go on this way, how are you and I supposed to find the ONE TRUE FAITH? You think you have it, my uncle thinks he has it, and you both disagree on at least this one fundamental point (I bet you disagree on hundreds, maybe thousands, of other points too). Clearly you and my uncle, both Christians, cannot both be correct. He would tell you that you are wrong and won't go to heaven. You would say the same thing to him.

How can a mere mortal like you, me, or my uncle, tell the right faith? At least 2 of us are going to hell. Maybe all 3, nobody can say that any of us have the right faith.

How can God be OK with a senseless system like that? He's too omniscient to be unaware of how senseless it is, and too omnipotent to be unable to fix it, so for some reason he's just sadistic enough to be OK with it, or just nonexistent enough to not matter anyway.

(21-12-2012 02:20 PM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  Secondly, you claim I implied Satan has equal power to God. He does not.

I didn't say you implied it. Christianity implies it. Re-read what I said. It's all there for you. Every word is based strictly on what mainstream Christianity claims and believes. I didn't put any words in anyone's mouth nor did I twist the meanings of any of it. Re-read it. Think about it. Really THINK about it. Let it sink in for a while. If you do, you might found out that it is both mind-boggling and eye-opening.

(21-12-2012 02:20 PM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  You claim I implied he is the omnipotent. I did not.

Again,think about it. Can you take my soul? Can you even really tempt me to give my soul up, do you know my secret desires and what will push me over that edge? No, and no. But Satan can. That makes him way more powerful than you are, more powerful than me, more powerful than any human. In fact, Satan is an immortal magical being who can do dang near anything he wants, even defy God to the extent that God can only banish him. That may not be the exact definition of "omnipotent" but it sure is damned close (no pun intended).

Can Satan create a whole universe? Probably not, nothing canonic says he can. So yeah, not truly omnipotent, but you might recall, I described him as close enough to omnipotence that I can't tell the difference - he's so far out of my league that for my practical intents and purposes he might as well be omnipotent.

(21-12-2012 02:20 PM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  I will elaborate on the protection God offers. According to the bible, God gave humanity the "power" of free will. Choice. Our most important aspect of being a sapient conscious being.

And yet we are all predestined. Before he said "Let there be light" he knew every hair on my head, every word I would say, every decision I would make. He knew I would die and burn in hell for eternity.

I cannot decide what to believe. It's not a matter of intellect, of choice, of will. If today you put a gun to my head (heck, figuratively God and Satan are doing that very thing with my eternal soul) and said "Believe, really believe, or die" I would have to die. I want to believe. I don't want you to fire that gun. I don't want to burn in hell. I really, really, really, really want to believe in a perfect, blissful, happy afterlife for all of eternity. Maybe even with 72 virgins and a planet of my own where I get to be the god (yeah, Christians, Muslims and Mormons, my fantasy afterlife is better than all of yours).

I WANT to believe in that.

But I can't. It's senseless. Problematically, philosophically, logically, and probabilistically senseless. I can't make myself believe in what I don't believe, even with a gun or a hell aimed at my head.

God knows this. He could fix it. He doesn't want to.

(21-12-2012 02:20 PM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  It is with that power of free will that we must choose Him above all else.

Why?

How do you know it wasn't Allah who gave you free will? I don't see you choosing Allah above all else. Or Buddha. Or Quetzalcoatl.

(21-12-2012 02:20 PM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  To love Him as He is our Father, for it is that love that must tie us to Him.

Who is our father? Allah? Buddha? Quetzalcoatl?

Must I love him? I have two daughters whom I love very much. I want them to love me. Fortunately, they do seem to love me. But what would I do if they didn't? I would be sad. I would try to fix whatever came between us. I would try to mend fences and rebuild our relationship. I would do everything in my non-omnipotent power to be a family again. But if I failed at that, I would still love them. I would still want the best for them. I would want them to be happy even if I never see them again.

But what does God do? He doesn't fix the problem, even though he omnisciently knows exactly what the problem is. He doesn't mend fences. He doesn't rebuild our relationship. He doesn't do anything, anything at all, in his omnipotent power to be a family with me. He doesn't act like he still loves me. He doesn't act like he wants the best for me. He obviously does not want me to be happy since his plan for me is to burn me in hell for eternity.

God is doing exactly the OPPOSITE of what a loving father would do for his children.

And yet he DEMANDS that I love him. Or else.

Bullshit.

(21-12-2012 02:20 PM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  It is only if we make the choice with our given "power" of free will that enables Him to provide protection.

"enables"? There you go again, limiting your omnipotent God. Your claim, right here, that god is only "enabled" to protect us means he cannot protect us without this enabling.

That means God is not omnipotent. But yet you believe Satan can harm us without us deliberately enabling Satan, which makes Satan more powerful than God.

I call it the Satan Contradiction.

You dispute that this is how it works, but here you are saying it again. You should really think about what Christianity is teaching YOU.

(21-12-2012 02:20 PM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  He gave us the choice to enable His protection, if we choose to not love Him, to shun our heavenly Father, he cannot protect us, in which the bible says that action pains him.

There it is again. "he cannot protect us". Why must you Christians keep limiting your omnipotent deity?

(21-12-2012 02:20 PM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  but he gave us the choice.

It is not a choice. Assuming that you, I, and my uncle, all agree on which faith is the right one. Let's say we agree on yours. How we figure this out is beyond my grasp, but lets assume we do. We all decide that your flavor of Christianity is THE ONE TRUE FAITH. Great. Let's even assume we all believe that with our hearts and souls. Great again.

Now, what choice do we have?

A) Believe in God and accept Jesus is our savior.
B) Or else burn in hell for eternity.

Wow, look at those options. Hmmmm. You call that a choice? That is no choice.

(21-12-2012 02:20 PM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  Its not a hard concept to understand, when you "love someone, you let them go" u want them to be happy so you let them make their own decision.

Happy is burning in hell for eternity?

I have not shunned God. I have not denied God. I have wished for God to be true, to give me a sign, to show me the way. He didn't He shunned me. He denied me. And I'm going to burn in hell for that.

He did not "love me and let me go" nor did he "want me to be happy so he let me make my own decision".

Instead, he hid from me, dodged my calls, ignored my prayers, concealed the truth by layering it with tons of scientific, historical, and philosophical reasons why the truth is not the truth at all, and expected me to do all the work despite having no reason to, then shunned me when I tried and left me to rot on this earth as a plaything of Satan with no divine protection and later I get to burn in hell for eternity because of I couldn't find my way through the maze of science and conflicting false faiths to get the one true faith and make myself believe it despite tons of reasons not to?

That's his love for me?

And all I have to do is love this sadistic jerk of a God and then he'll undo all of that and let me in heaven.

And you wonder why this makes no sense to me?

(21-12-2012 02:20 PM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  Thirdly, I have living examples, friends that insist on an aggressive undertaking to prove Christians are ignorant or just superstitious people.

That's too bad. They're making wild assumptions and baseless assertions. There's no reason for you and I to do the same.

(21-12-2012 02:20 PM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  EVERY church approaches its teaching differently, and some apply man made methods to teach the gospel in a way that God,(if he exists), would not approve of. There are so many man-made rules and regulations in the religious machine that is the Catholic church.

We agree on this.

My question for you is how do you know that your beliefs are correct and your friend's beliefs are not? Remember, he feels the same way about you. Which of you is correct?

You can't answer that, other than by falling back on faith. Your friend relies on his faith too. So the question really cannot be answered.

So here's the Final Jeopardy question, winner takes all: Why is it that his omniscient omnipotent God set up these nonsensical rules wherein you and your friend have to take it on faith, and at least one of you is wrong and will burn in hell for eternity for it, when he loves both of you and wants the best for both of you, and when he's omnipotent enough to make different rules that would allow both of you to get to heaven?

Don't fire off a quick answer. This question requires some study. Think about it from outside the box. Ask yourself the same question about Allah, because Muslims have the same problem. Their god roasts people for eternity too. And they have as much difficulty finding the right path as Christians. So ask that same Final Jeopardy question about Allah. I bet right off the bat you get a different answer. I bet your Yahweh answer is "God works in mysterious ways, how can a mere mortal expect to understand his entire plan for us" and your Allah answer is "Simple, Allah isn't real and the Muslims are crazy to think any god would be so fickle". Or something like that.

But I suggest to you that both questions can be answered with the same answer.

(21-12-2012 02:20 PM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  When in fact, it is the bible that says only what is written within is the truth.

Which Bible? King James V? Constantine's official Bible? How about Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John - each of them had a different bible.

I'm no bible scholar. Where's Bucky Ball when I need him? But the bible you think is real and true has been screwed up practically since the beginning. People made mistakes copying by hand for 1600 years. People made mistakes translating it through several languages before you read it in English. People deliberately added and deleted things for their own political agendas. And despite all those changes and mistakes, the whole thing is self-contradictory. You can't hardly read two pages without finding something on page 2 that contradicts page 1. Even the Four Gospels cannot agree on what happened in Jesus' life and death, the single most important event in the bible, written by the four most honored religious teachers of their time, and they can't even agree with each other.

This is the bible that tells us that "Only what is written within is truth"?

You really need to actually read that book. Seriously read it. Not just the bits your pastor reads on Sundays, but read it. Start with just the Four Gospels. Read the first verse of each gospel, then the second verse of each gospel, then the third. Read them side by side like that, instead of reading all of one then all of the next one and so on. When you read them side by side, you'll see all the ways they flagrantly contradict each other.

Then tell me which gospel is the truth and which three are wrong, and then tell me how "Only what is written within is truth". Then I'll believe you.

(21-12-2012 02:20 PM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  On your big Satan confusion, i believe I cleared that up on my second note: The bible teaches Satan cannot touch you if you are under God protection, so that make God Superior.

I totally get that. God is more powerful than Satan. That's why God won and Satan was cast out of heaven, not the other way around. That's why God can protect us, if he bothers, once we love him well enough.

I totally get all that.

You're the one who says that we must "enable" god to protect us as if somehow God CANNOT protect us otherwise. That is where I say you're limiting God. Not me. You're the one who says Satan can harm us and there is nothing we can do about it, we don't need to "enable" Satan to harm us but we need to "enable" God to protect us. This Christian concept clearly implies that Satan can mess with our lives without being "enabled" but God cannot.

I think the intent of the idea is that God "will not" rather than "cannot". But as I showed above, that really cuts him out to be a lousy father figure. For me, lousy enough to be unbelievable, especially as an omniscient entity who should know better and an omnipotent entity who should do better.

(21-12-2012 02:20 PM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  Pretty simple. not sure why u had so much to say about that one lol.

See above. God is either powerless or worthless in this scenario. If it's the first case, why bother, and if it's the second case, well, why bother?

(21-12-2012 02:20 PM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  But i appreciate the questions nonetheless.

Do you?

From my perspective you regurgitated a lengthier version of what you initially presented without considering the questions or trying to answer them. Your answers weren't directed at my questions but rather rote regurgitation of Sunday School bible studies.

I think if you really consider my questions and really try to answer them yourself, you may be in for a bit of a shock.

(21-12-2012 02:20 PM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  I consider this an enlightening experience for me,

I hope so for that was my intent.

(21-12-2012 02:20 PM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  learning that in fact atheist's such as yourself do not know much about the bible as you might have seemed to claim. which was one of my points i made in my original post that you must have again, missed somehow. I again apologize for the confusion. Smile

Whoopsie, there you go again. Making assumptions about what I know and what I don't know. Incorrect assumptions I might add. I'll gladly debate bible studies point-for-point with you if you want, but that didn't seem to be what this was about.

Philosophically, which is where we started, the God concept is indefensible. Your points, which I addressed specifically, are shallow and senseless. That's not to say that you are personally shallow or senseless, but these are the standard Christian rote bits of nonsense that, when put under an unbiased microscope, fall completely apart.

(21-12-2012 02:20 PM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  You also seem to think I was automatically addressing all Atheist's in that they know nothing of what they challenge. I did not. never did I say, as you implied, that "atheist's all think Christians are uneducated etc." i said it SOME individuals SOMETIMES lead themselves to believe that. Again, next time at the end of such a statement, to add perfect clearity, i will say "But not all".

Good idea.

You're right, you didn't say it applied to all atheists. And I did acknowledge that some atheists do hold this viewpoint.

(21-12-2012 02:20 PM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  Did you know btw that when you have all the ingredients for life in a lab, you cannot, despite all our brightest efforts, create life? out of the shear building blocks? assuming you even know that those elements are hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen. We still do not know how life just sparks into a living hunk of matter.

Actually, I think that HAS been done. Lots of times, first in 1953. Here's a link to get started if you want to research it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%8...experiment

(21-12-2012 02:20 PM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  We dont know what drives it. what makes it alive. we know that a cell uses energy from glucose molecules to multiply and divide, but we dont know how that hunk of four elements becomes that living cell. That's the biological argument, and ive already made the Physics argument.

All true. What's this got to do with God?

Sure, even if we prove, scientifically, 100% certain, that basic elements can form to create life, evolve, and result in humans. Even if we prove, scientifically, 100% certain, that the universe really did explode for purely physical reasons with no need for any kind of creator. Even if we fully prove all of that, it doesn't prove the non-existence of God. Maybe that's just how God wanted to create stuff, with Big Bangs and abiogenesis and evolution. Or maybe not.

Your conclusion in both posts, that we haven't disproved anything about God, and therefore we don't know for sure, theists or atheists, (hectically, gnostics or agnostics), is quite valid.

(21-12-2012 02:20 PM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  My final statement to you Aseptic Skeptic is to rethink your approach to my hypothesis.

You'll have to tell me how to rethink it then. I read it, spotted the flaws, presented my arguments. Was I supposed to do otherwise?

(21-12-2012 02:20 PM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  perhaps now that your points of interjection have been refuted, you could now make your own 2.0 rendition of where you were going with how you addressed my post.

Refuted? Regurgitating longer versions of the original point is not refutation my friend. Have fun with my 2.0 rendition, hopefully I clarified myself this time.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Aseptic Skeptic's post
21-12-2012, 04:26 PM
RE: Objecting the concept of a Deity
(wow, that's a wall-o-text if I've ever seen one).

Sorry gang, it was too much fun. I guess I was in a debate kind of mood today. After you read that, for those few brave souls (if any) who might care to do so, take a few aspirin and you can bill me for them.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Aseptic Skeptic's post
21-12-2012, 04:26 PM
RE: Objecting the concept of a Deity
(21-12-2012 04:13 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(21-12-2012 04:04 PM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  I did not win, I was simply not wrong. I seem to be missing something here, everyone saw me and Vos agree with my point, yet my principles are still being challenged. Your starting to make no sense. Confirmation has been given and agreed upon, now Validation is in order, yet I am somehow incorrect all along? I think the only one with a mind that sees reason so far is Vos.
Now, now. What morondog, as far as I understand it, was trying to get at is that your claim that absence of evidence is just as strong as evidence of absence is flawed. Is it not the case that searching for a dragon that is claimed to live at the center of our planet Earth by digging our way to it's core to determine that there is none makes for a better and stronger argument than dismissing it because there is no evidence for it?
i will say it one more time. im not bothering with grammar as i am in a discussion i no longer care for, but here goes. we have the tools and methods to peer into the core of our earth. tools like seismographs help scientist to better understand the geographical makup of our planet. we know the core is made of iron, and that creates a magnetic field around the earth that protects us from more fiercely intense Ultra-Violet radiation. look you want to learn about science? take a class. im tired of proving my point. there's no dragon at the center of the earth. the argument of the existence of God is the only thing at the top of my head that cannot be definitively proved or disproved. I dont know how i can make it any easier for you to understand. its not that hard to get. use your noggin a little, and maybe you'll get it someday. if not i can send you a few C+ science for dumbies book i read in junior high.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-12-2012, 04:38 PM
RE: Objecting the concept of a Deity
wow Aseptic completely ignored everything i said in response to him. thats just lame. theres nothing behind his inquiries that i havent already asnwered in plain terms. I dont believe in God, i just don't argue his possibility of existence. and neither did anyone else ti about five seconds ago when people started changing their minds. ive been up for 37 hours now and have no energy left. no one here disagrees with me, yet insists on picking out further dis credibility to my point. i like debate, but some of you are just inventing reasons out of thin air to continue what has already been concluded. i dont have that kind of motivation atm lol. will continue when i have had some sleep. it sounds like you definitely need some DLJ drinking alcohol is unbecoming of an intellectual. it kills brain cells, as im sure you are now aware of. good look to possible futre AA meetings lol
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-12-2012, 04:41 PM
RE: Objecting the concept of a Deity
(21-12-2012 04:26 PM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  i will say it one more time. im not bothering with grammar as i am in a discussion i no longer care for, but here goes.
I don't recall saying anything about grammar in this entire thread.

(21-12-2012 04:26 PM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  we have the tools and methods to peer into the core of our earth. tools like seismographs help scientist to better understand the geographical makup of our planet. we know the core is made of iron, and that creates a magnetic field around the earth that protects us from more fiercely intense Ultra-Violet radiation. look you want to learn about science? take a class. im tired of proving my point. there's no dragon at the center of the earth. the argument of the existence of God is the only thing at the top of my head that cannot be definitively proved or disproved. I dont know how i can make it any easier for you to understand. its not that hard to get. use your noggin a little, and maybe you'll get it someday. if not i can send you a few C+ science for dumbies book i read in junior high.
You are still missing the point morondog and I were trying to make.

Let me modify my example a bit, so that there is no way for you to use any scientific tools to determine the validity of the claim. How would you prove or disprove the existence of an invisible and undetectable dragon that is living beneath the surface of a planet that is several billion light years away?

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
21-12-2012, 04:44 PM
RE: Objecting the concept of a Deity
Ignored?

Ouch. I thought I wrote a virtual novella of detailed itemized responses, point for point. Sorry, I don't know how to ignore you less than that. My bad.

Now all I need is someone, maybe Chas or Erx, to tell me to ignore him more...

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Aseptic Skeptic's post
21-12-2012, 04:45 PM
RE: Objecting the concept of a Deity
(21-12-2012 04:41 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(21-12-2012 04:26 PM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  i will say it one more time. im not bothering with grammar as i am in a discussion i no longer care for, but here goes.
I don't recall saying anything about grammar in this entire thread.

(21-12-2012 04:26 PM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  we have the tools and methods to peer into the core of our earth. tools like seismographs help scientist to better understand the geographical makup of our planet. we know the core is made of iron, and that creates a magnetic field around the earth that protects us from more fiercely intense Ultra-Violet radiation. look you want to learn about science? take a class. im tired of proving my point. there's no dragon at the center of the earth. the argument of the existence of God is the only thing at the top of my head that cannot be definitively proved or disproved. I dont know how i can make it any easier for you to understand. its not that hard to get. use your noggin a little, and maybe you'll get it someday. if not i can send you a few C+ science for dumbies book i read in junior high.
You are still missing the point morondog and I were trying to make.

Let me modify my example a bit, so that there is no way for you to use any scientific tools to determine the validity of the claim. How would you prove or disprove the existence of an invisible and undetectable dragon that is living beneath the surface of a planet that is several billion light years away?
but thats the my whole basis Vos, we do have the tools. ok if you want to put us in w world where we dont, then fine, we have no way to know. but thats not reality. the reality is that we can know these things. and its important to find them out
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-12-2012, 04:50 PM
RE: Objecting the concept of a Deity
(21-12-2012 04:45 PM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  but thats the my whole basis Vos, we do have the tools. ok if you want to put us in w world where we dont, then fine, we have no way to know. but thats not reality. the reality is that we can know these things. and its important to find them out
In that case, you should be able to answer my question with ease. How do you prove or disprove the claim I made? How do you find out anything about the events that occur beneath the surface of a planet that is billions of light years away?

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: