Belief in existence of God scientific. Denial - unscientific

[theStudent]

The length of the thread, in the link below, is largely due to repeated questions.on the contained information. The following is open for debate.
Belief in the existence of God is scientific. Denial - unscientific.

For those who disagree with the above, please state why, and/or provide evidence for the following:

• God does not exist.
• God exists only in the mind of the believer.
• Miracles do not happen.
• The Bible is a book of myths.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 63 by Divine Insight]

then why should I misunderstand the Bible?

Surely an omniscient supreme creator could make his position clear?

I believe as I said, a person who wants to understand, will do so.
Do you misunderstand the Bible? And, how would you know?

I don't "hate" the God of the Bible. I'm simply reacting to what it says.

The religion I'm talking about is Christianity. Christ is supposed to be the "savior" who is saving us from a God who is out to damn us to hell. So if you don't believe that there is a God who is out to damn you to hell, (and deservedly so I should add), then why in the world would you think you need to be "saved" from that horrible fate?

I don't make this stuff up. This is the basics of Christianity.

The Christianity you seem to be speaking about, tortured and killed people.
Why would you believe anything they have to say about the Bible?

That's not the Bible I've read. Perhaps if you send me your copy I can see something different?

Jesus is supposed to be saving you from a damnation that you supposedly deserve. Or did you miss that part?

What death?
The entire human race is dying, that's why we need a savior, at least according to the Bible I read. It says, this is due to sin of our fore-parent, Adam.

Remember we aren't talking about any personal accusations here.

In post #56 you stated:

theStudent wrote:

I believe the Bible is subject to misinterpretation and misunderstanding.


I'm, simply explaining how that apology for this religion makes no sense in general.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Now I understand.
I was not making excuses for misinterpretation and misunderstanding.
I was just saying that those possibilities exist, and do occur.

There will be those who will be dishonest, as is the case in life, but imo, those people although they may affect others, do more damage to themselves.

However, as I repeatedly said, imo, one who is seeking to understand will do so.
In other words, whatever misunderstandings that person previously had, will be made clear.

Christianity is indeed based upon the Bible. In fact, that all there is to the religion. If it wasn't for the existence of the Bible, Christianity wouldn't even exist at all.

I agree, but there is still a big difference between the Bible and Religion.

So the Bible is the Christian Religion.

I wouldn't agree that's the correct way to put it.
The Christians in the first century, followed the principles in the Hebrew scriptures, but they also followed Jesus' teachings.
So their religion or way of worship was based on the teachings of Christ.

True Christians - that is - those who follow the pattern of first century Christians, base their teachings on the Bible - which also contain the teaching of Christ and his first century followers.
Their actions would therefore reflect, Christ', and first century Christians - not the Pharasee.

And besides, keep in mind that we're talking about a God here who has to be defined somewhere. If you can't point to the Bible as defining the character, behavior, directives, and commandments of your "God" then how do you define your God? Does your God end up being nothing more than a personal whim of what you would personally wish a God might be like?

That would hardly be "Christianity", although I will concede that this is what "Christianity" has indeed become for many people. It's just an imaginary religion that they make up in their own minds that is completely independent and detached from the original Bible from whence it originated.

Okay.
Take the prophets, mentioned in the Bible.
How did they describe God? What was their view of him?
I would think that their perspective of God, would be of major importance.

If we claim that they were biased, we would have to be able to prove that.

I don't see anywhere in scripture where God is portrayed as bad, and when men did not fully understand God's actions, or instructions, they humbly admitted they were not in the position to know the depth of wisdom and understanding.
It was only wicked men who wanted to take advantage of common people, and engage in other forms of badness, who outrightly challenged God, and went headlong against him.

So no. Christians take God as he is described in the Bible, not how they think he should be.
I think many people make that mistake, and think that God should accept whatever they want, and how ever they want it.

It's a claim made by someone who fully recognizes that the religion is a belief in the Biblical narrative. In fact, if you want to strip that away from what you claim Christianity to be, then what are you going to point to as the "commandments" of this God? And why would you think that Jesus was his "Son"? Or a "savior".

What would you need a "savior" for if you hadn't first been told that some God is out to damn you because you supposedly deserve to be damned?

You aren't making any sense. Christianity without the Bible is nothing.

This is true.

Christianity without the Bible is nothing.

However, I think we are having a communication problem.
It's more likely my fault, in that I am not communicating my words clearly.

Let me try to be clearer, in the way I understand it.
A Christian in this day only exists because people follow the way outlined by the man Jesus Christ, who taught the way of salvation, according to the way the Bible presents it.
A group of worshipers (religion), that holds to that way, is what I understand to be Christianity. Although the world view of Christianity is different - which is any group that professes to belive in Jesus Christ.

So according to the world view of Christianity - Catholics killing Catholics, and Protestants and visa versa - it's all Christianity.
I understand that to be the world view, not the Bible view.

So then, the Bible can't be religion, and religion can't be the Bible.
The Bible is a generally considered a sacred/religious book. Religion is any group of worshipers, who may or may not follow the Bible.
True Christianity would be the group that follows the Bible teachings.
The world view Christianity is any group that calls themselves Christian, or say they believe in Christ, whether they follow the Bible's teachings or not.

I hope we are understanding each other now.

I don't need to know everything. All I need to know is that if a God is said to be omniscient and omnipotent then he shouldn't need to baby-sit his universe and constantly tweak things because he failed to get it right the first time.

But that would still be equivalent to knowing everything, because you are claiming to know there is no need for anyone to be in control of matter/energy.
How could you possible know that???

Even scientists do not understand how galaxies remain intact. As they put it,

[Galaxies] should have torn themselves apart long ago. [Leading them to believe that] something we cannot see is at work. They think something we have yet to detect directly is giving these galaxies extra mass, generating the extra gravity they need to stay intact. This strange and unknown matter was called “dark matter� since it is not visible.

Because scientists have no idea, they have called the stuff dark matter, since it does not absorb, emit, or reflect detectable amounts of radiation.
Consider this: According to current estimates, normal matter accounts for about 4 percent of the mass of the universe. The two big unknowns—dark matter and dark energy—appear to make up the balance. Thus, about 95 percent of the universe remains a complete mystery!

So tell me Divine Insight, how could you possibly know what you claim to know.
Even you yourself would admit that science does not prove things. They still expect that later discoveries, can turn up another surprise that could cause an adjustment to their current model.
Scientists prepare to rewrite the physics textbooks

However, everything depends on the energy out there.
Some say they don't need God.
Some believe they do need God.

Yet according to you this God would need to guide 'evolution' because he couldn't create a universe capable of evolving on its own.

Some persons may view creation like playing with LEGO, so creation may seem childish, but I don't see it that way.
I believe, as the Bible says, God created.
So, from the universe to earth, to life on it.

If you are referring to breeding, or procreation, between created organisms, then yes, I believe that is the process God started, that would continue naturally.
This is a process that occurs in all living things. Plants produce seeds which continues the process on their own.
However, all life still would depend on the source of energy.

But that wouldn't be a God who is omnipotent or who could do anything. It would be a very limited God who has to baby-sit things and guide them every step of the way because he's not good enough to just engineer a self-propagating universe in the first place.

I mean, after all, even human engineer and programmers are already striving to create computer programs and simulations that can become totally autonomous. Surely an omnipotent God would have already perfected that art.

So it's pretty much a given. You shouldn't need to know everything to realize that an omnipotent God could actually be omnipotent and not be as inept as Creationists expect their God to be.

They need a God who could almost create a universe that could evolve into living entities, but not quite, because one of the mandates of their religion is that the universe needs God to baby-sit it. It's actually a flaw in their religion that requires that they include a flaw in their God.

I'm sure you are happy to have running water, electricity, and telecommunications, in your home. What is their source?
There are engineers, who work to channel these to your home.
Suppose all of them quit. Do you think everything will continue to work indefinitely?
There is zero equipment that will work forever. All will break down.
Even the autonomous, no matter how sophisticated.

Furthermore, what if they disconnected all their equiptment from their source?
No electricity, water, or telephone. What?
Most people would probably go mad, and the government overthrown.

The only way anything can continue forever is by means of the energy source. If God wants it to last, it will.
The Bible actually says, it is due to his dynamic energy, and his vigorous power, that these things exists in the first, place.
It also says that his holy spirit is active.
So we are not taking about anything static here.
Hence, in order for anything to remain, they must be "plugged in" to their energy source.

That's why Christianity of the Bible works.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 71 by theStudent]




"Irony you're teasing me
Just when I think these eyes are clear
Irony you're giving me these worn out wings just to keep me near
And its not enough I think too much
I fall in lust like someone does"
- KATY MCALLISTER

then why should I misunderstand the Bible?

Surely an omniscient supreme creator could make his position clear?

I believe as I said, a person who wants to understand, will do so.
Do you misunderstand the Bible? And, how would you know?

Belief in something doesn't make it so.

We could ask and I DO ask the very same question back to theStudent:

"Do you misunderstand the Bible? And, how would you know?"

Oh, the irony.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

Belief in existence of God scientific. Denial - unscientific

The belief in something is neither scientific, nor non-scientific. It's the evidence and conclusions based therupon that make it one or the other.

For those who disagree with the above, please state why, and/or provide evidence for the following:

God does not exist.

Given the paucity of evidence for the many proposed gods, the most rational conclusion is that such gods do not exist. Further, as the god in question is more and more defined, there's a greater paucity of evidence, and a greater rationality for believing they don't exist.

God exists only in the mind of the believer.

Affirm. God is a concept.

Miracles do not happen.

As no supernatural, "god given" miracles have ever been shown to have happened, it's far more rational to conclude they don't.

The Bible is a book of myths.

Just as Mother Goose is a book of nursery rhymes.

When we hear tales of the fantastical - zombies strolling about town, animals conversing with humans, gods who can't be shown to exist - the most rational conclusion is we are hearing of myths, or some such similar term.


While it may be enchanting for the theist to ask for scientific evidence that counters the claims of the theist, we have every right to reject claims that have no basis in reality. Regarding the request we "prove God don't exist" (among others in the OP), the bottom line is that science deals in reality, not the make believe world of The Walking Dead or Mr Ed.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 63 by Divine Insight]

then why should I misunderstand the Bible?

Surely an omniscient supreme creator could make his position clear?

I believe as I said, a person who wants to understand, will do so.
Do you misunderstand the Bible? And, how would you know?

I don't believe that I misunderstand the Bible because I don't believe that the Bible has anything to do with any God. I believe it is nothing more than a superstitious religion made up by ignorant and barbaric men.

From that perspective I have no "misunderstanding" of the Bible.

However, IF the Bible truly was the inspired word of a supposedly intelligent benevolent God, then I clearly misunderstand the Bible because all I see is ignorance and malevolence.

This only confirms my previous conclusion that the Bible must not then be from any benevolent intelligent God, because if it were from such a God then I would necessarily need to be "misunderstanding" it. But that makes no sense because then this supposedly benevolent intelligent God would be a God that I can't even trust to communicate intelligently.

Therefore, the Bible cannot be from any intelligent benevolent God.

Also don't forget the following TRUTH:

Even if the Bible were somehow the "word" of some benevolent God and I am somehow "misunderstanding" it, what would that mean?

That could only mean that I am rejecting a misunderstanding of what God is actually like.

Think about that for a moment. That would actually be a GOOD THING!

So my rejection of the Bible is necessarily a good thing in all cases.

I don't "hate" the God of the Bible. I'm simply reacting to what it says.

The religion I'm talking about is Christianity. Christ is supposed to be the "savior" who is saving us from a God who is out to damn us to hell. So if you don't believe that there is a God who is out to damn you to hell, (and deservedly so I should add), then why in the world would you think you need to be "saved" from that horrible fate?

I don't make this stuff up. This is the basics of Christianity.

The Christianity you seem to be speaking about, tortured and killed people.
Why would you believe anything they have to say about the Bible?

I'm not talking about any "Christians". I only need to address the behavior attributed to the God himself AND to the commandments and directives this God gave to men.

Whether or not any men actually obeyed those directives and commandments is a moot point.

That's not the Bible I've read. Perhaps if you send me your copy I can see something different?

Jesus is supposed to be saving you from a damnation that you supposedly deserve. Or did you miss that part?

What death?
The entire human race is dying, that's why we need a savior, at least according to the Bible I read. It says, this is due to sin of our fore-parent, Adam.

Would that be fair or righteous that you should die due to the supposed sins of your fore-parent?

Also, what exactly was Adam's sin? I see extreme contradiction in the story of the "Fall from Grace", and in addition to that I see extremely ignorant, unwise, and immoral reactions on the part of God in those fables. I also see no reason at all to believe that they represent any truth at all.

Why do you accept these ancient fables as being true? Why do you think they make sense or represent and intelligent God?

Remember we aren't talking about any personal accusations here.

In post #56 you stated:

theStudent wrote:

I believe the Bible is subject to misinterpretation and misunderstanding.


I'm, simply explaining how that apology for this religion makes no sense in general.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Now I understand.
I was not making excuses for misinterpretation and misunderstanding.
I was just saying that those possibilities exist, and do occur.

But how could they exist? If this is a religion where people are being judged on their morality then why should there be any misunderstandings concerning this God's directives, commandments, or his sense of morality?

Misunderstanding make no sense in a religion where a God demands to be obeyed.

There will be those who will be dishonest, as is the case in life, but imo, those people although they may affect others, do more damage to themselves.

And what does misunderstanding have to do with being dishonest?

You are twisting the very point of our conversation now to be about dishonesty rather than being about simply misunderstanding something. I consider this to be less than honorable on your behalf.

However, as I repeatedly said, imo, one who is seeking to understand will do so.
In other words, whatever misunderstandings that person previously had, will be made clear.

I am more than open to anyone making the Bible clear. Thus far no one on planet Earth has been able to do this. Not even a single solitary Christian. Even Jesus couldn't succeed at that task. Just look at how extremely confused the Christians are.

I am not alone in not being able to make sense of the Bible. Even the Christians can't do it. They can't even convince each other of their widely different held beliefs and interpretations.

So the Christians themselves have already proven that it's impossible to "understand" these ancient Biblical fables.

Christianity is indeed based upon the Bible. In fact, that all there is to the religion. If it wasn't for the existence of the Bible, Christianity wouldn't even exist at all.

I agree, but there is still a big difference between the Bible and Religion.

So what?

I speak to the Bible.

I couldn't give a hoot less about "religion".

So the Bible is the Christian Religion.

I wouldn't agree that's the correct way to put it.
The Christians in the first century, followed the principles in the Hebrew scriptures, but they also followed Jesus' teachings.
So their religion or way of worship was based on the teachings of Christ.

That's meaningless. One of the teachings that was attributed to the "Christ" is the following:

Matthew 5:
[17] Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
[18] For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

The only jots and tittles that Jesus could have possibly been referring to here were the Hebrew Scriptures. Therefore if you aren't following every jot and tittle of the Hebrew Scriptures you can't be following the teachings of Jesus.

And yes, I know that the teachings of Jesus himself often conflict with these words attributed to him by Matthew 5:17-18. But that only demonstrates even more problems confusion and contradictions in this religion.

For example, are we supposed to obey Yahweh and stone sinners to death? Or are we to obey Jesus and refuse to obey Yahweh?

The Christian Bible that includes the teachings of Jesus only serves to make the Bible as a whole impossible to obey.

Also, all that Jesus would have needed to say was, "Yes, I have come to change the laws". That's all he would have needed to say and he could have fixed this problem. But let's face it, that's now how this dogma was written and we can't go back and rewrite it now.

True Christians - that is - those who follow the pattern of first century Christians, base their teachings on the Bible - which also contain the teaching of Christ and his first century followers.
Their actions would therefore reflect, Christ', and first century Christians - not the Pharasee.

No one mentioned the Pharisees. Christ said that not one jot or tittle shall pass from law. So this leaves every jot and tittle of the Hebrew Scriptures in the mix. You can't flush them out in light of Matthew 5:17-18. At best you can reject Matthew. And many Christian Apologists actually do make that argument. They suggest that it wasn't Jesus who said those words, but rather it was Matthew saying them trying to convince the Jews that Jesus didn't come to change their laws.

But no matter how you cut it, it remains a major problem. Because, after all, if we can't trust Matthew's account of Jesus then which parts of the Bible can we trust?

Once again we are stuck with an untrustworthy Bible.

And besides, keep in mind that we're talking about a God here who has to be defined somewhere. If you can't point to the Bible as defining the character, behavior, directives, and commandments of your "God" then how do you define your God? Does your God end up being nothing more than a personal whim of what you would personally wish a God might be like?

That would hardly be "Christianity", although I will concede that this is what "Christianity" has indeed become for many people. It's just an imaginary religion that they make up in their own minds that is completely independent and detached from the original Bible from whence it originated.

Okay.
Take the prophets, mentioned in the Bible.
How did they describe God? What was their view of him?
I would think that their perspective of God, would be of major importance.

No. When I'm reading a dogma that claims to be speaking for a God, the only perspective that is of major importance is mine. Period.

I see no reason to allow other people to do my thinking for me. I'm not a child. Are you?

If we claim that they were biased, we would have to be able to prove that.

We don't need to prove anything to anyone. If they want to convince us they are the ones who carry the burden of proof. And thus far none of the authors of the Bible have convinced me of anything other than they were most likely nothing more than authoritarians who were trying to obtain authority by claiming to speak for a God who doesn't exist.

There is no reason why I should believe them. Especially when they say such obviously ignorant and immoral things that they claim God had done, or commanded men to do.

I don't see anywhere in scripture where God is portrayed as bad, and when men did not fully understand God's actions, or instructions, they humbly admitted they were not in the position to know the depth of wisdom and understanding.
It was only wicked men who wanted to take advantage of common people, and engage in other forms of badness, who outrightly challenged God, and went headlong against him.

You speak throughout this entire thing from the perspective of "already believing" that these stories come from some God. I see absolutely no reason to take that perspective to begin with.

In fact, when I first started studying the Bible I actually was a "believer". But when I read that extremely ignorant and stupid things these authors are claiming this God did, it didn't take me long to realize that they are not speaking for any God.

So no. Christians take God as he is described in the Bible, not how they think he should be.

I would say that this is an absolute mistake. They have every right, and even owe it to themselves to question whether or not they are being scammed by authors who merely claim to be speaking for some God but aren't.

Why should you just accept without question that these men speak for some God?

I think many people make that mistake, and think that God should accept whatever they want, and how ever they want it.

I think any intelligent person should absolutely expect a supreme creator of the universe to be at least as intelligent as they are. And I don't even remotely see this in the Bible. The God of the Bible is portrayed (by his actions and directives) as being an absolute idiot, IMHO.

And why should I be afraid to make this assessment?

Would you blindly worship a religion that claimed to have a God who behaved in ways that you could clearly see as being ignorant, immoral, and far beneath your very own level of intelligence?

Your suggestion that we shouldn't question religions is absolute nonsense.

Do you question the Qur'an as being the "Word of God"? And if so, WHY?

According to you own argument for Christianity you aren't in a position to judge whether the Qur'an represents an intelligent God or not.

So I don't buy into your argument here at all. To the contrary, I think it's an extremely weak argument. If you are afraid to question a religion in the fear that you might be "Questioning God's Authority or Wisdom", then you have already fallen prey to its brainwashing tactics.

It's a claim made by someone who fully recognizes that the religion is a belief in the Biblical narrative. In fact, if you want to strip that away from what you claim Christianity to be, then what are you going to point to as the "commandments" of this God? And why would you think that Jesus was his "Son"? Or a "savior".

What would you need a "savior" for if you hadn't first been told that some God is out to damn you because you supposedly deserve to be damned?

You aren't making any sense. Christianity without the Bible is nothing.

This is true.

Christianity without the Bible is nothing.

However, I think we are having a communication problem.
It's more likely my fault, in that I am not communicating my words clearly.

Let me try to be clearer, in the way I understand it.
A Christian in this day only exists because people follow the way outlined by the man Jesus Christ, who taught the way of salvation, according to the way the Bible presents it.
A group of worshipers (religion), that holds to that way, is what I understand to be Christianity. Although the world view of Christianity is different - which is any group that professes to belive in Jesus Christ.

So according to the world view of Christianity - Catholics killing Catholics, and Protestants and visa versa - it's all Christianity.
I understand that to be the world view, not the Bible view.

So then, the Bible can't be religion, and religion can't be the Bible.
The Bible is a generally considered a sacred/religious book. Religion is any group of worshipers, who may or may not follow the Bible.
True Christianity would be the group that follows the Bible teachings.
The world view Christianity is any group that calls themselves Christian, or say they believe in Christ, whether they follow the Bible's teachings or not.

I hope we are understanding each other now.

I'm only interested in debating the Bible. Once the discussion is moved into debating about what people who claim to be "Christians" might believe then anything goes. They all believe totally different things. And so there is nothing of substance to debate there.

I don't need to know everything. All I need to know is that if a God is said to be omniscient and omnipotent then he shouldn't need to baby-sit his universe and constantly tweak things because he failed to get it right the first time.

But that would still be equivalent to knowing everything, because you are claiming to know there is no need for anyone to be in control of matter/energy.
How could you possible know that???

By definition, a God who needed to control every little thing would hardly be omnipotent. So there is no need for me to have any special knowledge.

All I'm saying is that you claim to have a God who has to control every little thing in the universe, then you aren't talking about an omnipotent God. That's all. You would be talking about a God who has extreme limitations in what he can do.

Even scientists do not understand how galaxies remain intact. As they put it,

[Galaxies] should have torn themselves apart long ago. [Leading them to believe that] something we cannot see is at work. They think something we have yet to detect directly is giving these galaxies extra mass, generating the extra gravity they need to stay intact. This strange and unknown matter was called “dark matter� since it is not visible.

Because scientists have no idea, they have called the stuff dark matter, since it does not absorb, emit, or reflect detectable amounts of radiation.
Consider this: According to current estimates, normal matter accounts for about 4 percent of the mass of the universe. The two big unknowns—dark matter and dark energy—appear to make up the balance. Thus, about 95 percent of the universe remains a complete mystery!

So what's your solution? That because scientists haven't figured out how this occurs there must be some God who is holding the galaxies together?

You can't be serious?

This is a GOD OF THE GAPS argument if I ever saw one.

They used to believe that God moved the planets in their paths. But now we know it's all done with gravity.

So now we aren't sure what holds galaxies together so you suggest that God is holding them together?

You've seriously got to be kidding.

Moreover, that kind of argument for a God isn't going to support the Bible anyway. The Pantheistic God of Buddhism could be holding the galaxies together just as easily. And let's not forget that this is a "GOD OF THE GAPS" argument anyway. Totally unimpressive.

So tell me Divine Insight, how could you possibly know what you claim to know.
Even you yourself would admit that science does not prove things. They still expect that later discoveries, can turn up another surprise that could cause an adjustment to their current model.
Scientists prepare to rewrite the physics textbooks

Where did I ever claim to know everything? That's your STRAW MAN argument. I simply pointed out that an omnipotent God shouldn't need to guide every molecule of DNA to make evolution work, nor should he need to be floating around the universe holding galaxies together.

Just think about it yourself. A God who had to guide evolution would a God who was too inept to design a universe that can evolve on its own without any need for intervention. And a God who has to hold galaxies together would be a seriously inept galactic engineer.

Surely an omnipotent God could create galaxies that will stay together on their own?

Have you forgotten that "With God all things are possible"?

Yet your arguments for why you believe there needs to be a God all depend on God not being able to design anything that can work without him having to constantly fiddle with it.

However, everything depends on the energy out there.
Some say they don't need God.
Some believe they do need God.

Whether or not a "God" is needed for energy to exist in no way gives support to Hebrew Mythology anyway. If God is needed for energy, then the Pantheistic God of Buddhism would work just fine.

Yet according to you this God would need to guide 'evolution' because he couldn't create a universe capable of evolving on its own.

Some persons may view creation like playing with LEGO, so creation may seem childish, but I don't see it that way.
I believe, as the Bible says, God created.
So, from the universe to earth, to life on it.

If you are referring to breeding, or procreation, between created organisms, then yes, I believe that is the process God started, that would continue naturally.
This is a process that occurs in all living things. Plants produce seeds which continues the process on their own.
However, all life still would depend on the source of energy.

None of this supports the Hebrew myths of a God.

I'm not arguing that there cannot be some sort of higher entity, or supernatural essence to life. Perhaps there is.

My argument is that if such a supreme entity does exists there is ZERO chance that it would be as ignorant, jealous, and wrathful, as the God described by the Hebrew Bible.

But that wouldn't be a God who is omnipotent or who could do anything. It would be a very limited God who has to baby-sit things and guide them every step of the way because he's not good enough to just engineer a self-propagating universe in the first place.

I mean, after all, even human engineer and programmers are already striving to create computer programs and simulations that can become totally autonomous. Surely an omnipotent God would have already perfected that art.

So it's pretty much a given. You shouldn't need to know everything to realize that an omnipotent God could actually be omnipotent and not be as inept as Creationists expect their God to be.

They need a God who could almost create a universe that could evolve into living entities, but not quite, because one of the mandates of their religion is that the universe needs God to baby-sit it. It's actually a flaw in their religion that requires that they include a flaw in their God.

I'm sure you are happy to have running water, electricity, and telecommunications, in your home. What is their source?
There are engineers, who work to channel these to your home.
Suppose all of them quit. Do you think everything will continue to work indefinitely?
There is zero equipment that will work forever. All will break down.
Even the autonomous, no matter how sophisticated.

Your talking about technological equipment that was designed by humans. What does that have to do with the natural processes of the universe? We already know how they came to be through the natural physical evolution of the universe.

No baby-sitting God is required. In fact, if one was required then the laws of physics would not explain it, but they do. So clearly no baby-sitting God is required.

There are no "little men" hard at work in the center of the Sun keeping it burning.

And neither is there any need for any God to tend to it. Physics explains how it works completely. Nothing more is required.

What part of that do you not understand?

Furthermore, what if they disconnected all their equiptment from their source?
No electricity, water, or telephone. What?
Most people would probably go mad, and the government overthrown.

The only way anything can continue forever is by means of the energy source. If God wants it to last, it will.
The Bible actually says, it is due to his dynamic energy, and his vigorous power, that these things exists in the first, place.
It also says that his holy spirit is active.
So we are not taking about anything static here.
Hence, in order for anything to remain, they must be "plugged in" to their energy source.

That's why Christianity of the Bible works.

Sorry, but your conclusion here fails miserably because your argument had already failed before you got to your conclusion.

Moreover, how can you not see that a Muslim could make your very same argument for Muhammad and the Qur'an?

They make basically the very same claims about God as the Christian Old Testament makes.

And the Buddhist have both Christianity and Islam beat because their God doesn't even need to baby-sit the universe. Their God did it all with just the Big Bang. No further intervention required. So their God is in complete harmony with all known science.

They have a far better picture of God. Their God also has no need to blame anything on humans. No need to blame humans or to judge them. Everything is on autopilot from reincarnation to karma.

It's the ultimate in an "omnipotent" God actually.

So Buddhism actually has the best argument for a "God" to date. But even that argument can't be demonstrated to be anything more than wishful thinking.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 42 by Kenisaw]

Everyone, please realize that truscott knows very well that "proof" in this context is used as a synonym of "evidence". But he likes to play this useless card from time to time in an attempt to circumvent the meant of the problem, which is that you cannot prove a negative.

He knows that it is the responsibility of the claimant to provide evidence supporting the claim. Had he evidence or empirical data showing the existence of the supernatural, he would have just posted that loudly and proudly. That he didn't tells you all you need to know - there isn't any. Which is exactly what is being explained to Student...

He also trots out the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" line. This still doesn't PROVE any of the supernatural claims cultists make of course. And it doesn't change anything I wrote in my original post, which is that there is no plausible reason to consider supernatural claims given the complete lack of data for them.

But nice try truscott...

Oh don't be so harsh.. ttruscott might not understand that difference, after all.
It seems that a LOT of people don't.

It's just that people are quick to gobble up any nonsense that might TEND to confirm their biases. If it agrees with them, its GOT to be right, right?

Doesn't it got to be?
Cause if they say it's not right...... they might burn in hell....

[Divine Insight]

Doesn't it got to be?
Cause if they say it's not right...... they might burn in hell....

That does seem to be a major argument for the religion. TheStudent was just telling me in our previous posts that we shouldn't think that we could be smarter than the Biblical God. He suggests that this is a "big mistake".

However, I suggest that the "big mistake" is to actually think that the Bible is the word of God in the first place and that it shouldn't be questioned.

I suggest that we should indeed question the claims made by the authors of the Bible and if their claims don't appear to be "intelligent" and "moral" by our standards for these concepts, then we should indeed question whether they speak for some supposedly all-wise all-intelligent God.

After all, why should I accept a God who appears to be less intelligent than even myself? What sense does that make.

The only "sense" it seems to make is if I think I will be penalized for not accepting the claims of the authors of the Bible to speak for God.

But as far as I can see they are making God out to be pretty dumb. So why should I accept that a supernatural supreme being should be that dumb?

It just makes no sense to me. The idea that I shouldn't question this makes absolutely no sense at all.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 65 by Divine Insight]

It makes no sense to say that the God of the Bible hates immorality when he himself is grossly immoral.

You keep saying God is immoral. yet you admit that you are not omniscient.
If you are not all-wise, on what basis can you say God is immoral.

Has he broken one of his laws?
Can you at least provide me with one example?

Have you read John 3:18?

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

If you simply don't believe that Jesus is the virgin born demigod Son of Yahweh you are doomed.

If we don't believe that God is - according to the Bible - we are doomed.
And it mentions other things also.

Nobody can tell you what to do with your home, can they?
You decide who can enter your home or not, don't you?
If I drove a car into your house, you won't be happy, would you?
It rats invaded your home, you would try to keep them out, won't you?
Is that fair?

I'm not concerned about any concept of "True Christians". In fact, Jesus couldn't possibly have addressed that concept because when Jesus lived there was no such thing as Christianity or Christians.

I'm sure this is just another claim, for which you have no proof.

You seem to be making some sort of argument for how people who call themselves Christians might behave. That's totally irrelevant. And besides throughout history people who have called themselves Christians have brutally murdered many people on charges of heresy and even for charges of witchcraft.

Today's progress Christians are extremely mild in comparison. Although much of that is no doubt due to secular laws that prevent them from carrying out these horrible hate crimes.

You seem to miss the point I am making, but that may be because it has no relevance to your point - which is "God is immoral", because he wouldn't let wicked people live.

If I'm misunderstanding the Bible and its God, then I can't very well be charged with rejecting the God that it supposedly does describe right?

Observe my words.

According to the Bible, God makes sure a person understands, even if he has to tell them repeatedly.

the Bible itself can help to verify if our understanding is correct or not.

If someone is seeking help in understanding the Bible, that person, imo, will get the help they need.

Do you get the understanding?

So then according to you people of all religious faiths, including Muslims who believe in Allah and the Qur'an are in perfectly good shape with the Jesus and the Christian God.

Atheists too must also be in perfectly good shape with Jesus and God as long as they are righteous atheists.

What you have just said about basically reduces to a claim that it's totally unimportant to believe in Jesus, the Bible, or Christianity.

Okay.
Let's use this as an example.
Sometimes (not all the time), one reason why persons misunderstand another is because they may take one sentence out of a number of sentences, and apply just that one.
Another reason is that they make take the one sentence, and apply it broadly.
For example

Remember, Christianity does not allow for rejection of their religion or their Christ for any reason whatsoever. Not even for "misunderstanding".

As far as I understand from the Bible, God is judge, and misunderstanding is not an unrighteous act, just as an honest mistake is not unrighteousness.

Since I take misunderstanding to mean a genuine misunderstanding, as opposed to a refusal to understand.

I am sure you understand the difference.
Jesus explains what it means to refuse to understand.
He said the people stubbornly refuse to listen, learn, and obey.

So as long as we are clear about what it means to misunderstand, let us go back to the other reason people misunderstand.

I made other statements with regard to those who misunderstand.
I will repeat for clarity.

According to the Bible, God makes sure a person understands, even if he has to tell them repeatedly.

the Bible itself can help to verify if our understanding is correct or not.

If someone is seeking help in understanding the Bible, that person, imo, will get the help they need.

So then taking all my statements together, and realizing that some persons will refuse to understand, which is not a misunderstanding.
To answer your question, I would say, not necessarily.
They all have a chance to understand, if they misunderstand - so they are not doomed, but if they refuse to understand - then they are doomed, according to the Bible.

Hope you understand.

If I'm misunderstanding the Bible and its God, then I can't very well be charged with rejecting the God that it supposedly does describe right?

So if I misunderstand the Bible then it's actually a GOOD THING that I reject it.

If there really does exist a decent moral God then He/She/It should be absolutely thrilled with me that I reject a dogma that I understand to be extremely immoral.

So if you claim that I misunderstand the Bible this vindicates me personally of any wrong doing in this regard. And the fact that I reject the Bible is a GOOD thing.

See above for clarity.

This doesn't make any sense. If there exists an omnipotent GOOD God who is almighty and all-powerful then why would this GOOD God allow this perfectly evil God to destroy the objects of his creation?

If he can't prevent it, then he's impotent.
If he can prevent it but refuses to do so he's as malevolent as the evil God.

Also, aren't we supposed to be able to TRUST this God? Why should we trust a God who allows an evil demonic God to harm us and deceive us?

This is an oxymoron Student.

You can't excuse this God by claiming that there is an evil God on the loose that this God can't control.

Sometimes we may look at the cover of a book, and think negatively of it, until we get inside.
In other words, we may judge a situation on what we see, without really getting to know the facts.
That's another way we can misunderstand, but then the question merits an answer - Do we really want to understand, or are we satisfied with our judgement?

This is where the difference misunderstanding and refusing to understand comes in.

Have you forgotten that Jesus stated clearly that the unrighteous shall go the way of everlasting punishment? He also spoke of an unquenchable fire, and a "worm" that will never die.

Appealing to bad translations doesn't help a thing.

Also, look what you've just done. You've actually given people very good reason why they should misunderstand the Bible because according to you it was poorly mistranslated.

Also, if there existing a trustworthy God then why is it that he cannot be trusted to keep his Holy Books in order?

This God could not blame anyone for rejecting the Bible. Even you claim that it has been badly mistranslated and cannot be trusted to be truthful. So even you have validated my position that I should indeed reject the Bible as being the word of any God.

Again, that is where the points I made about understanding comes in, and more importantly what Jesus said at Matthew 13:10-15.
Jesus also makes it clear how persons can understand.
He said he would be with his followers, to the end, and they would know the truth, and help those who want to know the truth.
Hence, another reason why we need to believe in Jesus.

[strike]Well, you're still talking about "punishing people". That's already an extremely low mentality view, IMHO. An omnipotent God should be able to do better. Besides, other religions proclaim that their God never loses so much as a single solitary soul. So why not choose one of those religions? Why choose a religion that has a God who loses the vast majority of souls that he creates? And according to the Bible that's precisely what the Biblical God does.[/strike]
That way, I can be sure that one this God - the real omnipotent one, remove the bad, then we don't have any need to worry about bad anymore.
It will be the perfect "utopia".

Jesus himself proclaimed that the way to everlasting life is narrow and that few will make it. This necessarily then means that the vast majority of human souls will indeed go the way of damnation. Whether that be everlasting punishment or merely destruction doesn't seem to make a lot of difference. This would still be a creator who loses the vast majority of souls that he creates. And that would be an extremely inept creator.

Well he only created two.
Everyone else came from the two.

But look at it this way. In life we win some and we lose some. And then, we gain some.
When the few reproduces in the restored paradise, according to the Bible, then God has gained. He lost the bad, and replaced them with all good, so there is only good.
That demonstrates his omniscience, because he fairly allowed everyone the opportunity to choose what they preferred.
He said that he put the choice of life and death before individuals, so that they can make the choice.

And personally, I am thankful that he did, because I realize that they are persons who hate God, and I don't see how someone that hates God can love anyone.
I believe whatever God does is wise and just. He has chosen not to allow any unappreciative person to live in his domain, and that's fine with me.
Because I wouldn't want anyone who didn't appreciate all the good that I did for them to live in my house either.
Furthermore, to hate me... And live in my house!!! No way!
IMO - Jehovah is awesome - wise, just, powerful, and he is love.

Why do you say that? I'm not omnipotent.

We're talking about a supposedly omnipotent God remember?

If I were omnipotent I wouldn't allow things to get as far out of control as they are.

In fact, the Biblical God clearly has no problem killing people. He drown out countless humans in the Great Flood. He had no trouble turning Lot's Wife into a pillar of salt for merely turning around and looking back when she had been told not to.

This God clearly has no problem killing people. If that's the case, then why doesn't he kill people before they actually commit their heinous crimes? He's supposedly omniscient. He's supposed to know what's in the heart and soul of every mind. Yet, he can't stop a serial killer from brutally killing people even repeatedly?

Sorry Student, but there's just no justification for this fairy tale. And trying to turn the tables on me proclaiming that I should have God-like Powers just because I know better than to fall for an extremely self-contradictory, immoral, mythology makes no sense.

Just because I can tell wisdom from ignorance doesn't make me omnipotent.

I don't recall saying omnipotent.
I said you are not omniscient - You are not all-wise.
And you certainly don't know that the Bible contains myths.

[Divine Insight]

@Student, I don't have time tonight to read and reply to your entire post right now, but I would like to respond to the following because its so misguided:

It makes no sense to say that the God of the Bible hates immorality when he himself is grossly immoral.

You keep saying God is immoral. yet you admit that you are not omniscient.
If you are not all-wise, on what basis can you say God is immoral.

The God described in the Bible does not represent any morality that I can support.

For me morality is subjective. It's not defined by Hebrew mythology. You are coming from a very strict perspective where you have already bought into the idea that the these ancient Hebrew define morality for you.

They don't define morality for me. To the contrary, I reject their sense of morality as being clearly barbaric and of obvious low mentality.

Has he broken one of his laws?
Can you at least provide me with one example?

And this just drives home my point. Why should I car about this God's laws? He's clearly just a fictitious character made up by what I consider to be immoral barbarians.

Not only that but in spite of the fact that this God's laws are utterly meaningless, I still provide you with examples where he breaks his own laws and even directs men to do the same.

This God commands, "Thou Shalt not Kill". And then he turns right around and demands that men must judge each other and stone each other to death for committing sins. Stoning people to death is killing in case you haven't noticed.

Also, why is this God asking mere mortal men to do his judging for him? They aren't omniscient. They can't know what's in the hearts and minds of other men. Humans killing each other for sins could easily kill innocent people simply because they thought they had committed a sin when in reality they didn't.

So this God would need to be utterly stupid to command men to judge other men when they themselves do not have the power of omniscience.

The stupidity of this God alone is sufficient to recognize that it's nothing more than a made up cartoon character. Never mind his immoral behavior which, I agree, would be far more subjective. You may not agree with my views on morality. So for you and I too discuss whether or not this God is moral is a waste of time. Especially if you have no sense of morality yourself and go strictly by the morals the Bible claims this God demands of you.

If you get your morals from this dogma, then obviously you are going to accept that this is a moral God. How could you think otherwise? You would have no moral compass to compare it with.

In fact, if you have no moral values outside of what this dogma assigns to its God then you aren't even in a position to speak about morality because by your own position you are saying that you obtain all your moral values from this dogma. And this implies that you personally have no clue what constitutes morality other than to depend upon this dogma.

There's a huge problem with this because how can you say that the Biblical morality is any better than the morality presented in the Qur'an for example?

You can't say a thing about it other than you have been convinced that the Bible defines morality and the Qur'an doesn't. But a Muslim who takes precisely the opposite view would be in precisely the same boat at you. You couldn't say anything against his morality other than it doesn't agree with your favorite dogma.

Getting your moral values from an ancient dogma is not only a very bad idea, but its also necessarily a proclamation that you aren't even capable of deciding for yourself what is moral or isn't moral.

It has to be that way, because if you claim that you could decide moral values yourself, then you would be able to comment on whether or not you think the morality offered by the Bible is moral or not, based on your own moral values.

But clearly when I do that, you attempt to belittle me by suggesting that I must think I'm omniscient to be able to decide what constitutes or or bad behavior.

But this is utterly absurd. Any atheists knows better than this. Only someone who is attempting to defend an ancient religion could think otherwise. But even that doesn't work because ultimately you are the one who has choose which religion's morality to embrace as supposedly coming from a God.

In short, if you can "support" Christianity via moral arguments, then clearly you don't need it to decide what should be moral.

And if you claim to not be able to decide what's moral on your own without the Bible, then that places in you in a position to be unable to comment on whether or not it represents moral values. After all, how could you tell if you claim to not be able to know without it?

In short, these kinds of arguments that you need the religion for morality simply don't float. They fail dramatically.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 76 by Divine Insight]




POLEMIC ALERT

Doesn't it got to be?
Cause if they say it's not right...... they might burn in hell....

That does seem to be a major argument for the religion. TheStudent was just telling me in our previous posts that we shouldn't think that we could be smarter than the Biblical God. He suggests that this is a "big mistake".

I have an image of a school yard bully saying something like that...

There's the thinly veiled threat not too many Christians want to admit to themselves or to others. Maybe it's "big mistake", but it's also the "big elephant in the room".

These poor people are cowering in fear and can't even admit it.

However, I suggest that the "big mistake" is to actually think that the Bible is the word of God in the first place and that it shouldn't be questioned.

I completely agree... BUT... I think it's the big hurdle that they have to get over. It was quite easy ( if slow ) for me to get over it, but I've heard that the fear of hell stays with people even YEARS after they become atheists. The programing is SO effective.

I do have a lot of sympathy... we are all "victims of victims" at times. Who is to blame?.... It's nice ( and intellectually easy ) to have someone to blame... let's call that "Satan" or "Adam and Eve", or "sin" or "atheists", and were done.

On to Walmart.

It's WAY more comforting to believe we HAVE SOMETHING ( like big old Santa watching over us ) than realize that we really don't have anything... unless we make it ourselves, like grown ups. And of course, we can't forget the real power ( I'd say the beneficial power ) of that big happy group hug that is religion.

BBQ, anyone?

I suggest that we should indeed question the claims made by the authors of the Bible and if their claims don't appear to be "intelligent" and "moral" by our standards for these concepts, then we should indeed question whether they speak for some supposedly all-wise all-intelligent God.

I've noticed that you usually attack the morality of the Christian ( or all Abrahamic ) gods. And while I cannot ever be persuaded by Christian arguments from morality, and have to agree that the stories about their god are morally HORRIFIC repugnant and barbaric ... I don't ever notice any budging on their position there. Somehow, that a priori GOODNESS of God just "sticks" with them.

I was heavily influenced by George Orwell and his book 1984:

"The Ministry of Truth, which concerned itself with news, entertainment, education, and the fine arts. The Ministry of Peace, which concerned itself with war. The Ministry of Love, which maintained law and order. And the Ministry of Plenty, which was responsible for economic affairs. Their names, in Newspeak: Minitrue, Minipax, Miniluv, and Miniplenty. "

There's even someone in here who gets a great deal of satisfaction calling herself a "Slave to Christ". These people are brainwashed by that big brother in the pulpit.

You can see it in their EYES.

I try to deconstruct their REASONING... as in 1+1=2 and not 3, but that usually fails, too. Deeply devout Christians seem to not be able to even COMPREHEND basic logic. I don't mean college level logic, either. I haven't BEEN to college. I learned what I know about critical thinking off the web.

These guys don't even seem to ever look up the dozens of links I provide to explanations of the logical fallacies I'm talking about. Some of them know the NAMES of the logical fallacies and bandy them around. But they don't seem to have a CLUE as to how they function in an actual conversation, or how to AVOID them. And of course, these kinds of logical "subtleties" never come up in our daily lives very much.

Another seemingly HUGE hurdle is how OFTEN it is that I seem to have to PASTE definitions for COMMON words in here. It's like none of them ever cracked a dictionary in their lives. Again, I don't think they ever bother themselves with the links I provide to them for those, either. It's like Bill Clinton telling us that he never had sexual relations with that woman.

Definitions.. strange and wonderful definitions.
I call it "Religious Newspeak"

Clever guy, that Orwell.

After all, why should I accept a God who appears to be less intelligent than even myself? What sense does that make.

Ahhhhh, but YOU don't start off with the a priori belief that God is omniscient. You have to believe that, and then shut your eyes real hard until your bad thoughts go away. THEN, you will calm down and remember that GOD has a good reason for everything.

The problem YOU have... is that your programing has been partially erased. AND as we all know.... you'll burn in hell for that.

ANOTHER problem you have is you expect any of this to make sense. Apologists INSIST that they do, of course, but they don't. The whole system is based on the irrational .. and they revel in it. They even QUESTION the validity of logic... and reality ... just so they can make their dreams seem all the more real. And thereby attempt to lower all of mankind to the lowest common intellectual denominator in order to infect us all with their god beliefs. AMEN.

Progress is an enemy of Christianity.

The only "sense" it seems to make is if I think I will be penalized for not accepting the claims of the authors of the Bible to speak for God.

They used to be able to burn someone like you at the stake. Now... all they can do is to [strike]hope[/strike] threaten that you will burn in hell.

Gimme that old time religion !!

But as far as I can see they are making God out to be pretty dumb. So why should I accept that a supernatural supreme being should be that dumb?

It just makes no sense to me. The idea that I shouldn't question this makes absolutely no sense at all.

I was raised as a Catholic, and in some perverted way, I'm actually glad of it. I know, I know.... who would want that, right? But I learned a LOT about human depravity and irrationality by being deeply programed at a young age that way. One thing about my Catholic teachers.... they made sure we ALL fell in line. We couldn't ask questions, because it wasn't allowed, but more importantly, and cleverly, there WERE no answers if we did. It was all.... one big honking shrug. They called it a "mystery".

Hey, it worked for a while... I was just as gullible as any other kid. THEN, just about when I was done with peeing in my pants .. I grew up.
It just seems to me that leaving the faith was a natural part of growing up. When I finally admitted to myself that I didn't believe their junk, I felt.... like someone new, born again. Like I was becoming a man... at least intellectually.

You know, thinking for myself.
And I never feared hell ever again.

Nice story, huh?

( that's what happens when I write before I had my morning coffee )

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 65 by Divine Insight]

It makes no sense to say that the God of the Bible hates immorality when he himself is grossly immoral.

You keep saying God is immoral. yet you admit that you are not omniscient.
If you are not all-wise, on what basis can you say God is immoral.

Has he broken one of his laws?
Can you at least provide me with one example?

Here are 3:

Quotes are from biblegateway.com (NIV)

Murder

Exodus 20:13
“You shall not murder.

Genesis 7:23
Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth.

Idols

Exodus 20:4
“You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.

Numbers 21:8
The Lord said to Moses, “Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live.�

Stealing

Exodus 20:15
“You shall not steal.

Exodus 23:30
Little by little I will drive them out before you, until you have increased enough to take possession of the land.

There are more examples, but let's start with those.