Belief in existence of God scientific. Denial - unscientific

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
theStudent
Guru
Posts: 1566
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 6:32 pm
Been thanked: 2 times

Belief in existence of God scientific. Denial - unscientific

Post #1

Post by 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.

John 8:32
. . .the truth will set you free.

benchwarmer
Prodigy
Posts: 2510
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 2337 times
Been thanked: 960 times

Re: Belief in existence of God scientific. Denial - unscient

Post #331

Post by benchwarmer »

hoghead1 wrote: [Replying to benchwarmer]

What is my answer now? You have an extremely unique sense of perfection. I don't think I've seen anything quite like it. I'll say that for you.
Thank you, but I think the point has been made. Just because you define something a particular way does not magically poof it into existence.

hoghead1
Guru
Posts: 2011
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2016 10:02 pm

Re: Belief in existence of God scientific. Denial - unscient

Post #332

Post by hoghead1 »

[Replying to benchwarmer]
I think you missed the whole point of teh ontological argument, which is that by definition, yes, God does have to exist. The way God is defined does rationally men that God exists.

The ontological argument is a very slid argument accept by many philosophers. Bertrand Russell once said, "God in great booth, the ontological argument works."

Your dismissal of it is too quick.

User avatar
Tired of the Nonsense
Site Supporter
Posts: 5680
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:01 pm
Location: USA
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Belief in existence of God scientific. Denial - unscient

Post #333

Post by Tired of the Nonsense »

hoghead1 wrote: [Replying to benchwarmer]
I think you missed the whole point of teh ontological argument, which is that by definition, yes, God does have to exist. The way God is defined does rationally men that God exists.

The ontological argument is a very slid argument accept by many philosophers. Bertrand Russell once said, "God in great booth, the ontological argument works."

Your dismissal of it is too quick.
If we used the same method to define Santa Claus, would that rationally mean that Santa must exist?
Image "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." -- Albert Einstein -- Written in 1954 to Jewish philosopher Erik Gutkind.

benchwarmer
Prodigy
Posts: 2510
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 2337 times
Been thanked: 960 times

Re: Belief in existence of God scientific. Denial - unscient

Post #334

Post by benchwarmer »

hoghead1 wrote: [Replying to benchwarmer]
I think you missed the whole point of teh ontological argument, which is that by definition, yes, God does have to exist. The way God is defined does rationally men that God exists.

The ontological argument is a very slid argument accept by many philosophers. Bertrand Russell once said, "God in great booth, the ontological argument works."

Your dismissal of it is too quick.
No, my dismissal of it is based on simple logic. You admit that by definition God exists, so why bother with an argument at all? You've defined it to be so, so it must be.

If you actually had a logical argument that wasn't simply word play, everyone who takes basic logic in school would have to concede the argument. However, since you define your outcome right in the premise, there's no point.

I define pink unicorns to be perfection.
I define pink unicorns to exist.

Somehow you believe the above to be silly, but substitute a different word for "pink unicorn" such as "God" and voila! Now the argument is supposed to be rock solid?

Let's say, just for the sake of argument that I'm convinced (which I'm not). Now you've shown that a "God" exists. How do you propose to proceed from there? Which "God" is it that exists? Surely it's not the one described in the Christian Bible because that one is not perfect as fully described in the Bible itself.

I've added the bold below.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV
Genesis 1
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.�
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV
Deuteronomy 32
4 He is the Rock, his works are perfect,
and all his ways are just.
A faithful God who does no wrong,
upright and just is he.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV
Genesis 6
6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.�
He regretted making humans which are supposedly an image of perfection. He is so perfect He didn't see this coming? He is so perfect he created imperfect beings? His so perfect he changed His mind and regretted the whole thing? He is so perfect His only solution is to wipe out everything not just the beings causing the problems? Wow, you complained about my sense of perfection.

So, that's one god concept down. Which one do you subscribe to that is actually perfect?

User avatar
Talishi
Guru
Posts: 1156
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 11:31 pm
Location: Seattle
Been thanked: 2 times
Contact:

Re: Belief in existence of God scientific. Denial - unscient

Post #335

Post by Talishi »

theStudent wrote: No where in the Bible does it teach a flat earth.
If you insist, please provide evidence.
Satan took Jesus to the summit of a tall mountain where all the nations of Earth could be seen at once. This could only occur on a flat earth. As your altitude (a) increases without limit above a spherical Earth, the area you can see approaches 2*pi*(r+a)^2, or 50% of the area of the Earth, leaving the other half of the world obscured.
Thank you for playing Debating Christianity & Religion!

benchwarmer
Prodigy
Posts: 2510
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 2337 times
Been thanked: 960 times

Re: Belief in existence of God scientific. Denial - unscient

Post #336

Post by benchwarmer »

Talishi wrote:
theStudent wrote: No where in the Bible does it teach a flat earth.
If you insist, please provide evidence.
Satan took Jesus to the summit of a tall mountain where all the nations of Earth could be seen at once. This could only occur on a flat earth. As your altitude (a) increases without limit above a spherical Earth, the area you can see approaches 2*pi*(r+a)^2, or 50% of the area of the Earth, leaving the other half of the world obscured.
Also here:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV
Isaiah 18:3
All you people of the world, you who live on the earth, when a banner is raised on the mountains, you will see it, and when a trumpet sounds, you will hear it.
Given that not everyone lives within sight of a mountain, this doesn't work unless you assume a flat earth.

That's one old testament reference and one new testament reference implying a flat earth. Are there any that imply a spherical one? I couldn't find one. I searched for 'round' and 'sphere' with no luck.

User avatar
theStudent
Guru
Posts: 1566
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 6:32 pm
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Belief in existence of God scientific. Denial - unscient

Post #337

Post by theStudent »

[Replying to post 335 by Talishi]
Talishi wrote:Satan took Jesus to the summit of a tall mountain where all the nations of Earth could be seen at once. This could only occur on a flat earth. As your altitude (a) increases without limit above a spherical Earth, the area you can see approaches 2*pi*(r+a)^2, or 50% of the area of the Earth, leaving the other half of the world obscured.
Hi T.
That's a good observation.
If you recall, in this post, I took the time to explain why it's not reasonable to pull one scripture from the Bible, and understand it.
If you read verses 1, 5, and 8, you can see that Jesus is in the wilderness.
So the questions we need to ask are,
  • Did Jesus leave the wilderness to follow the Devil into the temple, and up onto the roof?
  • Did Jesus then again follow the Devil somewhere - perhaps into the wilderness, to go up on an "unuually high mountain"?
  • Would that not make Jesus, the Devil's puppet?
  • Would it not seem more reasonable that since the Devil was really just trying to get Jesus to obey him, that it likely was in a vision that the Devil led Jesus in?
    This is not difficult for a spirit creature to do, since Jesus at that time is mortal/flesh.
    God himself used a vision to transfigure Jesus, before the apostles. The vision appeared to be so real, that Peter believed he was a part of it. (Matthew 17:1-9).
    That demonstrate the power, of the supernatural.
I think ability and willingness to reason, is essential, if one is to understand scripture.
John 8:32
. . .the truth will set you free.

User avatar
Talishi
Guru
Posts: 1156
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 11:31 pm
Location: Seattle
Been thanked: 2 times
Contact:

Re: Belief in existence of God scientific. Denial - unscient

Post #338

Post by Talishi »

theStudent wrote: Would it not seem more reasonable that since the Devil was really just trying to get Jesus to obey him, that it likely was in a vision that the Devil led Jesus in?
There is one Word of God, but every denomination has its own list of which verses are literal, and which ones are merely symbolic. In the Catholic Church, the verses where Jesus says eat his flesh and drink his blood are literal, but those verses are symbolic to the Baptist churches. In the Baptist churches, the verses where souls are tormented by fire day and night forever are literal but to Seventh Day Adventists they are symbolic. In Seventh Day Adventist churches, the verses where God created the universe in seven days are literal, but to Catholics they are symbolic. Round and round we go.
Thank you for playing Debating Christianity & Religion!

User avatar
theStudent
Guru
Posts: 1566
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 6:32 pm
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Belief in existence of God scientific. Denial - unscient

Post #339

Post by theStudent »

[Replying to post 336 by benchwarmer]

Woe to the land of whirring insect wings?
Send a ram to the ruler of the land?

I don't think it's anywhere near reasonable to pull a prophecy, often written in poetic style, and in most cases symbolism, much less a scripture that's not prophecy.

Perhaps you could try starting from where the prophecy begins - Chapter 15. That may help.
John 8:32
. . .the truth will set you free.

User avatar
theStudent
Guru
Posts: 1566
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 6:32 pm
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Belief in existence of God scientific. Denial - unscient

Post #340

Post by theStudent »

[Replying to post 338 by Talishi]

I quite understand your point, which is a valid one.
The best response I feel I can give you right now is Jesus's words in Matthew 7, 13, and 23. Actually most of what Jesus said sums it up. In a nut shell he said, do not what is holy to dogs, not pearls to swine. In other words, the unappreciative do not deserve something of such high value, as the wisdom of the most high. He hides it from them.

Like the hypocritical Pharisees, and Scribes, in Jesus day, many religions exist, not for the benefit of the people, but for the money and power. Most religious people do not understand the scriptures. Not because they can't, but because they don't care about truth.
John 8:32
. . .the truth will set you free.

Post Reply