Hi,
This is my first post and Topic on this site, so I'll quickly introduce myself.
My name is Todd, 15 years old live in Sydney and I'm Christian and happily got saved about 2 months ago.
So anyway, I think this is a similar topic to something was put on before but anyway, I'd like to try it again.
I want people on this to state their belief and give evidence for why they think it is right or why they believe in it.
I myself as stated above am Christian, I don't know how many people have heard of this but before that I was an evolutionist, take note of what I say here evolutionists, "I didn't WANT to believe in God, because I was afraid of going to Hell for sinning, so I decided that if I believed there wasn't a God there wasn't a hell to possibly end up going to when I die, so I chose something that ruled God out, it took me ages but after 3 years I realised how pathetic evolution is because although I DID believe in it I never saw any proof of it" So anyway after this, I became Christian and saw proofs of it straight away, I've had a lot of my personal prayers answered and there's easily much proof in the bible with so many fulfilled prophecies and SCIENTIFIC FACTS that support the Bible, so thats my reason for trust in the Lord now, I'd write something longer but I'm tired right now.
Anyway, everyone else, I wanna hear your thoughts
Evidence for your beliefs
Moderator: Moderators
Post #41
Potwalloper,
In that case you cannot call anything it is not, unless it contains all literal elements to the description. Such as a you cannot call anything flat, because nothing totally and completely is flat. It is more like you talking semantics with the words not those who use an Anthropomorphic description of God.
According to your "part-ipotent", I would like to see you go around correcting people that any reference to a round object or circle is not totally and completely round or a circle, it is circular-ish! yeah, try that.
"best sense" of the word is perfectly acceptable. You do it every day.
In that case you cannot call anything it is not, unless it contains all literal elements to the description. Such as a you cannot call anything flat, because nothing totally and completely is flat. It is more like you talking semantics with the words not those who use an Anthropomorphic description of God.
According to your "part-ipotent", I would like to see you go around correcting people that any reference to a round object or circle is not totally and completely round or a circle, it is circular-ish! yeah, try that.
"best sense" of the word is perfectly acceptable. You do it every day.
Post #42
potwalloper. wrote:So - once again: could god create a universe that is so big that even she could not fill it?
Are you saying yes? If so how can this be squared with omnipresence?
Are you saying no? If so how can this be squared with omnipotence?
In this context the two concepts are contradictory.
Is your god therefore a contradiction in terms?
This argument is logical but not valid to reality. The premises are set TO the the conclusion. Any argument can be constructed to prove a conclusion with premises stemming from the conclusion.
Such as
1) All men are mortal
2) Socrates is a man
3) Socrates is mortal
The conclusion is logical and valid but we still don't know if the premises are true. So are ALL men mortal? How do you know? Have you observed ALL men? How do you know Socrates IS a man?
Post #43
That's exactly my point! In this case all of God's actions would be predetermined, i.e. God has no free will.There is an alternative: If God is omniscient, and incapable of erring, then He knows the future and would perfectly live that out, never needing to change His mind. The above is a paradox that is never arrived at. Again it is another attempt to disprove something which is not proposed.
jwu
Post #44
This would be true, except that God is claimed to exist outside of time. If such is the case, there would be no "future" or "past" for God, and as such there is no "before" where things could be determined. Simply because we are bound by linear time does not necessarily mean a God figure must also be.jwu wrote:In this case all of God's actions would be predetermined
The entire issue of asking questions with contradictory premises does not really do much to logically disprove god though, as it boils down to asking if god is capable of doing what he's not capable of.
I do however think God's omnipotence is questioned in Judges 1:19
Not because of any sin on the part of the Israelites or because it did not please god to drive them out, but because they had iron chariots.Judges wrote: And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron (emphasis added)
Post #45
I'm not sure about this...existing outside of time is a very difficult subject, and it certainly could fill a whole own thread. I'll let it rest in this one.This would be true, except that God is claimed to exist outside of time. If such is the case, there would be no "future" or "past" for God, and as such there is no "before" where things could be determined. Simply because we are bound by linear time does not necessarily mean a God figure must also be.
Agreed - and i did not attempt that. I just see a logical contradiction between the concepts of omniscience, omnipotence and free will. God can very well exist without "real" omniscience (which includes predicting the future without forcing a previously thought up future to happen using the omnipotence).The entire issue of asking questions with contradictory premises does not really do much to logically disprove god though
It's a purely hypothetical issue anyway
jwu
Post #46
Todd,
Looking back at all the posts I thought I'd put in my overall two cents too.
Skepticism is fine, but when a skeptic has their skepticism turned on all the way past ten, to eleven, there isn't much that will "prove" anything to them. I find the funny thing about (volume eleven) skeptics is that they love to use the whole "omni" isn't "omni" as proof that God cannot be omni anything. Yet they aren't true skeptics because they would have to be skeptical about skepticism.
Don't let the argument that science is objective get the best of you either. I have yet to see a human do science objectively. It is an ideal rarely, if ever achieved. Einstein himself had to admit to altering his Theory of Relativity in order to get the outcome he desired, after it was actually OBSERVED that the universe WAS expanding. His first attampts consistently demanded that the universe is finite. But Einstein's "objectivity" made him alter, or what scientists call "fudging", the math in order to get an infinite universe. What this means is that Einstein WANTED the universe to be static and not expanding. This is a famous example of "objectivity" in the science field, and to be sure there are many more "fudge" factors in theories and such out there that have not been uncovered yet. The ONLY thing in science that is objective are the facts, all else is subjective perceptions of those facts (regardless of sides).
Also don't let the "evolution is all but proven" overtake you. It is great language to make you think that evolution is proven, but it is not. They can extrapolate how things came about, but they only get so far with it. Nowhere in science have they given a complete order of events. They think they have a beginning with a single cell and an end (what we are today). But what they fail to tell you is they have no idea what came in between. Ask them if DNA came first or a protein molecule. DNA is made up of protein molecules, but DNA actually MAKES protein molecules. Interdepence. They have no idea which came first or how such interdependence came to be. Which came first -blood, vessels, lungs or the heart? Having individual parts is one thing but assembling those parts that happen to work only when all the elements are there is critical to them actually working.
Everywhere else in living do we assume design of such interdependency, except when it comes to a conclusion that God is involved.
I digress since this isn't a debate on evolution per se exactly.
What most the posters here are really questioning you on is not your reasonings but your conclusions. A difference of choice really. "logic" is simply a series of steps you use to come to an answer. So if your conclusion is different then theirs, one of you is wrong. Not your reasoning, but your conclusion.
One example is using the Bible for a foundation to argue a point. Both sides have to agree that the Bible is an authoritative example of truth. If only one of you has concluded that it is, the argument is then a matter of opinion, as you have seen.
So for you or me to know that the Bible has been correct in archeaology, antiquities, epochly, etc... it is reasonable enough to assume that its other textual claims are true as well. But if the other in the argument does not know this or denies these external facts. the discussion is again opinion (to the skeptic).
Oh, and before I get too long winded, most of the posts to your evidences demand some more empiricle or objective proof. What they are essentially using is David Hume or rather A.J. Ayer's two principles of
empirical verifiability. Which claim that a proposition can only be meaningful if its true by definition or if its empirically verifiable. BUT neither of those two principles are true by definition OR verifiable...
Looking back at all the posts I thought I'd put in my overall two cents too.
Skepticism is fine, but when a skeptic has their skepticism turned on all the way past ten, to eleven, there isn't much that will "prove" anything to them. I find the funny thing about (volume eleven) skeptics is that they love to use the whole "omni" isn't "omni" as proof that God cannot be omni anything. Yet they aren't true skeptics because they would have to be skeptical about skepticism.
Don't let the argument that science is objective get the best of you either. I have yet to see a human do science objectively. It is an ideal rarely, if ever achieved. Einstein himself had to admit to altering his Theory of Relativity in order to get the outcome he desired, after it was actually OBSERVED that the universe WAS expanding. His first attampts consistently demanded that the universe is finite. But Einstein's "objectivity" made him alter, or what scientists call "fudging", the math in order to get an infinite universe. What this means is that Einstein WANTED the universe to be static and not expanding. This is a famous example of "objectivity" in the science field, and to be sure there are many more "fudge" factors in theories and such out there that have not been uncovered yet. The ONLY thing in science that is objective are the facts, all else is subjective perceptions of those facts (regardless of sides).
Also don't let the "evolution is all but proven" overtake you. It is great language to make you think that evolution is proven, but it is not. They can extrapolate how things came about, but they only get so far with it. Nowhere in science have they given a complete order of events. They think they have a beginning with a single cell and an end (what we are today). But what they fail to tell you is they have no idea what came in between. Ask them if DNA came first or a protein molecule. DNA is made up of protein molecules, but DNA actually MAKES protein molecules. Interdepence. They have no idea which came first or how such interdependence came to be. Which came first -blood, vessels, lungs or the heart? Having individual parts is one thing but assembling those parts that happen to work only when all the elements are there is critical to them actually working.
Everywhere else in living do we assume design of such interdependency, except when it comes to a conclusion that God is involved.
I digress since this isn't a debate on evolution per se exactly.
What most the posters here are really questioning you on is not your reasonings but your conclusions. A difference of choice really. "logic" is simply a series of steps you use to come to an answer. So if your conclusion is different then theirs, one of you is wrong. Not your reasoning, but your conclusion.
One example is using the Bible for a foundation to argue a point. Both sides have to agree that the Bible is an authoritative example of truth. If only one of you has concluded that it is, the argument is then a matter of opinion, as you have seen.
So for you or me to know that the Bible has been correct in archeaology, antiquities, epochly, etc... it is reasonable enough to assume that its other textual claims are true as well. But if the other in the argument does not know this or denies these external facts. the discussion is again opinion (to the skeptic).
Oh, and before I get too long winded, most of the posts to your evidences demand some more empiricle or objective proof. What they are essentially using is David Hume or rather A.J. Ayer's two principles of
empirical verifiability. Which claim that a proposition can only be meaningful if its true by definition or if its empirically verifiable. BUT neither of those two principles are true by definition OR verifiable...
Post #47
Apparently opinions aren't exclusive to skeptics unless you truly know so little about archaeology that you believe the apologetic line that "archaeology only supports and never refutes the bible". What a joke! Welcome to Ohalo II. At 19,000 yrs old it's about 13,000 yrs older than the rest of the universe! Of course there are archaeological sites much older than this, some of them the remains of neanderthals, erectus, etc. Even within the span of history covered in the bible there are many points with which archaeologists do not agree; lack of evidence for the flood, the exodus, or the united monarchy of David being just a few highlights. If you need to misrepresent archaeology to bolster your faith that's one thing but to claim to be in possession of 'external facts' is, in this case, laughable.Icarus wrote:So for you or me to know that the Bible has been correct in archeaology, antiquities, epochly, etc... it is reasonable enough to assume that its other textual claims are true as well. But if the other in the argument does not know this or denies these external facts. the discussion is again opinion (to the skeptic).
And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto His people. Exodus 32:14
-
potwalloper.
- Scholar
- Posts: 278
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 1:09 pm
- Location: London, UK
Post #49
Icarus wrote
The word flat is, by definition, ambiguous and relative. By being relative it is not an absolute decriptor and, in any case, relates to something physical not conceptual.
Omni is a concept not a physical descriptor. It is absolute by its very nature. "All" must by definition incorporate everything. If it does not then it is not "all" it is part.
I have no problem with people promoting a part-powerful, part-present, and part-knowing god. Indeed as a construct that would be more defensible.
When you make Her all knowing, all powerful and all present then the construct becomes illogical and self-defeating however you like to couch it.
If I developed a theory of life, the universe and everything and then you pointed out a logical flaw I would amend the theory. Christians appear to be unable to do this. The leap of faith appears to take them across a chasm of irrationality and into a world where logic is suspended.
Let's say I have concluded that "The square of the hypoteneuse of a right angled triangle does not equal the sum of the squares of the other two sides"
If you are correct in your assertion please let me have the argument to prove the above conclusion.
God is conspicuous by his absence. There has never been one single piece of objective evidence to prove Her existence. No energy, no mass, no effects, no credible theories, nothing, zero, zilch a big ZERO.
I do not have to prove God does not exist as I am not making the proposal and to prove a negative would mean I would need to prove the non-existence of pink unicorns, santa, hobbits, leprechauns...human imagination appears to be boundless.
It is Christians who are making the sweeping assertion that God exists - there is no evidence that either this is the case or that the bible is anything other than a work of fiction.
Perhaps in a few thousand years people will find a battered copy of the Lord of the Rings and everyone will begin to worship Gandalf and fear Sauron...the two tales are as credible as each other.
I agree - clear description is essential if you are attempting to use logic to determine its viability.Potwalloper,
In that case you cannot call anything it is not, unless it contains all literal elements to the description. Such as a you cannot call anything flat, because nothing totally and completely is flat. It is more like you talking semantics with the words not those who use an Anthropomorphic description of God.
According to your "part-ipotent", I would like to see you go around correcting people that any reference to a round object or circle is not totally and completely round or a circle, it is circular-ish! yeah, try that.
"best sense" of the word is perfectly acceptable. You do it every day.
The word flat is, by definition, ambiguous and relative. By being relative it is not an absolute decriptor and, in any case, relates to something physical not conceptual.
Omni is a concept not a physical descriptor. It is absolute by its very nature. "All" must by definition incorporate everything. If it does not then it is not "all" it is part.
I have no problem with people promoting a part-powerful, part-present, and part-knowing god. Indeed as a construct that would be more defensible.
When you make Her all knowing, all powerful and all present then the construct becomes illogical and self-defeating however you like to couch it.
If I developed a theory of life, the universe and everything and then you pointed out a logical flaw I would amend the theory. Christians appear to be unable to do this. The leap of faith appears to take them across a chasm of irrationality and into a world where logic is suspended.
That is a rather sweeping statement.Any argument can be constructed to prove a conclusion with premises stemming from the conclusion.
Let's say I have concluded that "The square of the hypoteneuse of a right angled triangle does not equal the sum of the squares of the other two sides"
If you are correct in your assertion please let me have the argument to prove the above conclusion.
I agree. However scientific conclusions are based upon observable phenomena. The religious tenet appears to be that since we don't yet have a comprehensive theory that explains life and the universe a magic wizard popped out of nowhere, waved his wand and created the universe then somehow disappeared such that She can't be detected. What fun! Now Harry Potter was fun to read - I don't intend praying to the God Harry (or perhaps I should).Nowhere in science have they given a complete order of events.
God is conspicuous by his absence. There has never been one single piece of objective evidence to prove Her existence. No energy, no mass, no effects, no credible theories, nothing, zero, zilch a big ZERO.
I do not have to prove God does not exist as I am not making the proposal and to prove a negative would mean I would need to prove the non-existence of pink unicorns, santa, hobbits, leprechauns...human imagination appears to be boundless.
It is Christians who are making the sweeping assertion that God exists - there is no evidence that either this is the case or that the bible is anything other than a work of fiction.
Perhaps in a few thousand years people will find a battered copy of the Lord of the Rings and everyone will begin to worship Gandalf and fear Sauron...the two tales are as credible as each other.
Post #50
Potwalloper,
ALL words are by definition ambiguous and relative. I think you are trying to hard to split a half of an already split hair here now with trying to differentiate between a physical descriptor and a conceptual descriptor. EITHER way you are using LANGUAGE with WORDS to DESCRIBE. What you are describing with a word or word term does not dileniate the physical or conceptualness of the subject to be described.
Plus, omni is NOT (singularly) a concept. If it were then the people in Atlanta cannot call the OmniDome the OmniDome. Because the don't use it for ALL things.
I understand you want to use the "part-" in the sense of what we are talking about. But, since God is supposed to be the most powerful being in existance the whole omni can be ascribed to him. Omni is not always a description of EVERY concievable power, but simply has to be THE most powerful being. And since there is none else more powerful than Him, He is more powerful any other being, hence He is ALL powerful. Same with the other "part-" omni issues.
So using omni to describe Him is not self defeating, it is simply the daily use of Anthropomorphic Terminology.
I can use the (or your) logic to concept descriptors such as Atheism, Agnostic and Theism. If I ask an Atheist if s/he is 100% factually sure there is no God, s/he'd likely to be honest and say, "no, I am not 100% factually sure..." to which I can take the all or nothing (or part-) argument and say "then you are an Agnostic then...". Or to an Agnostic, are you really 50/50? If not then... As well as a Theist being 100% factually sure. I doubt you'd get anyone in either or those categories to call themselves part-atheistic/agnostic/theist.
So now that I have pointed out a flaw in your theory, will you amend it?
That is not true. Not all scientific conclusions are based upon observable phenomena. No one has observed (seen) Gravity. We have only seen its effects. Effects are different than observed phenomena. No one has produced a Gravity molecule have they? No. We only KNOW that some force out there is affecting objects and it happens to be everywhere we go. So what you actually have is Inductive Conclusion (or Inference or existance). Not an actual observation. Obervation of an effect, yes. But not hard empirical evidence. That goes for many of the molecules that are too small to be seen. We only see the effects or, "trail winds" if you will, of them. Never observed them. Not one.
The same goes for you or me. Neither of us has observed each other physically, yet we acknowledge an intelligence communicating with one another through written words (specified complexity). And to take that to an even more personal observation, you've never seen your best friend either. You only see their body. But you wouldn't assume that s/he is less of a person if s/he lost all four limbs would you? No. You still interact with an invisible person INSIDE a body. That's a brief description of a rational inference to an existance of an invisible subject. Science.
ALL words are by definition ambiguous and relative. I think you are trying to hard to split a half of an already split hair here now with trying to differentiate between a physical descriptor and a conceptual descriptor. EITHER way you are using LANGUAGE with WORDS to DESCRIBE. What you are describing with a word or word term does not dileniate the physical or conceptualness of the subject to be described.
Plus, omni is NOT (singularly) a concept. If it were then the people in Atlanta cannot call the OmniDome the OmniDome. Because the don't use it for ALL things.
I understand you want to use the "part-" in the sense of what we are talking about. But, since God is supposed to be the most powerful being in existance the whole omni can be ascribed to him. Omni is not always a description of EVERY concievable power, but simply has to be THE most powerful being. And since there is none else more powerful than Him, He is more powerful any other being, hence He is ALL powerful. Same with the other "part-" omni issues.
So using omni to describe Him is not self defeating, it is simply the daily use of Anthropomorphic Terminology.
I can use the (or your) logic to concept descriptors such as Atheism, Agnostic and Theism. If I ask an Atheist if s/he is 100% factually sure there is no God, s/he'd likely to be honest and say, "no, I am not 100% factually sure..." to which I can take the all or nothing (or part-) argument and say "then you are an Agnostic then...". Or to an Agnostic, are you really 50/50? If not then... As well as a Theist being 100% factually sure. I doubt you'd get anyone in either or those categories to call themselves part-atheistic/agnostic/theist.
So now that I have pointed out a flaw in your theory, will you amend it?
Providing the argument for your conclusion is your job not mine. My statement was that the whole paradoxical "God can't..." is a meeting of contradictory premises or assumptions based on full functionality of a word term, to which nothing meets the full functionality of a word term in any language. So even if you take God out of it, nothing can meet its full word term meaning. It is kind of like "thinking about nothing". Fun for mental jumping jacks but really neither poses a question to be answered or solved.That is a rather sweeping statement.
Let's say I have concluded that "The square of the hypoteneuse of a right angled triangle does not equal the sum of the squares of the other two sides"
If you are correct in your assertion please let me have the argument to prove the above conclusion.
I agree. However scientific conclusions are based upon observable phenomena. The religious tenet appears to be that since we don't yet have a comprehensive theory that explains life and the universe a magic wizard ...
That is not true. Not all scientific conclusions are based upon observable phenomena. No one has observed (seen) Gravity. We have only seen its effects. Effects are different than observed phenomena. No one has produced a Gravity molecule have they? No. We only KNOW that some force out there is affecting objects and it happens to be everywhere we go. So what you actually have is Inductive Conclusion (or Inference or existance). Not an actual observation. Obervation of an effect, yes. But not hard empirical evidence. That goes for many of the molecules that are too small to be seen. We only see the effects or, "trail winds" if you will, of them. Never observed them. Not one.
The same goes for you or me. Neither of us has observed each other physically, yet we acknowledge an intelligence communicating with one another through written words (specified complexity). And to take that to an even more personal observation, you've never seen your best friend either. You only see their body. But you wouldn't assume that s/he is less of a person if s/he lost all four limbs would you? No. You still interact with an invisible person INSIDE a body. That's a brief description of a rational inference to an existance of an invisible subject. Science.
Perhaps in a few thousand years scientists will still be banging their heads against the wall trying to figure out what caused the Law of Causality.Perhaps in a few thousand years people will find a battered copy of the Lord of the Rings and everyone will begin to worship Gandalf and fear Sauron...the two tales are as credible as each other.
