Common sense/logic vs. the bible

[connermt]

Some people think you can't argue against christianity without referncing the bible. This is a flaw in logic as the bible won't try to prove itself false.
That said, of course the bible is basically "all" christians have to work off of. The facts that the stories were written by men, edited by other men and some works weren't even included in the "finished product", all while claiming to be the 'word of god' is disheartening. Add to the mix that fact that the bible - which is the way to heaven for the whole of the human race - has very little to say about other people in the planet at the time.
Putting all that huba-baloo aside, let's look at it from a strictly common sense/logical POV.

A being that is perfect (in no particular order):
- creates everything, but seems to only be concerned about a very small amount of matter (humans). When compared to the solar systems it should have created, caring about such a small % seems odd.
- creates people to worship it (or, depending on where you got your christian teachign from, wants to share its love). Teachings indicate they angels "good enough" to share its love/worship freely. Then it's illogical to create them in the first place.
- creates people knowing what the outcome would be (sinning) but created them anyway.
- allows a temptation to come into the garden and tempt them, knowing what would happen
- seemingly gets "upset" when it "finds out" what happens and curses them (as if it didn't know what happened)
- destroys a city, save for one family, because it's "unpure". Surely that wasn't the only city that was unpure at the time, no? Then when lot's wife lokos back, she turns into a pillar of salt. That seems rather...unimpressive for sucha being. Surely something more akin to a phaser blast would have been more impressive....?
- destroys the world (with water) save for one family. Again, water seem very unimpressive for such a 'everything' creator. Obviously, since the human race was so 'bad', this supreme (and loving) deity caused almost all of humanity and almost all of the animal species to drown. Ok so he's ticked off at people, but why not spare the animals? What did they do to him? Makes no sense
- comes to earth as a man. It makes no sense why a supreme being that knows everything needs to come down as 'a man' while, at the same time, being different than the man/son.
- employees several different people to write his story of his life (while he's a man) years (in some cases decades) after the fact. One would think, common sense would have god write it himself, or at least have someone else write it while it was happening. It's illogical to wait so long.
- employees terrible writers as their accounts of the same story differ slightly to enormously - some containing parts of the story that others don't. Surely, a logical all knowing god would know that, if this book is to be the guide to mankind's future, it need to be more accurate and not confusing. Yet this isn't the case.

We'll end the examples there. If one wishes, they could go into much more detail with later books.

So where's the human logic in these examples? Surely such a supreme being would have been able to foresee these "issues" and address them in a way outside the biblical text (that not everyone has accessto, or even finds believable).

So where's the logic? Why does one seem to need the bible to prove what the bible says is correct? Surely god must have given us logic, yet when we use it in an unbiased way for such an important goal in mind, it doesn't come full circle.
Logical? Sensible? Where is it?

[connermt]

I am somewhat loathe to make this post ...

- creates everything, but seems to only be concerned about a very small amount of matter (humans). When compared to the solar systems it should have created, caring about such a small % seems odd.

What makes it illogical to focus on one aspect of matter?

If you can show it is illogical leave the point. If you can't will you remove it?

Considering all that exists that we know of and how much more exists that we don't know of, it's illogical for such a great being to focus so much of itself on humanity.

So you think a logical being should focus on 100% of matter?
Should it focus on living biological matter more than non living matter?

That is not what was said

Hence my questions. Are you replying or not? We have a whole list of claims to analyse.

You said I said something I didn't. I replied to that statement as it being incorrect. What more do you want, a discussion on something I didn't say?
Try again.

[Goat]

Force? Who said anything about force? Going straight to the negative is very telling.

Ok then, I ask only, would you want that God gives you understanding?

What I would love is tangible evidence for any God, and with the proper evidence, I can figure it out myself.

The lack of tangible evidence , and the conflicting stories in the bible make it very difficult to distinguish anything from 'I am just making it up'.

[Wootah]

You said I said something I didn't. I replied to that statement as it being incorrect. What more do you want, a discussion on something I didn't say? Try again.

I'd ask you to answer the questions and as part of that show where I misinterpreted you.

You said - Considering all that exists that we know of and how much more exists that we don't know of, it's illogical for such a great being to focus so much of itself on humanity.

There are two options here: If God knows everything and focusses on X then he must have a reason or is illogical. But nothing you said, on this point, indicates that God's focus in illogical yet.

So I asked:

Q1) So you think a logical being should focus on 100% of matter? Which seems directly related to your statement that it is illogical to focus on such a tiny fraction of the universe's matter. You can reply with what is the logical amount I guess....

Then I asked:

Q2) Should it focus on living biological matter more than non living matter?

Which again relates to your reply and a simplification of Q1.

Now I have no wish to misrepresent you so if I have just show me how I have done so and I'll apologise. But I have a small desire to discuss your topic - if you are willing that desire might grow.

Anyway - either the questions are misrepresentations or they are fair.

[The Anti-Christ]

You said I said something I didn't. I replied to that statement as it being incorrect. What more do you want, a discussion on something I didn't say? Try again.

I'd ask you to answer the questions and as part of that show where I misinterpreted you.

You said - Considering all that exists that we know of and how much more exists that we don't know of, it's illogical for such a great being to focus so much of itself on humanity.

There are two options here: If God knows everything and focusses on X then he must have a reason or is illogical. But nothing you said, on this point, indicates that God's focus in illogical yet.

So I asked:

Q1) So you think a logical being should focus on 100% of matter? Which seems directly related to your statement that it is illogical to focus on such a tiny fraction of the universe's matter. You can reply with what is the logical amount I guess....

Then I asked:

Q2) Should it focus on living biological matter more than non living matter?

Which again relates to your reply and a simplification of Q1.

Now I have no wish to misrepresent you so if I have just show me how I have done so and I'll apologise. But I have a small desire to discuss your topic - if you are willing that desire might grow.

Anyway - either the questions are misrepresentations or they are fair.

It is extremely illogical, especially now that we've found so many exoplanets within their stars' habitable zones within our own galaxy. We are likely to find more potentially habitable exoplanets in our galaxy, and if you think about the billions of galaxies in the observable universe, it is extremely likely that we are not the only life forms in the universe. Why should an omnipotent, omniscient being concern itself with one tiny speck in the universe, when it could attend to many other tiny specks that could potentially harbor life? Do you think humans are special in some way? It is amazing how arrogant Christians are to believe that such a great being would bestow special attention just on them.

Your second question is meaningless because no god of any kind has ever been shown to pay special attention to either biological or non-living matter. If you were an omniscient, omnipotent God, you wouldn't concern yourself with things like humans or inorganic matter. You already know everything about them and everything that will happen to them. You know every possible way in which they could interact and you know exactly how they will interact after initial conditions. In fact, why would you concern yourself with a universe that is predominantly made of WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles)? Why, in fact, would you concern yourself with beings composed entirely of subatomic particles of the first generation? Wouldn't a being composed of muons and Sigma baryons be more interesting? Or a being composed of tau leptons and Xi baryons? Or maybe a combination of the above? It just does not make sense that a being that has the power to create an infinite number of universes would settle for making just one and then concern itself with such a small percentage of the population of that universe. Think about it.

[Wootah]

You said I said something I didn't. I replied to that statement as it being incorrect. What more do you want, a discussion on something I didn't say? Try again.

I'd ask you to answer the questions and as part of that show where I misinterpreted you.

You said - Considering all that exists that we know of and how much more exists that we don't know of, it's illogical for such a great being to focus so much of itself on humanity.

There are two options here: If God knows everything and focusses on X then he must have a reason or is illogical. But nothing you said, on this point, indicates that God's focus in illogical yet.

So I asked:

Q1) So you think a logical being should focus on 100% of matter? Which seems directly related to your statement that it is illogical to focus on such a tiny fraction of the universe's matter. You can reply with what is the logical amount I guess....

Then I asked:

Q2) Should it focus on living biological matter more than non living matter?

Which again relates to your reply and a simplification of Q1.

Now I have no wish to misrepresent you so if I have just show me how I have done so and I'll apologise. But I have a small desire to discuss your topic - if you are willing that desire might grow.

Anyway - either the questions are misrepresentations or they are fair.

It is extremely illogical, especially now that we've found so many exoplanets within their stars' habitable zones within our own galaxy. We are likely to find more potentially habitable exoplanets in our galaxy, and if you think about the billions of galaxies in the observable universe, it is extremely likely that we are not the only life forms in the universe. Why should an omnipotent, omniscient being concern itself with one tiny speck in the universe, when it could attend to many other tiny specks that could potentially harbor life? Do you think humans are special in some way? It is amazing how arrogant Christians are to believe that such a great being would bestow special attention just on them.

Your second question is meaningless because no god of any kind has ever been shown to pay special attention to either biological or non-living matter. If you were an omniscient, omnipotent God, you wouldn't concern yourself with things like humans or inorganic matter. You already know everything about them and everything that will happen to them. You know every possible way in which they could interact and you know exactly how they will interact after initial conditions. In fact, why would you concern yourself with a universe that is predominantly made of WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles)? Why, in fact, would you concern yourself with beings composed entirely of subatomic particles of the first generation? Wouldn't a being composed of muons and Sigma baryons be more interesting? Or a being composed of tau leptons and Xi baryons? Or maybe a combination of the above? It just does not make sense that a being that has the power to create an infinite number of universes would settle for making just one and then concern itself with such a small percentage of the population of that universe. Think about it.

Mate you aren't working with the framework set up by the original post.
Your second paragraph is saying since nothing can be proven then .... But that is denying the OP the right to argue that the Christian God is illogical. He is clearly positing the being existing, for this thread, to show it is illogical. Also interesting has nothing to do with logical.

Are you sure you are discussing this thread or just weighing in for other reasons?

[The Anti-Christ]

You said I said something I didn't. I replied to that statement as it being incorrect. What more do you want, a discussion on something I didn't say? Try again.

I'd ask you to answer the questions and as part of that show where I misinterpreted you.

You said - Considering all that exists that we know of and how much more exists that we don't know of, it's illogical for such a great being to focus so much of itself on humanity.

There are two options here: If God knows everything and focusses on X then he must have a reason or is illogical. But nothing you said, on this point, indicates that God's focus in illogical yet.

So I asked:

Q1) So you think a logical being should focus on 100% of matter? Which seems directly related to your statement that it is illogical to focus on such a tiny fraction of the universe's matter. You can reply with what is the logical amount I guess....

Then I asked:

Q2) Should it focus on living biological matter more than non living matter?

Which again relates to your reply and a simplification of Q1.

Now I have no wish to misrepresent you so if I have just show me how I have done so and I'll apologise. But I have a small desire to discuss your topic - if you are willing that desire might grow.

Anyway - either the questions are misrepresentations or they are fair.

It is extremely illogical, especially now that we've found so many exoplanets within their stars' habitable zones within our own galaxy. We are likely to find more potentially habitable exoplanets in our galaxy, and if you think about the billions of galaxies in the observable universe, it is extremely likely that we are not the only life forms in the universe. Why should an omnipotent, omniscient being concern itself with one tiny speck in the universe, when it could attend to many other tiny specks that could potentially harbor life? Do you think humans are special in some way? It is amazing how arrogant Christians are to believe that such a great being would bestow special attention just on them.

Your second question is meaningless because no god of any kind has ever been shown to pay special attention to either biological or non-living matter. If you were an omniscient, omnipotent God, you wouldn't concern yourself with things like humans or inorganic matter. You already know everything about them and everything that will happen to them. You know every possible way in which they could interact and you know exactly how they will interact after initial conditions. In fact, why would you concern yourself with a universe that is predominantly made of WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles)? Why, in fact, would you concern yourself with beings composed entirely of subatomic particles of the first generation? Wouldn't a being composed of muons and Sigma baryons be more interesting? Or a being composed of tau leptons and Xi baryons? Or maybe a combination of the above? It just does not make sense that a being that has the power to create an infinite number of universes would settle for making just one and then concern itself with such a small percentage of the population of that universe. Think about it.

Mate you aren't working with the framework set up by the original post.
Your second paragraph is saying since nothing can be proven then .... But that is denying the OP the right to argue that the Christian God is illogical. He is clearly positing the being existing, for this thread, to show it is illogical. Also interesting has nothing to do with logical.

Are you sure you are discussing this thread or just weighing in for other reasons?

Mate, if I'm not working in the framework set up by the original post, then neither are you.

- creates everything, but seems to only be concerned about a very small amount of matter (humans). When compared to the solar systems it should have created, caring about such a small % seems odd.

That is what my reply is concerned with and so is yours. So get serious, kid.

You don't understand my second paragraph, clearly, because you are an ignorant layperson with regards to physics. Everything I said after the first sentence was assuming that such a God exists. The first sentence was to say that such a God is not necessary. Also, interesting is related to logical here. You are assigning anthropomorphic characteristics to this God such as "caring for people". In that case, this God, having anthropomorphic characteristics, should have interests as well. I mean, he is clearly interested in humans according to Christians. However, given the abilities of this God, it is completely illogical that he should be interested in us because we are nothing special. There are many things about us that could be improved. In fact, this God has the ability to create a perfect race of beings to lavish his care and attention on. There is no reason for this God to concern itself with such an insignificant and pathetic species as Homo sapiens sapiens. Until you can show that there is a logical reason for such an omniscient, omnipotent God to pay attention to such a useless, trivial species, this view remains illogical. The onus is on you to back up the assertion that this is not illogical.

[Wootah]

Of course I am. This thread is on common sense/logic. There are claims in the original post that I am analysing.

You said - 'You are assigning anthropomorphic characteristics to this God such as "caring for people". ' But I never said 'caring for people' in this thread.

Finally you said 'Until you can show that there is a logical reason for such an omniscient, omnipotent God to pay attention to such a useless, trivial species, this view remains illogical. The onus is on you to back up the assertion that this is not illogical.'

What makes it illogical to focus on X or Y? Whether X is an ant or Y is the sun? What makes it illogical?

[Hawkins]

In a nutshell, the Bible is mostly concerning about humans next reality instead of this reality. So the common sense is that there's no common sense as long as you can't live your next reality when you are still inside your this reality.

At the same time, you have only one life to lose. An analogy is that a bunch of witnesses claimed that there's bomb near your house. Now what common sense are you going to apply in this situation?

1) you choose to stay with the strong faith that it is a hoax
2) you choose to believe its possibility and to leave as a responsible act for your own life

In either case, waiting for evidence doesn't seem to be an option.

[The Anti-Christ]

Of course I am. This thread is on common sense/logic. There are claims in the original post that I am analysing.

You said - 'You are assigning anthropomorphic characteristics to this God such as "caring for people". ' But I never said 'caring for people' in this thread.

Finally you said 'Until you can show that there is a logical reason for such an omniscient, omnipotent God to pay attention to such a useless, trivial species, this view remains illogical. The onus is on you to back up the assertion that this is not illogical.'

What makes it illogical to focus on X or Y? Whether X is an ant or Y is the sun? What makes it illogical?

Yes, and clearly the same is true of my post. I'm analyzing the claim in the original post that I quoted earlier.

It does not matter if you said it or not. This God was said to be "concerned with...humans" in the original post. We are working within that framework are we not? Or are you going to abandon that now?

A logical choice has a rational reason behind it. There is no rational reason to focus on a weak, imperfect species, when God can simply create a perfect, beautiful one to worship and love him. It would be more satisfying to receive perfect love and worship from all members of this perfect race than to receive a fraction of the love of the imperfect human population.

- creates people to worship it (or, depending on where you got your christian teachign from, wants to share its love). Teachings indicate they angels "good enough" to share its love/worship freely.

That is what God wanted, yes? It is therefore illogical for God to stick with humans and try to receive their love. He could easily create a perfect species that knew he existed and loved him with all their hearts. Humans are very fickle in their affections. It is illogical for such a God to have to deal with this problematic race.

Now you must provide a reason that it IS logical to focus on humans. That there IS a VERY GOOD REASON for an OMNIPOTENT, OMNISCIENT GOD to pay special attention to humans.

[PREEST]

Some people think you can't argue against christianity without referncing the bible. This is a flaw in logic as the bible won't try to prove itself false.
That said, of course the bible is basically "all" christians have to work off of. The facts that the stories were written by men, edited by other men and some works weren't even included in the "finished product", all while claiming to be the 'word of god' is disheartening. Add to the mix that fact that the bible - which is the way to heaven for the whole of the human race - has very little to say about other people in the planet at the time.
Putting all that huba-baloo aside, let's look at it from a strictly common sense/logical POV.

A being that is perfect (in no particular order):
- creates everything, but seems to only be concerned about a very small amount of matter (humans). When compared to the solar systems it should have created, caring about such a small % seems odd.
- creates people to worship it (or, depending on where you got your christian teachign from, wants to share its love). Teachings indicate they angels "good enough" to share its love/worship freely. Then it's illogical to create them in the first place.
- creates people knowing what the outcome would be (sinning) but created them anyway.
- allows a temptation to come into the garden and tempt them, knowing what would happen
- seemingly gets "upset" when it "finds out" what happens and curses them (as if it didn't know what happened)
- destroys a city, save for one family, because it's "unpure". Surely that wasn't the only city that was unpure at the time, no? Then when lot's wife lokos back, she turns into a pillar of salt. That seems rather...unimpressive for sucha being. Surely something more akin to a phaser blast would have been more impressive....?
- destroys the world (with water) save for one family. Again, water seem very unimpressive for such a 'everything' creator. Obviously, since the human race was so 'bad', this supreme (and loving) deity caused almost all of humanity and almost all of the animal species to drown. Ok so he's ticked off at people, but why not spare the animals? What did they do to him? Makes no sense
- comes to earth as a man. It makes no sense why a supreme being that knows everything needs to come down as 'a man' while, at the same time, being different than the man/son.
- employees several different people to write his story of his life (while he's a man) years (in some cases decades) after the fact. One would think, common sense would have god write it himself, or at least have someone else write it while it was happening. It's illogical to wait so long.
- employees terrible writers as their accounts of the same story differ slightly to enormously - some containing parts of the story that others don't. Surely, a logical all knowing god would know that, if this book is to be the guide to mankind's future, it need to be more accurate and not confusing. Yet this isn't the case.

We'll end the examples there. If one wishes, they could go into much more detail with later books.

So where's the human logic in these examples? Surely such a supreme being would have been able to foresee these "issues" and address them in a way outside the biblical text (that not everyone has accessto, or even finds believable).

So where's the logic? Why does one seem to need the bible to prove what the bible says is correct? Surely god must have given us logic, yet when we use it in an unbiased way for such an important goal in mind, it doesn't come full circle.
Logical? Sensible? Where is it?

This my friend, was precisely my struggle with christianity. That is, the 'word of god' was written by men, edited by men, plagiarised, replicated, lost in translation, misconstrued and not to mention written 2000 odd years ago in illiterate, tribal, bronze age middle east. When you look at it like this it is indeed very disheartening for a christian. It's the only argument for god and the only thing christains can use in debate with sceptics or non-believers, yet it's validity cannot be proven, it was not conceived of god but was conceived of men, is more than likely a bunch of fabrication and brainwashing and is somehow god's word? If you are discerning of the holy book, what grounds are there to base your whole life on this document? How is it ANY different from other books written by men? This is the struggle I had as a christain and I'm sure many other impartial believers struggle with this also.