God?

[Maelstrom]

Also, allow me to posit a counter dilemma here. What is the best explanation for Jesus' body having remained missing? Those of you that are able to read the thread where I proved the historicity of Jesus up to his specific Crucifixion know that He was actually crucified without having to even open the Bible at all. Recall the Apostle Paul in my first post on this topic. Give me the best explanation that trumps Jesus' ascension - and my faith and my efforts in this thread are in vain.

Which thread was that?

Off the top of my head, the best explanation is that someone moved it in the middle of the night and put it somewhere else and made a story about it to raise Jesus beyond the status of martyr prophet and retrofitted the story so that he is part of god. There are any number of ancient bones buried and stored where ancient peoples remains were buried/stored. his body could be any one of those, marked or unmarked. It's a simple, rational explanation that doesn't require a supernatural (that thing that is defined as beyond what is natural and cannot be done by manipulating natural things, yet can illogically manipulate natural things) explanation/leap in faith. You have to remember that this is a story in as much as the Odyssey is a story about real events. Some fact with a lot of fiction. This is a time and era, much like ancient greece, where people had little understanding of the mechanisms of the natural world and thus attributed phenomena they didn't understand to the supernatural. An answer enough to satisfy them... but not actually an answer. A place-holder. A superstition. As people have learned more and more, there are far fewer reports of the supernatural because we learn that they are actually caused by natural phenomena.

You have to know WHAT you believe in -AND- know it to be consistent to the world around you.

Supernatural is not something that is consistent with the world. Supernatural is something that supposedly works outside the boundaries of the world, yet happens within the world and affects it. That which affects the world must in turn be affected by the world because it must it must have a property that allows it to interact with the world and that necessarily works the other way around. But that in turn makes it affected by the world and thus not supernatural, but a part of the greater nature of the world, a chain of interactions that fits within its system. So it is not supernatural, it is just the mechanism is unknown.

I think what people might call a god is the principle and fact of existence itself. To ascribe motivation, personality, or purpose to existence itself is folly. There is no direction or force to existence other than the rules of interactions of everything within existence. There is no guiding will, just natural laws that determine the outcomes of interactions. Matter, energy, space, and the rest... It is a system with no will of it's own. Life is a by-product, an eventuality, a part of the machinations of the very nature of existence.

It's late and idk how well you'll understand what I was trying to convey but I'm gonna have to stop here for now. But a lot of this references the idea of metaphysical thought that revolves around defining what is one, what is whole, and what is separate. And the philosophy of though posits that everything is all one thing thing, and probably the basis for the hippie sounding idea that we and everything else are all really one and all of us are god in that sense. Part of it goes down to science and dividing things, and atoms and subatomic particles and things like that.

[Gaunt]

if there is anyone out there not named Guant (because both of us came to our stalemate already and we don't need to go to war again.)

No one here is named Guant there is one fellow named Gaunt though...he says hi btw^_^no but really is my name so difficult? It's not the first time someone says it wrong.

On other matters now:

Like i promised in my previous post i'll try to convert you all to atheism explain to all why i don't believe in the existence of gods. From what i know the only "proof" believers have is an old book filled with many contradictive (or sometimes outright false) information about our world (no surprise here as people at that time were not very good at science) so it is not reliable in any way. Another thing that irks me is that in the bible you read about "divine intervention" and "miracles" at every corner but in our world today nothing of the sort happens, if you ask yourself "why" the most direct and logical answer (of course it doesn't mean that it's correct but still it's the most probable one) that there is no one to "do" those "miracles" (and let's not mention that the existence of a "being" with infinite power is simply impossible). To conclude: sadly i can't prove that god doesn't exist, the bright side is that unless another "divine intervention" (on a world scale) happens believers can't prove their point either but still my ramblings can demonstrate that at the very least his "existence" cannot be confirmed and in these types of scenario i always choose the most plausible "answer".

P.S.

the "train dilemma" was cool...also i found that i'm probably a psychopath (i chose 1 for both answers)

[Darvan Korematsu]

I'm just gonna drop another one for you. To show devotion to any deity or "right" path is considered faith and loyalty. Maybe a God binds us through a common interest that many of us otherwise wouldn't hold.

Because easily the most important human traits are trustworthiness and loyalty. I would think this because I am an Eagle Scout and the first 2 points of the Scout Law are those 2 traits right there, and while reverence is there (literally the last point) it reminds us that we may not think about reverence, but it's there.

Even if God was just an invention of Man, then it was a testament to our loyalty and trustworthiness in ourselves and other human beings.

Religion is faith first, and philosophy second.

[mde2001]

I'm really impressed at the maturity of the debate here. I feel like all sides are making valid arguments.

While I am myself an atheist I can't stand religious intolerance and slurs. I have no problem with Christianity itself just the way that a rather vocal group of its members use it to stop social progress.

[-Unknown-]

Ok Hilda before I say anything else I will take my time to read everything you typed so far since you literally have said the most and I'll see were it goes from there.

[Eviora]

The trouble is, as you mentioned earlier, the burden of proof is, indeed, on the one making the claim. It sounds like you're saying you can't prove the legitimacy of Christianity on any grounds upon which I can relate to you, and no one else seems to be able to either. Your bullet point list doesn't do a whole lot for me because most of the points on it are contingent on the accuracy of Christianity, and I don't believe Christianity is necessarily accurate. That sales pitch seems all too similar to the ones other religions use from my vantage point. Plus, even if Christianity is the only well established religion that offers the things you mentioned, there could be some obscure god no one worships who does better. It's pretty easy for me to imagine a god who's closer to my perception of all loving than the one you advocate for.

So where does that leave me? It's not that I don't look for truth - this very discussion is about trying to determine what's true. It's possible that I'll some day I'll find a system of belief that is convincing to me, but it may not be Christianity. What then? Eternal damnation for guessing incorrectly? To be honest, that sounds like the work of a monster to me, not an even remotely benevolent entity. A "maximally great" god knows what it would take to convince me (omniscience), can provide that proof (omnipotent), and has the incentive to do so (omnibenevolence). You may not be able to convince me, but a maximally great god should be able to do better. Since that has not happened, I actively disbelieve in a "maximally great" god - this is one of many arguments against the existence of one.

As an anticipatory note, I'll remark that this has nothing to do with free will. Being shown insurmountable evidence of a thing doesn't prevent one from not believing in that thing. I don't believe belief itself is a choice, but you can think of this in terms of an exam in school - if a voice from on high whispers all the answers into your ear, that doesn't mean you have to write them all on the paper. Writing them remains a choice.

Edited September 2, 2015 by Eviora

[Chase]

@ Mael

You're right. Any one set of those bones that come from unmarked tombs that come from the Jerusalem could be the bones of Christ. However - I didn't ask you to dismiss the issue with a possibility. I asked you essentially - to go find the body. If you're not going to make the effort to disprove the Resurrection - then it still remains on the table and by default Christianity still remains a completely viable worldview. You can't dismiss an outright claim merely by a possible answer. The best course of action there is to go out there and find those bones is it not?

Thank you for not ascribing Jesus as a mythical person - because there are a number of reasons even skeptic scholars don't hold that position.

For this claim about the body being removed from the tomb - I must first have to ask. Who moved it? Please don't give me a liturgy of "possible" answers and then tell me all of them make more sense than the Resurrection does, because all of them would have to first come through the guards posted outside of the tomb and all of them would have to have sound motives for doing so as grave-robbing generally wasn't done for the bodies. Do you have any substantial evidence that proposes the body having been moved - or is belief in the body being moved stem merely from rational elimination? It's easy to hold that belief just because you don't want the body to have simply disappeared with the best possible hypothesis.

We know for a fact the guards were existent not only because of the text in Matthew indicating as such but because of the Stolen Body hypothesis stemming from Jewish High Priests of around that time. The Jewish argument, if the guards didn't exist, should be that the guards didn't exist - making it a non-issue with regards to the body being stolen away. However, it's historically backed that the Jewish position on the Resurrection involves the guards being asleep - which makes the Stolen Body hypothesis a much weaker argument - especially if the guards outside of the tomb were ROMAN guards, who would have been executed for poor job performance. If the Jewish opposition holds that the guards were asleep - it's safe to say there indeed were guards posted.

@ Gaunt

Let me ask you a simple question - do you believe the universe exists?

The reason I ask is this. The nature of the universe - all matter that ever existed being made from nothing with a definitive beginning - is a miracle in itself! - as the Law of Conservation tells us that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. A "miracle" is an extraordinary welcome event that is not explained by natural or scientific law and is thus attributed to a divine agency.

In the case of the universe, even if we were going to just omit God from the picture, the first premise in that definition is undeniably true, the creation of the universe is not explained with natural or scientific law.

We must then operate under the assumption that God exists in order to attribute Him to the scenario, and the Genesis text provides point blank, that same universe that has definitive beginning and is created from nothing. This would make the second premise of the Miracle definition also true. The creation of the universe is attributed to a divine agency.

This means that in order to prove that Miracles are -NOT- possible, one must first prove that God isn't possible. Gaunt - you've already deferred by saying you sadly can't prove your own position. The issue there - is that position MUST be defended in order to say that miracles are not possible.

@ Eviora

In your argument about belief not being a choice you actually use an instance where you allow the person hearing the voice on high taking the test the choice to not write down the given answers. You also lead off by saying that one can be provided insurmountable evidence for something and still choose to not believe in it. This leaves me rather confused - What do you mean that belief can't be chosen?

People will continue to look at eternal damnation as something God inflicts on others willingly. The way the text reads however, indicates quite clearly that the God it proposes doesn't willingly want to damn anyone at all. Separation from God is not something that is "rewarded" for a bad choice, but rather the choice itself. When you see it through that lens, the damned make the decision to be apart from God and their wishes are granted. In this very thread I can make the argument that I've created the situation you present in your last paragraph. I am providing evidences, and you are rejecting those evidences or not believing me.

Until you can provide an argument that belief doesn't equal choice, I'd posit that you're making said choice right now. Literally every one of your posts has rejected evidences starting with the sentence "I don't believe ____, therefore your argument is moot" This no longer makes it a debate and makes it more of a circular argument where I continuously provide evidences and you continue to reject them because you don't believe in the God I'm proposing. There's no open-minded interaction with the information. There's no questions being asked. There's no real discussion under this instance.

[Gaunt]

Oh are we going to start again? Ok then...round 2 FIGHT!

Of course the universe exists, we can see it around us and we can measure the matter of which it consists in every possible and imaginable way, can you say the same for god? You are of course right in saying that the creation/beginning of the universe is not explained by science (only theories exist) but you forgot to add the most important word: "yet" it has not been explained for now (it's only a matter of time). Now you want me to (metaphorically speaking) believe that a "supernatural" phenomenon is the answer to said question without providing any tangible (measurable and verified by various sources) proof, like i stated earlier the bible (for me) is not it (again, for reasons stated earlier), in this case logic dictates to (at least) wait for said proof (from either side) before making a decision on the matter, add in the fact that most "supernatural" occurrences considered before to be "miracles" or "divine signs" have now been explained by science and in the end the "biblical" version of the beginning amounts to nothing more than a theory (of which there are plenty).

About "miracles": i didn't try to prove anything, i just find "strange" (as in suspicious) that all those "miraculous" things that (supposedly) happened so long ago don't happen in our time...like really nothing...but we already had this discussion did we not?

[Flux]

I'm in a strange situation with religion myself, being that I don't really know for sure what my stance is. I was raised as a Roman Catholic, and those teachings are what I believed for most of my life. But like many have said already, I began questioning those beliefs somewhat recently. Perhaps it's not the beliefs themselves I questioned, but rather the Church itself. I found myself more and more frustrated with the decisions people of authority in the Church were making, and the limited way in which they view the world. They make decrees about things that are not mentioned whatsoever in the Bible and that they have no personal experience in whatsoever. It comes down to them making semi-educated guesses based around their own opinion and what little of the topic is mentioned in the Bible. The followers of the Church take their word as law, as these men are supposedly inspired by God. Personally, I find it hard to believe that many of these men are indeed inspired by God, simply based on their words and actions. As such, my stance is difficult to decide.

I want to point out something that Hilda said earlier in the thread, as I found it to be an interesting statement that contradicts my own belief on the matter.

I wasn't always a believer - and in fact, I fell out of the same learned Christianity as Lil' Rupe above for complete skepticism myself. I felt exactly the same way. I used to throw up paradox after dilemma in order to rationalize how being a person of faith is irrational.

The last few words of this statement are what really caught my attention, as they are the exact opposite of what I currently believe, and what I have always believed. I doubt that Hilda still feels this way now, but it is a point I want to address to those who may have had a similar thought.

I have always thought that having strong belief in a religion is the MOST rational thing any human can do in life. Period. Many people consider religion to be a waste of time, and an easy way to ruin whatever fun you may have in your life. The people who think this way are generally atheists. But l believe that it is always better to assume a God exists and live your life accordingly.

Assume atheists are correct, and there is no God or gods. Hurray for them. They lived a happy life, completely free of any religious "restrictions." But at the same time, while people of faith might be disappointed in the end, they will have no time to be disappointed, as they died too. They also lived equally happy lives. Sure, they went to church every week, and lost an hour of their lives. Maybe they lost more time from prayer, depending on the strength of their faith. But to assume those people weren't also happy is completely wrong. The majority of the people who believe in religion are happy to do so, and their lives are scarcely different from the majority of those who don't. We are equally happy.

Now assume atheists are incorrect, and for the sake of this example, assume that a christian religion was the true religion. Now those who were atheist and rejected religion will be tested by God, while those who believed have eternal life and happiness. This is a point I cannot stress more. Those who believe in religion have two options, to generalize: A happy life with no afterlife, or a happy life with an eternal afterlife. Likewise, the atheists have two options: Live a happy life with no afterlife - at best, slightly happier than those who believed in religion; or, face the judgment of whatever god or gods may have been true in the end.

This brings up my main point: Even if you choose the wrong religion and are still subject to the whims of whatever God may have been correct, is it not better to have the chance? If you can believe in a faith and be happy anyway, almost all of your options are good ones, regardless of the outcome. I'm presenting this in a purely rational way, as that's the way I feel most atheists will best understand it, though there are many alternative reasons that people join a faith. The hard part is actually believing, and that is the part that I'm still struggling with. I know that the rational choice is to believe in a religion, but I also recognize that simply being concerned for my own salvation isn't enough. I currently believe (or hope, to be more accurate) that if God exists, I can reach salvation by being a kind and good person while doing my best to believe. That's the most I can hope for right now, and I guess this post describes my current stance and thoughts on religion.

[Shamitako]

So, I can certainly understand how you feel, Flux. Though I'm on a slightly different fence. I would kinda like to chat with you on the matter more privately sometime

[Tomas Elliot]

Geez, I have started and deleted and started and deleted and started and deleted this post so many times... Because you see, the fact is that I am italian and I am catholic. Meaning that I see every day things that make me not so enthusiastic and not so proud about being catholic (let alone being italian, but that's another story). Which has lead me to develop a very strict code of ethics: what humans do and what God does are very different things. I believe in Jesus and His message, but I don't believe that the horrible things done in His name were and are His actual will. I believe that science and faith can coexist. And I believe that conflicts between different religions have nothing to do with faith, religions are just used as an excuse by greedy individuals who have something to gain if the poor masses keep fighting against one another, instead of uniting against those who oppress them.

But explaining each of these points would take a topic of its own, and I really don't want to derail this topic. I will say this much tho: I believe in the message of Jesus because it is a wonderful message, not because I hope to go to Heaven or because I believe that, by being a good enough guy, I'll earn myself a miracle when the time is right. Too many times religions have been used as instruments to manipulate the masses, or to cover for all kinds of atrocities, or as an excuse to discriminate the different, and being italian I have seen A LOT of such instances, you better believe it: after all, we have the Pope physically residing here, and the consequences of such an apparently simple facts are deeper and more complex than a post like this can hope to explain.

But religions are one thing, faith is another: the fact that most religions are made of empty words fed to you by greedy individuals who want to manipulate you does NOT mean that God is bogus. The God sold to you by the Church is bogus, but if you can see past that, the truth of the message of Christ shines through.

You know what really saddens me? The fact that we are all from christian countries. So this discussion basically boils down to "are you christian or not?". But since the original question of the OP was "do you believe in God?", and God is something that is not exclusive property of the christians, I think it would have been interesting to hear the opinions of a jew or a muslim on the matter.

Also

I fluctuate between being an athiest and being an agnostic person.

Kudos for actually knowing the difference. Not many people do.

[Hiss13]

Sigh…I said I wouldn't do it…I staved off the temptation to continue discussion but you know what, I have the urge to drop my two cents on some things here.

Of course the universe exists, we can see it around us and we can measure the matter of which it consists in every possible and imaginable way, can you say the same for god? You are of course right in saying that the creation/beginning of the universe is not explained by science (only theories exist) but you forgot to add the most important word: "yet" it has not been explained for now (it's only a matter of time).

I know this is semantics but do bear in mind that this is just something I feel needs to be pointed out for the sake of keeping proper definitions.

In science, the term 'theory' does not refer to some random guess or idea some guy had while he was in his shower. A theory in science is an explanation for a phenomenon or set of phenomenon supported and substantiated by a wide body of evidence and observations. Examples include Germ Theory, Cell Theory, atomic theory, and Transition State Theory.

By saying 'only theories exist', it kinda downplays what a theory is in science. Now, granted by definition, a theory can never be proven correct. It can only be disproven or supported. But, as further experimentation is done, if evidence comes along to refute or disprove a scientific theory, scientists are more than willing to either revise a current theory so that said evidence/observation can be explained or scrap the current theory completely and work again from scratch to create a better definition that encompasses all of the evidence.

Just wanted to get this definition out of the way.

Assume atheists are correct, and there is no God or gods. Hurray for them. They lived a happy life, completely free of any religious "restrictions." But at the same time, while people of faith might be disappointed in the end, they will have no time to be disappointed, as they died too. They also lived equally happy lives. Sure, they went to church every week, and lost an hour of their lives. Maybe they lost more time from prayer, depending on the strength of their faith. But to assume those people weren't also happy is completely wrong. The majority of the people who believe in religion are happy to do so, and their lives are scarcely different from the majority of those who don't. We are equally happy.

Now assume atheists are incorrect, and for the sake of this example, assume that a christian religion was the true religion. Now those who were atheist and rejected religion will be tested by God, while those who believed have eternal life and happiness. This is a point I cannot stress more. Those who believe in religion have two options, to generalize: A happy life with no afterlife, or a happy life with an eternal afterlife. Likewise, the atheists have two options: Live a happy life with no afterlife - at best, slightly happier than those who believed in religion; or, face the judgment of whatever god or gods may have been true in the end.

This brings up my main point: Even if you choose the wrong religion and are still subject to the whims of whatever God may have been correct, is it not better to have the chance? If you can believe in a faith and be happy anyway, almost all of your options are good ones, regardless of the outcome. I'm presenting this in a purely rational way, as that's the way I feel most atheists will best understand it, though there are many alternative reasons that people join a faith. The hard part is actually believing, and that is the part that I'm still struggling with. I know that the rational choice is to believe in a religion, but I also recognize that simply being concerned for my own salvation isn't enough. I currently believe (or hope, to be more accurate) that if God exists, I can reach salvation by being a kind and good person while doing my best to believe. That's the most I can hope for right now, and I guess this post describes my current stance and thoughts on religion.

Your first two paragraphs are basically Pascal's Wager in a nutshell. Now, you obviously brought up one of the biggest issues with Pascal's Wager being that over the course of history, many different religions have been developed by humanity, each with its constituents believing that they follow the right religion. But the thing is you are dismissing it straight off saying that it's still better to take the risk. Here's the problem. You believe in the wrong god and most religions with some sort of judgement after life will say that you will be punished by god(s). What you're saying is to take a gamble on one of the many religions and believe that you will win despite the high probability that you may fail.

Going off from the probability standpoint, there are an incredible amount of denominations of Christianity for example, each with its own interpretation of the Bible, along with hundreds of different translations of the Bible, each with various details differing. A Catholic and an Evangelical do not believe the same thing. A Pentacostal and a Calvinist will not believe the same thing. A Jehova's Witness and a Russian Orthodox…ist(? not sure how to denote that) do not believe in the same thing. How does one know that they have the right interpretation? Now, I'm guessing that the answer is faith but at that point, we reach an impasse.

Last point, if there is a God and he is as described by some Christians, I highly doubt that He will take kindly to people who believe out of fear of hell. It lacks a sense of sincerity, yet that is exactly what the wager you have proposed is. Once you brought up that "the hard part is actually believing," you stopped attempting to convince us with rationality and objectivity. It became a discussion of how you believe something and why you do so. Now, I am not going to attempt to break that apart as your beliefs are your own and I frankly have better things to do than being a dick to someone about their religious beliefs. But my point is this. Everything before that line was an appeal to fear of eternity. Not exactly rational if I say so myself.

Now, then, let me clarify my own view. My view is that I have no reason to believe in the existence of a god, like I said before. However, I believe that if a god or gods exist, then they do not reflect how people have portrayed them through religion.

[Tomas Elliot]

Incidentally, Gaunt what do you mean miracles don't happen nowadays? The miracle industry is one of the most profitable in Italy!

[Eviora]

@ Hilda

I didn't actually post the argument that belief isn't a choice above. I specifically didn't want to show you can choose not to believe given insurmountable evidence because I don't think that's true - I think you either believe or you don't. That's why I insist gave an example where you can choose not to act on the evidence. (You can, however, choose to outright dismiss a claim without considering it.)

Generally, it seems like people can't just say, "I believe X" and actually start believing it. If I asked you to believe you're a vampire for a while I don't think you could pull it off, no matter how much you contemplated being a vampire. That's just my empirical understanding of how belief works. However, belief being a choice would actually strengthen my argument that free will is not breached by a god who presents insurmountable evidence.

As far as starting my sentences with "I don't believe X" goes, I'm generally referring to the premises of your argument. I'm not saying your argument is necessarily moot because I don't believe the premises. It's just that an argument made based on false premises may not apply to reality even if it is internally perfectly logical. For instance, any premise that references "maximally great" requires its own justification because there may be no maximum to the greatness that is possible. By pointing out that your premises are unsupported I'm hoping to get you to support them and, ultimately, get to the bottom of this discussion. However, if you only take them on faith based on personal experience, they aren't really going to be conveyable to anyone else.

In response to the whole topic of damnation, let me ask you this: if you had (have?) children, would you let them put their hands into a fire because they found it pretty? If god is omniscient, then our understanding of the world must seem very childish indeed to him, and if he wants no one to be damned, then he should certainly be capable of exercising his better judgment to protect us from our own bad choices, or, at the very least, he should let us change our minds even after we've been damned. There's really no need for this rigid system of damning people forever.

@Flux

The argument you're making is basically Pascal's Wager, which can be shown to be flawed in a multitude of ways. Let me provide you with one: Since I cannot prove the non-existence of a god who damns people who believe in god(s) and sends atheists to Heaven, I cannot dismiss the possibility that being an atheist is the only way to be saved. That means my only hope may be to not believe in god. I'll also note that Pascal's Wager makes no argue in favor of the existence of any gods; it just provides a (bad) strategy for getting divine rewards if god(s) exist.

Edited September 2, 2015 by Eviora

[Chase]

Coincidentally, Hiss, Pascal was criticized for holding a deistic faith that was not held in grounds of the supernatural and thus had inauthentic belief in the Judeo-Christian God by other apologists. However, the Pascal Wager poses an interesting question.

Is it not better to live believing in possible eternal life than it is to not believe in the concept at all?

Let me flip the question you posed on it's head, Gaunt. You would rather have me wait for an explanation we don't know for certain will suffice for the creation of the universe over a scientifically-backed observation that is thousands of years old already? There's enough evidence NOW to posit the possibility that the Judeo-Christian God was involved with the creation of the actual universe.

The difference between non-literal Creationism and the Big Bang Theory is that one of these is a substantiated claim, and the other is merely a substantiated possibility. We know from the science that's already been determined behind the universe that the writer of Genesis is not off target with the model of the universe - and if we translate the actual Hebrew word for day we know that the word held multiple definitions, including one as vague as "a while."

So, the non-literal Creationist can make the following claims.

• The earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years old.
• That amount of time can be mathematically proposed to have been made in seven 'a whiles' - or Hebrew "days" - through the mathematical equation 4.54 plus/minus 0.05 billion divided by 7 (or the amount of "days" it took for the Lord to create the earth.)
• The quotient of that equation gives us the length of "day" necessary to support Non-Literal creationism.
• Genesis accurately describes the model of the actual universe.

@ Eviora

Out of curiosity, do you think there should be a threshold associated to maximally great that is anything other than infinite? I personally think that if the threshold of greatness is infinite, and the maximally great being is infinitely great - then what we have is a maximally great being who is still meeting the threshold even though said threshold will increase without end.

Taking this back to the universe - we know that the universe is expanding exponentially - so in the case of omnipotence - God must be expanding faster than the universe is in order to remain the greatest possible being with regard to potency, so as to remain more potent than the universe. Perhaps greatest possible being would be a more agreeable term with you.

I would safely assume my child wouldn't make the same mistake twice unless there was a previously known condition that prevented the child from feeling a burn (in which case the default would then be to prevent the child from touching the flame.)

The interesting thing about sin is that 'the pretty flame' imagery you use is actually quite relational to the very topic. Humans have always had the capacity to reach out to the flame, or forbidden fruit, or another man or woman's spouse, or someone else's bike, or whatever because the object is desirable in it's own right. God is an equally desirable being and nothing more (on the basic wants and needs spectrum of Humanity, not in relation to eternal life or spiritualism) so as to not interfere with our own decision making. The argument YOU must make is that our capacity as humans to make our own choices is a flaw - in order to support that God has the power to save us and doesn't.

My argument is that He did everything sufficient enough and we're just not making the choice. - and that's also backed by Pascal.

[Tomas Elliot]

Ok the topic of damnation exposes a mentality that I strongly despise, and I am afraid that I will now have to address it. Namely, it is the utilitaristic vision of God.

You are no better than Pascal (a guy who had no faith and only wanted to get a reward, as if God is some kind of quiz game) when you say "if God existed, He would prevent us from doing mistakes". God is NOT at the service of the single individual. God is the perfectly impartial being whose job is overseeing the UNIVERSE. Your petty individual gievances are not something He can concern Himself with: that's the reason why I always get mad at my grandmother when she says "I am going to pray God so that He will help you pass your exam".

Don't get me wrong, I do believe that God is a benevolent being. But I find it absurd to think that a being that is above our plane of existance, a being who created the universe and who keeps it in balance, can go out of His way to make sure that I pass my exam. Of course He gave us something called coscience which, for people like me (people who believe), is a way to hear His voice when we stray from the right path. And yes, that can also manifest in the form of guilt if a spend a day slacking off instead of studying. But if I deliberately decide to ignore such guilt, if I decide to slack off instead of studying, then it is absolutely ridiculous to think that God will put in my brain a knowledge I did nothing to deserve, just because my grandma said a prayer.

There is also another fact: there are seven billions of people in this world. How could God get involved in the interest of the single? I mean, what helps and favors Dude A might damage Dude B: God is impartial by definition, so it is idiotic to think that He would side with either. Let's say Dude A and Dude B both partecipate in a race: if Dude A thanks God because he won, should Dude B curse Him because he lost? The act of taking sides, the act of favoring who does us a favor, is a typical human act. But God is above humans, so he takes no sides, and is impartial towards men: therefore, you cannot apply your utilitaristic logic to Him.

And there is yet another fact: we humans are arrogant. Since we have intellect, we like to think the universe was built around us, that everything is always about us. But guess what? That is not the case. Let's take for example the San Andreas Fault: given the way the world works, such a fault MUST exist. It is inevitable, it is part of the structure of our world. And such a massive fault will keep on accumulating energy, but energy cannot be accumulated forever: the laws of physics tell us that sooner or later the fault will snap. And when that happens, I already know there will be people who will say "if there was a God, He would not allow so many people to die in a earthquake". But that's an idiotic thing to say: a fault is DESTINED to snap and cause a earthquake, that's how the laws that regulate this world go. It is a direct consequences of the same laws that make it possible for you to walk. So if your house is destroyed in the process, it is your fault for building it right on top of such a dangerous, uh, fault (pun not intended).It is absolutely nonsensical to think that God would go out of His way and alter the laws of physics just because some idiots built two massive cities on top of one of the world's largest faults.

And don't you think that my mentioning the lwas of physics is a contraddiction: as I mentioned in a previous post, I strongly believe that science and faith can coexist. Science tells you HOW things happen, faith tells you WHY they happen. I apply this reasoning to evolution as well, since people mentioned it. Creatures did evolve, but this does not mean there's no God, and I actually find it silly how for so may years the Church has tried to silence scientific progress.

So yeah, God is the referee in this game we call life. He made the rules, and He is not going to change them just because some idiot built a city on top of a fault. Or right next to a volcano, to make an italian example. And He does not take sides, because He is the ref, and the ref does not take sides. Applying an utilitaristic logic to this makes no sense IMO.

[Deleted User]

@ Mael

You're right. Any one set of those bones that come from unmarked tombs that come from the Jerusalem could be the bones of Christ. However - I didn't ask you to dismiss the issue with a possibility. I asked you essentially - to go find the body. If you're not going to make the effort to disprove the Resurrection - then it still remains on the table and by default Christianity still remains a completely viable worldview. You can't dismiss an outright claim merely by a possible answer. The best course of action there is to go out there and find those bones is it not?

Thank you for not ascribing Jesus as a mythical person - because there are a number of reasons even skeptic scholars don't hold that position.

For this claim about the body being removed from the tomb - I must first have to ask. Who moved it? Please don't give me a liturgy of "possible" answers and then tell me all of them make more sense than the Resurrection does, because all of them would have to first come through the guards posted outside of the tomb and all of them would have to have sound motives for doing so as grave-robbing generally wasn't done for the bodies. Do you have any substantial evidence that proposes the body having been moved - or is belief in the body being moved stem merely from rational elimination? It's easy to hold that belief just because you don't want the body to have simply disappeared with the best possible hypothesis.

We know for a fact the guards were existent not only because of the text in Matthew indicating as such but because of the Stolen Body hypothesis stemming from Jewish High Priests of around that time. The Jewish argument, if the guards didn't exist, should be that the guards didn't exist - making it a non-issue with regards to the body being stolen away. However, it's historically backed that the Jewish position on the Resurrection involves the guards being asleep - which makes the Stolen Body hypothesis a much weaker argument - especially if the guards outside of the tomb were ROMAN guards, who would have been executed for poor job performance. If the Jewish opposition holds that the guards were asleep - it's safe to say there indeed were guards posted.

@ Gaunt

Let me ask you a simple question - do you believe the universe exists?

The reason I ask is this. The nature of the universe - all matter that ever existed being made from nothing with a definitive beginning - is a miracle in itself! - as the Law of Conservation tells us that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. A "miracle" is an extraordinary welcome event that is not explained by natural or scientific law and is thus attributed to a divine agency.

In the case of the universe, even if we were going to just omit God from the picture, the first premise in that definition is undeniably true, the creation of the universe is not explained with natural or scientific law.

We must then operate under the assumption that God exists in order to attribute Him to the scenario, and the Genesis text provides point blank, that same universe that has definitive beginning and is created from nothing. This would make the second premise of the Miracle definition also true. The creation of the universe is attributed to a divine agency.

This means that in order to prove that Miracles are -NOT- possible, one must first prove that God isn't possible. Gaunt - you've already deferred by saying you sadly can't prove your own position. The issue there - is that position MUST be defended in order to say that miracles are not possible.

I don't see a reason to believe someone rose from the dead when we've never seen it before. Did anyone actually see Jesus again after he was 'resurrected'? All we have is a missing body and someone's word. Word of mouth with no backing support other than a not-so-magical hat trick would be easy to pull off. Whether it was his foes or his friends, it's quite easy to remove the body and simply claim he rose from the dead. You might not like the possibility of someone moving the body but they're ALL entirely more plausible than something else that in the history of man kind we've NEVER seen before. What if... the Guards were sympathetic, or didn't follow orders? What if they were over taken? Whatever the reason for whichever individuals responsible for moving the body, the guards would go along with it to save their own hides. If Jesus rose from the dead, then what could they have done to stop him? So by going along with this lie, they'd be putting the situation out of their control and thus be not responsible for guarding the body. There's plenty of reason for followers to take on such an act. To help fulfill the fore told expectations of Jesus would then ultimately send everyone on a course to follow his teachings. Whatever the reason may be for the body being missing, it's much more likely that the guards did not follow through on their responsibilities. We've seen people mess up assignments, we've seen people feel sympathetic, we've seen people sleep on the job, we've seen people lie, we've seen people try to cover their ass with said lies. What we haven't seen is someone rise from the dead. Nobody even saw Jesus rise from the dead, it's just assumed. There are assumptions in any hypothesis, but when they are based on something that's never occurred before, there's certainly even more holes in the hypothesis. No I can't prove he DIDN'T rise from the dead. However, if something can not be replicated and repeated multiple times, it's not considered a legitimate theory, but ONLY a hypothesis. There's never been any other suggestions or evidence of someone rising from the dead, so to say a missing body means that he was resurrected can be considered but should not be presumed as fact. If it were anyone else given the exact same circumstances, no one would assume that the dead individual was resurrected. This turns us to his actions during life, which I believe to simply be due a lack of understanding or overstatement by his followers at the time who didn't know better. Jesus probably wasn't a mythical person. I'm sure you've heard of C.S. Lewis' trilemma. Asserting that Jesus must be either Lord, Liar, or Lunatic. I don't think he is any of those. 'Legend' doesn't imply that he didn't actually exist, but rather the feats he accomplished or what became of him are greatly exaggerated due to a dedicated following and lack of understanding of many things at that time. His accomplishments were greatly overstated out of ignorance. The people, who witnessed these things started spreading word of actions as something much greater than they actually were. Even back then, such rumors would spread rapidly, true or not. If I went to a 5 year old's birthday party and did card tricks, they might actually think I'm a magician. While not my intention to make them think I have magical powers, they would likely go out and tell their friends the next day that they saw a magician.

The universe does exist. The Universe did not 'come from nothing'. In the big bang theory, to which I will admit I'm still skeptical on many parts of it, all matter was contained within a very small point. Having something incomprehensibly large or dense, is far from nothing. Here's where my skepticism of the big bang theory comes into question. 'ALL matter and energy is contained in this tiny point'. What set off it's expansion? While I question the validity of some of many details regarding the universes inception, I don't think simply saying 'it must have been created by a divine being' is the right answer. There's nothing wrong with saying 'We don't know due to our current lack of understanding.', but saying 'It can not explained so it must be divine intervention.' has been proven to be wrong many times in the past, not only in Christianity, but in all theological religions. There have been numerous hypotheses regarding anti matter, dark matter, or some just some previously unknown sub atomic particles, but truthfully, I'm not educated in such matters enough to tell you why or why they aren't sufficient. It's not explained through our current understanding, that very well may change some day in the future. It's happened before, it will continue to happen. A lack of understanding should not be attributed to something being a miracle. The whole premise of a miracle is that it is not explainable by natural or scientific law. As we continue to advance things once thought to be miraculous have been since shown to be possible within the bounds of new laws. In short, why should something be assumed to be a miracle if we can't understand it at this point in time?

[Gaunt]

Let me flip the question you posed on it's head, Gaunt. You would rather have me wait for an explanation we don't know for certain will suffice for the creation of the universe over a scientifically-backed observation that is thousands of years old already? There's enough evidence NOW to posit the possibility that the Judeo-Christian God was involved with the creation of the actual universe.

The difference between non-literal Creationism and the Big Bang Theory is that one of these is a substantiated claim, and the other is merely a substantiated possibility. We know from the science that's already been determined behind the universe that the writer of Genesis is not off target with the model of the universe - and if we translate the actual Hebrew word for day we know that the word held multiple definitions, including one as vague as "a while."

So, the non-literal Creationist can make the following claims.

• The earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years old.
• That amount of time can be mathematically proposed to have been made in seven 'a whiles' - or Hebrew "days" - through the mathematical equation 4.54 plus/minus 0.05 billion divided by 7 (or the amount of "days" it took for the Lord to create the earth.)
• The quotient of that equation gives us the length of "day" necessary to support Non-Literal creationism.
• Genesis accurately describes the model of the actual universe.

Ahh...Hilda you are citing the bible again while i explicitly said i do not consider it to be accurate and that is why i think there is not enough proof to support your theory, you can be happy with your answer now i will wait.

[Tomas Elliot]

Welp, this is rapidly turning into a "are you with christians or against christians?" debate, which by definition is destined to go nowhere (and I doubt this is what the OP wanted), o I think I will abandon the thread now.

[Chase]

Ahh...Hilda you are citing the bible again while i explicitly said i do not consider it to be accurate and that is why i think there is not enough proof to support your theory, you can be happy with your answer now i will wait.

And I've specifically pointed out that you CAN use the Bible for scholarly discussion and that it does have historical merit. The floor's yours chief. I'll be the one waiting while you actually refute me with something other than "please don't use this source because I don't personally believe it to be accurate."

To other moderators out there, as well as -Unknown-, if you want the topic locked, we're reaching stalemate. I've already made the argument for biblical reliability regarding the universe, so the ball truly is in Gaunt's court to determine the universe has nothing to do with a deity.

and if you've been paying attention, I've tried to accompany Biblical information with SCIENTIFIC verification. Where's YOUR compromise?

@ MIke - You have a lot good stuff and I would like to get to it with you individually. It's just...in giant text-wall form and there's a lot of bodies in this room right now.

[Flux]

Your first two paragraphs are basically Pascal's Wager in a nutshell. Now, you obviously brought up one of the biggest issues with Pascal's Wager being that over the course of history, many different religions have been developed by humanity, each with its constituents believing that they follow the right religion. But the thing is you are dismissing it straight off saying that it's still better to take the risk. Here's the problem. You believe in the wrong god and most religions with some sort of judgement after life will say that you will be punished by god(s). What you're saying is to take a gamble on one of the many religions and believe that you will win despite the high probability that you may fail.

Going off from the probability standpoint, there are an incredible amount of denominations of Christianity for example, each with its own interpretation of the Bible, along with hundreds of different translations of the Bible, each with various details differing. A Catholic and an Evangelical do not believe the same thing. A Pentacostal and a Calvinist will not believe the same thing. A Jehova's Witness and a Russian Orthodox…ist(? not sure how to denote that) do not believe in the same thing. How does one know that they have the right interpretation? Now, I'm guessing that the answer is faith but at that point, we reach an impasse.

There are a few ways I'd like to address this. Firstly, like I said in my post, even if you choose incorrectly, what did you lose? In the grand scheme of things, it's better to at least have a shot then to simply give up. Secondly, I personally do not believe that a just God would damn you eternally for choosing the wrong religion if you lived a just life and truly tried to be the best person you can be. I also do not believe that the christian God, to name something specific, would damn his followers for choosing the wrong subcategory of his religion when they were that close to him, especially so when they have lived a good and just life. That's like saying, "Well, you may have guessed pizza, but I was thinking of sausage pizza, so you're wrong." That concept just seems ridiculous to me.

Last point, if there is a God and he is as described by some Christians, I highly doubt that He will take kindly to people who believe out of fear of hell. It lacks a sense of sincerity, yet that is exactly what the wager you have proposed is. Once you brought up that "the hard part is actually believing," you stopped attempting to convince us with rationality and objectivity. It became a discussion of how you believe something and why you do so. Now, I am not going to attempt to break that apart as your beliefs are your own and I frankly have better things to do than being a dick to someone about their religious beliefs. But my point is this. Everything before that line was an appeal to fear of eternity. Not exactly rational if I say so myself.

I fail to see how anything I said is irrational. I'm not saying to force yourself to believe in something for fear of damnation. What I said was that if the option to believe or not to believe is there, the rational choice is to believe. There is nothing irrational about that. Sure, there may not be a scientific formula to make yourself believe in something, but that does not make it irrational. Sure, not everyone may be able to do it genuinely, but that still does not make it an irrational choice for those who can. If you can truly believe in it, it can be a rational choice. Just because you see the word "belief" does not instantly label an idea as irrational. I never once said you should fake your way through it, so that most definitely is not the wager I proposed.

@Flux

The argument you're making is basically Pascal's Wager, which can be shown to be flawed in a multitude of ways. Let me provide you with one: Since I cannot prove the non-existence of a god who damns people who believe in god(s) and sends atheists to Heaven, I cannot dismiss the possibility that being an atheist is the only way to be saved. That means my only hope may be to not believe in god. I'll also note that Pascal's Wager makes no argue in favor of the existence of any gods; it just provides a (bad) strategy for getting divine rewards if god(s) exist.

Well, I don't mean to be rude, but that very idea strikes me as utterly preposterous, thought up as argument simply for the sake of argument. I've already made it clear in my above words that my statement is not a carbon copy of this Pascal guy, from the way he sounds.

So, I can certainly understand how you feel, Flux. Though I'm on a slightly different fence. I would kinda like to chat with you on the matter more privately sometime

Sure. If you ever feel like talking about it, feel free to contact me in whatever way.

[Gaunt]

And I've specifically pointed out that you CAN use the Bible for scholarly discussion and that it does have historical merit. The floor's yours chief. I'll be the one waiting while you actually refute me with something other than "please don't use this source because I don't personally believe it to be accurate."

To other moderators out there, as well as -Unknown-, if you want the topic locked, we're reaching stalemate. I've already made the argument for biblical reliability regarding the universe, so the ball truly is in Gaunt's court to determine the universe has nothing to do with a deity.

and if you've been paying attention, I've tried to accompany Biblical information with SCIENTIFIC verification. Where's YOUR compromise?

Let me get this right...wait for it...wait for it...now you took one thing from the bible, crunched in some numbers and called it a 100% confirmation that god created the universe, to this i have 2 answers:

1) If it is so perfect and definitive why there are so many other theories about it? If it's really true why it is not a commonly accepted fact in the entire world?

2)"please don't use this source because i don't personally believe it to be accurate" is exactly what you said to me when i was trying to argue the fact that genesis (among others) contained many inaccuracies and false information

[Chase]

1 - because the entire world doesn't want to believe in the same God and each individual has the ability to make their own judgements.

2 - I said that Genesis is not a history narrative so much as it is poetic literature. That in no way suggests that it isn't historically accurate.

For example - just because the Hebrew day doesn't equal the typical 24-hour day, doesn't mean the author of Genesis got the creationism account wrong.

For another example - Just because "the Great Flood" may only have encapsulated the area around the writer as the "known world" doesn't mean that the Flood account didn't happen at all.

For yet another example - Sodom and Gomorrah are again, two places you can actually visit and see that they were destroyed by something.

One of the biggest reasons you don't have to read the Bible literally throughout is because of the various forms of literature the different books are. If we're taking the truly scholarly approach, we have to first understand the literary form, prose, time period, author, and recipient of each piece of Scripture.

Another reason is the concept of shifting covenants, which is why we can justify a wrathful God of yesterday as a loving God today.

[Gaunt]

1 - because the entire world doesn't want to believe in the same God and each individual has the ability to make their own judgements.

2 - I said that Genesis is not a history narrative so much as it is poetic literature. That in no way suggests that it isn't historically accurate.

It isn't accurate precisely because there are many errors in it...and this is going nowhere (exactly like last time)...hey we have free will right? Then my free will is to wait for a logical answer not a supernatural one. The End

[Eviora]

Yeahhh... as far as the whole "infinite maximal greatness" thing goes, the whole point of infinity is that there is no threshold. Mathematical mind-blow time! There are, in fact, infinitely many degrees of infinity that can be ordered in terms of greatness, and this fact isn't even all that hard to prove, though it does require knowledge of set theory and a few more advanced concepts. I won't go into further detail because that seems very off topic. I'm surprised to see you say you think god is "expanding" though - I'm not exactly sure what that would entail! Do you think god has a physical form? This doesn't seem to me like it fits in with the "maximally great" argument you presented.

I find it strange that you say you'd safely assume your child wouldn't make the same mistake twice because, in the extrapolation of the example to religion, it's pretty clear that humans tend to do things you'd call "sinning" many times, so that assumption sounds more like the opposite of safe. If anyone is being damned, then it's empirically evident that the situation is inadequate because god's own desire not to see anyone be damned is not being met. I don't see why I'd have to show the capacity to choose is a flaw in order to assert that an omnipotent god could do a thing (in this case, save us), but the very fact that the way he constructed the universe results in his goals not being met would indicate that something is off. I don't think it's necessarily the choice thing, though. It's probably got more to do with the rigidity of the requirement(s) to not be damned and the fallacious assumption that not knowing god equates to not wanting to know god.