Split from: DV Christians Unite! (Christian Only Thread)

[Sageous]

^^ Okay. Is there a problem with that somewhere? Is absolute, perfect omniscience really that important? I don't think so; seems a bit boring, if you ask me. If I were God I'd appreciate the occasional surprise. I also hadn't realized that all theists must accept omniscience in their gods... is that a rule? Another thought: From a human perspective, "all-knowing" could be something very different to us than it is to God; the stuff He doesn't know might exist so far outside our potential for knowledge that we cannot register it as existing at all. So, the definition of omniscience may still stand, from our puny point of view, even though there are things God hasn't encountered yet. God only knows.

[JoannaB]

If a theist accepts the above, they concede that their god is not omniscience. Anything transcending an omniscient being's knowledge is not compatible with omniscience itself. To some extent it is impossible to believe in omniscience within time and space as well as in human free will and a non-predetermined version of Christianity. Now some Christians do believe in pre-determination: that it is already decided who will be saved. I do not. I believe our actions matter. Well, actually I do kind of hope that everyone will be saved in the end somehow (so universal salvation), though I do not know how that could be possible and yet with infinite forgiveness and love perhaps it is. However, going back to how God can be omniscient and yet things can be non-predetermined, as I said, I believe that within time and space God is not fully omniscient. He is omniscient when looking at time non-linearly, outside of time and space. Edit: Oh, and another thing. I believe it is a falacity to say that God cannot possibly meet all of our human terms about him given their definitions. I believe God does not have to really meet the criteria / definitions of these human terms such as "omniscient" and "omnipotent" as we understand them. These are human terms, our attempts at trying to understand and trying to explain the nature of God. However, it is quite likely that we do not understand God well enough, and it is incorrect in my opinion to really expect God to meet the exact definition of a human defined term like that. I believe God is more complex than a human being, and we have trouble fully understanding, defining, and explaining everything about human beings. Therefore it stands to reason that likely our understanding of God is incomplete, of course, and in many ways wrong or simplistic.

[Raen]

^^ Okay. Is there a problem with that somewhere? Is absolute, perfect omniscience really that important? I don't think so; seems a bit boring, if you ask me. If I were God I'd appreciate the occasional surprise. I also hadn't realized that all theists must accept omniscience in their gods... is that a rule? Another thought: From a human perspective, "all-knowing" could be something very different to us than it is to God; the stuff He doesn't know might exist so far outside our potential for knowledge that we cannot register it as existing at all. So, the definition of omniscience may still stand, from our puny point of view, even though there are things God hasn't encountered yet. God only knows. Incomplete omniscience is sort of a paradox. Omniscient literally means knowing everything and having infinite knowledge. You are suggesting a state of being "almost infinite" which is surely impossible.

[Sageous]

^^ It would certainly be a paradox from our human perspective. Lots of things are. I never said anything about infinite. I merely suggested that God may know everything we can possibly learn in our reality, making Him omniscient from a limited human, literal, standpoint, but that He may exist in other realities, planes of existence, universes, what have you, where surprises do exist for Him. And one of those surprises was sentience (which, BTW, I often imagine was an accident itself -- regardless of what the fellows who penned the bible proclaim, I wonder if God never anticipated self-awareness or its very chaotic side-effect that is free will). I'm not sure I understand what the point is behind your focus on the importance and validity of omniscience. Does God really require omniscience to be God? Did He ever announce his omniscience, or was it proclaimed by ancient scribes wishing to define their god as the smartest of them all? [EDIT: I just read JoannaB's post, and it seems to do a much better job describing what I was trying to say]

[Tye]

This thread is kind of funny, yet sad in a way, it's mostly atheists pointing obvious flaws about religion, and religious people trying to defend it with really ridiculous ways. Christianity is the perfect lie first you set it up so if you don't believe you receive endless torture. Second, you tell the members to make sure your children believe basically brainwashing them to a level where common sense is almost lost. Lastly, you make everyone in the church give you money and you pray off the mind of those who are brainwashed. Religion is simply depressing to me and devalues the surreal beauty of human life. Sad fact is almost every time people hear things that are absolutely terrible about their religion and still believe like they never heard what you told them. I hate the fact that many of friends and family are brainwashed and their is absolutely nothing I can't do about it, and I get judged unfairly because I'm an atheist. Religion is a disease that just honestly needs to go away before more lives are lost, more people are treated unfairly, and more people give away what they worked hard for.

[TimeDragon97]

I think saying that God achieves omnipotence, omniscience, etc. by simply transcends logic is kind of a cop-out and rather fallacious.

[JoannaB]

This thread is kind of funny, yet sad in a way, it's mostly atheists pointing obvious flaws about religion, and religious people trying to defend it with really ridiculous ways. Christianity is the perfect lie first you set it up so if you don't believe you receive endless torture. Second, you tell the members to make sure your children believe basically brainwashing them to a level where common sense is almost lost. Lastly, you make everyone in the church give you money and you pray off the mind of those who are brainwashed. Religion is simply depressing to me and devalues the surreal beauty of human life. Sad fact is almost every time people hear things that are absolutely terrible about their religion and still believe like they never heard what you told them. I hate the fact that many of friends and family are brainwashed and their is absolutely nothing I can't do about it, and I get judged unfairly because I'm an atheist. Religion is a disease that just honestly needs to go away before more lives are lost, more people are treated unfairly, and more people give away what they worked hard for. Whereas, what I find sad, and not funny at all, is how atheism is supposed to be the lack of belief in a God and not a belief in the lack of a God for most atheists, and yet how important it appears to many atheists to convert others to your religious beliefs - atheism as religion. Personally, I am not trying to convert any of you. As far as I am concerned, you are welcome to remain atheists, and I do not believe that you will go to hell for not believing - I believe that what truly matters is how a person acts morally towards other people, not what they believe or not. I am tolerant or at least try hard to be. In this thread I do not try to defend my beliefs, I try to explain them: there is a difference - I really do not feel that the arguments of others here are undermining my faith, though I do find it sad that you assume that they do. I will also point out that I really wanted to stay out of this thread because of the title (I do not like to be in an exclusive Christians only group) and because of the level of rudeness of some of the posts on both sides of the debate - I much prefer civilized discussion of these serious topics, and I do not care what the beliefs of others I am discussing them are but I do prefer open minded and tolerant discussion participants. Unfortunately, some of the things said in this thread have caused me to participate after all, which part of me regrets because this is not the type of discussion I enjoy, although I do think that we cannot leave this kind of thread to only extremists both Christian and atheist, I do think it is important that more moderate voices be represented also, because what if some impressionable young people read this, and they might have the misconception that religious debate has to be extremist, which it does not.

[TimeDragon97]

Whereas, what I find sad, and not funny at all, is how atheism is supposed to be the lack of belief in a God and not a belief in the lack of a God for most atheists, and yet how important it appears to many atheists to convert others to your religious beliefs - atheism as religion. Why can't a lack of belief be important to someone? A lack of belief is not the same as a lack of caring. Many of us feel that religion and superstition do more harm than good.

[JoannaB]

Why can't a lack of belief be important to someone? A lack of belief is not the same as a lack of caring. Many of us feel that religion and superstition do more harm than good. Fair enough. I would agree that a lot of harm has been done in the name of religion. However, I do not think that makes religion harmful, but rather means that some people have used religion to cause harm.

[Xei]

Actually, I think I can. Well, I do. And it is rather complicated but part of my belief hinges on what it means that God is outside of time and space: I believe that inside time God can and has learned - he could not be omnipotentent (capable of everything) if he were incapable of learning. Omnipotence is a logical contradiction - and so anything, even a pair of exactly opposite propositions, can be deduced from it. For example, I could deduce that God isn't able to learn. For, if he were, this would mean that at some point in time there was a true statement which God was unable to enunciate - contradicting omnipotence. This argument and yours are both valid, it's just that their premise, omnipotence, is not sound, and so the conclusions (God can/can't learn) aren't sound either. I could prove that squares have three sides if you granted the existence of an omnipotent entity. Ironically I could even prove the nonexistence of God. Whereas, what I find sad, and not funny at all, is how atheism is supposed to be the lack of belief in a God and not a belief in the lack of a God for most atheists, and yet how important it appears to many atheists to convert others to your religious beliefs - atheism as religion. This is a very strange statement which I've seen crop up before. I don't imagine you'd say the same thing about somebody trying to convince a friend that the Beatles were the greatest band of all time, or even other metaphysical issues, like one person trying to convince another that Plato's ideal Forms exist. So I find it bizarre and frankly rather anti-intellectual and censorial when a discussion about the existence of God is presented as being in some special way unacceptable. It isn't - at all. People are free to discuss this issue and ask questions, as they are with any other. Others have a right not to engage in a discussion or not to answer questions, but you don't get to criticise the whole basis of the conversation.

[JoannaB]

Omnipotence is a logical contradiction - and so anything, even a pair of exactly opposite propositions, can be deduced from it. For example, I could deduce that God isn't able to learn. For, if he were, this would mean that at some point in time there was a true statement which God was unable to enunciate - contradicting omnipotence. This argument and yours are both valid, it's just that their premise, omnipotence, is not sound, and so the conclusions (God can/can't learn) aren't sound either. I could prove that squares have three sides if you granted the existence of an omnipotent entity. Ironically I could even prove the nonexistence of God. This is a very strange statement which I've seen crop up before. I don't imagine you'd say the same thing about somebody trying to convince a friend that the Beatles were the greatest band of all time, or even other metaphysical issues, like one person trying to convince another that Plato's ideal Forms exist. So I find it bizarre and frankly rather anti-intellectual and censorial when a discussion about the existence of God is presented as being in some special way unacceptable. It isn't - at all. People are free to discuss this issue and ask questions, as they are with any other. Others have a right not to engage in a discussion or not to answer questions, but you don't get to criticise the whole basis of the conversation. First of all, I did not say that this basis for conversation was unacceptable, I said that it was sad for me, that I would rather have a different type of discussion. But of course you are right that noone is forcing me to participate, and I do not have the right to tell anyone else what to say - I just wish we could have a different type of discussion is all, with participants more willing to accept that just because we believe differently, there is nothing wrong with that. I find it interesting that the very possibility of omnipotent being is questioned on a lucid dreaming forum though. In dreams the most advanced of lucid dreamers are pretty close to omnipotent: not limited by laws of physics, not limited by what exists in the outside world, not limited by what anyone else sys, with the only limits being their own personality, their own expectations, their own imagination. My understanding of God as an omnipotent being is that he has the kind of power in the world we call reality as we can have in the most advanced of lucid dreams, and because he is a much more powerful being than we are, so that makes him pretty close to omnipotent. Now is he really literally omnipotent: is there really nothing he cannot do? I don't know. I think though it is a mistake to take a human definition of omnipotence, and expect it to be literally true of God. The term "omnipotent" is just our closest understanding to date of what we believe God to be like, but of course the reality of his powers may well be different from our definition of the word "omnipotent". Btw, I believe that human logic is a flawed tool: we think we have sufficient rational capabilities, and our power of reasoning is indeed amazing, but logic is not perfect, and something can appear logical or illogical to us, and yet we may be wrong in that, I believe, there is a risk of that.

[Baron Samedi]

you want to know the true lie? we type: the one true god created all and nothing out of the allness came everything aliens gods demons angels atoms toasters thoth frequencies evil sex death life pirates cyborgs time boogers, et cetera black holes of nothing spun out of the allness stars spun out of the black holes planets spun out of the stars of Terra the alien gods came down to terra, all over the face of the goddesss and seeded this planet genetic engineered the life on the face of terra a warlock grinned in transylvania opened a portal to hell out flew reptilian archons, a disharmonic frequency ushering in the Age of the Vampire no longer did the carnivore clean the earth, feeding on the dead but the carnivore killed and man killed beast and man the demon possessed lizard alien cyborgs mimicked the alien gods and the humans, confused, followed the reptilians into battle as the lizards warred against each other the alien gods looked down and incarnated the infinite 8 a demigod to teach humans to evolve within to overcome the power of demons today the humans follow their interdimensional conquering overlords into their clannish civil wars as the alien gods watch and wait for humanity to metamorph into their ultimate potential this too, is a lie but anything is possible

[Descensus]

^^ Okay. Is there a problem with that somewhere? Is absolute, perfect omniscience really that important? I don't think so; seems a bit boring, if you ask me. If I were God I'd appreciate the occasional surprise. It's important to those theists who believe their deity knows everything past, present, and future. I also hadn't realized that all theists must accept omniscience in their gods... is that a rule? No, but the Christian god is often described as omniscient. Another thought: From a human perspective, "all-knowing" could be something very different to us than it is to God; the stuff He doesn't know might exist so far outside our potential for knowledge that we cannot register it as existing at all. So, the definition of omniscience may still stand, from our puny point of view, even though there are things God hasn't encountered yet. God only knows. We're stuck with using our own descriptions of concepts. What concept A means to entity A is an irrelevant topic if you buy into agnostic theism, which most mainstream theists do. To some extent it is impossible to believe in omniscience within time and space as well as in human free will and a non-predetermined version of Christianity. Now some Christians do believe in pre-determination: that it is already decided who will be saved. I do not. I believe our actions matter. Well, actually I do kind of hope that everyone will be saved in the end somehow (so universal salvation), though I do not know how that could be possible and yet with infinite forgiveness and love perhaps it is. However, going back to how God can be omniscient and yet things can be non-predetermined, as I said, I believe that within time and space God is not fully omniscient. He is omniscient when looking at time non-linearly, outside of time and space. How would you distinguish something that doesn't exist from something that is both spaceless and timeless? Edit: Oh, and another thing. I believe it is a falacity to say that God cannot possibly meet all of our human terms about him given their definitions. I believe God does not have to really meet the criteria / definitions of these human terms such as "omniscient" and "omnipotent" as we understand them. These are human terms, our attempts at trying to understand and trying to explain the nature of God. However, it is quite likely that we do not understand God well enough, and it is incorrect in my opinion to really expect God to meet the exact definition of a human defined term like that. I believe God is more complex than a human being, and we have trouble fully understanding, defining, and explaining everything about human beings. Therefore it stands to reason that likely our understanding of God is incomplete, of course, and in many ways wrong or simplistic. We're discussing the logical implications of the attributes ascribed to common descriptions of God, and whether they hold up logically or not. I don't think this is a discussion on whether we expect God WILL be a certain way. We're discussing if it COULD be a certain way.

[Sageous]

So unless I'm misunderstanding the athiests here, this whole conversation is moot. Since: omniscience or omnipotence cannot be discussed or argued because they are logically unsound concepts; apparently suggesting that God (if there is one) may experience things in a manner beyond human comprehension is a "cop-out" or an act of theism, rather than a simple statement; and apparently discussions can only be had if every facet of the discussion is based on proven human knowledge rather than people's opinions, beliefs, or imaginations, there is no point in discussing anything. Indeed, it seems that anything anyone says about God or the possible existence of a god at all is wrong, period. Not much point in discussing. Not a lot of fun, either, I think. Though I am something of an agnostic (I'll never shake the "brainwashing" of my catholic upbringing, so God will always be with me, whether I want Him or not), I'm glad I can take a moment to imagine the existence of God, and all that comes with that. To require absolute proof for everything I care to believe or imagine in life seems very confining, and more than a little boring.

[Raen]

To require absolute proof for everything I care to believe or imagine in life seems very confining, and more than a little boring. Acquiring absolute proof is what brings us closer to the truth which is anything but boring. It's what allows us to understand the true nature and beauty of this universe.

[Sageous]

^^ I didn't say anything about acquiring truth; that is always a good thing. I was talking about requiring truth for any idea presented here. That does stymie conversation, I think, as well as imagination and, yes, fun. To demand concrete proof for every statement, as though these posters are defending doctoral theses and not just expressing opinions, would be pretty boring, I think.

[Universal Mind]

No matter how much fun it is or isn't, I can't believe something that sounds far fetched without really good evidence for it.

[Noogah]

No matter how much fun it is or isn't, I can't believe something that sounds far fetched without really good evidence for it. Universal Mind, hey! I don't know if you remember me, but we used to debate a lot, until I left in 2010. Yours is the first post I noticed, so I thought I'd respond to it. I want to point out that Christians obviously contend that there is "evidence" for God. In fact, more importantly, the Bible clearly states this as well. "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" -Romans 1:20 I am sure you've heard this one before. We believe that God is simply apparent. His being is screamed in every corner. We think (or at least, I think) that when an atheist (agnostic? can't remember) such as yourself says "I don't see evidence for God", it's like a man looking at a scene in nature, shaking his head and saying "I just don't see evidence for the sun here!" Without the sun, of course, he couldn't SEE anything! I conclude, as many Christians do, with the appeal that AT LEAST three things in the universe simply don't exist without God: 1. Logic 2. Morality 3. Uniformity of nature You must appeal to LOGIC, an absolute and dependable nature of laws and reason, cause and effect, in order to argue at all that there is no evidence for God. This just makes no sense at all in a purely materialistic universe. You must appeal to morality when you judge God for having been immoral in killing people in the Old Testament, something which simply doesn't absolutely exist in a naturalistic universe. Finally, you must appeal to the uniformity of nature when you try to tell me about how it is the universe actually came to be, using scientific methods. To believe in God is VERY reasonable. Without insulting your intelligence - and I absolutely am not - I will conclude that I think your position is highly dubious, given what we know. Logic alone cannot perfectly tell us whether there is a God, since our minds are imperfect, but it is SURELY far more logical to accept God than it is not to. "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else" -C.S Lewis

[Xei]

You must appeal to LOGIC, an absolute and dependable nature of laws and reason, cause and effect, in order to argue at all that there is no evidence for God. This just makes no sense at all in a purely materialistic universe. You must appeal to morality when you judge God for having been immoral in killing people in the Old Testament, something which simply doesn't absolutely exist in a naturalistic universe. Even if this made sense, it still wouldn't be a legitimate argument against Universal Mind - it'd be perfectly logical for him to assume the existence of God (and thus according to you logic and morality) in order to derive contradictions. You're the one arguing that God exists, so you can't logically object to anybody relying on what you think are necessary consequences of God, such as logic or morality.

[Noogah]

Even if this made sense, it still wouldn't be a legitimate argument against Universal Mind - it'd be perfectly logical for him to assume the existence of God (and thus according to you logic and morality) in order to derive contradictions. You're the one arguing that God exists, so you can't logically object to anybody relying on what you think are necessary consequences of God, such as logic or morality. Hello Xei! It's good to see you again. As I understand your post (and please correct me if I have misunderstood it), you are telling me that UM can, for the sake of argument, choose to talk as if God existed, so that he may thereby present to me what he considers logical contradictions in God's nature, in order to argue that God cannot logically exist. But you see, what he is actually doing is not like this at all. UM is not merely speaking in the hypothetical. He actually thinks that logic and morality DO exist, and that their very existence is contrary to God. And yet (I argue), his worldview does not permit the existence of either. He must propose another way for them to exist without God simultaneously existing - and I do not think he will find one. Many before him have tried and failed.

[Universal Mind]

Hey, Noogah. I clearly remember you. In fact, I brought you up here in recent months. What happened to your Boy Scout profile pic? That was classic stuff. I guess you are (Your character is...) like 17 now and too old for Boy Scouts? You still have some threads left to go back to and fulfill boasts you made about proving things. I hope you can get around to it this time. You aren't too busy because you are working on a paper, are you? I don't see how the existence of logic has to inherently involve God. You are asserting that the reality of logic itself means God exists, but you haven't said how. So far, you could replace the word "God" in your posts with "The Flying Spaghetti Monster" without changing the level of logic in your argument at all. Your argument seems to be... God exists. God is behind logic, morality, and uniformity in nature. Logic, morality, and uniformity in nature exist. Therefore God exists. A shorter version would be... God exists, therefore God exists. That is a circular argument.

[Noogah]

Ha ha! I'm glad to see you again. Let me apologize for my tendency to drift when I was thirteen. I know I hopped around and skipped around quite a bit. You do have to understand that I had a very difficult time "holding the fort" so to speak, when I was thirteen. That's partly why I left - it was really wearing me down, and there were a lot of things I didn't understand that I do understand now. But then, somebody, at some point, decided I wasn't actually thirteen - was that you? Well, I was, and I am seventeen now, and I am preparing for my last year of High School, and I do have a job now, so I am busy, and I won't be going back to individual posts (it seems I made over a thousand) to weed through them. But please - please do bring up whatever you wish, and I'd love to discuss them! Finally, that wasn't a boyscout pic, nor was it me, nor was I in the boyscouts for more than two weeks. It was a snapshot from The Lion the Witch and The Wardrobe with William Moseley as Peter Pevensie. One of my favorite films. Anyways, to your post - God exists, therefore God exists. Exactly! That's simply how an argument works. An argument is merely intended to show how its conclusion is the same thing as a premise. For example, I could say the following: 1. Jim is a batchelor 2. All batchelors are unmarried 3. Therefore Jim is unmarried You cannot, therefore, complain that I am assuming the latter by stating the former, because that is the entire point. If we understand that Jim is a batchelor, then you must simply admit that he is married, or you must abandon the idea that he is a batchelor. Now, the way I see it, your position is similar. To believe that there is logic is to ultimately believe that there is a God, because there cannot be such a thing as logic without God. So, when you concede that there is logic, I am trying to say that "Yes, so you concede that there is a God." Now you have challenged me with the accusation that I am introducing an arbitrary item into the equation. I may as well suggest that the flying spaghetti monster, or the wild woolox, or the fuzzy woolum, or the wandering wooble is responsible for morality. But what I am suggesting is not arbitrary at all. There is only one being that could possibly be responsible for morality, and that being is God. If you think God is like a flying ball of spaghetti, then of course, I can understand the source of your confusion. But to me, God - timeless, spaceless, powerful and immaterial GOD ALMIGHTY - is the only reasonable foundation for logic. My argument does not BEGIN with the assumption that God does, in fact, exist. It only begins with the assumption that God is the only reasonable explanation of those things I listed. This was your version of my argument: God exists. God is behind logic, morality, and uniformity in nature. Logic, morality, and uniformity in nature exist. Therefore God exists. I would amend it to the following: God is the only reasonable explanation of logic, morality, and uniformity in nature. Logic, morality, and uniformity in nature exist. Therefore God exists. I assume we both agree on premise two. If you disagree with premise one, then by all means, tell me how you intend to explain absolute morality, logic, and the uniformity of nature!

[Universal Mind]

Okay, I think I can sum up the disconnect pretty quickly. What is the basis for your premise that only God can be the source of logic, morality, and unity in nature? That is the unfounded assumption you are using as your foundation. The sample argument you used involves transitive reasoning, which is logical. It is not the same as circular reasoning. A transitive argument does not have a premise and conclusion that are the same statement. It has a conclusion that is based on the initial premise with a substituted element derived from a second premise. Transitive reasoning: Vanderbilt is a university. All universities have courses. Therefore, Vanderbilt has courses. Circular reasoning: Vanderbilt has courses. Therefore, Vanderbilt has courses. Also... Vanderbilt has university courses. An institution with university courses is a university. Vanderbilt is a university. Therefore, Vanderbilt has university courses. It is illogical for the conclusion of an argument to also be the initial premise. A logical conclusion has to be based on a premise that is a basis for it, not that is it. Your theological argument is circular.

[Sageous]

No matter how much fun it is or isn't, I can't believe something that sounds far fetched without really good evidence for it. I'm not asking you to believe anything; I think that was my point.

[Raen]

Noogah, you have yet to provide a reason why logic, morality and uniformity can only be explained by the existence of God. At the moment, I could suggest that the fact that we perceive colours such as red and blue rather than seeing things in black and white is only explainable by the lack of a God and I'd have made as much of a point as you have right there. You cannot debate without first stating a point and giving a reason for said point. Right now, you are giving no reasons and so you cannot possibly have a constructive debate.